Re: Evidence persuades many to reject the molecules to man version of
Gregory A Greenman
>
> >>>> lancelot link [secret chimp] was staged and he
> >>>> just sort of wagged his jaw
> >>>> and some person dubbed a voice over it to make it
> >>>> look like he was talking,
> >>>> and the female chimp was chewing peanut butter
> >>>> or something and they dubbed her with a voice too.
> >>>> but it was staged and lance couldn't really talk.
> >>>> and neither could any of the other chimps
> >>>> like mata hari and ali assaseen
> >>>> so, for all practical purposes,
> >>>> no, i wouldn't call chimps like people at all.
> >>>> but you can if you like.
> >>>> if it makes you feel better.
>
> >>> Is it just me or are the creationists getting loonier every day?
>
>
> > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> >> <aside>
>
> >> some of these people seem to think
>
> >> "lancelot link, secret chimp" was a reality show...
>
> >> ==
> >> http://www.70slivekidvid.com/lancelot.htm
>
> >> "Like Get Smart, Lancelot Link was a parody ..."
> >> ==
>
> >> note, this show was a "parody"
>
> >> "suckers"
>
>
> Gregory A Greenman wrote:
>
> > I doubt anyone thinks that was a reality show.
>
>
> but you're not entirely sure.
Of course not. I always allow for the possibility that I might be
wrong. That's because I don't follow a holy book that I take as
absolute truth no matter how much of it has been shown to be wrong.
--
Greg
http://www.spencerbooksellers.com
newsguy -at- spencersoft -dot- com
Timothy Sutter
> a20...@lycos.com says...
>> Gregory A Greenman wrote:
considering this suite of peculiar
circumstances that 'y'all' lay out
in order for this 'molecules to man'
thing to happen,
when someone says that it's
like a tornado built an airplane,
it sure does look like you
want people to believe that,
and if that, then when they tell you
a fiery tornado by the name of YHWH
did just that, on purpose
what's the differnce?
you're just trying to say
the tornado took a longtime,
and they seem to be saying that
it didn't really take all that long.
but -your- tornado would seem to destroy faster
than it ever builds and so, we shouldn't be there,
and YHWH, at least, seems to get something done,
even if YHWH does have to smash things up sometimes.
this universe has a mind behind it.
you may do well to look for that,
in the name of 'science' or 'knowledge' of course.
not that anyone needs you to ok or vouch
for what they already know is true.
in fact, it's impossible -for- _you_ -to-
vouch for any of it.
yeah yeah yeah, i realize you gotcher
fingers in yer ears right now,
but you'll find a way to tell me how
you know for sure that it's wrong.
i suggest that you do not.
Timothy Sutter
Timothy Sutter
>> > > a20...@lycos.com says...
% lancelot link [secret chimp] was staged and he
% just sort of wagged his jaw
% and some person dubbed a voice over it to make it
% look like he was talking,
% and the female chimp was chewing peanut butter
% or something and they dubbed her with a voice too.
% but it was staged and lance couldn't really talk.
% and neither could any of the other chimps
% like mata hari and ali assaseen
% so, for all practical purposes,
% no, i wouldn't call chimps like people at all.
% but you can if you like.
% if it makes you feel better.
% Is it just me or are the creationists getting loonier every day?
% Timothy Sutter wrote:
% <aside>
% some of these people seem to think
% "lancelot link, secret chimp" was a reality show...
% ==
% http://www.70slivekidvid.com/lancelot.htm
% "Like Get Smart, Lancelot Link was a parody ..."
% ==
% note, this show was a "parody"
% "suckers"
>>>> >> >> Gregory A Greenman wrote:
>>>>>> >>> >>> I doubt anyone thinks that was a reality show.
>>>> >> >> but you're not entirely sure.
>> > > Of course not. I always allow for the possibility that I might be
>> > > wrong. That's because I don't follow a holy book that I take as
>> > > absolute truth no matter how much of it has been shown to be wrong.
Gregory A Greenman
Is there some sort of prize for whichever creationist is able to
make himself look most ignorant? We are ~made~ of molecules, you
know? Everything you eat is made of molecules. Some of what you eat
becomes part of you. This happens every day. It happens billions of
times per day. This is well established. The fact that your ilk
thinks that making yourselves look some completely ignorant is a
good thing just baffles me. I don't really understand why anyone
would want to do that. But, if it makes you happy, have at it.
You're doing a stellar job.
> when someone says that it's
> like a tornado built an airplane,
I've complained in the past about your apparent inability to use
capitals. While that's annoying, it's kind of minor, so I'm just
going to keep in mind who I'm dealing with and figure that it's
just part of the deal. However, I'd really appreciate it if you'd
stop putting paragraph breaks in the middle of sentences. It really
does make your posts harder to read than they should be.
The only people who who compare evolution to tornadoes are
creationists who use lies and obfuscation for their arguments.
Doesn't it bother you at all that that's all you have?
> it sure does look like you
> want people to believe that,
No, I want to believe whatever the evidence suggests is true.
> and if that, then when they tell you
> a fiery tornado by the name of YHWH
>
> did just that, on purpose
>
> what's the differnce?
That god is just a myth.
> you're just trying to say
> the tornado took a longtime,
>
> and they seem to be saying that
> it didn't really take all that long.
>
> but -your- tornado would seem to destroy faster
> than it ever builds and so, we shouldn't be there,
>
> and YHWH, at least, seems to get something done,
>
> even if YHWH does have to smash things up sometimes.
>
> this universe has a mind behind it.
>
> you may do well to look for that,
>
> in the name of 'science' or 'knowledge' of course.
>
> not that anyone needs you to ok or vouch
>
> for what they already know is true.
>
> in fact, it's impossible -for- _you_ -to-
>
> vouch for any of it.
>
> yeah yeah yeah, i realize you gotcher
> fingers in yer ears right now,
Right. I'm the one denying reality. Funny then that you are the one
that never answers any of my questions and makes up rather
ridiculous lies about how people bred horses and donkeys for
fierceness and used lions and tigers as hunting partners.
By the way, here are my questions again, in case you've forgotten
them:
1. Are horses and donkeys truly different species?
2. How about lions and tigers?
3. Under a creation model, if donkeys/horses and lions/tigers are
truly different species, why can they produce offspring at all?
4. If they are not truly different species, then why are the
offspring so often sterile?
> but you'll find a way to tell me how
>
> you know for sure that it's wrong.
>
> i suggest that you do not.
Suggest all you want.
Timothy Sutter
>Timothy Sutter wrote:
>> Gregory A Greenman wrote:
> By the way, here are my questions again, in case you've forgotten
> them:
> 1. Are horses and donkeys truly different species?
no
human beings produce sterile offspring.
you haven't grouped human beings in such a way
so as to cordon off production of sterile
offspring into exclusive species.
it's possible that if you cordoned humans off
into corrals based on any sort of pattern that
developed in precipitating sterile offspring,
that you may get more than one set of near total,
but not entuirely always, sterile producing matings.
> 2. How about lions and tigers?
lions and tigers produce viable
offspring and not all are sterile.
> 3. Under a creation model, if donkeys/horses and lions/tigers are
> truly different species, why can they produce offspring at all?
because they're the same species.
> 4. If they are not truly different species, then why are the
> offspring so often sterile?
not always sterile.
human beings produce sterile offspring.
you haven't grouped human beings in such a way
so as to cordon off production of sterile
offspring into exclusive species.
it's possible that if you cordoned humans off
into corrals based on any sort of pattern that
developed in precipitating sterile offspring,
that you may get more than one set of near total,
but not entuirely always, sterile producing matings.
Gregory A Greenman
> Gregory A Greenman wrote:
>
>
> > By the way, here are my questions again, in case you've forgotten
> > them:
>
> > 1. Are horses and donkeys truly different species?
>
>
> no
>
> human beings produce sterile offspring.
>
> you haven't grouped human beings in such a way
> so as to cordon off production of sterile
> offspring into exclusive species.
>
> it's possible that if you cordoned humans off
> into corrals based on any sort of pattern that
> developed in precipitating sterile offspring,
>
> that you may get more than one set of near total,
> but not entuirely always, sterile producing matings.
So your criteria then is that if they can produce offspring at all,
then they are the same species.
If donkeys and horses are not truly different species, then they
were not separately created, right? So god created donkeys and some
of their descendants evolved into horses, god created horses and
some their descendants evolved into donkeys or god created
something else from which both donkeys and horses evolved.
If species can evolve that far, what stops them from evolving
further? In another branch of this thread, you seem to suggest that
chromosome count cannot change. Donkeys have 62 and horses have 64.
So, either it can change or donkeys and horses really are truly
different species. Which option would you like to go with?
> > 2. How about lions and tigers?
>
>
> lions and tigers produce viable
> offspring and not all are sterile.
>
>
> > 3. Under a creation model, if donkeys/horses and lions/tigers are
> > truly different species, why can they produce offspring at all?
>
> because they're the same species.
>
>
> > 4. If they are not truly different species, then why are the
> > offspring so often sterile?
>
>
> not always sterile.
>
> human beings produce sterile offspring.
Sterile humans are the exception, not the rule. Sterile mules are
the rule. Sterile male ligers and tigons are also the rule.
> you haven't grouped human beings in such a way
> so as to cordon off production of sterile
> offspring into exclusive species.
It's not the offspring that are being grouped as separate species,
it's the parents. Lions and tigers are separate species even though
they can produce offspring. Likewise donkeys and horses are
separate species.
> it's possible that if you cordoned humans off
> into corrals based on any sort of pattern that
> developed in precipitating sterile offspring,
I hope you realize that this paragraph makes no sense whatsoever.
> that you may get more than one set of near total,
> but not entuirely always, sterile producing matings.
Neither does this paragraph. Please do make an effort to write
coherently.
Timothy Sutter
> > > By the way, here are my questions again, in case you've forgotten
> > > them:
> > > 1. Are horses and donkeys truly different species?
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > no
> > human beings produce sterile offspring.
> > you haven't grouped human beings in such a way
> > so as to cordon off production of sterile
> > offspring into exclusive species.
> > it's possible that if you cordoned humans off
> > into corrals based on any sort of pattern that
> > developed in precipitating sterile offspring,
> > that you may get more than one set of near total,
> > but not entuirely always, sterile producing matings.
Gregory A Greenman wrote:
> So your criteria then is that if they can produce
> offspring at all, then they are the same species.
i'm not categorizing organisms according
to the ambiguous 'species' concept at all,
if i use the 'kind' concept, vagueries amongst
various organisms are neatly resolved
with no real problem.
i'm not saying all species were once a single
form like a bacterium that slowly and gradually
modified and diverged into millions of more
and more complex species.
i'm saying the was an act of special creation
that manufactured a variety of species sets
fully formed.
those original forms can have changed and
altered somewhat over time since the act of
special creation but i wouldn't be citing
instances where one 'kind' altered slowly,
gradually or otheriwse, into a completely
different 'kind'
but that some alterations from any original 'kind'
sets is to be expected and does not present a problem.
Gregory A Greenman wrote:
> If donkeys and horses are not truly different species, then they
> were not separately created, right? So god created donkeys and some
> of their descendants evolved into horses, god created horses and
> some their descendants evolved into donkeys or god created
> something else from which both donkeys and horses evolved.
this is possible, or God created donkeys and horses
and they just happen to be able to produce offspring,
making them both of the same 'kind' if not the same
'species' would be another alternative.
i'm not suggesting that 'kind' and 'species'
line up equivalently as categories.
they may line up at times, and they may not,
but this is no real problem inasmuch as 'species'
concepts themselves don't always line up either
with themleseves or with the actual reality
they attempt to desccribe.
Gregory A Greenman wrote:
> If species can evolve that far, what stops them from evolving
> further? In another branch of this thread, you seem to suggest that
> chromosome count cannot change. Donkeys have 62 and horses have 64.
> So, either it can change or donkeys and horses really are truly
> different species. Which option would you like to go with?
or, they are simply members of the same 'kind' and
that certain interbreeding among members of the same
'kind' are possible without members of the same 'kind'
ever being called the same 'species'
yes, 'kind' may be less precise in it's renderings,
but, attempts at finely focused categorizations
based on 'species', result in considerable amount
of ambiguity which is never finely resolved
and leaves itself open for manipulations which
exploit this sort of ambiguous nature of
the categories themselves.
there is no single 'species' concept
which covers all organisms without ambiguity
and so, if we compare -categorization- of organisms
based on 'species' and 'kind' we should not
expect that these would match exactly especially
inasmuch as organisms grouped according to 'species'
concepts alone do not always match up
in a coherent manner.
i'm saying there are clear cut boundaries
between 'kinds' and that 'kinds' reproduce
according to 'kind' and nothing here
has shown otherwise.
Gregory A Greenman wrote:
> > > 2. How about lions and tigers?
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > lions and tigers produce viable
> > offspring and not all are sterile.
> > > 3. Under a creation model, if donkeys/horses and lions/tigers are
> > > truly different species, why can they produce offspring at all?
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > because they're the same species.
let's just call this, "the same 'kind'
in order to avoid confusion on your part.
> > > 4. If they are not truly different species, then why are the
> > > offspring so often sterile?
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > not always sterile.
> > human beings produce sterile offspring.
Gregory A Greenman wrote:
> Sterile humans are the exception, not the rule. Sterile mules are
> the rule. Sterile male ligers and tigons are also the rule.
you don't know what would be the 'rule' if
humans that are known to produce sterile
offspring were corralled and selectively
bred according to type.
yo may find that there would be peculiar
matings that always resulted in
sterile offspring.
if the fertile female, tiger/lion offspring
were mated again with other fertile male lions
and or tigers, then a stable breeding population
which is both lion and tiger coud be developed.
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > you haven't grouped human beings in such a way
> > so as to cordon off production of sterile
> > offspring into exclusive species.
Gregory A Greenman wrote:
> It's not the offspring that are being grouped as separate species,
> it's the parents. Lions and tigers are separate species even though
> they can produce offspring. Likewise donkeys and horses are
> separate species.
and yet, they may be called the same 'kind'
and therefore, an act of special creation which
resulted in 'kinds' accounts for these without
demanding that they were ever able to produce
fertile offspring, although they might have
been able to in their original forms.
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > it's possible that if you cordoned humans off
> > into corrals based on any sort of pattern that
> > developed in precipitating sterile offspring,
Gregory A Greenman wrote:
> I hope you realize that this paragraph makes no sense whatsoever.
it makes sense f you consider the possibility
of cordoning human beings off by type, and
selectively breeding them the way horses and
cats and dogs and possibly lions and tigers
have been arranged.
and yes, lions and tigers
have been tampered with,
just look at the set of white tigers
which were selectively bred india.
like Mohini.
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > that you may get more than one set of near total,
> > but not entuirely always, sterile producing matings.
Gregory A Greenman wrote:
> Neither does this paragraph. Please do make an effort to write
> coherently.
it's not difficult to comprehend that if you
selectively bred human beings in the same manner
as you breed sheep and goats, that you may find
a quite different pattern than what is seen
without such selective breeding.
the only real problem here is
in comparing 'species' to 'kind'
and finding that, perhaps, they don't
always match up exactly as one may like.
'kind' is a more inclusive concept
and doesn't result in the sorts of ambiguities
that are found ion organisms as categorized
according to a 'species' concept.
richardal...@googlemail.com
> > > Gregory A Greenman wrote:
> > > > By the way, here are my questions again, in case you've forgotten
> > > > them:
> > > > 1. Are horses and donkeys truly different species?
> > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > no
> > > human beings produce sterile offspring.
> > > you haven't grouped human beings in such a way
> > > so as to cordon off production of sterile
> > > offspring into exclusive species.
> > > it's possible that if you cordoned humans off
> > > into corrals based on any sort of pattern that
> > > developed in precipitating sterile offspring,
> > > that you may get more than one set of near total,
> > > but not entuirely always, sterile producing matings.
> Gregory A Greenman wrote:
> > So your criteria then is that if they can produce
> > offspring at all, then they are the same species.
>
> i'm not categorizing organisms according
> to the ambiguous 'species' concept at all,
>
> if i use the 'kind' concept, vagueries amongst
> various organisms are neatly resolved
> with no real problem.
They are?
Perhaps you can provide a biologically meaningful definition of
"kind".
>
> i'm not saying all species were once a single
> form like a bacterium that slowly and gradually
> modified and diverged into millions of more
> and more complex species.
Well bully for you.
>
> i'm saying the was an act of special creation
> that manufactured a variety of species sets
> fully formed.
And, as you have so clearly demonstrated, you lack a basic education
in biology and refuse to learn.
Why on earth do you think that your empty pontification bears any
weight?
>
> those original forms can have changed and
> altered somewhat over time since the act of
> special creation but i wouldn't be citing
> instances where one 'kind' altered slowly,
> gradually or otheriwse, into a completely
> different 'kind'
>
> but that some alterations from any original 'kind'
> sets is to be expected and does not present a problem.
Well, nothing seems to present any problem for the idea of "kinds"
because it is infinitely flexible according to the whims of the
creationist.
>
> Gregory A Greenman wrote:
> > If donkeys and horses are not truly different species, then they
> > were not separately created, right? So god created donkeys and some
> > of their descendants evolved into horses, god created horses and
> > some their descendants evolved into donkeys or god created
> > something else from which both donkeys and horses evolved.
>
> this is possible, or God created donkeys and horses
> and they just happen to be able to produce offspring,
> making them both of the same 'kind' if not the same
> 'species' would be another alternative.
>
> i'm not suggesting that 'kind' and 'species'
> line up equivalently as categories.
>
> they may line up at times, and they may not,
>
> but this is no real problem inasmuch as 'species'
> concepts themselves don't always line up either
> with themleseves or with the actual reality
> they attempt to desccribe.
On the other hand there are criteria scientists use to define species.
>
> Gregory A Greenman wrote:
> > If species can evolve that far, what stops them from evolving
> > further? In another branch of this thread, you seem to suggest that
> > chromosome count cannot change. Donkeys have 62 and horses have 64.
> > So, either it can change or donkeys and horses really are truly
> > different species. Which option would you like to go with?
>
> or, they are simply members of the same 'kind' and
> that certain interbreeding among members of the same
> 'kind' are possible without members of the same 'kind'
> ever being called the same 'species'
>
> yes, 'kind' may be less precise in it's renderings,
It has no precision whatsoever, and does not correspond to any
biological reality.
>
> but, attempts at finely focused categorizations
> based on 'species', result in considerable amount
> of ambiguity which is never finely resolved
Just as evolutionary theory predicts, by the way.
What does the notion of "kinds" predict about what we will find in,
for example, the patterns of shared characters of organisms? Or their
DNA? Or the fossil record?
> and leaves itself open for manipulations which
> exploit this sort of ambiguous nature of
> the categories themselves.
>
> there is no single 'species' concept
> which covers all organisms without ambiguity
> and so, if we compare -categorization- of organisms
> based on 'species' and 'kind' we should not
> expect that these would match exactly especially
> inasmuch as organisms grouped according to 'species'
> concepts alone do not always match up
> in a coherent manner.
>
> i'm saying there are clear cut boundaries
> between 'kinds' and that 'kinds' reproduce
> according to 'kind' and nothing here
> has shown otherwise.
You have not demonstrated any clear-cut boundaries between kinds
because you can't give any way in which a "kind" can be delineated.
RF
Timothy Sutter
> > > If donkeys and horses are not truly different species, then they
> > > were not separately created, right? So god created donkeys and some
> > > of their descendants evolved into horses, god created horses and
> > > some their descendants evolved into donkeys or god created
> > > something else from which both donkeys and horses evolved.
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > this is possible, or God created donkeys and horses
> > and they just happen to be able to produce offspring,
> > making them both of the same 'kind' if not the same
> > 'species' would be another alternative.
> > i'm not suggesting that 'kind' and 'species'
> > line up equivalently as categories.
> > they may line up at times, and they may not,
> > but this is no real problem inasmuch as 'species'
> > concepts themselves don't always line up either
> > with themleseves or with the actual reality
> > they attempt to describe.
richardal...@googlemail.com wrote:
> On the other hand there are criteria scientists use to define species.
...and fail miserably in doing so and when "problematic"
categorization appears, some "scientists" can always
see fit to invent another species "concept" which
will include any 'anomalies' of categorization,
where the 'anomally' it attempts to describe is
one that didn't fit the previous three or four
renderings of the 'species' "concept."
it's always a handy 'criteria' to be able to invent
another addendum to a 'concept' that fails to
properly describe reality.
i'd say that what you propose approaches a;
"pot / kettle / black"
argument, except that it's a pot
trying to call a corningware dish black
and failing miserbly in doing so.
...corningware not being black, by the way
> > > > Gregory A Greenman wrote:
> > > > > By the way, here are my questions again, in case you've forgotten
> > > > > them:
> > > > > 1. Are horses and donkeys truly different species?
> > > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > > no
> > > > human beings produce sterile offspring.
> > > > you haven't grouped human beings in such a way
> > > > so as to cordon off production of sterile
> > > > offspring into exclusive species.
> > > > it's possible that if you cordoned humans off
> > > > into corrals based on any sort of pattern that
> > > > developed in precipitating sterile offspring,
> > > > that you may get more than one set of near total,
> > > > but not entuirely always, sterile producing matings.
> > Gregory A Greenman wrote:
> > > So your criteria then is that if they can produce
> > > offspring at all, then they are the same species.
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > i'm not categorizing organisms according
> > to the ambiguous 'species' concept at all,
> > if i use the 'kind' concept, vagueries amongst
> > various organisms are neatly resolved
> > with no real problem.
richardal...@googlemail.com wrote:
> They are?
> Perhaps you can provide a biologically
> meaningful definition of "kind".
perhaps i can, but i dont' have to in order
for a view which uses a "kind" concept
to be self consistent.
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > those original forms can have changed and
> > altered somewhat over time since the act of
> > special creation but i wouldn't be citing
> > instances where one 'kind' altered slowly,
> > gradually or otheriwse, into a completely
> > different 'kind'
> > but that some alterations from any original 'kind'
> > sets is to be expected and does not present a problem.
richardal...@googlemail.com wrote:
> Well, nothing seems to present any problem for the idea of "kinds"
> because it is infinitely flexible according to the whims of the
> creationist.
it cannot be "infinitely flexible" and suggest
"clear cut boundaries"
one problem you'll have in ascribing a species "concept"
to 'fossils' is that you can never be sure that the
specimens you develope from mixtures of mineralized
bony materials ever formulated a "breeding population."
so, you'll have to invent another species "concept"
which does not require you to be able to demonstrate
that a "breeding population" ever existed.
and then look in my direction
and say i'm not being consistent,
and fail miserably.
richardal...@googlemail.com
> > > Gregory A Greenman wrote:
> > > > If donkeys and horses are not truly different species, then they
> > > > were not separately created, right? So god created donkeys and some
> > > > of their descendants evolved into horses, god created horses and
> > > > some their descendants evolved into donkeys or god created
> > > > something else from which both donkeys and horses evolved.
> > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > this is possible, or God created donkeys and horses
> > > and they just happen to be able to produce offspring,
> > > making them both of the same 'kind' if not the same
> > > 'species' would be another alternative.
> > > i'm not suggesting that 'kind' and 'species'
> > > line up equivalently as categories.
> > > they may line up at times, and they may not,
> > > but this is no real problem inasmuch as 'species'
> > > concepts themselves don't always line up either
> > > with themleseves or with the actual reality
> > > they attempt to describe.
> > On the other hand there are criteria scientists use to define species.
>
> ...and fail miserably in doing so and when "problematic"
> categorization appears,
They do?
Please provide a citation to support this assertion.
> some "scientists"
Why the quote marks?
Are you implying that biologists - you know, the people who actually
*study* such matters - are not real scientists?
> can always
> see fit to invent another species "concept"
They can?
Please provide a citation to support this assertion
> which
> will include any 'anomalies' of categorization,
They do?
Please provide a citation to support this assertion
> where the 'anomally' it attempts to describe is
> one that didn't fit the previous three or four
> renderings of the 'species' "concept."
>
> it's always a handy 'criteria' to be able to invent
> another addendum to a 'concept' that fails to
> properly describe reality.
Actually, it's the case that the reality they describe does not fall
neatly into clearly bounded populations to which the label of species
can be attached.
>
> i'd say that what you propose approaches a;
>
> "pot / kettle / black"
You would, would you?
Why on earth do you think that your unfounded assertion on the issue
are of any weight?
> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > They are?
> > Perhaps you can provide a biologically
> > meaningful definition of "kind".
>
> perhaps i can, but i dont' have to in order
> for a view which uses a "kind" concept
> to be self consistent.
It's self-consistent, in the sense that "kind" can mean anything any
creationist wants it to mean to suit the immediate assertion they are
making.
That doesn't make it biologically meaningful, or even honest.
> > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > those original forms can have changed and
> > > altered somewhat over time since the act of
> > > special creation but i wouldn't be citing
> > > instances where one 'kind' altered slowly,
> > > gradually or otheriwse, into a completely
> > > different 'kind'
> > > but that some alterations from any original 'kind'
> > > sets is to be expected and does not present a problem.
> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > Well, nothing seems to present any problem for the idea of "kinds"
> > because it is infinitely flexible according to the whims of the
> > creationist.
>
> it cannot be "infinitely flexible" and suggest
>
> "clear cut boundaries"
>
It *asserts* that there are clear-cut boundaries, yet is infinitely
flexible in that it has been applied to every taxonomic rank from
Kingdom down.
> one problem you'll have in ascribing a species "concept"
> to 'fossils' is that you can never be sure that the
> specimens you develope from mixtures of mineralized
> bony materials ever formulated a "breeding population."
So what species concept do you think we use with fossils?
> so, you'll have to invent another species "concept"
> which does not require you to be able to demonstrate
> that a "breeding population" ever existed.
How do you suggest one *could* demonstrate that a "breeding
population" existed in the past? Put two fossils on the same shelf to
see if they mate?
Or do you think that we should abandon any specific determination in
all fossil material?
>
> and then look in my direction
> and say i'm not being consistent,
When have I said that you are not being consistent?
You have been consistently wrong, consistently dogmatic, consistently
ignorant, and consistently rejected the idea of educating yourself in
the subject on which you are pontificating.
It doesn't make you right.
RF
>
> and fail miserably.
Timothy Sutter
> > one problem you'll have in ascribing a species "concept"
> > to 'fossils' is that you can never be sure that the
> > specimens you develope from mixtures of mineralized
> > bony materials ever formulated a "breeding population."
richardal...@googlemail.com wrote:
> So what species concept do you think we use with fossils?
one that does not involve the demonstration
of a breeding population, that is for sure.
> > so, you'll have to invent another species "concept"
> > which does not require you to be able to demonstrate
> > that a "breeding population" ever existed.
richardal...@googlemail.com wrote:
> How do you suggest one *could* demonstrate that a "breeding
> population" existed in the past? Put two fossils on the same shelf to
> see if they mate?
you cannot show me that any of your 'specimens' ever
formed the basis of a single breeding population, and
therefore, cannot be unambiguously assigned a
species classification according to any sort
of 'population' criterion.
richardal...@googlemail.com wrote:
> Or do you think that we should abandon any specific
> determination in all fossil material?
without the demonstration of a breeding population,
your determinations rely on subjective conjectures
about any actual relationships to known
breeding populations.
> > > > Gregory A Greenman wrote:
> > > > > If donkeys and horses are not truly different species, then they
> > > > > were not separately created, right? So god created donkeys and some
> > > > > of their descendants evolved into horses, god created horses and
> > > > > some their descendants evolved into donkeys or god created
> > > > > something else from which both donkeys and horses evolved.
> > > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > > this is possible, or God created donkeys and horses
> > > > and they just happen to be able to produce offspring,
> > > > making them both of the same 'kind' if not the same
> > > > 'species' would be another alternative.
> > > > i'm not suggesting that 'kind' and 'species'
> > > > line up equivalently as categories.
> > > > they may line up at times, and they may not,
> > > > but this is no real problem inasmuch as 'species'
> > > > concepts themselves don't always line up either
> > > > with themleseves or with the actual reality
> > > > they attempt to describe.
> > richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > > On the other hand there are criteria scientists use to define species.
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > ...and fail miserably in doing so and when "problematic"
> > categorization appears,
richardal...@googlemail.com wrote:
> They do?
> Please provide a citation to support this assertion.
===
richardal...@googlemail.com wrote:
<dca5f5be-b998-439d...@n1g2000prb.googlegroups.com>
> Assigning individuals to a particular
> species can be more problematical.
===
===
richardal...@googlemail.com wrote:
<9db1b4ae-60ed-4de4...@p59g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>
> No, several different concepts,
> none of which is universally
> applicable.
===
so, you claim you have problems assigning organisms
to particular categories and that you have several
species "concepts" none of which are
"universally applicable"
this supports my statements.
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > some "scientists"
richardal...@googlemail.com wrote:
> Why the quote marks?
> Are you implying that biologists - you know, the people who actually
> *study* such matters - are not real scientists?
i have my reasons.
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > where the 'anomally' it attempts to describe is
> > one that didn't fit the previous three or four
> > renderings of the 'species' "concept."
> > it's always a handy 'criteria' to be able to invent
> > another addendum to a 'concept' that fails to
> > properly describe reality.
richardal...@googlemail.com wrote:
> Actually, it's the case that the reality they describe does not fall
> neatly into clearly bounded populations to which the label of species
> can be attached.
which seems to rule out "population" as
a helpful criterion in assigning species,
and so, when you say;
===
richardal...@googlemail.com wrote:
<dca5f5be-b998-439d...@n1g2000prb.googlegroups.com>
> So are the different species of ducks. They are defined by reference
> to a type specimen or population. That is clear and unambiguous.
===
if you find that you can show no
"clearly bounded population,"
then, to assign species according
to population leads to an
arbitrary assignment.
so, you better derive a new formula
which avoids this ambiguity.
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > perhaps i can, but i dont' have to in order
> > for a view which uses a "kind" concept
> > to be self consistent.
richardal...@googlemail.com wrote:
> It's self-consistent, in the sense that "kind" can mean anything any
> creationist wants it to mean to suit the immediate assertion they are
> making.
if you were talking about "species" i may agree with you here,
but "kind" isn't used in this manner, so, it doesn't fit.
i could tell you that "kind" may more closely
resemble "genera" but would caution you against
drawing any broad generalizaions about all of
the generic categories =you= [in general] may have
seen fit to dscribe starting from species,
which remains ambiguous.
just that the similarity between "kind" and "genera"
may be closer than between "kind" and "species"
that some intergeneric offspring -may- be possible
does not suggest that all such intergeneric offspring
-must- be possible.
and so, while "kinds" may be
more closely -related- to "genera"
this does not suggest that
"kind" -is- "genera"
> > > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > > those original forms can have changed and
> > > > altered somewhat over time since the act of
> > > > special creation but i wouldn't be citing
> > > > instances where one 'kind' altered slowly,
> > > > gradually or otheriwse, into a completely
> > > > different 'kind'
> > > > but that some alterations from any original 'kind'
> > > > sets is to be expected and does not present a problem.
> > richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > > Well, nothing seems to present any problem for the idea of "kinds"
> > > because it is infinitely flexible according to the whims of the
> > > creationist.
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > it cannot be "infinitely flexible" and suggest
> > "clear cut boundaries"
richardal...@googlemail.com wrote:
> It *asserts* that there are clear-cut boundaries, yet is infinitely
> flexible in that it has been applied to every taxonomic rank from
> Kingdom down.
it hasn't been applied in any such manner.
no one even implies that bacteria
and mice are the same kind, or ever
that they were the same kind.
wf3h
> > wrong. That's because I don't follow a holy book that I take as
> > absolute truth no matter how much of it has been shown to be wrong.
>
> considering this suite of peculiar
> circumstances that 'y'all' lay out
>
> in order for this 'molecules to man'
> thing to happen,
>
> when someone says that it's
> like a tornado built an airplane,
mindless, brainless cliche. not original. not even analytical
IOW typical creationist.
>
> it sure does look like you
> want people to believe that,
>
> and if that, then when they tell you
> a fiery tornado by the name of YHWH
fine. get me a YHWH meter so i can measure it scientifically.
otherwise, go back to the 4th century where you belong.
>
> but -your- tornado would seem to destroy faster
> than it ever builds and so, we shouldn't be there,
except that the 1/1000 chance wins out and reproduces...you
know...reproduction...something the theocon right hates?
that's probably what has you confused. evolution involves SEX so
you're agin' it.
>
Timothy Sutter
> > >> > Of course not. I always allow for the possibility that I might be
> > > wrong. That's because I don't follow a holy book that I take as
> > > absolute truth no matter how much of it has been shown to be wrong.
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > considering this suite of peculiar
> > circumstances that 'y'all' lay out
> > in order for this 'molecules to man'
> > thing to happen,
> > when someone says that it's
> > like a tornado built an airplane,
wf3h wrote:
> mindless, brainless cliche. not original. not even analytical
some will say this and it is an apt description.
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > it sure does look like you
> > want people to believe that,
> > and if that, then when they tell you
> > a fiery tornado by the name of YHWH
wf3h wrote:
> fine. get me a YHWH meter so i can measure it scientifically.
> otherwise, go back to the 4th century where you belong.
the human being -is- the YHWH detector
and the human brain is quite far in advance
of any technical instrumenttation that man
has been able to develop.
you're only problem may be that your apparatus
is not correctly tuned so as to pick up the
signals and are therefore buried in the noise.
aside from the implication that
God has not appeared to people in
a spectacular array of light and such,
when some say that God has not been
'proven' to exist, they mean they have
no referrence to mechanical measuring
devices which detect God;
what physical measurement?
what machine apparatus have you
designed that will measure
such a phenomenon?
what, exactly, is the nature of
the phenomenon for which you
seek physical measurement?
in lieu of appropriate answers to these,
your problem is simply one of disbelief
in a thing that you have not
directly experienced.
will you suggest that the flavor chemist
and the perfume chemist are not involved
in scientific discovery?
of course not, as these are two very
important branches of chemistry,
a "hard science."
so anyway, generally, in flavor chemistry,
they run chemical samples from known natural
products thru a machine apparatus like a mass
spectrometer or an infra red or nuclear magnetic
resonance spectrometer to determine the chemical
make-up of a given flavor, say bananas.
they determoine that one of the main
components of the flavor of bananas
is ethyl acetate;
CH3-C[O]O-CH2CH3
now, they synthesize this chemical
from available sources and then,
*they ask people to taste the stuff
to see if it tastes like bananas*
why?
because there's no machine apparatus
that can tell you if that stuff
tastes like anything.
just don't talk about "science"
and "measurement" when you mean,
mechanical detection.
when you develop the mechanical device
that can detect God, and it doesn't
detect God, then you can speak.
you'll simply have to rely, in part,
on the descriptions of human beings
for your "measurements" in much the
same way as the flavor chemist must
rely on human beings to tell [him]
if [his] compounds taste "good" or not.
but, a given experiment designed to allow
you to ascertain the experience of God
is possible and plausible.
and if you don't gain an audiance with the
Holy Spirit the first time, you'll have to
do the experiment over and over till
you get it right.
and central to this, is greeting
the words of Faith with faith.
no faith, no experience.
no experience, no knowledge.
no knowledge, keep silent.
if God's Holy Spirit is detectable
in and by human beings, then this
represents a phenomenon and
physical measurement.
to say otherwise is blind assumption that
the human entity is incapable of divulging
proper 'scientific' data.
which is nonsense, as most real discovery
is taken and delineated and accepted by
none other than the human entity.
go drop a stone from the tower of Pisa,
who is taking a measurement? get a sophisticated
listening device to do the same thing,
now who is taking the data? still the
human being, as the machine apparatus
is merely a device to extend
our capabilities.
now, if you cannot design an appropriate device
to extend your mechanical capabilitues in the
area of God detection, then you are simply at
a primitive stage in your machine designing
abilities and need further study before you
can ever make some blanket statement to the
effect that God is not physically detectable
because God is most certainly detectable
by the human entity.
what you have to realize is that God has
placed something -like- a "terminate and
stay resident" program in your being that
behaves -like- an "analog to digital converter."
there is some sort of 'spirit' in man that
remains in the background, that is 'resident'
but not running until activated by
the 'words of faith'
-then- this 'spirit' becomes active
and converts the 'analog' signal from
God, thru the Holy Spirit, into a 'digital'
signal that your cortical brain structure
can interpret as a meaningful presence.
you don't even know it is there
until it becomes activated.
now see, i cannot personally switch on
your 'spirit' and pour the Holy Spirit
into your life, but i can present
statements which can trigger your
TSR programs to activate the
A-to-D converter.
here's someone, with whom i find
agreement, describing a phenomenon
like this "TSR--A-to-D converter"
of which i speak.
----------------
1 Corinthians 13:1 and 14:3-4,13
Though I speak with the unknown
spiritual languages of men and
of angels....
He who speaks in unknown spiritual languages
does not speak to men but to God, in the spirit
he speaks mysteries, for no one understands him;
He who speaks in an unknown spiritual language
teaches himself, if I pray in an unknown
spiritual language, my spirit prays, but
my understanding is unfruitful.
Therefore let him who speaks in an unknown
spiritual language pray that he may interpret.
What is the conclusion then? I will pray with
the spirit, and I will also pray with
the understanding.
----------------
notice that Paul describes a distinction
between the "spirit" and the "understanding"
also notice that you can edify
your "self" in a manner which
your "understanding" is unaware.
hold on a minute, now look at this.
same passage different portion;
----------------
1 Corinthians 14:1-3,12,39
since you are zealous for spiritual gifts,
let it be for the teaching of the faithful
that you seek to excel. Let all things be
done for such edification;
Pursue love, and desire spiritual gifts, but
especially that you may speak an understanding
of God which comes from God. He who utters such
divine revelations speaks comfort, encourages
and edifies the faithful.
desire earnestly to understand and speak
divine revelations, and do not forbid to
speak with unknown spiritual languages.
----------------
now he's suggesting that comprehending
spiritual knowledge of God with your
corporeal "understanding" is of
primary importance.
that is, understanding God
with your "understanding"
but look, he's also suggesting that
you may find yourself speaking with
God in a language that is unknown
to your conscious understanding
but -not- unknown to your background
"TSR" program which behaves as
an A-to-D converter.
a trivial example can be found in a
very general description of the manner
in which your computer operates.
your computer operates programs that are
written in a so-called "high level language"
and these high level languages translates
that into a machine code assembly language
and finally into machine code ones and zeroes.
the machine only "understands"
"yes" and "no" which is fed to it
in the form of a "one" and a "zero"
but the machine is able to interpret
the "high level language" of the
computer programmer by use
of compiler programs.
within details.
in a similar manner, there is an intimate
connection between your "spirit" and your
corporeal "understanding," even if the
'two' are non-identical, and both see
growth and aligniment with God's
own Personal Presence.
and now, what would be nice, would be
for that "spirit" part of -you- to relay
the message to what amounts to your
'corporeal' understanding, and reform
-that- thing of -you- in the
image of Christ.
as this should relieve any conflict
which your corporeal "understanding"
may place on your "spirit" inhibitting
your spiritual growth.
a spiritual growth that will further
cleanse the conscience of "dead works"
bringing your -actions- into a greater
conformity with your understandable
"intentions".
understandable intentions which more
and more closely align with a Spirit
who knows no -want-
so, it's like your understandable intentions
are the nexus point between this "spirit"
and your corporeal "understanding".
like, your 'spirit' shows
itself in your -intentions-
and your corporeal understanding
shows itself in your actions.
and you'd like to align a purity of
intentions to blameless actions.
each feeding off the other feeding
from the root of the vine which is God.
----------------
1 Corinthians 14:33
For God is not the author
of confusion but of peace
----------------
and that's what Jesus -was-
by a peculiarity of birth, Jesus' "spirit"
-was- The Holy Spirit and Jesus' corporeal
understanding became perfectly
aligned with -that-.
# as this should relieve any conflict
# which your corporeal "understanding"
# may place on your "spirit" inhibitting
# your spiritual growth.
right, a "conflict" very much -like- a
"yes = no" statement in a computer program.
if you tell a machine "yes = no" it won't operate.
in similar manner, your personal conflict
inhibits growth and, in effect, shuts down
your 'spirit' processors.
personal conflict which has "yes = no"
statements as an underpinning.
like i said before,
this sort of situation arises when
you operate under the idea that "good"
is getting what you want and "bad"
is not getting what you want.
this enables you to seek a "good" for
your self at the expense of carrying
out an action which you would consider
"bad" if it was done -to- you.
"good = bad"
"yes = no"
system failure
----------------
1 Corinthians 14:39
desire earnestly to understand and speak
divine revelations, and do not forbid to
speak with unknown spiritual languages.
----------------
ok, so, there still is a definite
benefit to having your 'spirit' edified
in an unvarnished manner where you may
have blood in your eyes and so, you
wouldn't want to immediately sully
an understanding of a thing before
that thing had a chance to work within
your 'spirit' and seep into your
knowledgeable understanding more
slowly removing the blood from your
eyes so that you can see more clearly.
like that 'spirit' "TSR" program had
been dormant in you and when it was
awakened by the words of Faith it needed
refreshement and enlivening with waters
from the fountain of God's own Presence.
and so, that 'spirit' is living and growing too.
so, don't -discourage- the utterrance
in other unknown spiritual languages
as this can be viewed as a direct
sampling from God to you without your
own personal viewpoint getting in
the way of a clear understanding.
which also suggests that you should be
on the lookout for virulent doctrines
taking up residence and corrupting
your understanding of God.
corruptions which display themselves
in a variety of "yes = no" statements.
make no room for this sort of thing.
it is truly for your own good.
Timothy Sutter
comes -from- God -to- man
is a personal witness by God.
within limits so as to
encourage personal growth.
so, the primary approach will have to be
that someone tells you that God is there.
but we maintain that -this- knowledge
can -only- come from God and so, when
-we- tell you that God is there, we are
passing a torch and not inventing the Fire.
we simply say that Christ
is the original messenger.
Christ spoke to the mind
of the first human being
and has spoken again, at times,
foretelling a manifestation
in the flesh.
Christ appeared among men
-and- the Angels -saw- him.
Christ decended into the lower regions,
took on the flesh, and spilled blood
towards the _redemption_ of all flesh.
Christ returned to the Glory of God
and sends us the Faithful Witness
thru the Word of God spoken
among mankind.
so, when Christ tells you,
-by whatever means-, that
God is there and bears you
no specific grudge, believe it.
the alternative will be you paying
every penny on your account, and
failing miserably.
forever in debt to the existing conditions.
you will see the unfiltered
reality of God in your life.
Live
this Fire will purify.
in case you hadn't figured;
"Christ" is also, 'just a word'
and for all practical purposes,
"Christ" -is- God. "Spirit of Christ"
is a, somewhat, redundant terminology.
the "anointing" -is- the Faithful
Witness of God's own Presence.
God even knows God thru this sort
of Faithful assurance that God Is.
whereas Moses and David were "anointed"
and therefore "Christs" and the prophets
were visited by The Word of God, these were,
for the most part, singular events.
is was "The Spirit of Christ"
who ministered thru these people.
YHWH -is- "The Spirit of Christ"
not just an equality, but an identity.
as for the man referred to as Jesus Christ;
this guy is a little different from
Moses and David and the prophets.
this guy was formulated in the womb
of Mary by The Spirit of Christ.
but see look, remember i showed you these;
DNA is the template for its replication
the "Central dogma of genetics"
that is, it takes DNA to reproduce DNA
and
DNA --> RNA --> Protein
the "Central Dogma of moleclar biology"
and then said that God formed the Templates
for the production of the originating DNA
and brought the chemicals into alignment
around God's templates.
so, it isn't a remarkable thing to explain
that God can provide a template "in situ"
which will produce a child having a human
mother and God as father.
realizing that the originating templates
for DNA arise from God in the first place.
the child is still a human being,
and no more or less a child of God
than "Adam", the first 'man', but
born by a woman under the law, but
not born of 'man' under the damning
effect of "Adam's" mortal discovery,
resulting in a mortallity which was
encoded in his physical being but
only triggered when Adam walked astray.
Mary's generation was clean top to bottom
and God provided a template through
Declaration of the Word of God upon Mary.
after all, the DNA algorithm -is-
a coded set of instructions, or
a "Word", that can be spelled out
using chemical letters.
the algorithm can exist as a pure
statement in the mind of God and
be born in the material by Fiat.
having said that, we distinguish Jesus
from all others born of "Adam" but we
do not distinguish Jesus from
the human race.
Jesus' mortallity was not triggered.
see, Jesus didn't have to die, but
he accepted -your- necessary death
in -your- stead.
a necessary death you
inherited from your
progenitors.
what Jesus could see and Adam would not see
was the Life of God being interminable freed
him from the fear of death provided he
maintained his attachment to God thru Faith.
Adam saw mortallity and fear.
Jesus saw Life thru Faith.
Adam was rejected from Life
Jesus was accepted in to Life
and like i said before;
Jesus' mental understanding so closely
paralleled and identified with YHWH
that the overlay of "The Spirit of Christ"
upon his identification with death and
resurrection resulted in a thunderous
applause came from "the other side"
that is, God thundered;
"*THIS* is -Me- in the material world"
"*THIS* is -My- offspring"
BEHOLD
alright now that -that- is said and done,
what about -you-
how now are -you- "like Christ"?
how now -can- you approach
and surpass Jesus Christ?
well, first things first,
-you- have a pile of rubble under
which you find yourself obstructed
to a full knowledge of Christ in you.
so, when Christ first impresses you,
you see clearly but the detritus of
Adam's mortal discovery and -your-
fear of death and subsequent enclosure
in a world of want competes for your
attention and when your eyes -would-
remain fixed on Christ, they look
back and you stumble.
and now, in fear and trembling,
you inch towards God, shedding the
dead works and avoiding obstacles
to your forward progress.
holding the seal of God in -your-
forehead -you- enter in to communion
and unity with God.
and then, it may be said,
that you are "like Christ"
and then you can enter in to
Life thru Christ where you were
born in to Death thru Adam.
i hope i didn't leave to much out.
# DNA is the template for its replication
# the "Central dogma of genetics"
# that is, it takes DNA to reproduce DNA and
# DNA --> RNA --> Protein
# the "Central Dogma of moleclar biology"
as an aside piece of background;
see, given these central dogmas, which were
gained by methodical observations, people have
been trying to invent ways to explain the
arising of life on earth under the darkness
of the "NO God" axiom.
that is, seeing that DNA is the
template for it's own replication
and that the string of events
is always observed to proceed
DNA --> RNA --> protein
and -never-
amino acids --> protein --> RNA --> DNA --> RNA --> protein
one must resort to unobservable conjectures
and speculation to account for the very
fact that self reproducing genetic libraries
exist on earth at all given the "No God" axiom.
among these the so-called "space seed"
and "RNA world" 'hypotheses'.
but, see, in light of the consequences
surrounding genesis from singularity and
the absolute necessity for a Creative Being
to initiate genesis from singularity,
the "No God" axiom fails as -not-
"self evident" and, in fact, false
and wholly invalid.
and so, "space seed" and "RNA world"
conjectures are unwarranted and unnecessary
and one may construct a -simple- dogma
God --> DNA --> RNA --> protein
which neatly accounts for the existance of
genetic libraries on earth without resort
to onobservable conjectures but simply
the unavoidable evidence of the finger
of creation.
a finger we've already demonstrated
as present in genesis from singularity.
just another evidence of the existance of God.
and so, there's no -real- 'excuse'.
and like i said,
Adam is referred to as "son of God"
-we- are "son of Adam" or "son of Man"
so now, Jesus, by this peculiar birthing
by the Holy Spirit in Mary is again a man
called "son of God"
but is also, "son of man" by Mary.
and that's why he is special
for -us-, the children of Adam.
the "son" part refers to his humanity.
so, -how- has -this- "son" 'always existed'
whereas Adam was "formed of the dust?"
his template -is- The Word of God.
God declared Jesus in to Mary
YHWH Savior becomes "son of man"
The Word of God who has always
existed became flesh and dwelt
among mankind.
The Word of God who Is God.
The Word of God who Is
The Spirit of Christ
who Is YHWH
tasted -our- mortallity
and swallowed up Death in the
Indestructible Life of God.
The Great Fish who could not
lay hold of Jesus, vomitted
him out onto the shore.
Timothy Sutter
"knowledge" one may possess is
in the form of:
"empirical sense perception memory impressions"
that's it, that's your knowledge,
that's all you can ever know.
memories of objects you have seen,
heard, smelled, tasted and or touched.
all we claim is that the Holy Spirit
leaves a memory impression but, itself,
clicks no dials on any interferometer.
backtrack for a moment to the nature
of language and knowledge dissemination.
basically, all linguistic
efforts by man are of
this form;
you have a sensory stimulus,
and you have a verbal utterance.
you a take verbal utterance
and arbitrarily attach it
to a sensory stimulus.
that is, a set of persons 'agrees'
that the vocalized effort, "bloo" shall
be attached to the sensory stimuli of
of what they see when they stare up
at the midday sky on a clear day.
so, now, when they are removed from the
sensory stimulus, they can relate the
persistent memories of that stimulus
to each other -without- the sensory
stimulus being present.
that is, they can speak of their memories
of the midday sky, at nighttime, and amongst
people of the grouping that have seen the
midday sky, and have agreed that that
stimulus shall be referred to as "bloo"
this communication effort falls
apart for people outside of the group.
that is, some other group may have attached
the verbal utterance "bloo" to the smell of
garlic and when you utter "bloo" to them,
it triggers a different archived memory impression.
fine, language is somewhat arbitrary,
screams of pain being fairly universal.
when describing things you sense with
the five, you always use similarities
to others things impressed upon you
by the big 5.
language itself is something of a circular argument.
at the foundation of all of your linguistics
is that things are defined by what they are.
"This Thing Is What It Is"
language is a brute force, mechanical, device, at best.
don't let -it- abuse -you-
use -it- with care.
"sweet potatoes are orange"
what is "orange"?
"orange is the color of sweet potatoes"
it's all mostly an arbitrary assignment.
there's no fundamental reason why
"sweet potatoes" and "orange"
should be tossed together.
they are just tags for memory impression triggers.
anyway, back to the Holy Spirit,
by the very nature of the experience,
attaching vocal utterance to it presents
some clear difficulties.
to what shall one 'liken' the memory
impression of a stimulus that clicks
no dials on any interferometer?
we suggest that God resembles a "Rock"
in what way does God resembles a "Rock"?
the -type- of memory impression
that you gain when you inspect some
artifact as 'concrete' as a rock,
is left behind by the Holy Spirit.
you distance yourself from a rock that
you have inspected, you carry a memory
impression of that rock with you
wherever you go.
you meet Jesus thru the Holy Spirit
and you carry away a definite
memory impression that Lives.
one minor difference,
your memory of a granite stone is static,
and your memory of Christ thru the
Holy Spirit is dynamic.
you don't 'see' God with your eyes,
but your mind is impressed with
a Living memory.
that's the closest i can put the experience
into words that you may have some sort of
common experience with which to compare.
now, i've already gone to some lengths
to acquaint you with the non-atomic universe.
so, you are -not- free to tell me
that i am remembering things
that have no existance.
because we've already shown you that
the things which you -do- see and hear
and taste and feel and smell, by necessity,
emanated from some 'thing' that you
can -not- likewise experience.
that is, all citations of genesis from
singularity reduce to a severe acknowledgement
of a 'physically unknowable' 'non-atomic' world.
that is, a world that can -not- be visited with
the empirical sensory apparatus is absolutely
necessitated by genesis from singularity.
the only thing left is to check and test
that -my- empirical sensory apparatus is
functioning properly.
which i do on a regular basis and can
rest assured that my apparatus is
suffering from -no- organic damage.
i do not receive persistent memory impressions
of artifacts that i have -not- experienced.
and the memory impressions left by artifacts
that i am experiencing well reflect the
acknowledgement of standard by concensus.
that is, if i tell you
that the sky is blue and
has some clouds,
when i fully describe that experience,
anyone in the set of people who use the
same vocal utterance will be able to
recognize my description as
'correct' by 'agreement'.
the best a 'non-believer' can say with regards
to God is that they have -not- the same
experience, and therefore they do -not-
comprehend even my very best linguistic
efforts at description.
what they can -not- even -suggest- is
that what i am experiencing is a phantom.
there should be enough here that i don't
need to reprise the details as to why
such a proclamation is unfounded.
# my Salvation is not just
# a "new" "personal ideology."
# i'm sure i've mentioned the direct
# memory impressions left by the unseen.
Timothy Sutter
and things of that nature, is pointing you -at-
the way to -experience- God, so that -you- can get your
own experience of that thing which -we- already have.
almost exactly as if we said, "drop a ball
from the tower of Pisa and measure the time
it takes to fall" and then lead you through
a methodology where you will be able to more
fully describe that phenomenon known as
the gravitational force.
or simply, "look over there and see what we see"
you don't see and don't know until you look and see.
the -proof- is when -you- see
and not when we -tell- you to look.
so, what exactly do you remember about God?
what exactly -can- you remember about God?
it would have to be something like;
"-OBJECT X- tastes like tomato sauce"
but see, that statement only is
meaningful to someone else who
has had tomato sauce.
you want to describe a thing that
"tastes like tomato sauce" to someone
who has never had tomato sauce.
and so you go searching for things
-like- tomato sauce that the other
person or persons have experienced.
but, for people who have had
tomato sauce, you just say,
"it's like tomato sauce"
and immediately, a stored impression
rises in to conscious memory and they
realize what you -mean-.
which is why, for so many people who
have experienced God, their 'mission'
in life is to get you to open up a can
of tomato sauce and taste it for yourself.
so you can see what they see.
and the tremendous difficulty
of suggesting that "tomato sauce
tastes -like- sweet and salty
vinegar" would be diverted,
seeing as how we will soon discover
that many many things "taste -like-
sweet salty vinegar" -and- "sweet and
salty vinegar" doesn't even begin to
fully describe what tomato sauce
actually tastes like.
sort of like "cut out the middle
man and go right to the source"
because we will describe a thing to
those who have not experienced God as;
"a conscious -living- memory of
a personality we have never seen"
-not- "a concious memory of
a person we have never met"
but to what do -we- ourselves compare
this "God" to? that is, what about us
-is- there that -can- receive a
communion with God?
and that is our own transient likeness
of God which we call -our- "spirit"
but we might also suggest that that
"spirit" is encapsulated in our Faith.
and also, that that Faith is a Gift from God.
almost like the chopped chicken livers bit.
where you cook the chicken livers
and drive out all the waters from
them, and then add chicken fat to
that to reintroduce moisture.
stop laughing, i'm serious.
well, you can laugh, but i
-am- serious, nonetheless.
the tightrope walk here is that
for all practical purposes, your
"spirit" is quickened or made alive
at the same time that you meet God
thru the auspices of God's own Spirit
or that which we refer to as "The Holy Spirit"
and your "spirit" is simultaneously
made alive from obscurity and taken
off to 'sit' at the right hand of God
in likeness to Christ, the Holy Spirit
re-invests your body with Its Life and
more slowly begins to reintroduce this
newly made alive "spirit" back into
fidelity with your conscious memory.
or, in other words, your "spirit" lays dormant,
your conscious memory receives a message of faith,
God awakens your dormant "spirit" and takes it
to God leaving a seal of that Faith on your
conscious memory which lives and grows.
and this Faith transforms your conscious
memory into the likeness of God as your
"spirit" grows in communion with God
and the one overshadows the other.
i bet there's multiple dozens of ways to say this.
just remember, "spirit" is just a word
and we're edging towards specifying some
identifying characteristic -of- God and how
-you-, a human being, can accept and
appreciate this thing, this "deo-mimetic",
so as to truly experience and appreciate
your -own- unique identification,
and not some exploded distortion
of the existing conditions.
so, don't get too strung out on thinking
that your "spirit" is what makes you alive
and if your spirit leaves you you'll die
and you're not dead so your "spirit"
must be alive.
obviously, the -word- "spirit" can
be used to trigger several different
memory impressions.
and we're not speaking here of
the physical emulation of life.
we're speaking of that Life which God is.
and nudging towards how -you-, a human,
physical, living creature can share in
that Life which -is- God.
a Life that knows no bounds.
spirit is just a word until
it is more than just a word.
don't kid yourself to be stylish.
that's just another snare.
if i didn't get to the point,
i meant to, and perhaps i'll
try again.
Q: how many Angels can dance
on the head of a pin?
A: all of them.
there, _that's_ the point.
they -all- can do it.
all kidding aside;
i'd like to make it shorter,
but it is somewhat complex.
describe exactly an onion.
your really are left saying things like;
"an onion smells like an onion"
the thing describes itself.
so, if you want to explain onion-ness
to someone who has never seen an onion,
your only resort is to get an onion
and place it before them.
but your flesh is a filter to
the understanding of the onion.
your flesh only allows you to
comprehend things about the onion
that correspond to its sensory
apparatus.
so, you don't get a complete
understanding of the onion by
using your eyes and nose
and tongue.
you get this filtered image of an onion.
the fact that God is not grasped thru
the filter of the flesh is actually an
asset towards a more thorough understanding
and comprehension of the thing itself.
that is, you get a direct impression
unfiltered by finite sensory appartus.
now your only problem is how to
place God before yourself so that
you can grasp an impression.
so, what exactly do you remember about God?
what exactly -can- you remember about God?
"a conscious -living- memory of
a personality we have never seen"
and that's part of the thing;
you -could- say that such a situation
relegates this sort of knowledge of God
to come exclusively -from- "the other side"
that is to say that no amount of man's
desire to find out or wanting to know
would achieve -this- knowledge of God:
that it would -have to- be a knowledge
that came -from- God -to- man.
that would be barring all personal
opinions on the nature of God's
creation and man's world.
"honeysuckle is sweet,
therefore God is nice"
"children dieing of starvation is
difficult to bear, therefore God
is uncaring"
this sort of 'knowledge' is pure surmise
and such without all the actual facts.
like, "he eat's onions, he has
bad breath, therefore onions
are bad because they cause
bad breath"
you haven't even properly concluded
that onions caused bad breath much
less the broad leap that onions are
bad because of this thing.
You need Jesus Christ to 'see' God,
it's not -my- invention it's
God's own providence.
that's the way God made and outlined
for human beings to commune with God.
there is no other way to see salvation.
Timothy Sutter
you believe that when you release
it from your grasp, that it will
fall to the ground.
you may say to yourself, that
every time you have ever released
a stone from your grasp, it has
always fallen to the ground,
but as long as you hold the stone
in your hand, you have only that
belief that your memories of some
past event are a faithful representation
of the reality which has yet to come forth.
their is no -proof- that the stone will
fall to the ground other than your
confident assurance that some future
event will resemble all past events.
the fact comes into being as you
let go of the stone, and yet, you
feel you know for sure, that the
stone will fall each and every
time you let go of it.
the proof -happens- as you let go, but
you have never been disappointed and so,
you feel that you can never be disappointed.
and this becomes your unquestioned reality.
and that is the nature of the thing itself,
your descriptions of past events become
more precise to the point where you can
make relevant statements about future events.
when and if these future event predictions
are brought in to reality, you can then
maintain that your descriptions of past
events resemble the truth.
but each time, the -proof- is
in the letting go of the stone.
Faith is that confidant assurance that
you are going to be pleased and can be
likened to that certain knowledge you
have that when you release a stone
from your hand it will fall
to the ground.
this begins to describe the
activity of the Spirit
in your life.
and now, we would turn to the Truth of God
and begin to suggest that the good news of
God's own tranquility, resting upon your
shoulders, is a confident haven, in which
you may continually take refuge, and as
you see this blossoming and flourishing
in your own life, is also a realization
of the Truth of God as the description
of past present and future states
of unmeritted blessing.
this confident assurance cannot disappoint
you as each time you step out in faith you
are rewarded with the gladness that
accompanies God's own Presence.
So, your own personal description of
the reality of God becomes more precise
to that point where you can make confident
declarations about things that have not
yet ocurred as though they have
already taken place.
and faith meets Faith
you see peaceful Unity with God
you begin to know Love.
we suggest, without a doubt;
God knows when God sets out to do
a fine work, God will be pleased.
we suggest that God knew that man
would not bring forth a pleasing
scent when left to his own devices,
it becomes important that -we-
see that just as God sees that.
God can only begin that work in
you when you offer up this sort of
conscious understanding of God as
the only real source of
all things good.
God knows full well that you will be
a child of God after God's own heart
in whom God is very well pleased
when God places that heart within you.
and this is the sort of 'prayer' that
rises to God as a "sweet smelling inscence."
not a 'prayer' which would only serve your
covetous desire but a primary acknowledgement
of your desire to see God as God in you.
in this way the pleasant nature
will land on your shoulders and
you will see peace.
it's that simple.
your assurance that you are going
to be pleased is the same as that
certain knowledge you have that
when you release a stone from
your hand it will fall
to the ground.
this begins to describe the
activity of the Spirit
in your life.
Timothy Sutter
# most rudimentary forms of memory.
# the fender shows a memory of a collision.
# this is not 'conscious memory' but then again,
# magnetic disk drives are not conscious either.
# muscle cells have a rudimentary form of memory as well.
anyway, skipping the bits about muscle cell memory,
we could say that our much of our conscious memory
is 'imprinted' upon the material in a kaleidascopic
series of indentations placed on our neural circuitry
cells which are brought into close proximity with
external stimuli through our sensory receptors.
x number of tiny dents on neural cells
y number of cooperative neural cells
z percent overlap so as to be
classified as 'cooperative'
meaning, for a given set of neural cells
to be 'cooperative', they must carry a
given percentage of identical indentations
now, with y and z in place,
a vast number of x are brought together
so as to formulate the mental image.
obviously, the more disparate the nature of the x
the clearer the mental image
and so, the most complete image of
a thing comes through the input of
all of the various sensory apparatuses
but here, we still resemble silly putty,
and the world focuses its wax impression
on the material bits and forges an image
of itself which 'we' sometimes mistake for 'us'
now, we claim we can take these wax impressions
and pull aside relatedness and see a 'higher' image
meaning, we claim we can examine how the
wax impressions are held together and 'abstract'
another idea in form which is an implicit
function of of the stuff itself without being
the product of the wax impressions themselves.
we've taken a filtered image
and drawn out a clearer image
of the way things must fall into place.
and we show the clarity when we can
formulate a predictive image which
corresponds more precisely
to future outcomes.
and now we are finger painting.
less passive than being a sheet of silly putty,
but still, mainly, simple manipulations
of things that just happen to present
themselves to us.
just ordering and reordering stuff
that's already there, in any number
of myriads of arrays.
considering that the mind of God
is of a variant formulation than
our own, and that not of a physical
material nature, we shall assume that
no possible 'denting' mechanism can
exist by which God's mind should
operate and function.
and so, for now, we could call any phenomenon
associated with God's comprehension of the
natural physical reality as
'instantaneous knowledge'
and reckon that as the time-less
tangent line to 'right now'
and say that this would be dissimilar to a
series of wax impresions and abstractions
of their relatedness to each other
and more resemble the focus of quantized
images of God in to particular and discrete
aspects of the time bound physical reallity.
and, in likewise manner,
the transmission of quantized images
of God in to the focal range of the
neural circuity is how God accomplishes
a comprehensible communication with
'our' abstractable detection of relatedness.
the the highest version of God's
communicative efforts, God is not
leaving a 'dent' behind, but
a pure form of relatedness.
meaning, God may very well communicate
with the material realm via direct,
conscious manipulation of the
physical nature,
but, God can also 'breath' a direct
mental image of the relatedness of God
in to the neural circuitry which acts
as an elaborate detection device in itself.
the detectabilty of the device is already in place,
it's just that as far as the 'denting' mechanism
and the 'breath of God' the material device is
unable to focus on that which it has
no prior impression, but, God is able
to focus such a direct impression
of relatedness on the material device.
we cannot discover a relatedness in
a thing for which we have no impression,
God can provide a necessary impression
towards the highest registries in our
conscious abstraction mechanism.
we become the focus of the tangent
of the time-less 'state' with the
frame of 'right now'
and, as it might be expected,
the quantized bit images of God's time-less nature
will have a 'fractalized' pattern which remembles
the 'whole picture'
somewhat like, yeah, you guessed,
somewhat like a seed.
the whole tree is in the acorn,
but as that tree takes root and
grows to produce acorns of its own...,
-and- =yet=
there is -still- more...
more as we can be brought more
fully in to the time-less state
so as the 'image' -becomes- pure communion.
Spirit for Spirit
> and we show the clarity when we can
> formulate a predictive image which
> corresponds more precisely
> to future outcomes.
some of this next little bit may matter
when and if you find that some don't
take the same things for 'granted' that
you take for granted.
and faith meets Faith
it's that simple.
> next, maybe, some consideration
> of 'tertiary' forms and their relation
> to God's own mental structure.
> where 'tertiary' forms would be
> the relatedness of various secondary
> abstractions from the wax impressions.
> one might suggest 'quaternary' forms, and
> find them to be of the 'zeroth' order instead.
> whatever that means...
maybe later
just, before you say out loud;
"God, come out the sky on me
and say "let there be light"
so i can know you're there"
that you'd be looking for the wrong thing
and that this sort of vision/sight may not
necessarily be the 'proof' you want anyway.
yeah, it's the first thing that
going to run through your mind;
"God, show me a sign"
little realizing that your
being there to ask such a thing
is already a remarkable accomplishment.
you just take your own being there for granted.
but you still want God to pop out the sky on you.
but this 'christian' thing brings
'the Presence' =itself= direct
-to- -you-
and that's the profound thing about
what God has done in Jesus Christ.
if God were to merely pop out the sky on you,
not to mention, that this would remain as
-just- you looking at something from the
outside and trying to make sense of it,
you'd still be comparing this to
phenomena that you experience everyday,
and, "to what -can- you -truly- 'compare' God?"
sort of like,
the manifold wisdom of God is not
a new 'man' that -you- can wrap
an olde garment of your sensory
comprehensions around.
like as if -you- would try to put
-your- old clothes on a new image
of God in your life and find that
not only do they not fit properly,
but you can't even find a proper
place to hang them on, and they
keep falling off.
and so, this -is- truly, a 'radical'
renovation of your very being insamuch
as God would bypass all the experiential
baggage and come directly under the soil
of your physical rationality and grab
hold of your unique identity structure
and bring -that- to the surface,
exposing and pruning away the roots
of the iconic portrait the existing conditions
has manufactured over top of 'you'
and -then- you will begin to actually
say that you -do- 'see God' in that you
come to realize... yeah yeah yeah,
you come to realize that God is not -in-
the earthquake or the hurricane or the
dazzling display of lights, but, in that
'still small voice' that presents itself
at your doorway asking you why you're there.
but really, when you ask for 'a sign'
you'd be looking for things that -you-,
under a heap of rubble, would consider
to -be- an image of God, little realizing
that you have =nothing= -to- take for 'granted'
in that you even should or could know what
such a manifestation can encompass.
as they say; 'first things first'
obviously, any 'imposter' could simply
appear to you in some form that -you-
would be 'expecting'
but none of this has ever been -about-
what -you- should expect.
-but- if God -did- surprise you
like some thief in the night,
you may also, -not- be expecting
that 'thief' to =give= you
your brand new heart.
...and then you can shake your head.
richardal...@googlemail.com
> > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > one problem you'll have in ascribing a species "concept"
> > > to 'fossils' is that you can never be sure that the
> > > specimens you develope from mixtures of mineralized
> > > bony materials ever formulated a "breeding population."
> > So what species concept do you think we use with fossils?
>
> one that does not involve the demonstration
> of a breeding population, that is for sure.
Well, obviously: that's information we can't get from fossils.
So why not answer the question?
>
> > > so, you'll have to invent another species "concept"
> > > which does not require you to be able to demonstrate
> > > that a "breeding population" ever existed.
> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > How do you suggest one *could* demonstrate that a "breeding
> > population" existed in the past? Put two fossils on the same shelf to
> > see if they mate?
>
> you cannot show me that any of your 'specimens' ever
> formed the basis of a single breeding population, and
> therefore, cannot be unambiguously assigned a
> species classification according to any sort
> of 'population' criterion.
So what concept of species do you think we should use with fossils?
>
> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > Or do you think that we should abandon any specific
> > determination in all fossil material?
>
> without the demonstration of a breeding population,
> your determinations rely on subjective conjectures
> about any actual relationships to known
> breeding populations.
>
...which doesn't answer the question.
What species concept do you think we *should* use with fossils?
>
>
> > > > > Gregory A Greenman wrote:
> > > > > > If donkeys and horses are not truly different species, then they
> > > > > > were not separately created, right? So god created donkeys and some
> > > > > > of their descendants evolved into horses, god created horses and
> > > > > > some their descendants evolved into donkeys or god created
> > > > > > something else from which both donkeys and horses evolved.
> > > > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > > > this is possible, or God created donkeys and horses
> > > > > and they just happen to be able to produce offspring,
> > > > > making them both of the same 'kind' if not the same
> > > > > 'species' would be another alternative.
> > > > > i'm not suggesting that 'kind' and 'species'
> > > > > line up equivalently as categories.
> > > > > they may line up at times, and they may not,
> > > > > but this is no real problem inasmuch as 'species'
> > > > > concepts themselves don't always line up either
> > > > > with themleseves or with the actual reality
> > > > > they attempt to describe.
> > > richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > > > On the other hand there are criteria scientists use to define species.
> > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > ...and fail miserably in doing so and when "problematic"
> > > categorization appears,
> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > They do?
> > Please provide a citation to support this assertion.
>
> ===richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> <dca5f5be-b998-439d-bf8a-8747d9366...@n1g2000prb.googlegroups.com>> Assigning individuals to a particular
> > species can be more problematical.
I've never denied that it can be.
That does not support your assertion, which is that biologists
arbitrarily redefine what they mean by species on a purely subjective
basis.
>
> ===
> ===richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> <9db1b4ae-60ed-4de4-94aa-54ad1c1b3...@p59g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>> No, several different concepts,
> > none of which is universally
> > applicable.
>
> ===
>
> so, you claim you have problems assigning organisms
> to particular categories and that you have several
> species "concepts" none of which are
> "universally applicable"
That's the nature of nature.
>
> this supports my statements.
No, it doesn't.
You are asserting that one *can* set clear boundaries.
>
> > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > some "scientists"
> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > Why the quote marks?
> > Are you implying that biologists - you know, the people who actually
> > *study* such matters - are not real scientists?
>
> i have my reasons.
I'm perfectly aware of the fact that you have your reasons. I'd be
interested to know what *you* think those reasons are.
>
> > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > where the 'anomally' it attempts to describe is
> > > one that didn't fit the previous three or four
> > > renderings of the 'species' "concept."
> > > it's always a handy 'criteria' to be able to invent
> > > another addendum to a 'concept' that fails to
> > > properly describe reality.
> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > Actually, it's the case that the reality they describe does not fall
> > neatly into clearly bounded populations to which the label of species
> > can be attached.
>
> which seems to rule out "population" as
> a helpful criterion in assigning species,
Why?
>
> and so, when you say;
>
> ===richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> <dca5f5be-b998-439d-bf8a-8747d9366...@n1g2000prb.googlegroups.com>> So are the different species of ducks. They are defined by reference
> > to a type specimen or population. That is clear and unambiguous.
>
> ===
>
> if you find that you can show no
> "clearly bounded population,"
>
> then, to assign species according
> to population leads to an
> arbitrary assignment.
No, it doesn't.
The division between child and adult is not clearly bounded.
That doesn't mean that I can't identify someone as a child or an
adult. It means that there are cases in which there is uncertainty
over how to describe them. That does not mean that one cannot define
what one means by "child" or what one means by "adult", or that one
may use different definition depending on the context.
>
> so, you better derive a new formula
> which avoids this ambiguity.
The "ambiguity" is there because of the nature of the evidence.
> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > It's self-consistent, in the sense that "kind" can mean anything any
> > creationist wants it to mean to suit the immediate assertion they are
> > making.
>
> if you were talking about "species" i may agree with you here,
I'm not talking about "species".
There are several different but clearly defined concepts of species
used by biologists. This is no more than a simple statement of fact.
>
> but "kind" isn't used in this manner,
I suggest that if you think that this is the case, you are incapable
of reading for comprehension.
> so, it doesn't fit.
>
> i could tell you that "kind" may more closely
> resemble "genera" but would caution you against
> drawing any broad generalizaions about all of
> the generic categories =you= [in general] may have
> seen fit to dscribe starting from species,
> which remains ambiguous.
>
> just that the similarity between "kind" and "genera"
> may be closer than between "kind" and "species"
>
> that some intergeneric offspring -may- be possible
> does not suggest that all such intergeneric offspring
> -must- be possible.
>
> and so, while "kinds" may be
> more closely -related- to "genera"
>
> this does not suggest that
> "kind" -is- "genera"
>
So all you have is a load of empty waffle.
>
>
> > > > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > > > those original forms can have changed and
> > > > > altered somewhat over time since the act of
> > > > > special creation but i wouldn't be citing
> > > > > instances where one 'kind' altered slowly,
> > > > > gradually or otheriwse, into a completely
> > > > > different 'kind'
> > > > > but that some alterations from any original 'kind'
> > > > > sets is to be expected and does not present a problem.
> > > richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > > > Well, nothing seems to present any problem for the idea of "kinds"
> > > > because it is infinitely flexible according to the whims of the
> > > > creationist.
> > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > it cannot be "infinitely flexible" and suggest
> > > "clear cut boundaries"
> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > It *asserts* that there are clear-cut boundaries, yet is infinitely
> > flexible in that it has been applied to every taxonomic rank from
> > Kingdom down.
>
> it hasn't been applied in any such manner.
Yes, it has.
>
> no one even implies that bacteria
> and mice are the same kind,
No, but they have stated that "bacteria" are a 'kind'. Bacteria form a
Domain, and are vastly more diverse than all animals and plants put
together.
Some creationists, mainly because they are ignorant of science, lump
*all* monocellular organisms together as a "kind". That covers more
than one Kingdom.
Mice, by the way are a Family: the Muridae. It contains four
subfamilies, about 140 genera and about 650 species.
> or ever
> that they were the same kind.
Nice to see that the examples you produced demonstrate my point,
incidentally.
RF
Timothy Sutter
> > > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > > one problem you'll have in ascribing a species "concept"
> > > > to 'fossils' is that you can never be sure that the
> > > > specimens you develope from mixtures of mineralized
> > > > bony materials ever formulated a "breeding population."
> > richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > > So what species concept do you think we use with fossils?
> > one that does not involve the demonstration
> > of a breeding population, that is for sure.
richardal...@googlemail.com wrote:
> Well, obviously: that's information we can't get from fossils.
> So why not answer the question?
you don't -have- a consistent unambiguous concept
that you can use with fossils that would relate
them to known breeding populations for the very
simple -fact- that you cannot demonstrate the
a "breeding population" ever existed amongst
your piles of fossils that you may reconstruct
in any number of ways.
the inferences you may draw are -irrelevant-
> > > > so, you'll have to invent another species "concept"
> > > > which does not require you to be able to demonstrate
> > > > that a "breeding population" ever existed.
> > richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > > How do you suggest one *could* demonstrate that a "breeding
> > > population" existed in the past? Put two fossils on the same shelf to
> > > see if they mate?
> >
> > you cannot show me that any of your 'specimens' ever
> > formed the basis of a single breeding population, and
> > therefore, cannot be unambiguously assigned a
> > species classification according to any sort
> > of 'population' criterion.
richardal...@googlemail.com wrote:
> So what concept of species do you think we should use with fossils?
you don't -have- a consistent unambiguous concept
that you can use with fossils that would relate
them to known breeding populations for the very
simple -fact- that you cannot demonstrate the
a "breeding population" ever existed amongst
your piles of fossils that you may reconstruct
in any number of ways.
the inferences you may draw are -irrelevant-
> > richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > > Or do you think that we should abandon any specific
> > > determination in all fossil material?
> >
> > without the demonstration of a breeding population,
> > your determinations rely on subjective conjectures
> > about any actual relationships to known
> > breeding populations.
richardal...@googlemail.com wrote:
> ...which doesn't answer the question.
> What species concept do you think we *should* use with fossils?
you don't -have- a consistent unambiguous concept
that you can use with fossils that would relate
them to known breeding populations for the very
simple -fact- that you cannot demonstrate the
a "breeding population" ever existed amongst
your piles of fossils that you may reconstruct
in any number of ways.
the inferences you may draw are -irrelevant-
richardal...@googlemail.com wrote:
> I've never denied that it can be.
> That does not support your assertion, which is that biologists
> arbitrarily redefine what they mean by species on a purely subjective
> basis.
and yet;
you don't -have- a consistent unambiguous concept
that you can use with fossils that would relate
them to known breeding populations for the very
simple -fact- that you cannot demonstrate the
a "breeding population" ever existed amongst
your piles of fossils that you may reconstruct
in any number of ways.
the inferences you may draw are -irrelevant-
> > ===
> > ===richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> >
> > <9db1b4ae-60ed-4de4-94aa-54ad1c1b3...@p59g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>
> > > No, several different concepts,
> > > none of which is universally
> > > applicable.
> > ===
> > so, you claim you have problems assigning organisms
> > to particular categories and that you have several
> > species "concepts" none of which are
> > "universally applicable"
> That's the nature of nature.
> > this supports my statements.
> No, it doesn't.
> You are asserting that one *can* set clear boundaries.
one can, and these boundaries are not crossed.
> > > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > > where the 'anomally' it attempts to describe is
> > > > one that didn't fit the previous three or four
> > > > renderings of the 'species' "concept."
> > > > it's always a handy 'criteria' to be able to invent
> > > > another addendum to a 'concept' that fails to
> > > > properly describe reality.
> > richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > > Actually, it's the case that the reality they describe does not fall
> > > neatly into clearly bounded populations to which the label of species
> > > can be attached.
> > which seems to rule out "population" as
> > a helpful criterion in assigning species,
> Why?
you really need me to walk you around
by the hand and spoon feed you don't you?
> > and so, when you say;
> > ===richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > <dca5f5be-b998-439d-bf8a-8747d9366...@n1g2000prb.googlegroups.com>
> > > So are the different species of ducks. They are defined by reference
> > > to a type specimen or population. That is clear and unambiguous.
> > ===
> >
> > if you find that you can show no
> > "clearly bounded population,"
> > then, to assign species according
> > to population leads to an
> > arbitrary assignment.
> No, it doesn't.
> The division between child and adult is not clearly bounded.
this "division" is entirely irrelevant to
the "division" between various entire
creature sets.
yo say yuor categories do not fall into
neatly bounded population sets and suggest
that you can still claim population as an
unambiguous criterion for categorization
and i'm telling you that this represents
a contradiction.
either show me how this does -not-
represent a contradiction or be quiet.
> > so, you better derive a new formula
> > which avoids this ambiguity.
> The "ambiguity" is there because of the nature of the evidence.
your "evidence" is ambiguous and yet,
you try and derive an unambiguous explanation.
sure sounds like you are.
> > so, it doesn't fit.
> > i could tell you that "kind" may more closely
> > resemble "genera" but would caution you against
> > drawing any broad generalizaions about all of
> > the generic categories =you= [in general] may have
> > seen fit to dscribe starting from species,
> > which remains ambiguous.
> > just that the similarity between "kind" and "genera"
> > may be closer than between "kind" and "species"
> > that some intergeneric offspring -may- be possible
> > does not suggest that all such intergeneric offspring
> > -must- be possible.
> > and so, while "kinds" may be
> > more closely -related- to "genera"
> > this does not suggest that
> > "kind" -is- "genera"
> So all you have is a load of empty waffle.
i wouldn't say that at all.
i'd only say that =your= [in general]
categorizations of genera may not
correspond precisely to "kind"
but that the similarity of "kind"
to "genera" is claoser than any
similarity of "kind" to "species"
> > > > > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > > > > those original forms can have changed and
> > > > > > altered somewhat over time since the act of
> > > > > > special creation but i wouldn't be citing
> > > > > > instances where one 'kind' altered slowly,
> > > > > > gradually or otheriwse, into a completely
> > > > > > different 'kind'
> > > > > > but that some alterations from any original 'kind'
> > > > > > sets is to be expected and does not present a problem.
> > > > richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > > > > Well, nothing seems to present any problem for the idea of "kinds"
> > > > > because it is infinitely flexible according to the whims of the
> > > > > creationist.
> > > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > > it cannot be "infinitely flexible" and suggest
> > > > "clear cut boundaries"
> > richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > > It *asserts* that there are clear-cut boundaries, yet is infinitely
> > > flexible in that it has been applied to every taxonomic rank from
> > > Kingdom down.
> > it hasn't been applied in any such manner.
> Yes, it has.
not by me.
> > no one even implies that bacteria
> > and mice are the same kind,
> No, but they have stated that "bacteria" are a 'kind'. Bacteria form a
> Domain, and are vastly more diverse than all animals and plants put
> together.
i've never stated that bacteria was a "kind"
so, you must be speaking with someone else
in this instance.
> Mice, by the way are a Family: the Muridae. It contains four
> subfamilies, about 140 genera and about 650 species.
that there may be several "kinds"
of 'mice' i need not argue.
'mouse' is just some word used to describe
a little furry creature that may or may not
crawl around in people's houses looking
for cheese and peanut butter.
there may be other "kinds" of mice.
richardal...@googlemail.com
> > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > > > one problem you'll have in ascribing a species "concept"
> > > > > to 'fossils' is that you can never be sure that the
> > > > > specimens you develope from mixtures of mineralized
> > > > > bony materials ever formulated a "breeding population."
> > > richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > > > So what species concept do you think we use with fossils?
> > > one that does not involve the demonstration
> > > of a breeding population, that is for sure.
> > Well, obviously: that's information we can't get from fossils.
> > So why not answer the question?
>
> you don't -have- a consistent unambiguous concept
> that you can use with fossils that would relate
> them to known breeding populations for the very
> simple -fact- that you cannot demonstrate the
> a "breeding population" ever existed amongst
> your piles of fossils that you may reconstruct
> in any number of ways.
>
> the inferences you may draw are -irrelevant-
>
> > > > > so, you'll have to invent another species "concept"
> > > > > which does not require you to be able to demonstrate
> > > > > that a "breeding population" ever existed.
> > > richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > > > How do you suggest one *could* demonstrate that a "breeding
> > > > population" existed in the past? Put two fossils on the same shelf to
> > > > see if they mate?
>
> > > you cannot show me that any of your 'specimens' ever
> > > formed the basis of a single breeding population, and
> > > therefore, cannot be unambiguously assigned a
> > > species classification according to any sort
> > > of 'population' criterion.
> > So what concept of species do you think we should use with fossils?
>
> you don't -have- a consistent unambiguous concept
> that you can use with fossils
Yes, we do.
> that would relate
> them to known breeding populations
Why does it have to related to "known breeding populations",
especially when it is impossible to get such information from fossils?
> for the very
> simple -fact- that you cannot demonstrate the
> a "breeding population" ever existed amongst
> your piles of fossils that you may reconstruct
> in any number of ways.
>
So why not answer the question: what concept of species do you think
we should use with fossils?
> the inferences you may draw are -irrelevant-
So the fact that we cannot tell from fossils if they bred or not is
irrelevant and we should abandon any attempt to identify any fossils?
>
> > > richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > > > Or do you think that we should abandon any specific
> > > > determination in all fossil material?
>
> > > without the demonstration of a breeding population,
> > > your determinations rely on subjective conjectures
> > > about any actual relationships to known
> > > breeding populations.
> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > ...which doesn't answer the question.
> > What species concept do you think we *should* use with fossils?
>
> you don't -have- a consistent unambiguous concept
> that you can use with fossils that would relate
> them to known breeding populations for the very
> simple -fact- that you cannot demonstrate the
> a "breeding population" ever existed amongst
> your piles of fossils that you may reconstruct
> in any number of ways.
>
> the inferences you may draw are -irrelevant-
>
So why not answer the question: What species concept do you think we
*should* use with fossils?
>
>
> > > > Please provide a citation to support this assertion.
>
> > > ===richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > > <dca5f5be-b998-439d-bf8a-8747d9366...@n1g2000prb.googlegroups.com>
> > > > Assigning individuals to a particular
> > > > species can be more problematical.
> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > I've never denied that it can be.
> > That does not support your assertion, which is that biologists
> > arbitrarily redefine what they mean by species on a purely subjective
> > basis.
>
> and yet;
>
> you don't -have- a consistent unambiguous concept
> that you can use with fossils
Yes, we do.
> that would relate
> them to known breeding populations for the very
> simple -fact- that you cannot demonstrate the
> a "breeding population" ever existed amongst
> your piles of fossils that you may reconstruct
> in any number of ways.
>
> the inferences you may draw are -irrelevant-
So why not answer the question; What species concept do you think we
*should* use with fossils?
>
>
> > No, it doesn't.
> > You are asserting that one *can* set clear boundaries.
>
> one can, and these boundaries are not crossed.
Well, the biologist who actually *study* the subject disagree with
you, and you have not been able to offer any evidence that they are
wrong.
>
> > > > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > > > where the 'anomally' it attempts to describe is
> > > > > one that didn't fit the previous three or four
> > > > > renderings of the 'species' "concept."
> > > > > it's always a handy 'criteria' to be able to invent
> > > > > another addendum to a 'concept' that fails to
> > > > > properly describe reality.
> > > richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > > > Actually, it's the case that the reality they describe does not fall
> > > > neatly into clearly bounded populations to which the label of species
> > > > can be attached.
> > > which seems to rule out "population" as
> > > a helpful criterion in assigning species,
> > Why?
>
> you really need me to walk you around
> by the hand and spoon feed you don't you?
I suggest that the boot is rather firmly welded to the other foot.
Why does the fact that the *some* populations do not fit clearly into
a distinct cluster which we can call a separate species mean that
"population" is "ruled out" as a helpful criterion?
>
> > > and so, when you say;
> > No, it doesn't.
> > The division between child and adult is not clearly bounded.
>
> this "division" is entirely irrelevant to
> the "division" between various entire
> creature sets.
No, it isn't. It's actually a very clear illustration of the fact that
labels are useful even if the boundaries are vague.
>
> yo say yuor categories do not fall into
> neatly bounded population sets and suggest
> that you can still claim population as an
> unambiguous criterion for categorization
Where on earth have I done that?
You seem to struggle for comprehension.
> and i'm telling you that this represents
> a contradiction.
You can "tell me" that until you're blue in the face, but as I have
made no such statement it doesn't mean much.
>
> either show me how this does -not-
> represent a contradiction or be quiet.
As I have never stated or even implied that "population" is an
"unambiguous criterion for categorization" I fail to see the what I am
supposed to be "keeping quiet" about. Such a statement doesn't even
make sense. A population is data, not a criterion.
>
> > > so, you better derive a new formula
> > > which avoids this ambiguity.
> > The "ambiguity" is there because of the nature of the evidence.
>
> your "evidence" is ambiguous and yet,
> you try and derive an unambiguous explanation.
>
That's what scientists do. They look for explanations.
What they *don't* do it to ignore the evidence and pretend that it is
unambigious.
>
>
> > > > creationist wants it to mean to suit the immediate assertion they are
> > > > making.
>
> > > if you were talking about "species" i may agree with you here,
> > I'm not talking about "species".
> > There are several different but clearly defined concepts of species
> > used by biologists. This is no more than a simple statement of fact.
>
> sure sounds like you are.
That doesn't even make sense.
Not much difference from your usual posts then.
>
>
> > > so, it doesn't fit.
> > So all you have is a load of empty waffle.
>
> i wouldn't say that at all.
Well, no. But that doesn't change the fact that all you have is a load
of empty waffle.
>
> i'd only say that =your= [in general]
> categorizations of genera may not
> correspond precisely to "kind"
>
> but that the similarity of "kind"
> to "genera" is claoser than any
> similarity of "kind" to "species"
...which is simply more empty waffle.
>
> > > it hasn't been applied in any such manner.
> > Yes, it has.
>
> not by me.
So, in other words it's a purely subjective designation with no
consistent meaning whose scope can be changed to suit whichever
argument a creationist might be making.
The simple fact is that creationist *do* apply it in such a manner.
> > > no one even implies that bacteria
> > > and mice are the same kind,
> > No, but they have stated that "bacteria" are a 'kind'. Bacteria form a
> > Domain, and are vastly more diverse than all animals and plants put
> > together.
>
> i've never stated that bacteria was a "kind"
> so, you must be speaking with someone else
> in this instance.
Quote: " no one even implies that bacteria and mice are the same kind"
I presume that you were speaking of creationists in general at this
point.
What you stated is irrelevant.
>
> > Mice, by the way are a Family: the Muridae. It contains four
> > subfamilies, about 140 genera and about 650 species.
>
> that there may be several "kinds"
> of 'mice' i need not argue.
If your notion of "kinds" (which seems to be yours and yours alone,
and different from that of other creationists) is to have any
biological meaning, I suggest you need to tell us how we can recognise
their boundaries.
>
> 'mouse' is just some word used to describe
> a little furry creature that may or may not
> crawl around in people's houses looking
> for cheese and peanut butter.
>
> there may be other "kinds" of mice.
So how can I plot the boundaries - which according to you are clear-
cut - of a "kind"?
Do we simply have to take your word for it?
RF
Timothy Sutter
> > > > > > so, you'll have to invent another species "concept"
> > > > > > which does not require you to be able to demonstrate
> > > > > > that a "breeding population" ever existed.
> > > > richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > > > > How do you suggest one *could* demonstrate that a "breeding
> > > > > population" existed in the past? Put two fossils on the same shelf to
> > > > > see if they mate?
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > > you cannot show me that any of your 'specimens' ever
> > > > formed the basis of a single breeding population, and
> > > > therefore, cannot be unambiguously assigned a
> > > > species classification according to any sort
> > > > of 'population' criterion.
> > richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > > So what concept of species do you think we should use with fossils?
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > you don't -have- a consistent unambiguous concept
> > that you can use with fossils that would relate
> > them to known breeding populations
richardal...@googlemail.com wrote:
> Why does it have to related to "known breeding populations",
> especially when it is impossible to get such information
> from fossils?
halleluia, you're slowly but surely
stumbling upon the truth.
richardal...@googlemail.com
> > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > > > > > so, you'll have to invent another species "concept"
> > > > > > > which does not require you to be able to demonstrate
> > > > > > > that a "breeding population" ever existed.
> > > > > richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > > > > > How do you suggest one *could* demonstrate that a "breeding
> > > > > > population" existed in the past? Put two fossils on the same shelf to
> > > > > > see if they mate?
> > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > > > you cannot show me that any of your 'specimens' ever
> > > > > formed the basis of a single breeding population, and
> > > > > therefore, cannot be unambiguously assigned a
> > > > > species classification according to any sort
> > > > > of 'population' criterion.
> > > richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > > > So what concept of species do you think we should use with fossils?
> > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > you don't -have- a consistent unambiguous concept
> > > that you can use with fossils that would relate
> > > them to known breeding populations
> > Why does it have to related to "known breeding populations",
> > especially when it is impossible to get such information
> > from fossils?
>
> halleluia, you're slowly but surely
>
> stumbling upon the truth.
How on earth would you know?
By the way, you still haven't answered my question, which bearing in
mind that you snipped most of my post is unsurprising.
What species concept do you think we *should* use with fossils?
And it is noted that your personal, private definition of kinds seems
to rely on your unsupported assertions, and is not backed up by so
much as a shred of evidence.
RF
Timothy Sutter
> > stumbling upon the truth.
i know the truth and i can tell when
someone ios stumbling upon it,
even though, in your case, you may be resisting
it because you like your meanderings in the dark better.
richardal...@googlemail.com
So, typically, you run away from the questions rather than address any
real evidence.
Still, as I keep telling you, I post here to expose the intellectual
vacuum of creationism. Thank you for your excellent contribution to
the cause.
By the way, you still haven't answered my question, which bearing in
mind that you snipped most of my post is unsurprising. I presume that
you snipped it because you prefer to evade rather than deal with
reality.
What species concept do you think we *should* use with fossils?
RF
Timothy Sutter
it's not my problem, it's -your- problem.
Jack Dominey
wrote:
>you cannot demonstrate the
>a "breeding population" ever existed amongst
>your piles of fossils that you may reconstruct
>in any number of ways.
It would be kind of stupid to deny that a dinosaur found on top of her
nest of eggs was part of a breeding population. But that sure looks
like what you're saying.
--
Usenet: http://xkcd.com/386/
Jack Dominey
jack_dominey (at) email (dot) com
Jack Dominey
wrote:
>richardal...@googlemail.com wrote:
>> So, typically, you run away from the questions rather than address any
>> real evidence.
>
>it's not my problem, it's -your- problem.
Now tell him you're rubber and he's glue! That'll show him!
(Congratulations, Richard. You've reduced him to sputtering.)
Timothy Sutter
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
>> you cannot demonstrate the
>> a "breeding population" ever existed amongst
>> your piles of fossils that you may reconstruct
>> in any number of ways.
> It would be kind of stupid to deny that a dinosaur found on top of her
> nest of eggs was part of a breeding population.
well, in that particular case,
you find a creature, and
a brood of unhatched eggs,
which could have been a single example
and the end of itself as a line all in one,
a potentially strange interbreed that
got wiped out before it got started.
there are no grandaughters at all.
you jump to too many conclusions
with evidence you don't have.
Timothy Sutter
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
>> richardal...@googlemail.com wrote:
>>> So, typically, you run away from the questions
>>> rather than address any real evidence.
>> it's not my problem, it's -your- problem.
Jack Dominey wrote:
> Now tell him you're rubber and he's glue! That'll show him!
that's not the problem either.
you don't have evidence of species,
you have discontiguous sets of remains.
there's no evidence for me to avoid
there's a lack of evidence for
your friend to be able to produce.
richardal...@googlemail.com
Actually, as I have pointed out repeatedly, it's exactly the response
I want from you!
I come here to expose the intellectual dishonesty of creationists.
This thread has proved to be a rich source of evidence.
Thank you for your help.
RF
Timothy Sutter
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > > > > so, you'll have to invent another species "concept"
> > > > > > which does not require you to be able to demonstrate
> > > > > > that a "breeding population" ever existed.
> > > > richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > > > > How do you suggest one *could* demonstrate that a "breeding
> > > > > population" existed in the past? Put two fossils on the same shelf to
> > > > > see if they mate?
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > > you cannot show me that any of your 'specimens' ever
> > > > formed the basis of a single breeding population, and
> > > > therefore, cannot be unambiguously assigned a
> > > > species classification according to any sort
> > > > of 'population' criterion.
> > richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > > So what concept of species do you think we should use with fossils?
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > you don't -have- a consistent unambiguous concept
> > that you can use with fossils that would relate
> > them to known breeding populations
richardal...@googlemail.com wrote:
> Why does it have to related to "known breeding populations",
> especially when it is impossible to get such information
> from fossils?
you have a disparate set of remains and no species.
you infer a connection that you have no evidence to support
aside from your own wishhful thinking.
what is exposed here is conclusions
based upon pre-conceived notion
and this on your part and not on mine.
ou have no population,
so you invent the idea
based on no evidence.
not my probelm,
that's your problem.
you don't show me species,
you show me your preconceptions.
Timothy Sutter
> > > > > > so, you'll have to invent another species "concept"
> > > > > > which does not require you to be able to demonstrate
> > > > > > that a "breeding population" ever existed.
> > > > richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > > > > How do you suggest one *could* demonstrate that a "breeding
> > > > > population" existed in the past? Put two fossils on the same shelf to
> > > > > see if they mate?
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > > you cannot show me that any of your 'specimens' ever
> > > > formed the basis of a single breeding population, and
> > > > therefore, cannot be unambiguously assigned a
> > > > species classification according to any sort
> > > > of 'population' criterion.
> > richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > > So what concept of species do you think we should use with fossils?
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > you don't -have- a consistent unambiguous concept
> > that you can use with fossils that would relate
> > them to known breeding populations
richardal...@googlemail.com wrote:
> Why does it have to related to "known breeding populations",
> especially when it is impossible to get such information
> from fossils?
you have a disparate set of remains and no species.
you infer a connection that you have no evidence to support
aside from your own wishhful thinking.
what is exposed here is conclusions
based upon pre-conceived notion
and this on your part and not on mine.
ou have no population,
so you invent the idea
based on no evidence.
not my problem,
Timothy Sutter
> > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > > > > > so, you'll have to invent another species "concept"
> > > > > > > which does not require you to be able to demonstrate
> > > > > > > that a "breeding population" ever existed.
> > > > > richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > > > > > How do you suggest one *could* demonstrate that a "breeding
> > > > > > population" existed in the past? Put two fossils on the same shelf to
> > > > > > see if they mate?
> > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > > > you cannot show me that any of your 'specimens' ever
> > > > > formed the basis of a single breeding population, and
> > > > > therefore, cannot be unambiguously assigned a
> > > > > species classification according to any sort
> > > > > of 'population' criterion.
> > > richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > > > So what concept of species do you think we should use with fossils?
> > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > you don't -have- a consistent unambiguous concept
> > > that you can use with fossils that would relate
> > > them to known breeding populations
> > Why does it have to related to "known breeding populations",
> > especially when it is impossible to get such information
> > from fossils?
this from the American Geological Institute
in cooperation with The Paleontological Society;
==
http://www.agiweb.org/news/evolution/natureofspecies.html
The biological definition of a species embodies this concept:
a species is a group of naturally occurring populations that
can interbreed and produce offspring that can interbreed.
==
no species
richardal...@googlemail.com
> > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > > > > > so, you'll have to invent another species "concept"
> > > > > > > which does not require you to be able to demonstrate
> > > > > > > that a "breeding population" ever existed.
> > > > > richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > > > > > How do you suggest one *could* demonstrate that a "breeding
> > > > > > population" existed in the past? Put two fossils on the same shelf to
> > > > > > see if they mate?
> > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > > > you cannot show me that any of your 'specimens' ever
> > > > > formed the basis of a single breeding population, and
> > > > > therefore, cannot be unambiguously assigned a
> > > > > species classification according to any sort
> > > > > of 'population' criterion.
> > > richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > > > So what concept of species do you think we should use with fossils?
> > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > you don't -have- a consistent unambiguous concept
> > > that you can use with fossils that would relate
> > > them to known breeding populations
> > Why does it have to related to "known breeding populations",
> > especially when it is impossible to get such information
> > from fossils?
>
> you have a disparate set of remains and no species.
So we should abandon any idea of applying any species concept to
fossils, and just treat each individual fossil as a separate
phylogentic entity?
How would that help?
>
> you infer a connection that you have no evidence to support
What about the evidence from DNA, biogeography, morphology,
comparitive anatomy and so on? That's the evidence from which the
"connection" was inferred. Are you suggesting that it doesn't exist?
>
> aside from your own wishhful thinking.
In what way is the evidence from DNA, biogeography, morphology,
comparitive anatomy and so on wishful thinking?
>
> what is exposed here is conclusions
> based upon pre-conceived notion
...and which "preconceived notion" is that?
>
> and this on your part and not on mine.
So the assertion you keep making that there are clearly defined
boundaries to "kinds" is *not* a "preconceived notion", is it?
Bearing in mind that you produce no evidence whatsoever to support you
notion - you can't even tell us how to identify a "kind", let alone
plot the boundaries of what constitutes a "kind", I suggest that the
only person here indulging in wishful thinking is you.
>
> ou have no population,
What do you call it if we have an assemblage of fossils which share
morphological characters, which can be organised as an ontogenetic
series, and which can be distinguished from other comparable
assemblages of fossils?
It seems reasonable to call this assemblage a population.
What would you call it?
>
> so you invent the idea
>
> based on no evidence.
What about DNA, biogeography, morphology, comparitive anatomy and so
on?
> not my probelm,
>
> that's your problem.
>
> you don't show me species,
>
> you show me your preconceptions.
..which assertion, coming from someone who claims that "kinds" exist
but refuses point-blank to answer any questions about how a "kind" can
be identified or how it's supposedly clear-cut boundaries can be
plotted, is a bit rich! Some might even call it hypocritical.
But still, feel free to carry on in this vein. After all, as I keep
reminding you, I post here to expose the moral and intellectual
dishonesty of creationists. Your valuable contribution to the cause is
much appreciated.
By the way, are you secretly an "evolutionist" working to undermine
the credibility of creationism? If so, you are doing an excellent job.
RF
chris thompson
So when we see the same bones spread through rock strata that most
normal people accept span a 2-million year stretch of time, your
contention is that (a) our estimate of deposition rates is that screwy
and that 4-meter wide swath of rack was laid down in 300 years or
less, and/or (b) the radiometric dating system is that screwy and all
those hadrosaurs lived during the Presidency of Benjamin Harrison, but
no one noticed. Either way, it's an assumption with no evidence that
they reproduced, right?
Chris
richardal...@googlemail.com
> The biological definition of a species embodies this concept:
> a species is a group of naturally occurring populations that
> can interbreed and produce offspring that can interbreed.
> ==
>
> no species
Why not read the rest of the page?
Mind you, bearing in mind that it's targeted at an audience of
intelligent 10 year olds, it may be stretching your intellectual
capacity somewhat.
RF
Timothy Sutter
> The biological definition of a species embodies this concept:
> a species is a group of naturally occurring populations that
> can interbreed and produce offspring that can interbreed.
> ==
>
> no species
and if you could show me quite easily
that you could look at a disparate
set of remains of -known- mice,
and have difficulty telling whether they were
of the same -family- much less genera or species,
to suggest that you can look over a disparate
set of remains for which you have no conclusive
population or any of the criterion you may
use on living interbreeding species,
and claim "species" is just a large set of
preconceptions all piled up into an imaginary
conclusion jump.
as i said,
there is no evidence to avoid.
Timothy Sutter
if they can't understand, maybe you can't understand.
and if you could show me quite easily
that you could look at a disparate
set of remains of -known- mice,
and have difficulty telling whether they were
of the same -family- much less genera or species,
to suggest that you can look over a disparate
set of remains for which you have no conclusive
population or any of the criterion you may
use on living interbreeding species,
and claim "species" is just a large set of
preconceptions all piled up into an imaginary
conclusion jump.
as i said,
there is no evidence to avoid.
Timothy Sutter
and if you could show me quite easily
that you could look at a disparate
set of remains of -known- mice,
and have difficulty telling whether they were
of the same -family- much less genera or species,
to suggest that you can look over a disparate
set of remains for which you have no conclusive
population or any of the criterion you may
use on living interbreeding species,
and claim "species" is just a large set of
preconceptions all piled up into an imaginary
conclusion jump.
as i said,
there is no evidence to avoid.
> How would that help?
you have no species, you have preconptions
> > you infer a connection that you have no evidence to support
> What about the evidence from DNA, biogeography, morphology,
> comparitive anatomy and so on? That's the evidence from which the
> "connection" was inferred. Are you suggesting that it doesn't exist?
this isn't enough to deduce species in -living- populations.
> > aside from your own wishhful thinking.
> In what way is the evidence from DNA, biogeography, morphology,
> comparitive anatomy and so on wishful thinking?
you haven;'t shown that these creatures
just fell over dead one day in their native habitats
and not dropped in place through some
sort of natural catastrophe.
morphlogy and anatomy collapse into the same sort of analyses
and wouldn't work in assigning species to know living populations.
and dna evidnce, if any, is sparse.
> > what is exposed here is conclusions
> > based upon pre-conceived notion
> ...and which "preconceived notion" is that?
teh preconception that certain
similarities alone constitute species.
> > and this on your part and not on mine.
> So the assertion you keep making that there are clearly defined
> boundaries to "kinds" is *not* a "preconceived notion", is it?
no because we do -not- see 'breeding populations'
across certain known boundaries.
> Bearing in mind that you produce no evidence whatsoever to support you
> notion - you can't even tell us how to identify a "kind", let alone
> plot the boundaries of what constitutes a "kind", I suggest that the
> only person here indulging in wishful thinking is you.
and yet, we don't see all species producing
offspring with all other species.
we see clearly and distinctly outlined populations.
> > ou have no population,
> What do you call it if we have an assemblage of fossils which share
> morphological characters, which can be organised as an ontogenetic
> series, and which can be distinguished from other comparable
> assemblages of fossils?
> It seems reasonable to call this assemblage a population.
> What would you call it?
a discontiguous set which is not
related to known breeding populations.
if you had a set of rat remains,
you may have difficulty assigning species
even if you knew where they all came from.
> > not my probelm,
>
> > that's your problem.
>
> > you don't show me species,
>
> > you show me your preconceptions.
> ..which assertion, coming from someone who claims that "kinds" exist
delineations among known breeding
populations are seen.
we don't see just each and every species
forming one large breeding population.
Timothy Sutter
wrote:
> On Oct 10, 4:52 am, Timothy Sutter <a202...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Jack Dominey wrote:
> > > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > >> you cannot demonstrate the
> > >> a "breeding population" ever existed amongst
> > >> your piles of fossils that you may reconstruct
> > >> in any number of ways.
> > > It would be kind of stupid to deny that a dinosaur found on top of her
> > > nest of eggs was part of a breeding population.
>
> > well, in that particular case,
>
> > you find a creature, and
> > a brood of unhatched eggs,
>
> > which could have been a single example
> > and the end of itself as a line all in one,
>
> > a potentially strange interbreed that
> > got wiped out before it got started.
>
> > there are no grandaughters at all.
>
> > you jump to too many conclusions
> > with evidence you don't have.
>
> So when we see the same bones spread through rock strata that most
> normal people accept span a 2-million year stretch of time,
they aren't inside the rock
they are between layers of igneous intrusions
and the layers between such
intrusions form a mobile phase.
Timothy Sutter
if they can't understand, maybe you can't understand.
and if you could show me quite easily
that you could look at a disparate
set of remains of -known- mice,
and have difficulty telling whether they were
of the same -family- much less genera or species,
to suggest that you can look over a disparate
set of remains for which you have no conclusive
population or any of the criterion you may
use on living interbreeding species,
and claim "species" is just a large set of
preconceptions all piled up into an imaginary
conclusion jump.
as i said,
there is no evidence to avoid.
Timothy Sutter
speaking of kids,
you can't send a high school kid into the lab
and have that kid reproduce any results at all
concerning your propositions.
it's just some sort of dogma
handed to them on a plastic dish.
Timothy Sutter
> What do you call it if we have an assemblage of fossils which share
> morphological characters, which can be organised as an ontogenetic
> series, and which can be distinguished from other comparable
> assemblages of fossils?
what would you call this;
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa004&articleID=0005C9B3-03AE-12D8-BDFD83414B7F0000
FANCY FOOTWORK: Australopithecus afarensis was thought to
have made the 3.6-million-year-old Laetoli footprints.
But its foot may have been too flat to have permitted
the striding gait evident in the trackway.
It is one of the most evocative traces of humanity's
ancestors ever found, a trail of footprints pressed
into new fallen volcanic ash some 3.6 million years ago in what is now
Laetoli, Tanzania. Discovered in 1978 by a team headed by Mary Leakey,
the Laetoli footprints led to the stunning revelation that humans
walked upright well before they made stone tools or evolved large
brains. They also engendered controversy: scientists have debated
everything from how many individuals made the prints to how best to
protect them for posterity. Experts have generally come to agree,
however, that the tracks probably belong to members of the species
Australopithecus afarensis, the hominid most famously represented by
the Lucy fossil. Now new research is calling even that conclusion into
question.
The case for A. afarensis as the Laetoli trailblazer hinges on the
fact that fossils of the species are known from the site and that the
only available reconstruction of what this hominid's foot looked like
is compatible with the morphology evident in the footprints. But in a
presentation given at the American Association of Physical
Anthropologists meeting in April, William E. H. Harcourt-Smith of the
American Museum of Natural History and Charles E. Hilton of Western
Michigan University took issue with the latter assertion.
The prints show that whoever made them had a humanlike foot arch,
and the reconstructed A. afarensis foot exhibits just such an arch.
So far, so good. The problem, Harcourt-Smith and Hilton say, is that
the reconstruction is actually based on a patchwork of bones from
3.2-million-year-old afarensis and 1.8-million-year-old Homo habilis.
And one of the bones used to determine whether the foot was in
fact arched--the so-called navicular--is from H. habilis,
not A. afarensis.
To get a toehold on the Laetoli problem, the researchers first
compared the gaits of modern humans walking on sand with two sets
of the fossil tracks. This analysis confirmed that the ancient
footprints were left by individuals who had a striding bipedal
gait very much like that of people today. The team then scrutinized
naviculars of A. afarensis, H. habilis, chimpanzees and gorillas.
The dimensions of the H. habilis navicular fell within the modern
human range. In contrast, the A. afarensis bone resembled that of
the flat-footed apes, making it improbable that its foot had an arch
like our own. As such, the researchers report, A. afarensis almost
certainly did not walk like us or, by extension,
like the hominids at Laetoli.
But according to bipedalism expert C. Owen Lovejoy of Kent State
University,
other features of the australopithecine foot, such as a big toe that
lines
up with, rather than opposes, the other toes, indicate that it did
have an arch.
Even if it did not, Lovejoy contends, that would not mean A. afarensis
was
incapable of humanlike walking. "Lots of modern humans are flat-
footed,"
he observes. "They are more prone to injury, because they lack the
energy-absorptive capacities of the arch, but they walk in
a perfectly normal way."
For their part, Harcourt-Smith and Hilton note that a new
reconstruction
of the A. afarensis foot built exclusively from A. afarensis remains
is needed to confirm these preliminary findings. As for identifying
the real culprit, if A. afarensis did not make the prints, that would
put the poorly known A. anamensis in the running. But just as likely,
speculates Harcourt-Smith, an as yet undiscovered species left the
prints.
That is to say, consider the world's oldest whodunit an unsolved
mystery.
Timothy Sutter
> What do you call it if we have an assemblage of fossils which share
> morphological characters, which can be organised as an ontogenetic
> series, and which can be distinguished from other comparable
> assemblages of fossils?
what would you call this;
Timothy Sutter
> What do you call it if we have an assemblage of fossils which share
> morphological characters, which can be organised as an ontogenetic
> series, and which can be distinguished from other comparable
> assemblages of fossils?
>
> It seems reasonable to call this assemblage a population.
>
> What would you call it?
and what about this;
==
http://www.paleodirect.com/fakechinesefossils1.htm
Each year, thousands of trusting buyers are duped by
both inexpensive and very expensive, highly realistic fakes.
More troubling, even scientists have fallen prey to the
extraordinary craftsmanship of the Chinese fake fossil artists.
In 1999, highly recognized scientists along with National Geographic
magazine presented an amazing new discovery of a feathered
dinosaur discovered in the Liaoning Province of China.
The bird with a dinosaur's tail was named ARCHAEORAPTOR.
A year later, it was found to be a clever fake.
==
==
http://www.paleodirect.com/fakepterosaurbirdfossils.htm
As mentioned on the previous page, a February 2000 issue
of "New Scientist" featured an article focused on Chinese
fossil fakery (New Scientist, "F is for fake," 19 February 2000).
The underlying message is that the sophistication of the
fakery being done by the Chinese is good enough to fool
scientific professionals. Dr. Luis Chiappe of the
Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County recalls
one specimen that aroused his suspicions. "I wasn't
sure what was wrong with it but measurements showed
that one leg was longer than the other." Only when
he started preparing it did he find there was mortar
that had glued two slabs together. "On the surface you
really couldn't see that," says Chiappe.
Internationally famous paleontologist Dr. Larry Martin
of the University of Kansas offers the most sobering
warning to all fossil collectors and prospective buyers
of Chinese fossils. Dr. Martin stated "at the moment,
I don't trust any of these specimens until I see the X rays".
===
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Oct 10, 4:41 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 10, 11:00 am, Timothy Sutter <a202...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > you have a disparate set of remains and no species.
> > So we should abandon any idea of applying any species concept to
> > fossils, and just treat each individual fossil as a separate
> > phylogentic entity?
>
> and if you could show me quite easily
>
> that you could look at a disparate
> set of remains of -known- mice,
>
> and have difficulty telling whether they were
> of the same -family- much less genera or species,
>
> to suggest that you can look over a disparate
> set of remains for which you have no conclusive
> population or any of the criterion you may
> use on living interbreeding species,
>
> and claim "species" is just a large set of
> preconceptions all piled up into an imaginary
> conclusion jump.
>
> as i said,
>
> there is no evidence to avoid.
..which is simply evading the question, of course quite apart from the
fact that your statement is false.
There *is* evidence: it's in the form of individual fossils and fossil
assemblages.
So should we abandon any idea of applying any species concept to
fossils, and just treat each individual fossil as a separate
phylogentic entity?
>
> > How would that help?
>
> you have no species, you have preconptions
So, to repeat the question, should we abandon any idea of applying any
species concept to fossils, and just treat each individual fossil as
a separate phylogentic entity?
>
> > > you infer a connection that you have no evidence to support
> > What about the evidence from DNA, biogeography, morphology,
> > comparitive anatomy and so on? That's the evidence from which the
> > "connection" was inferred. Are you suggesting that it doesn't exist?
>
> this isn't enough to deduce species in -living- populations.
Well, the biologists who have actually *studied* such things think
that there is.
What do you know that they don't?
>
> > > aside from your own wishhful thinking.
> > In what way is the evidence from DNA, biogeography, morphology,
> > comparitive anatomy and so on wishful thinking?
>
> you haven;'t shown that these creatures
> just fell over dead one day in their native habitats
>
> and not dropped in place through some
> sort of natural catastrophe.
Excuse me? Of course we can show that! It's a branch of geological
science called taphonomy. What on earth has this to do with their
taxonomy?
>
> morphlogy and anatomy collapse into the same sort of analyses
Not necessarily. There is a difference.
>
> and wouldn't work in assigning species to know living populations.
It served biologists perfectly well for centuries. Their results may
not always have been the same as those reached by modern techniques,
but to claim that such techniques "wouldn't work" is simply silly.
>
> and dna evidnce, if any, is sparse.
>
Your point?
> > > what is exposed here is conclusions
> > > based upon pre-conceived notion
> > ...and which "preconceived notion" is that?
>
> teh preconception that certain
> similarities alone constitute species.
>
So should we abandon any idea of applying any species concept to
fossils, and just treat each individual fossil as a separate
phylogentic entity?
> > > and this on your part and not on mine.
> > So the assertion you keep making that there are clearly defined
> > boundaries to "kinds" is *not* a "preconceived notion", is it?
>
> no because we do -not- see 'breeding populations'
> across certain known boundaries.
And which boundaries are those, and how do we determine where those
boundaries lie?
You claim that there are "known boundaries".
What prevents you from supporting your assertion?
>
> > Bearing in mind that you produce no evidence whatsoever to support you
> > notion - you can't even tell us how to identify a "kind", let alone
> > plot the boundaries of what constitutes a "kind", I suggest that the
> > only person here indulging in wishful thinking is you.
>
> and yet, we don't see all species producing
> offspring with all other species.
Quite so. Why on earth should we expect that?
> we see clearly and distinctly outlined populations.
What about hybridisation? Ring species?
>
> > > ou have no population,
> > What do you call it if we have an assemblage of fossils which share
> > morphological characters, which can be organised as an ontogenetic
> > series, and which can be distinguished from other comparable
> > assemblages of fossils?
> > It seems reasonable to call this assemblage a population.
> > What would you call it?
>
> a discontiguous set which is not
> related to known breeding populations.
Well bully for you. Biologists and palaeontologists will just carry on
calling them "populations". It's rather less of a mouthful.
>
> if you had a set of rat remains,
>
> you may have difficulty assigning species
> even if you knew where they all came from.
>
Your point?
> > > not my probelm,
>
> > > that's your problem.
>
> > > you don't show me species,
>
> > > you show me your preconceptions.
> > ..which assertion, coming from someone who claims that "kinds" exist
>
> delineations among known breeding
> populations are seen.
What about hybrids? Ring species?
>
> we don't see just each and every species
> forming one large breeding population.
Of course we don't. If we did there could never be any cladogenesis.
I keep on hammering this point, but does it never occur to you that if
you took the time to educate yourself in the subject you would not end
up looking so foolish?
RF
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Oct 10, 4:41 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > What do you call it if we have an assemblage of fossils which share
> > morphological characters, which can be organised as an ontogenetic
> > series, and which can be distinguished from other comparable
> > assemblages of fossils?
>
> > It seems reasonable to call this assemblage a population.
>
> > What would you call it?
>
> and what about this;
Evasion noted.
>
> ==http://www.paleodirect.com/fakechinesefossils1.htm
>
> Each year, thousands of trusting buyers are duped by
> both inexpensive and very expensive, highly realistic fakes.
> More troubling, even scientists have fallen prey to the
> extraordinary craftsmanship of the Chinese fake fossil artists.
> In 1999, highly recognized scientists along with National Geographic
> magazine presented an amazing new discovery of a feathered
> dinosaur discovered in the Liaoning Province of China.
> The bird with a dinosaur's tail was named ARCHAEORAPTOR.
> A year later, it was found to be a clever fake.
> ==
I would call it a case in which a popular magazine rushed an
apparently sensational find to press before it had been properly
investigated by palaeontologists. When it was investigated it was
found to be a chimera - a composite of two different fossils assembled
by an unknown middleman because complete fossils fetch higher prices
than incomplete fossils.
What do you call it?
>
> ==http://www.paleodirect.com/fakepterosaurbirdfossils.htm
>
> As mentioned on the previous page, a February 2000 issue
> of "New Scientist" featured an article focused on Chinese
> fossil fakery (New Scientist, "F is for fake," 19 February 2000).
> The underlying message is that the sophistication of the
> fakery being done by the Chinese is good enough to fool
> scientific professionals. Dr. Luis Chiappe of the
> Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County recalls
> one specimen that aroused his suspicions. "I wasn't
> sure what was wrong with it but measurements showed
> that one leg was longer than the other." Only when
> he started preparing it did he find there was mortar
> that had glued two slabs together. "On the surface you
> really couldn't see that," says Chiappe.
> Internationally famous paleontologist Dr. Larry Martin
> of the University of Kansas offers the most sobering
> warning to all fossil collectors and prospective buyers
> of Chinese fossils. Dr. Martin stated "at the moment,
> I don't trust any of these specimens until I see the X rays".
> ===
So scientists are cautious about the provenance of these fossils
because they know that there are chimeras and fakes around.
Your point?
RF
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Oct 10, 4:41 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > What do you call it if we have an assemblage of fossils which share
> > morphological characters, which can be organised as an ontogenetic
> > series, and which can be distinguished from other comparable
> > assemblages of fossils?
>
> what would you call this;
Evasion noted.
I'd call it scientists arguing over the interpretation of the
evidence, and carrying out research to resolve the issues.
That's what scientists do.
>
> http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa004&articleID=0005C9B3-03AE...
Your point?
RF
richardal...@googlemail.com
>
> >> > > this from the American Geological Institute
> >> > > in cooperation with The Paleontological Society;
> >> > > ==http://www.agiweb.org/news/evolution/natureofspecies.html
> >> > > The biological definition of a species embodies this concept:
> >> > > a species is a group of naturally occurring populations that
> >> > > can interbreed and produce offspring that can interbreed.
> >> > > ==
>
> >> > > no species
>
> > > Why not read the rest of the page?
> > > Mind you, bearing in mind that it's targeted at an audience of
> > > intelligent 10 year olds, it may be stretching your intellectual
> > > capacity somewhat.
>
> if they can't understand, maybe you can't understand.
I think that any intelligent 10 year old could understand perfectly
well that because we can't tell from fossils if individuals were able
to interbreed, we need to use morphological characteristics to define
fossil species.
Or are you saying we should not use any species concept in
palaeontology?
>
> and if you could show me quite easily
>
> that you could look at a disparate
> set of remains of -known- mice,
>
> and have difficulty telling whether they were
> of the same -family- much less genera or species,
>
> to suggest that you can look over a disparate
> set of remains for which you have no conclusive
> population or any of the criterion you may
> use on living interbreeding species,
>
> and claim "species" is just a large set of
> preconceptions all piled up into an imaginary
> conclusion jump.
>
> as i said,
>
> there is no evidence to avoid.
If you close your eyes, put your fingers in your ears and hum loudly
there ain't.
In the real world there's loads of evidence.
Scientists try to interpret that evidence.
>
RF
Timothy Sutter
you have nothing to tie it/them to
any other breeding population,
aside from an insistence that
such a connection must exist.
>>> How would that help?
>> you have no species, you have preconptions
> So, to repeat the question, should we abandon any idea of applying any
> species concept to fossils, and just treat each individual fossil as
> a separate phylogentic entity?
you have nothing to tie it/them to.
you can't establish any sort of
unbroken line of breeding populations.
>>>> you infer a connection that you have no evidence to support
>>> What about the evidence from DNA, biogeography, morphology,
>>> comparitive anatomy and so on? That's the evidence from which the
>>> "connection" was inferred. Are you suggesting that it doesn't exist?
>> this isn't enough to deduce species in -living- populations.
> Well, the biologists who have actually *studied* such things think
> that there is.
> What do you know that they don't?
you have nothing to tie those fossils
in some sort of unbroken lineage
to living creatures.
any connections you make are purely conjectural.
>>>> aside from your own wishhful thinking.
>>> In what way is the evidence from DNA, biogeography, morphology,
>>> comparitive anatomy and so on wishful thinking?
>> you haven;'t shown that these creatures
>> just fell over dead one day in their native habitats
>>
>> and not dropped in place through some
>> sort of natural catastrophe.
> Excuse me? Of course we can show that! It's a branch of geological
> science called taphonomy. What on earth has this to do with their
> taxonomy?
you like to allude to things
that you have not shown.
>> morphlogy and anatomy collapse into the same sort of analyses
> Not necessarily. There is a difference.
a mouse is a mouse is not a mouse.
>> and wouldn't work in assigning species to know living populations.
> It served biologists perfectly well for centuries. Their results may
> not always have been the same as those reached by modern techniques,
> but to claim that such techniques "wouldn't work" is simply silly.
not so, especially inasmuch as we can see
definite problems in areas where incorrect
assignments were made in your lore.
>> and dna evidnce, if any, is sparse.
> Your point?
yuh ain't got it,
and i mean, a clear lineage of species
from fossil to living creatures of today.
you simply assume it into reality.
ain't 'science'
it's artwork.
now, i like artwork,
artwork is nice,
don't get me wrong,
but,
what you got is a "kostabi original"
i dont' mean to namedrop or anything,
so, for "kostabi" no offense,
it's just that a "kostibi original"
is a work -not- by kostabi.
if it's done by kostabi, it ain't a kostabi original.
and your artwork, -ain't-
the natural process at work,
it's the hand of man at work.
>>>> what is exposed here is conclusions
>>>> based upon pre-conceived notion
>>> ...and which "preconceived notion" is that?
>> teh preconception that certain
>> similarities alone constitute species.
> So should we abandon any idea of applying any species concept to
> fossils, and just treat each individual fossil as a separate
> phylogentic entity?
yo ucan do as yo like and see fit,
but in your aartwork, i dont' see a
clear lineage from "fossil" to living creature,
i see discontiguous remains that do
not formulate the basis for gradualism.
much less total common descent
and that with "modification"
teh only "modifications" i see
is in your presentation of
a kostabi original
as a work of nature.
and once again, no offense intended to kostabi.
>>>> and this on your part and not on mine.
>>> So the assertion you keep making that there are clearly defined
>>> boundaries to "kinds" is *not* a "preconceived notion", is it?
>> no because we do -not- see 'breeding populations'
>> across certain known boundaries.
> And which boundaries are those, and how do we determine where those
> boundaries lie?
> You claim that there are "known boundaries".
> What prevents you from supporting your assertion?
well right off, dogs and cats do not breed
nor can they produce an offspring
or a form a breeding population
and, in order for you to suggest
that such a line does exist
that ties together dogs and cats into a single species,
you must lay out a conjetctural artwork
that is not based on any continuous
line of breeding populations.
none that you can ever show.
>>> Bearing in mind that you produce no evidence whatsoever to support you
>>> notion - you can't even tell us how to identify a "kind", let alone
>>> plot the boundaries of what constitutes a "kind", I suggest that the
>>> only person here indulging in wishful thinking is you.
>> and yet, we don't see all species producing
>> offspring with all other species.
> Quite so. Why on earth should we expect that?
it's a gross point,
maybe you'll be able to connect the dots.
>> we see clearly and distinctly outlined populations.
> What about hybridisation? Ring species?
like i'v ealready mentioned several times,
your "species" classifications"
don't line up by kind,
and can be construed to present
an ambiguous nature of the
"species concept" itself.
>>>> ou have no population,
>>> What do you call it if we have an assemblage of fossils which share
>>> morphological characters, which can be organised as an ontogenetic
>>> series, and which can be distinguished from other comparable
>>> assemblages of fossils?
>>> It seems reasonable to call this assemblage a population.
>>> What would you call it?
>> a discontiguous set which is not
>> related to known breeding populations.
> Well bully for you. Biologists and palaeontologists will just carry on
> calling them "populations". It's rather less of a mouthful.
and yet, you cannot tie any of these assortments
to any living breeding populations by any means
much less fancy artwork.
>> if you had a set of rat remains,
>> you may have difficulty assigning species
>> even if you knew where they all came from.
> Your point?
that pawing of remains and assigning species
is rather subjective and conjectural
and wouldn't even work very well for known
species of mice that resemble each other in many ways
but aren't even in the same family much less species.
>>>> not my probelm,
>>>> that's your problem.
>>>> you don't show me species,
>>>> you show me your preconceptions.
>>> ..which assertion, coming from someone who claims that "kinds" exist
>> delineations among known breeding
>> populations are seen.
> What about hybrids? Ring species?
see above.
>> we don't see just each and every species
>> forming one large breeding population.
> Of course we don't. If we did there could never be any cladogenesis.
what i suggest you think about
for half a moment, if you can,
is the concept of an infinite series.
see, for some things, like in
quantum mechaniscal calculations,
you can't get all teh coeficients of an infinite series,
so, you "chop it off" or 'truncate'
theseries after the first few terms
and this you can do, because the first
few terms encompasses about upwards of
99 % of the information,
and the terms rapidly drop off to miniscule thereupon.
in the same way,
if we look at some species dynamics as if
they represent polynomials of an infinite series,
then, you may expect a certain amount of overlap,
-even- in species that are not contiguous
simply because there is some probability
of finding information about them, off into
'infinity' as it were,
and so, for each of those, you truncate
their series at a reasonable level,
still get all teh information that is
possible, and preserve the integrity
of the assortment.
and then you can draw a
shape of their "orbitals"
even though these orbits may appear
to butt up against those of other kinds,
knowing that this is just an artifact
of the condensed nature of organisms,
inasmuch as if each kind were
considered separetly, and had
a planet all their own,
you may still get an appearance that their
molecular structures diverged to infinity,
albeit, only in very small part, and the
probability of structures way off in the
distance from "origin" is miniscyule,
but still 'possible'
and then when you try looking at
several kinds all simultaneously,
you get the perturbations of the
many bodied problems coming into play,
and you cannt solve it exactly
etc.
etc.
ect.
Timothy Sutter
richardal...@googlemail.com wrote:
> On Oct 10, 11:45 am, Timothy Sutter <a202...@lycos.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 10, 4:41 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>>
>>> What do you call it if we have an assemblage of fossils which share
>>> morphological characters, which can be organised as an ontogenetic
>>> series, and which can be distinguished from other comparable
>>> assemblages of fossils?
>> what would you call this;
>
> Evasion noted.
same as abovem this is a side note
and i answered that bit in teh first post.
> I'd call it scientists arguing over the interpretation of the
> evidence, and carrying out research to resolve the issues.
> That's what scientists do.
no no no, it is -not- evidnec,
it is 'scientists' taking remains
from two entirely diferent "finds"
in order to construct a thing -based- -on-
their preconceived notions of how the
thing should appear.
and -that- is dishonest.
>> http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa004&articleID=0005C9B3-03AE...
>> That is to say, consider the world's oldest whodunit an unsolved
>> mystery.
> Your point?
something ain't kosher here.
Timothy Sutter
richardal...@googlemail.com wrote:
> On Oct 10, 11:51 am, Timothy Sutter <a202...@lycos.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 10, 4:41 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>>
>>> What do you call it if we have an assemblage of fossils which share
>>> morphological characters, which can be organised as an ontogenetic
>>> series, and which can be distinguished from other comparable
>>> assemblages of fossils?
>>> It seems reasonable to call this assemblage a population.
>>> What would you call it?
>> and what about this;
>
> Evasion noted.
there's no evasion, i repi\lied to that bit in teh firts post,
this is a "sidebar" statement.
>> ==http://www.paleodirect.com/fakechinesefossils1.htm
>> ==
> I would call it a case in which a popular magazine rushed an
> apparently sensational find to press before it had been properly
> investigated by palaeontologists. When it was investigated it was
> found to be a chimera - a composite of two different fossils assembled
> by an unknown middleman because complete fossils fetch higher prices
> than incomplete fossils.
it is possible that in a rush to publish
in some obscure paleontological journal
on which such a spotlight does not
glare so brightly
that one may sneak in "evidences" that
-they- created in a workshop somewere,
and the "peers" either didn't catch it
or simply peered their own pet work into the mix
because there is no one else to look over
their shoulders and dollars or pounds for
such work is not as handy as a tree with
money hanging on it.
an dwe -do- see this same sort of shananigans
going on in your highbrow colections of peers.
as noted in the next post.
it's more convenient when you spin off an
entire subdiscipline which is not overlooked
by anyone else except thepeople trying to
foist off incredible finds to keep their
grant money coming in.
an dso, i reamin dubious.
and i have every reason for remaining so.
> What do you call it?
a bad precedent.
>> ==http://www.paleodirect.com/fakepterosaurbirdfossils.htm
>> ===
> So scientists are cautious about the provenance of these fossils
> because they know that there are chimeras and fakes around.
not cautious enough.
> Your point?
one wonders how much preconception is driving
the artistic arrangements of purported
skeletal remains.
Timothy Sutter
richardal...@googlemail.com wrote:
> On Oct 10, 11:22 am, Timothy Sutter <a202...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>> this from the American Geological Institute
>>>>>> in cooperation with The Paleontological Society;
>>>>>> ==http://www.agiweb.org/news/evolution/natureofspecies.html
>>>>>> The biological definition of a species embodies this concept:
>>>>>> a species is a group of naturally occurring populations that
>>>>>> can interbreed and produce offspring that can interbreed.
>>>>>> ==
>>>>>> no species
>>>> Why not read the rest of the page?
>>>> Mind you, bearing in mind that it's targeted at an audience of
>>>> intelligent 10 year olds, it may be stretching your intellectual
>>>> capacity somewhat.
>> if they can't understand, maybe you can't understand.
> I think that any intelligent 10 year old could understand perfectly
> well that because we can't tell from fossils if individuals were able
> to interbreed, we need to use morphological characteristics to define
> fossil species.
oh, no you can't, because =you= could show me right now
a gathering of remaions culled from
species that aren't even in teh same genera
that have morphological charcateristics
that are not uniquely independant.
> Or are you saying we should not use any species concept in
> palaeontology?
you can use any concept yo ulike,
but in trying to tie those artuifacts to a
even another artifact population without
ever demonstrating a breeding population,
much less a lineage of breeding populations
that you would contend trace -to- living creatures,
is wholly unwarranted.
richardal...@googlemail.com
> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > On Oct 10, 11:51 am, Timothy Sutter <a202...@lycos.com> wrote:
> >> On Oct 10, 4:41 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> >>> What do you call it if we have an assemblage of fossils which share
> >>> morphological characters, which can be organised as an ontogenetic
> >>> series, and which can be distinguished from other comparable
> >>> assemblages of fossils?
> >>> It seems reasonable to call this assemblage a population.
> >>> What would you call it?
> >> and what about this;
>
> > Evasion noted.
>
> there's no evasion, i repi\lied to that bit in teh firts post,
>
> this is a "sidebar" statement.
>
> >> ==http://www.paleodirect.com/fakechinesefossils1.htm
> >> ==
> > I would call it a case in which a popular magazine rushed an
> > apparently sensational find to press before it had been properly
> > investigated by palaeontologists. When it was investigated it was
> > found to be a chimera - a composite of two different fossils assembled
> > by an unknown middleman because complete fossils fetch higher prices
> > than incomplete fossils.
>
> it is possible that in a rush to publish
> in some obscure paleontological journal
"National Geographic" is not an obscure palaeontological journal. It's
a popular magazine. It's articles are not subject to peer-review.
> on which such a spotlight does not
> glare so brightly
>
> that one may sneak in "evidences" that
> -they- created in a workshop somewere,
So do you think that the palaenotologists involved pushed National
Geographic into publishing the specimen knowing that it's a chimera?
>
> and the "peers" either didn't catch it
> or simply peered their own pet work into the mix
National Geographic is not a peer-reviewed journal.
>
> because there is no one else to look over
> their shoulders and dollars or pounds for
> such work is not as handy as a tree with
> money hanging on it.
So you are now accusing the palaeontologists involved in publishing
this specimen knowing that it was a chimera for financial gain?
That's a pretty strong accusation. I suggest that you either produce
evidence to support it, or apologise.
>
> an dwe -do- see this same sort of shananigans
> going on in your highbrow colections of peers.
>
National Geographic is not a peer-reviewed journal.
> as noted in the next post.
>
> it's more convenient when you spin off an
> entire subdiscipline which is not overlooked
> by anyone else except thepeople trying to
> foist off incredible finds to keep their
> grant money coming in.
Why do you think that making stuff up about people you don't know
shows you as being anything that utterly dishonest?
>
> an dso, i reamin dubious.
>
> and i have every reason for remaining so.
>
> > What do you call it?
>
> a bad precedent.
>
Are you referring to the fact that the chimera was discovered as soon
as it was examined closely by palaeontologists?
If all those palaeontologists are busily faking specimens so that the
grant money continues to come in, why do you think that
palaeontologists announced that it was a chimera as soon as they
examined it closely?
The fraud was perpetuated on National Geographic magazine by an
unknown Chinese middleman. It was carried out for pecuniary reason. No
palaeontologist benefited from the deception.
> >> ==http://www.paleodirect.com/fakepterosaurbirdfossils.htm
> >> ===
> > So scientists are cautious about the provenance of these fossils
> > because they know that there are chimeras and fakes around.
>
> not cautious enough.
You have no idea how cautious palaeontologists are.
>
> > Your point?
>
> one wonders how much preconception is driving
> the artistic arrangements of purported
> skeletal remains.
Wonder away.
On the other hand, you might make the effort to educate yourself in
the subject, but as learning anything about the real world threatens
your convictions I doubt that you'll make the effort.
Why is it that creationists think that the Biblical injunction against
bearing false witness doesn't apply to them?
RF
richardal...@googlemail.com
> > On Oct 10, 11:22 am, Timothy Sutter <a202...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> this from the American Geological Institute
> >>>>>> in cooperation with The Paleontological Society;
> >>>>>> ==http://www.agiweb.org/news/evolution/natureofspecies.html
> >>>>>> The biological definition of a species embodies this concept:
> >>>>>> a species is a group of naturally occurring populations that
> >>>>>> can interbreed and produce offspring that can interbreed.
> >>>>>> ==
> >>>>>> no species
> >>>> Why not read the rest of the page?
> >>>> Mind you, bearing in mind that it's targeted at an audience of
> >>>> intelligent 10 year olds, it may be stretching your intellectual
> >>>> capacity somewhat.
> >> if they can't understand, maybe you can't understand.
> > I think that any intelligent 10 year old could understand perfectly
> > well that because we can't tell from fossils if individuals were able
> > to interbreed, we need to use morphological characteristics to define
> > fossil species.
>
> oh, no you can't, because =you= could show me right now
I can post links to hundreds of thousands of scientific papers which
set up species on the basis of morphological and anatomical
characters. That's the only way we could do it before genetic data
became accessible and widely available.
>
> a gathering of remaions culled from
> species that aren't even in teh same genera
>
> that have morphological charcateristics
> that are not uniquely independant.
So are you suggesting that we treat each individual fossil we find as
a separate taxonomic unit?
Or do you think that we should stop collecting and studying fossils
completely?
>
> > Or are you saying we should not use any species concept in
> > palaeontology?
>
> you can use any concept yo ulike,
>
> but in trying to tie those artuifacts to a
No, they are not artifacts. They are fossils.
>
> even another artifact population without
> ever demonstrating a breeding population,
>
> much less a lineage of breeding populations
> that you would contend trace -to- living creatures,
>
> is wholly unwarranted.
In what way is it unwarranted to form conclusions from morphological,
anatomical and biogeographical evidence?
RF
Max
> > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > > > one problem you'll have in ascribing a species "concept"
> > > > > to 'fossils' is that you can never be sure that the
> > > > > specimens you develope from mixtures of mineralized
> > > > > bony materials ever formulated a "breeding population."
> > > richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > > > So what species concept do you think we use with fossils?
> > > one that does not involve the demonstration
> > > of a breeding population, that is for sure.
> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > Well, obviously: that's information we can't get from fossils.
> > So why not answer the question?
>
> you don't -have- a consistent unambiguous concept
> that you can use with fossils that would relate
> simple -fact- that you cannot demonstrate the
> a "breeding population" ever existed amongst
> your piles of fossils that you may reconstruct
> in any number of ways.
>
Ok, I'm missed some of this "debate" so perhaps this makes sense in a
larger context. Are you actually suggesting that the fossils were of a
non-breeding population or that they are of individuals not part of a
greater population?
Timothy Sutter
here you'll see a listing of their 'experts'
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/research/members.html
if you look at the experts in biology and paleontology,
you will see that they are all PhD.s in their fields.
the magazine may charge a fee, but it concerns itself
with science, and therefore a 'scientific endeavor'
these are the major fields of study;
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/research/fields.html
Anthropology
Archaeology
Astronomy
Biology
Geography
Geology
Oceanography
Paleontology
>> on which such a spotlight does not
>> glare so brightly
>>
>> that one may sneak in "evidences" that
>> -they- created in a workshop somewere,
> So do you think that the palaenotologists involved pushed National
> Geographic into publishing the specimen knowing that it's a chimera?
who knew what and when is an ongoing problem.
it depends on which level of review the problem
is inserted and how sheltered any given level is
from the facts and teh scrutiny,
and it's possible for some levels to be duped
simply because they weremn't paying close enough
attentiion and they simply assumed that such
a find could be credible and so, took it
all for granted.
Timothy Sutter
that you do it, and that it is
consistently relevant are two
different things.
i don't deny that you do it.
i deny the relevance of making such claims
as tieing these bits together in a continmuous
lineage where no such continuous breeding
population -can- be established.
>> a gathering of remaions culled from
>> species that aren't even in teh same genera
>>
>> that have morphological charcateristics
>> that are not uniquely independant.
> So are you suggesting that we treat each individual fossil we find as
> a separate taxonomic unit?
even if you find a few specimens that resemble each other,
and convince yurselves that these constitute
a breeding population, which is questionable,
to tie these together into some continuous
lineage which with no clear unbroken line
of decent in breding populations is make-believe.
> Or do you think that we should stop collecting and studying fossils
> completely?
you can keep your cottage industry going as
long as governments and private institutions
will pay you to do so,
but you can never tie all of these 'finds'
into an unbroken lineage of decent.
not even close, and you can't even tie
one proposed archeo-species to any living
species in an unbroken breeding population
as such your conclusions remain dubious
in suggesting that you can do such a thing.
Timothy Sutter
> On Oct 9, 10:31 am, Timothy Sutter <a202...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
> > > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > > > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > > > > one problem you'll have in ascribing a species "concept"
> > > > > > to 'fossils' is that you can never be sure that the
> > > > > > specimens you develope from mixtures of mineralized
> > > > > > bony materials ever formulated a "breeding population."
> > > > richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > > > > So what species concept do you think we use with fossils?
> > > > one that does not involve the demonstration
> > > > of a breeding population, that is for sure.
> > richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > > Well, obviously: that's information we can't get from fossils.
> > > So why not answer the question?
>
> > you don't -have- a consistent unambiguous concept
> > that you can use with fossils that would relate
> > them to known breeding populations for the very
> > simple -fact- that you cannot demonstrate the
> > a "breeding population" ever existed amongst
> > your piles of fossils that you may reconstruct
> > in any number of ways.
> Ok, I'm missed some of this "debate" so perhaps this makes sense in a
> larger context. Are you actually suggesting that the fossils were of a
> non-breeding population or that they are of individuals not part of a
> greater population?
i'm sure i've replied to this already somewhere in this thread
Dave Oldridge
6b2395...@42g2000pry.googlegroups.com:
No, it is logical inference, the product of reason, which is a gift to
mankind from the deity creationists love to misrepresent.
There will come a time, though, when Almighty God, tired of the lies
being told in His name sweeps the God-hating creationists from before His
face!
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 454777283
Ernest Major
<d295916a-6104-4a47...@e2g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
Timothy Sutter <a20...@lycos.com> writes
those of us who are confused as to your position. As it is, while I find
your posts to lack clarity, I have begun to suspect that you don't
accept that fossils are the remains of living organisms.
--
alias Ernest Major
Timothy Sutter
>> i don't deny that you do it.
>>
>> i deny the relevance of making such claims
>> as tieing these bits together in a continmuous
>> lineage where no such continuous breeding
>> population -can- be established.
>>
>>
>>>> a gathering of remaions culled from
>>>> species that aren't even in teh same genera
>>>>
>>>> that have morphological charcateristics
>>>> that are not uniquely independant.
>>> So are you suggesting that we treat each individual fossil we find as
>>> a separate taxonomic unit?
>> even if you find a few specimens that resemble each other,
>>
>> and convince yurselves that these constitute
>> a breeding population, which is questionable,
>>
>> to tie these together into some continuous
>> lineage which with no clear unbroken line
>> of decent in breding populations is make-believe.
> No, it is logical inference, the product of reason, which is a gift to
> mankind from the deity creationists love to misrepresent.
a baseless inference with no support.
chris thompson
Run, Forrest! Run!
richardal...@googlemail.com
Possibly, but as you plainly don't have a freakin' clue about how
comparative anatomists go about their work, what possible value can
anyone place on your pontification on the subject?
>
> i don't deny that you do it.
>
> i deny the relevance of making such claims
> as tieing these bits together in a continmuous
> lineage where no such continuous breeding
> population -can- be established.
So are you saying that every fossil should be treated as a distinct
taxonomic entity?
If not, what tools of investigation do you suggest *are* appropriate
to research in the fossil record?
>
> >> a gathering of remaions culled from
> >> species that aren't even in teh same genera
>
> >> that have morphological charcateristics
> >> that are not uniquely independant.
> > So are you suggesting that we treat each individual fossil we find as
> > a separate taxonomic unit?
>
> even if you find a few specimens that resemble each other,
>
> and convince yurselves that these constitute
> a breeding population, which is questionable,
>
> to tie these together into some continuous
> lineage which with no clear unbroken line
> of decent in breding populations is make-believe.
No, it's a conclusion drawn from the evidence.
If you have a better explanation, or better tools for investigating
the fossil record, feel free to offer it.
>
> > Or do you think that we should stop collecting and studying fossils
> > completely?
>
> you can keep your cottage industry going as
> long as governments and private institutions
> will pay you to do so,
>
> but you can never tie all of these 'finds'
> into an unbroken lineage of decent.
>
> not even close, and you can't even tie
> one proposed archeo-species to any living
> species in an unbroken breeding population
> as such your conclusions remain dubious
> in suggesting that you can do such a thing.
Well, there are numerous scientific papers which *do* tie fossil
species to living species.
If we find the fossil of an animal which is morphologically identical
to a modern species, what do you suggest we call it?
You still haven't told us how one can delineate a "kind", by the way.
It's a bit rude to assert that generations of taxonomists have been
barking up the wrong tree for centuries without offering a better way
in which they can go about their work.
As it stands it seems that all taxonomists should come to you so that
you can tell them whether or not a species, genus, family or whatever
constitutes a "kind".
Perhaps you could explain why.
RF
richardal...@googlemail.com
I'm sure that you haven't, and I've been pressing you for an answer
over and over again.
Still, I must thank you for your help in exposing the dishonesty of
creationists. Keep up the good work.
RF
richardal...@googlemail.com
occasionally when they want sound information on plesiosaurs.
It is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
It's a popular magazine.
> the magazine may charge a fee, but it concerns itself
> with science, and therefore a 'scientific endeavor'
>
> these are the major fields of study;
>
> http://www.nationalgeographic.com/research/fields.html
> Anthropology
> Archaeology
> Astronomy
> Biology
> Geography
> Geology
> Oceanography
> Paleontology
Which does not make it a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
Do you have any idea of the processes of scientific publication, and
how this differs from popular journalism?
>
> >> on which such a spotlight does not
> >> glare so brightly
>
> >> that one may sneak in "evidences" that
> >> -they- created in a workshop somewere,
> > So do you think that the palaenotologists involved pushed National
> > Geographic into publishing the specimen knowing that it's a chimera?
>
> who knew what and when is an ongoing problem.
So why not answer the question: do you think that the palaenotologists
involved pushed National Geographic into publishing the specimen
knowing that it's a chimera?
>
> it depends on which level of review the problem
> is inserted and how sheltered any given level is
> from the facts and teh scrutiny,
>
> and it's possible for some levels to be duped
> simply because they weremn't paying close enough
> attentiion and they simply assumed that such
> a find could be credible and so, took it
> all for granted.
So why not answer the question: do you think that the palaenotologists
involved pushed National Geographic into publishing the specimen
knowing that it's a chimera?
RF
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Oct 10, 4:44 am, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 10, 4:52 am, Timothy Sutter <a202...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
> > > Jack Dominey wrote:
> > > > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > >> a "breeding population" ever existed amongst
> > > >> your piles of fossils that you may reconstruct
> > > >> in any number of ways.
> > > > nest of eggs was part of a breeding population.
>
> > > well, in that particular case,
>
> > > you find a creature, and
> > > a brood of unhatched eggs,
>
> > > which could have been a single example
> > > and the end of itself as a line all in one,
>
> > > a potentially strange interbreed that
> > > got wiped out before it got started.
>
> > > there are no grandaughters at all.
>
> > > you jump to too many conclusions
> > > with evidence you don't have.
>
> > So when we see the same bones spread through rock strata that most
> > normal people accept span a 2-million year stretch of time,
>
> they aren't inside the rock
>
> they are between layers of igneous intrusions
>
> and the layers between such
> intrusions form a mobile phase.
Oh my word!
What a fool I am!
I've been collecting fossils for the better part of 40 years, and have
spent countless hours scrabbling around in coastal exposes, road
cuttings, quarries and anywhere a bit of geology poked it way through
the topsoil. I've found tens of thousands of fossils, and have spent
thousands of hours preparing them.
How stupid of me not to have noticed that none of them were in the
rock! How could I have missed the fact that they were floating in the
empty space between igneous intrusions, which in my haste to collect
them I had not noticed! I must have been suffering from some strange
delusion when I thought I was carefully removing what I thought was
shale from the bones of the ichthyosaurs and plesiosaurs I've
prepared. I never noticed that all I was doing was taking away empty
air!
Thank you for the amusement this particular pontification provided, by
the way. It's nice to see a bit of comedy inserted into your very
effective programme to make creationist look stupid, ignorant and
dishonest.
Just in case by some remote chance you were actually being *serious*
when you posted this preposterous nonsense, please do some research
and find out what an igneous intrusion actually is. If you use terms
whose meaning you evidently don't know it just makes you look stupid.
RF
Sapient Fridge
<6cc2a3a3-fa73-4302...@v72g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>,
richardal...@googlemail.com writes
>On Oct 10, 3:15 pm, Timothy Sutter <a202...@lycos.com> wrote:
<snip>
> > richardal...@googlemail.com wrote:
>> > Or do you think that we should stop collecting and studying fossils
>> > completely?
>>
>> you can keep your cottage industry going as
>> long as governments and private institutions
>> will pay you to do so,
>>
>> but you can never tie all of these 'finds'
>> into an unbroken lineage of decent.
>>
>> not even close, and you can't even tie
>> one proposed archeo-species to any living
>> species in an unbroken breeding population
>> as such your conclusions remain dubious
>> in suggesting that you can do such a thing.
>
>Well, there are numerous scientific papers which *do* tie fossil
>species to living species.
>If we find the fossil of an animal which is morphologically identical
>to a modern species, what do you suggest we call it?
>
>You still haven't told us how one can delineate a "kind", by the way.
>It's a bit rude to assert that generations of taxonomists have been
>barking up the wrong tree for centuries without offering a better way
>in which they can go about their work.
Don't forget that he also has the secret of how to organise minerals
into nested hierarchies that he won't tell the geologists!
What a font of knowledge he would be if only he would answer our
questions!
--
sapient_...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
Grok: http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org * nuke a spammer *
Find: http://www.samspade.org http://www.netdemon.net * today *
Kill: http://spamsights.org http://spews.org http://spamhaus.org
Timothy Sutter
these statements do not support the contention that
fossilized remains can be tied to present living
populations inan unbroken lineage.
> > i don't deny that you do it.
>
> > i deny the relevance of making such claims
> > as tieing these bits together in a continmuous
> > lineage where no such continuous breeding
> > population -can- be established.
> So are you saying that every fossil should be treated as a distinct
> taxonomic entity?
you vertainly cannot easily demonstate breeding population,
and most vertainly cannot demonstrate some unbroken
lineage from fossils to present living organisms.
> If not, what tools of investigation do you suggest *are* appropriate
> to research in the fossil record?
you have no ability to clearly establish
an unbroken lineage from fossils
to living creatures.
yor work is not meaningful in making this case.
your work is a cottage industry.
yu may as well sell flowers by theside of the road
as far as your work demonstateing an unbroken
line from fossils to the present in an unbroken
string of breeding populations.
and i can see why yuu'd be so indignant
after finding out that your work
is so meaningless,
bnbut, you'll get over it, in time.
> > >> a gathering of remaions culled from
> > >> species that aren't even in teh same genera
>
> > >> that have morphological charcateristics
> > >> that are not uniquely independant.
> > > So are you suggesting that we treat each individual fossil we find as
> > > a separate taxonomic unit?
>
> > even if you find a few specimens that resemble each other,
>
> > and convince yurselves that these constitute
> > a breeding population, which is questionable,
>
> > to tie these together into some continuous
> > lineage which with no clear unbroken line
> > of decent in breding populations is make-believe.
>
> No, it's a conclusion drawn from the evidence.
> If you have a better explanation, or better tools for investigating
> the fossil record, feel free to offer it.
you simpkly do not have any evidence of an unbroken
lineage from fossil to the present in some
continuous breeeding populatioins
and all of your contentions do not alter this fact.
your work is meaningless aside from
describing the individual specimens.
> > > Or do you think that we should stop collecting and studying fossils
> > > completely?
>
> > you can keep your cottage industry going as
> > long as governments and private institutions
> > will pay you to do so,
>
> > but you can never tie all of these 'finds'
> > into an unbroken lineage of decent.
>
> > not even close, and you can't even tie
> > one proposed archeo-species to any living
> > species in an unbroken breeding population
> > as such your conclusions remain dubious
> > in suggesting that you can do such a thing.
> Well, there are numerous scientific papers which *do* tie fossil
> species to living species.
> If we find the fossil of an animal which is morphologically identical
> to a modern species, what do you suggest we call it?
and if you have contributed as a peer
i'd take it as a dubious presumption
that any of it is reliable at all.
> As it stands it seems that all taxonomists should come to you so that
> you can tell them whether or not a species, genus, family or whatever
> constitutes a "kind".
and yet, boundaries which are
not crossed are found all the time.
you just say that your blurry understanding of te picture
can lead yu to suggest that all such boundaries are
vague and ambiguous and so, all creatures on
earth magically have a common ancestor.
Timothy Sutter
if they consult you, i'm even more dubious of it
as i see teh axe you have to grind.
> It is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
> It's a popular magazine.
>
> > the magazine may charge a fee, but it concerns itself
> > with science, and therefore a 'scientific endeavor'
>
> > these are the major fields of study;
>
> >http://www.nationalgeographic.com/research/fields.html
> > Anthropology
> > Archaeology
> > Astronomy
> > Biology
> > Geography
> > Geology
> > Oceanography
> > Paleontology
>
> Which does not make it a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
>
> Do you have any idea of the processes of scientific publication, and
> how this differs from popular journalism?
if they send a paper to people in the field,
and that poerson is you, i'd have remain dubious
of the fact that such thigs become
published based such peerage.
Timothy Sutter
it's not 'empty space', and i never said 'mpty space'
it's a more mobile phase between the layers
which may have radionuclides present
so as to make attempts at assigning
a date.
Timothy Sutter
you have no unbroken line of descent from fossil to living orgainssm
which constitute a single lineage of breeding
populations and simply contending that you do cuz
you want it that way to make your work seem
important is meaningless.
and no, you haven't demonstrated a
breeding population based on any
of your findings.
it's an empty claim
Timothy Sutter
in fact, you are severely prejudiced
and should recuse yourself from any
judegments in these matters.
that's what i mean by spinning off a subdiscipline
where the only peers are a handful of prejudiced
onloookers.
Max
be so disappointed.
> that's what i mean by spinning off a subdiscipline
> where the only peers are a handful of prejudiced
> onloookers.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Max
departments.
<snip>
Timothy Sutter
notions that one finds in this business,
ths is a description of the finding of the so-called
"lucy" fossil, in an inetrview with the prinicple investigator;
you'll not that they seem to have the fossil
categiorized before they ever get ot out of the gound,
http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/printmember/joh1int-1
===
Looking at my diaries, I am reminded of the fact that it was
a moment of absolute exhilaration. This was the most important
discovery I had ever made in my life. It was a discovery which
has irrevocably changed my whole life's direction. It immediately
elevated me to the status of one of the world's leading
anthropologists.
I felt a moment of tremendous achievement, tremendous success.
Particularly because that year, my National Science Foundation
grant was just running out. When I applied for my first grant
to do field research, it was turned down initially by the
National Science Foundation, because I didn't have my
doctorate degree, the Ph.D. And I had really very little
field experience. People wondered, "Who is this guy,
making all these claims that if he is given the money,
if he is given the opportunity to go there, he is going
to make major discoveries?" This was a vindication of a
tremendous risk that I took in putting all of this in writing.
I knew it was extremely important to my professional career.
I also knew it was going to open up doors for me that to that
point had been closed. Some of those doors I would wish had
remained closed. It also elevated me in the public eye.
All of a sudden, even though I had spent all of my
academic years training to be a scientist, I now had
to become an effective communicator to the public
about the importance of these discoveries.
===
he has visions of what he's going to find
floating around in his head before he even
sets foot in ths distant area.
====
On this November morning, it was about noon, I was heading
back to my Land Rover to drive back to camp. And I happened
to look over my right shoulder. And as I did so, I saw a
fragment of a bone which I recognized as coming from the
elbow region in a skeleton, and that it was too small to be
anything but one of these Hominids. And the anatomy was right.
And almost instantaneously, I was with a student of mine at that
time, Tom Gray, we realized that there were fragments of her,
of this skeleton, that were distributed along the slump. There
was a piece of a leg, there was a piece of a pelvis, there was
a piece of a jaw, there was a piece of a skull. And I realized
almost instantaneously that we had part of a skeleton.
Normally, we are happy to find a fragment of jaw, a few
isolated teeth, a bit of an arm, a bit of a skull. But to
find associated body parts is extremely rare. No matter
what it was, even if it was from a creature that had
already been studied and named and so on, it was going
to be important. So few discoveries had arms associated
with legs, bits of skull associated with a pelvis. I realized
immediately that this was a terribly important discovery,
but I didn't realize how important it would be until we
had spent a lot of time in the laboratory studying it.
===
he had already made up his mind what
it was before he ever dug it up,
his grant was running out, he had very litle field experience
and immediately, he decides that he found a great thing,
cuz he just knew what it was before he ever dug it up.
===
"We found a skeleton!" That was just like some sort of elixir,
that infected everyone. We all drove out to the site and stood
around and looked at the bones that were on the slope, and
developed a strategy for what to do.
===
these people were deleriously celebrating
before they got anything out of the ground.
"like an elixir"
why?
preconceived notion.
Max
Just on the 10,000 monkey principle I'd say so. almost 5,000 posts
this year. Many of them quite wordy too. I'm afraid I'm not too
impressed w. the quality however. Might I suggest taking more time to
consider before posting and not resending until you're sure the first
didn't go through.
I do recall seeing something later in this thread. I also recall it
being completely nonsensical.
richardal...@googlemail.com
What on earth gives you the impression that I give a flying fuck about
your views on this?
The editors and journalists working for National Geographic evidently
think I know what I'm talking about when it comes to my area of
specialisation.
What do you know that they don't?
>
>
>
> > It is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
> > It's a popular magazine.
>
> > > the magazine may charge a fee, but it concerns itself
> > > with science, and therefore a 'scientific endeavor'
>
> > > these are the major fields of study;
>
> > >http://www.nationalgeographic.com/research/fields.html
> > > Anthropology
> > > Archaeology
> > > Astronomy
> > > Biology
> > > Geography
> > > Geology
> > > Oceanography
> > > Paleontology
>
> > Which does not make it a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
>
> > Do you have any idea of the processes of scientific publication, and
> > how this differs from popular journalism?
>
> if they send a paper to people in the field,
No, they don't send papers to people working in the field. They do not
publish scientific papers. They publish articles for popular
consumption.
> and that poerson is you, i'd have remain dubious
> of the fact that such thigs become
> published based such peerage.
So all you can do is to resort to inane splutterings rather than
address any evidence or argument.
Why do you have this need to make a fool of yourself? Or is it just a
side-effect of being a creationist?
RF
richardal...@googlemail.com
You said that fossils are not in the rock. If they are not in the
rock, what do you think they *are* in?
Pretty silly, really.
By the way, why not take up my suggestion and find out what igneous
intrusions are?
Of course, if you prefer to remain ignorant, it's up to you. It will
no doubt give us all lot of pleasure watching you make even more of a
fool of yourself.
RF
chris thompson
Hey adman! How does this jibe with your contention about those orchids
being the same as the extant species?
I think you and Timmy should hash this one out.
On second thought it seems like you've both been doing too much hash
already.
Chris
Timothy Sutter
> In the category: What to look forward to when creationists run geology
> departments.
it is a more mobile phase
and some of these areas are awas in
high waters on a regular bass,
and when they are very wet,
the phases are more mobile
and something could drop down in the murk
and when the areas have a dry period,
the muck seems very very hard like stone,
but it is not all one big roch inside of which, is found a skeleton.
youcould even drop your facvorite inventioninto the murk,
and come and dig it out 15 years later
and pipe up saying,
"ooh, lookie what we just found"
and you put it there fifteen years ealrlier
and that's the axe you have to grind.
and i remain dubious.
i know you don't care about that and so,
comfort yourself in the fact that i'm just a
hillbilly and dont' know no better,
but as far as i'm concerned,
my skepticism of your work is
well placed and will remain in place.
richardal...@googlemail.com
I have never contended that at all! Why not read what I write for
comprehension?
We can't know if there is an unbroken line of descent from a fossil to
a modern animal because the direct evidence is not preserved in the
fossil record. However, if what we see in a fossil - which is usually
only the shells or bones - is indistinguishable from the same elements
in a modern organism, it would seem reasonable to infer that there is
a close relationship.
What conclusions would *you* draw from a fossil which is
indistinguishable from a modern organism? That it is completely
unrelated and that the similarity is a matter of pure chance?
>
> and no, you haven't demonstrated a
> breeding population based on any
> of your findings.
I've never claimed to be able to do so for the simple reason that the
fossil record can't give us such information.
Bearing this in mind, how do you suggest that we *do* investigate the
fossil record? OR should we just abandon the science of palaeontology
altogether and forget about it?
> it's an empty claim
And one I haven't made.
What do you think it tells us that you need to misrepresent people?
RF
Timothy Sutter
well, you don't know how google calculates posts then,.
richardal...@googlemail.com
> as an example of the sort of preconcieved
> notions that one finds in this business,
>
> ths is a description of the finding of the so-called
> "lucy" fossil, in an inetrview with the prinicple investigator;
>
> you'll not that they seem to have the fossil
> categiorized before they ever get ot out of the gound,
I can identify a plesiosaur by genus and species in most cases before
it comes out of the ground if I know where it comes from and can see a
few of the bones. I can usually tell if a specimen is a new species
very quickly. This is because I have examined thousands of plesiosaur
bones in great detail.
This is something called "experience". It's the culmination of many
years spent in a process called "education".
Evidently they are terms which are meaningless in your little world.
However, there is a huge gap between that initial identification and
having the specimen formally described and named in a scientific
journal. It can take many years, and involved a lot of hard and
detailed work.
Because they had the experience to recognise it as something
exceptional.
They were proved correct.
>
> "like an elixir"
>
> why?
>
> preconceived notion.
RF
Timothy Sutter
it's a layer that when very wet, is more mobile and can encase
skelettal strucures which fall in to it during teh wet times,
and which when dry, seem very hard and yet,
you can carefully dig into it with picks and
shovells and tweezers.
> By the way, why not take up my suggestion
> and find out what igneous
> intrusions are?
you have made no comments on the matter at all.
it's lava,
and yet,
one little thing, magmic rocks are
not completely degassed below 1200° C
which is to say, that small melt inclusions
are not degassed until temperatures in excess
of 1200° C are reached, [R. P. Esser et.al.]
meaning, completely melted does
-not- mean completely degassed.
degassing is itself -temperature- dependant.
first, think of water,
water is outgassed stepwise as
the applied pressure reaches
the external pressure.
at 32 C it's liquid, but still
has considerable gas content,
as you raise the temperature, the applied pressure
nears the atmospheric pressure and gases are released
but even -at- the boiling point, some small amount
of gas remains in the water in an equilibrium
described by some constant K.
even neglecting this small amount -at- the boiling point,
we cannot neglect the amounts -below- the boiling point.
and so you can see, that below the boiling point
of magmic rocks, some gases are likely to be present
and well below such a temperature,
complete degassing cannot possibly occur.
and that is what Esser sees and this correlates
well with the consideration that ash from volcanoes
commonly have initial argon well above zero.
this because the ash eruptions are at a
lower temperature and well below that
of boiling magma.
not and never completely degassed.
trouble is, the hottest volcanoes like those in
hawaii reach temperatures of -less- than 1200° C
and so, one may conclude that there is never
a complete degassing even in the hottest volcanoes.
therefore, initial argon = zero is always unwarranted.
also, ash bursts are caused because the magma
is cooler already, allowing gas pressure
beneath to build up and blow the ash
out explosively.
so these sources never completely degassed pre-eruption.
it's considered common for ash deposits
to be heavy in argon 'contamination'
===
http://www.tulane.edu/~sanelson/geol204/volcan&magma.htm
Explosive Eruptions
Explosive eruptions are favored by high gas content and
high viscosity (andesitic to rhyolitic magmas).
Explosive bursting of bubbles will fragment the magma into
clots of liquid that will cool as they fall through the air.
These solid particles become pyroclasts (meaning - hot fragments)
and tephra or volcanic ash, which refer to sand-
sized or smaller fragments.
Temperature of Magmas
Temperature of magmas is difficult to measure (due to the danger
involved),
but laboratory measurement and limited field observation indicate that
the eruption temperature of various magmas is as follows:
Basaltic magma - 1000 to 1200oC
Andesitic magma - 800 to 1000oC
Rhyolitic magma - 650 to 800oC.
===
==
http://www3.eou.edu/geology/Ledgerwood.html
The 40Ar/39Ar step heat analysis of the ash sample from the
upper part of the sequence along the Baker-Copperfield Highway
0.2 miles east of the intersection with Banta Road confirms
Van Landingham's (1985) age for these sequences. Both analyses
of the ash showed excess argon so that a traditional plateau
age could not be obtained, which is not abnormal for ash samples.
==
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997GeCoA..61.3789E
Title:
Excess argon in melt inclusions in zero-age anorthoclase
feldspar from Mt. Erebus, Antarctica, as revealed by
the 40 Ar/ 39 Ar method *1
Authors: Esser, R. P.; McIntosh, W. C.; Heizler,
M. T.; Kyle, P. R.
Publication: Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, vol. 61,
Issue 18, pp.3789-3801 (GeCoA Homepage)
Publication Date: 09/1997
Origin: ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/S0016-7037(97)00287-1
Bibliographic Code: 1997GeCoA..61.3789E
Abstract
Historically erupted (1984) anorthoclase phenocrysts from Mt. Erebus
yield K/Ar and 40 Ar/ 40 Ar apparent ages as old as 700 ka indicating
the presence of excess argon. 40 Ar/ 39 Ar furnace step heating
results from anorthoclase reveal a positive correlation between the Cl/
K ratio and apparent age. Because chlorine (up to 1700 ppm) is present
in melt inclusions but not in the anorthoclase crystal lattice, this
correlation suggests that the excess argon is associated with melt
inclusions trapped within the anorthoclase during rapid crystal
growth. Confirmation of the source of excess argon comes from step-
heating experiments on multiple anorthoclase aliquots separated from
two phenocrysts and one glass aliquot prepared from the matrix of a
volcanic bomb. The anorthoclase phenocrysts were crushed and HF etched
to yield aliquots containing 30%, 10%, and 1 % melt inclusions. The
step-heated anorthoclase with 30% and 10% melt inclusions yielded the
highest Cl/K ratios and apparent integrated ages of 640 ± 30 ka and
179 ± 16 ka, respectively. The anorthoclase with I% melt inclusions
yielded significantly lower Cl/K ratios and apparent integrated ages
of 48 ± 8 ka and 50 ± 30 ka. The step-heated volcanic glass yielded
the least variable Cl/K ratios and a total gas age of 101 ± 16 ka.
Argon released from the anorthoclase and the trapped melt inclusions
can be distinguished by differences in their degassing behavior,
allowing geologically more reasonable ages to be obtained. Melt
inclusions exposed on the exterior of anorthoclase grains principally
degas during furnace extraction at temperatures less than 1200°C.
Inclusions entirely within anorthoclase grains principally degas at
temperatures greater than 1200°C when incongruent melting of the
anorthoclase allows melt inclusion hosted excess argon to escape.
Anorthoclase aliquots prepared with less than 1% inclusions can be
fitted with a plateau for heating steps below 1200°C to yield ages as
young as 8 ± 2 ka, whereas steps above 1200°C yield ages in excess of
100 ka. However, anorthoclase aliquots containing 10-30% melt
inclusions yield ages in excess of 200 ka for heating steps below
1200°C. Minimizing the effects of the excess argon from melt
inclusions relies on sample preparation and step-heating. Fine
crushing and treatment with hydrofluoric acid removes many of the
larger melt inclusions. Small melt inclusions which remain within the
anorthoclase degas primarily at temperatures above 1200°C.
Temperatures below 1200°C yield the most accurate ages. Attempts at
post-analytically correcting for the chlorine-correlated excess argon
are hindered by the variations in 40 Ar E /Cl within and between
samples. Elevated 40 Ar E /Cl ratios in bubbles within the melt
inclusions, as deduced from in vacuo crushing experiments, are the
most likely cause for some or all of a sample's total 40 Ar E /Cl
variation. In addition, relative solubilities of argon and chlorine
within phonolitic melts may be partly responsible for variations in 40
Ar E /Cl.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2001/2001GL013855.shtml
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 28, NO. 22, PAGES 4279–4282, 2001
Excess argon in Mount St. Helens plagioclase as a recorder of magmatic
processes
Paul W. Layer
Geophysical Institute and Department of Geology and Geophysics,
University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Fairbanks, Alaska
James E. Gardner
Geophysical Institute and Department of Geology and Geophysics,
University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Fairbanks, Alaska
Abstract
Excess argon in plagioclase crystals from young (<4000 ybp) tephra
layers from Mount St. Helens, Washington, illustrates the importance
of argon isotopes in understanding magmatic processes. 40Ar/39Ar step-
heating identifies two distinct argon reservoirs in the plagioclase; a
high Cl/K, low Ca/K reservoir with atmospheric 40Ar/36Ar and a low Cl/
K, higher Ca/K reservoir with variable 40Ar/36Ar. The first is
probably glass, whereas the second is “true” plagioclase. Felsic
dacite plagioclases have little or no excess argon, but those from
more mafic layers have significantly higher 40Ar/36Ar, indicating a
non-atmospheric source. These variations are seen within a layer that
contains both mafic and felsic dacite, and are inconsistent with
either xenocrystic or restitic origin for plagioclase. The magma
chamber exhibits long-term open-system degassing behavior punctuated
by short-term fluctuations from influx of high 40Ar/36Ar basalt. The
relative timing between mixing and eruption can affect the amount of
excess argon recorded in plagioclase. © 2001 American Geophysical
Union
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=10337098
Titre du document / Document title
EVIDENCE FOR DISTORTION OF TERTIARY K/AR AGES BY EXCESS ARGON :
EXAMPLE GIVEN BY THREE ALKALI OLIVINE BASALTS FROM NORTHERN HESSE,
GERMANY
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=13846991
The K-Ar and Ar-Ar dating techniques occasionally produce anomalously
old ages attributed to excess argon, and such data is often rejected
as not offering any insight into the age, thermal history or
geochemistry of the rock. However, improvements in the quantification
of argon geochemistry now provide a framework to model excess argon in
both open and closed systems. Solubility data for argon in hydrous
fluids, melts and emerging data for minerals can be used to understand
the behaviour of excess argon, and provide valuable insights into the
environment in which the samples cooled to their argon retention or
'closure' temperature. Treating excess argon as a trace element also
throws light on its behaviour in minerals above the closure
temperature, in deeply buried dry systems such as eclogites,
blueschists, granulites and even in the lithospheric mantle. Extremely
low partition coefficients between K-feldspar and hydrous fluid phases
predict lower excess argon susceptibility than micas and this is
observed in fluid-poor systems. Variation of partition coefficients
can lead to excess argon in fluids being introduced into minerals or
removed from minerals as grain boundary fluids change during flow
through a rock. However, excess argon can also be introduced or
removed from minerals by varying temperature, without the need for
fluid flow. High mineral/melt and mineral/fluid partition coefficients
are also the reason why excess argon is often concentrated in
inclusions within minerals. Partition coefficients between minerals
and hydrous fluids as low as 10[-][6] lead fluid inclusions to
dominate the radiogenic argon budget, particularly in low potassium
minerals. Melt inclusions are less dominant but become critical in
dating younger samples.
Timothy Sutter
> these people were deleriously celebrating
> before they got anything out of the ground.
>
> "like an elixir"
>
> why?
>
> preconceived notion.
and the trouble is, that they wanted
to suggest that this creature walked upright,
but it had arms that fell down beeow its' knees
like that ofa brachiator and a totally
incorrect pelvis for upright ambulation.
==
Another aspect of the Australopithecus skeleton that differs
from human skeleton is the iliac crest of the pelvic bones.
The iliac crest, or hip bone, on a Homo sapiens extends front-to-back,
allowing an aligned gait. A human walks with one foot in front
of the other. However, on Australopithecus and on other ape and
ape-like species such as the orangutan, the iliac crest extends
laterally (out to the side), causing the legs to stick out to the
side,
not straight forward. This gives a side-to-side rocking motion
as the animal walks, not a forward gait.
http://www.answers.com/topic/lucy
==
the lucy pelvis, though reconstructed
from fragments and incomplete does have
a feature that the reconstructonists
can not disavow and that is that it
is much like that of an orangutan.
it isn't like a human at all,
but rather much like that of an ape.
that creature, if it existed,
would not walk upright.
it's an invention based on preconceived notion.
Timothy Sutter
cuz you keep making mentionof it like it's your little axe to grind.
> The editors and journalists working for National Geographic evidently
> think I know what I'm talking about when it comes to my area of
> specialisation.
little do they know how much your opinion is just
an axe to grind cuz soemone scared you with
a satny claus story when you were a baby.
richardal...@googlemail.com
Do you think that sedimentologists don't know that substrates can be
soft? Or how sedimentary structures are formed? That they can't tell
the difference between a fossil formed when an organism penetrated a
soft substrate and one formed on harder ground?
What exactly do you think geologists and palaentologists actually
*do*? Sit around in darkened rooms plotting the downfall of
creationism and occasionally sacrificing a chicken in front of an
effigy of Charles Darwin?
Why do you think that bringing profound ignorance to an argument makes
you look anything other than an utter fool?
RF
Timothy Sutter
then you may just be finding a sample of
the same creature which has undergone
no sort of modification at all,
> What conclusions would *you* draw from a fossil which is
> indistinguishable from a modern organism? That it is completely
> unrelated and that the similarity is a matter of pure chance?
that no descent with modification has taken place
and that the organism remains the same as it ever was.
> > and no, you haven't demonstrated a
> > breeding population based on any
> > of your findings.
> I've never claimed to be able to do so for the simple reason that the
> fossil record can't give us such information.
and yet, the claim is that some unbroken ancestry from
single celled organisms to presnt day everything linving exists
and as you attest, o such lineage is shown.
> Bearing this in mind, how do you suggest that we *do* investigate the
> fossil record? OR should we just abandon the science of palaeontology
> altogether and forget about it?
no, you can keep your job,
it just isn't very meaningful in describing
a descent from one celled organisms to
all life on earth.
Timothy Sutter
after a thousand years or so in the ground,
no, not really, it may all get very hard,
but you do realize that i was speaking
of a more mobile phase between
igneous intrusions, and not empty space,
glad that's all clear now.
> What exactly do you think geologists and palaentologists actually
> *do*? Sit around in darkened rooms plotting the downfall of
> creationism and occasionally sacrificing a chicken in front of an
> effigy of Charles Darwin?
you may very well from the attitudes
you demonstrate in this thread.
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Oct 10, 2:14 pm, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > You said that fossils are not in the rock. If they are not in the
> > rock, what do you think they *are* in?
>
> it's a layer that when very wet, is more mobile and can encase
> skelettal strucures which fall in to it during teh wet times,
>
> and which when dry, seem very hard and yet,
> you can carefully dig into it with picks and
> shovells and tweezers.
It's generally called "rock". There are many different types of rock.
Many fossils, and most of the ones I've excavated and prepared are in
a type of rock called shale. One can tell by examining the shale
surrounding a fossil if it penetrated a soft substrate. Geologist
study such things. They are not stupid and ignorant.
>
> > By the way, why not take up my suggestion
> > and find out what igneous
> > intrusions are?
>
> you have made no comments on the matter at all.
I've suggested it several times.
>
> it's lava,
No, it isn't.
As a matter of idle curiosity, why do you think that copying and
pasting a load of stuff which is *not* about igneous intrusions
demonstrates?
Hint: A layer of volcanic ash is not an igneous intrusion.
Try wikipedia.
RF
> ===http://www.tulane.edu/~sanelson/geol204/volcan&magma.htm
> Explosive Eruptions
>
> Explosive eruptions are favored by high gas content and
> high viscosity (andesitic to rhyolitic magmas).
>
> Explosive bursting of bubbles will fragment the magma into
> clots of liquid that will cool as they fall through the air.
> These solid particles become pyroclasts (meaning - hot fragments)
> and tephra or volcanic ash, which refer to sand-
> sized or smaller fragments.
>
> Temperature of Magmas
>
> Temperature of magmas is difficult to measure (due to the danger
> involved),
> but laboratory measurement and limited field observation indicate that
> the eruption temperature of various magmas is as follows:
>
> Basaltic magma - 1000 to 1200oC
> Andesitic magma - 800 to 1000oC
> Rhyolitic magma - 650 to 800oC.
> ===
>
> ==http://www3.eou.edu/geology/Ledgerwood.html
> ...
>
> read more »
richardal...@googlemail.com
So what do you know that the editors and journalists working for
National Geographic don't?
I presume that this characteristic descent into the facile is yet
another strategy to make creationists look stupid and ignorant.
Keep up the good work!
RF
Timothy Sutter
> On Oct 10, 8:00 pm, Timothy Sutter <a202...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
> > as an example of the sort of preconcieved
> > notions that one finds in this business,
>
> > ths is a description of the finding of the so-called
> > "lucy" fossil, in an inetrview with the prinicple investigator;
>
> > you'll not that they seem to have the fossil
> > categiorized before they ever get ot out of the gound,
> I can identify a plesiosaur by genus and species in most cases before
> it comes out of the ground if I know where it comes from and can see a
> few of the bones. I can usually tell if a specimen is a new species
> very quickly. This is because I have examined thousands of plesiosaur
> bones in great detail.
bthis is a bonmy structure that
very much resembles a monkey or an ape,
and a simple glance at the ground
wouldn't be so obvious,
and yet, they already had it
typed before they ever dug it up.
> > ===
>
> > these people were deleriously celebrating
> > before they got anything out of the ground.
>
> Because they had the experience to recognise it as something
> exceptional.
> They were proved correct.
no, they weren't proved correct, and in fact,
the leakiey's contested the finding but they
just didnt' stand up for themselves.
and if you look at the remaions,
no upright stance is suggested,
they just placed it in that order.
theforamen magnum isn't even in in place,
it's kjusta wide hole,
and the arms are way too long and
the pelvis is all wrong and more
like an orang.
and other investigators
were denied access.
etc.etc.etc.
Timothy Sutter
> On Oct 10, 8:25 pm, Timothy Sutter <a202...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 10, 2:14 pm, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > > You said that fossils are not in the rock. If they are not in the
> > > rock, what do you think they *are* in?
>
> > it's a layer that when very wet, is more mobile and can encase
> > skelettal strucures which fall in to it during teh wet times,
>
> > and which when dry, seem very hard and yet,
> > you can carefully dig into it with picks and
> > shovells and tweezers.
> It's generally called "rock". There are many different types of rock.
you cancall it what yo ulike,
butwhen it's in its wet and more moblie phase like in a bog,
its quite soft, and when it's all dried out it appears more rocky.
so, you can call it rock.
it's a sedimentary rock,
it -can- soften up under the rightconditions.
> Many fossils, and most of the ones I've excavated and prepared are in
> a type of rock called shale. One can tell by examining the shale
> surrounding a fossil if it penetrated a soft substrate. Geologist
> study such things. They are not stupid and ignorant.
big deal so, you find some actual rocks trapped in tehsofter sediment
as well as the bones.
this does not suggest that the bones are trapped in rocks.
tehy are trapped ina layer that possesses rocks in it.
> > > By the way, why not take up my suggestion
> > > and find out what igneous
> > > intrusions are?
>
> > you have made no comments on the matter at all.
>
> I've suggested it several times.
>
>
>
> > it's lava,
>
> No, it isn't.
>
> As a matter of idle curiosity, why do you think that copying and
> pasting a load of stuff which is *not* about igneous intrusions
> demonstrates?
it -is- about the methodiology of dating the material using potassium
argon .
and the very simple fact is that the rock is -never- degassed complete
=before-= it erupts from the magmic chambers.
and so, you get no time zero for a melt from which you can extrapolate
a date of eruption.
fact.
they don;'t degas until well above 1800 degrees celcius,
and most of theeses ashy deposits are from volcnaoes which barely make
600 to 800 degrees,
and so, there is "initial argon"
which nullifies the entire procedure.
fact.
chris thompson
Can we tune you to the Super Bowl come January? I've never seen better
projection.
Chris
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Oct 10, 2:26 pm, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > On Oct 10, 8:00 pm, Timothy Sutter <a202...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
> > > as an example of the sort of preconcieved
> > > notions that one finds in this business,
>
> > > ths is a description of the finding of the so-called
> > > "lucy" fossil, in an inetrview with the prinicple investigator;
>
> > > you'll not that they seem to have the fossil
> > > categiorized before they ever get ot out of the gound,
> > I can identify a plesiosaur by genus and species in most cases before
> > it comes out of the ground if I know where it comes from and can see a
> > few of the bones. I can usually tell if a specimen is a new species
> > very quickly. This is because I have examined thousands of plesiosaur
> > bones in great detail.
>
> bthis is a bonmy structure that
> very much resembles a monkey or an ape,
>
Quite so. It also resembles humans - but then humans are monkeys and
apes.
> and a simple glance at the ground
> wouldn't be so obvious,
Well, it was to them. It's called "experience". They were correct.
>
> and yet, they already had it
> typed before they ever dug it up.
>
No, they had recognised it as significant.
> > > ===
>
> > > these people were deleriously celebrating
> > > before they got anything out of the ground.
>
> > Because they had the experience to recognise it as something
> > exceptional.
> > They were proved correct.
>
> no, they weren't proved correct, and in fact,
> the leakiey's contested the finding but they
> just didnt' stand up for themselves.
Well, the scientists who study such things think that it *does* "stand
up for itself".
What do you know that the experts in the field don't?
>
> and if you look at the remaions,
>
> no upright stance is suggested,
>
> they just placed it in that order.
>
> theforamen magnum isn't even in in place,
>
> it's kjusta wide hole,
Do you know what the foramen magnum is?
Hint: "formamen" means "hole"
>
> and the arms are way too long and
> the pelvis is all wrong and more
> like an orang.
>
> and other investigators
> were denied access.
>
> etc.etc.etc.
They were?
Casts of the specimen are freely available. They are adequate for most
purposes, certainly to investigate the anatomy of the limbs and
girdles.
RF
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Oct 10, 2:43 pm, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > On Oct 10, 8:25 pm, Timothy Sutter <a202...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 10, 2:14 pm, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > > > You said that fossils are not in the rock. If they are not in the
> > > > rock, what do you think they *are* in?
>
> > > it's a layer that when very wet, is more mobile and can encase
> > > skelettal strucures which fall in to it during teh wet times,
>
> > > and which when dry, seem very hard and yet,
> > > you can carefully dig into it with picks and
> > > shovells and tweezers.
> > It's generally called "rock". There are many different types of rock.
>
> you cancall it what yo ulike,
No, I can't - at least not if I don't want people to think that I'm an
idiot (a consideration which you apparently think doesn't matter). I
suppose I could call it blancmange if I wanted, but it seems more
reasonable to call it shale - which is a type of rock.
>
> butwhen it's in its wet and more moblie phase like in a bog,
>
> its quite soft, and when it's all dried out it appears more rocky.
>
> so, you can call it rock.
>
> it's a sedimentary rock,
>
> it -can- soften up under the rightconditions.
Are you trying to pontificate to me on the conditions under which
organisms are fossilised? I suggest that there might just be a remote
possibilty that I know rather more about taphonomy than you do, and
don't need to make it up as I go along in a rather incoherent way - as
you do.
>
> > Many fossils, and most of the ones I've excavated and prepared are in
> > a type of rock called shale. One can tell by examining the shale
> > surrounding a fossil if it penetrated a soft substrate. Geologist
> > study such things. They are not stupid and ignorant.
>
> big deal so, you find some actual rocks trapped in tehsofter sediment
> as well as the bones.
No, the "softer sediment" is what becomes the rocks.
>
> this does not suggest that the bones are trapped in rocks.
So what are they "trapped in"? Blancmange? Cream cheese?
>
> tehy are trapped ina layer that possesses rocks in it.
>
>
>
> > > > By the way, why not take up my suggestion
> > > > and find out what igneous
> > > > intrusions are?
>
> > > you have made no comments on the matter at all.
>
> > I've suggested it several times.
>
> > > it's lava,
>
> > No, it isn't.
>
> > As a matter of idle curiosity, why do you think that copying and
> > pasting a load of stuff which is *not* about igneous intrusions
> > demonstrates?
>
> it -is- about the methodiology of dating the material using potassium
> argon .
>
Quite so. It's a method used by scientists. When the methodology is
correct it's accurate. It can be correlated by other methods.
> and the very simple fact is that the rock is -never- degassed complete
> =before-= it erupts from the magmic chambers
Something which scientists are well aware of - which is why they
publish papers on the subject. You will note that they are not saying
that the method produces completely arbitrary dates and should
therefore be rejected.
>
> and so, you get no time zero for a melt from which you can extrapolate
> a date of eruption.
>
> fact.
>
> they don;'t degas until well above 1800 degrees celcius,
>
> and most of theeses ashy deposits are from volcnaoes which barely make
> 600 to 800 degrees,
>
> and so, there is "initial argon"
>
> which nullifies the entire procedure.
>
> fact.
Well, the scientists who actually use such methods disagree with you,
and as different methods of dating correlate with potassium/argon
dates it seems that the method is pretty robust.
That's a fact, incidentally.
Things you make up are not facts.
You seem uncertain of what a fact is.
RF
richardal...@googlemail.com
> > I have never contended that at all! Why not read what I write for
> > comprehension?
> > We can't know if there is an unbroken line of descent from a fossil to
> > a modern animal because the direct evidence is not preserved in the
> > fossil record. However, if what we see in a fossil - which is usually
> > only the shells or bones - is indistinguishable from the same elements
> > in a modern organism, it would seem reasonable to infer that there is
> > a close relationship.
>
> then you may just be finding a sample of
> the same creature which has undergone
> no sort of modification at all,
So you accept that the similarity is a good reason to infer a
relationship?
>
> > What conclusions would *you* draw from a fossil which is
> > indistinguishable from a modern organism? That it is completely
> > unrelated and that the similarity is a matter of pure chance?
>
> that no descent with modification has taken place
> and that the organism remains the same as it ever was.
So how about a fossil which is slightly different from a modern form?
How about a creature with slightly longer and more robust forelimbs,
for example but otherwise the same?
Do you think it reasonable to infer a relationship in this case?
>
> > > and no, you haven't demonstrated a
> > > breeding population based on any
> > > of your findings.
> > I've never claimed to be able to do so for the simple reason that the
> > fossil record can't give us such information.
>
> and yet, the claim is that some unbroken ancestry from
> single celled organisms to presnt day everything linving exists
> and as you attest, o such lineage is shown.
The evidence from DNA, morphology, biogeography and the fossil record
supports the conclusion. It leads to hypotheses which can and have
been tested, well illustrated by the discovery of Tiktaalik as an
example.
How can your contention that "kinds" exist be tested against the
evidence?
>
> > Bearing this in mind, how do you suggest that we *do* investigate the
> > fossil record? OR should we just abandon the science of palaeontology
> > altogether and forget about it?
>
> no, you can keep your job,
That's not what I asked.
You assert that every phylogenetic tool used by biologists until the
last couple of decades has led them to forming the wrong conclusions.
Setting aside the fact that you quite evidently know bugger all about
how scientists go about their work, it seems reasonable to ask you
what tools we *should* use to investigate the fossil record.
>
> it just isn't very meaningful in describing
> a descent from one celled organisms to
> all life on earth.
It's a conclusion drawn from the evidence. It makes predictions about
evidence we have not yet gathered. It can and has been rigourously
tested against the evidence. That seems to make it pretty meaningful.
What are you offering as an alternative? That "kinds" were created by
divine fiat a few thousand years ago? Bearing in mind not only that
you can't tell us how to identify a "kind" or plot its supposedly
clear-cut boundaries, but you actually refuse point-blank to answer
any questions of this type, why on earth should anyone treat your
empty pontification on the subject as anything other than a joke?
It's all very amusing, but I fail to see what you think you are
proving by this.
RF