Is there any unambiguous evidence of purely naturalistic biological TRANSFORMATIONAL CHANGE?
T Pagano
elitist produce unambiguous, empirical evidence that purely
naturalistic biological transformational change occurred in prehistory
or is occurring now? Supposedly the evidence of biological
"transformational" change is overwhelming. We'll see.
No rules.
I will reply to every post as time permits except for those asking for
definitions. Anyone needing a definition should go to any good
English language dictionary.
Regards,
T Pagano
Tim DeLaney
Well, you do make debate difficult by employing terms
that may have multiple meanings, and then refusing in
advance to tell us what you mean by them. Nonetheless
I will try to guess at what you really mean by "purely
naturalistic biological transformational change".
Compare the dachshund to the grey wolf. Presumably,
you will concede that the former is descended from the
latter. By any reasonable criterion, various of the
smaller breeds of the domestic dog, including the
dachshund, are different enough from the grey wolf to
merit the description "biological transformational
change". The relative length of their legs is a result
of a particular mutation, so the morphology of the
dachshund has been permanently altered. See
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/316/5821/112
We might well be able, by further selective breeding, to
come up with a dachshund that could survive in the wild.
Presumably, this breed would be selected to compete with
the badger as a predator of small mammals. But whether
we could be successful is unimportant to the assertion
that the dachshund has undergone "biological
transformational change". Except for the fact that we
know the history of Canis lupus familiaris, we would
certainly classify the dachshund as a separate species.
They would never mate in the wild with the wolf, even
though we'd expect, because we know their evolutionary
history, that they could in theory produce viable and
fertile offspring.
One objection you might lodge is that the dachshund is
the product of selective breeding, which is "artificial"
selection. But humans are also part of nature, and the
distinction between artificial and natural selection is
not one that matters much.
Note, if you will, that the dachshund has descended from
the wolf in a geological eyeblink. It is so different from
Canis lupus that it's clear that transformational change
has taken place. Without a mutation that reverses the
mutation referred to above, you could never breed a wolf
from it. It is, and always will be, a different animal.
Tim
John Harshman
> Can any evolutionist, atheist, agnostic, secularist, or academic
> elitist produce unambiguous, empirical evidence that purely
> naturalistic biological transformational change occurred in prehistory
> or is occurring now? Supposedly the evidence of biological
> "transformational" change is overwhelming. We'll see.
No, as far as you're concerned. It's impossible to show evidence that
any given transformation, past or present, was not accompanied by a
miracle of some sort, just as it's impossible to show that any
particular rain storm wasn't caused by the hammer of Thor, or that fruit
fly allele frequencies are not divinely guided. At most, we can show
that supernatural explanations are unnecessary.
What can be shown is that transformations happened unless someone has an
elaborate plan to fool us, and we have no reason to suppose these
changes weren't natural. I can give examples on request, but you should
know of quite a few already; common descent of humans and chimps, e.g.
As I understand it, you aren't merely questioning the natural status of
transformations; you deny that they have happened at all. So merely
demonstrating change should be good enough to refute your favorite
theory. I can see why you offered something more difficult as a
challenge, though.
> No rules.
>
> I will reply to every post as time permits except for those asking for
> definitions. Anyone needing a definition should go to any good
> English language dictionary.
Your definitions frequently depart from the dictionary. But never mind.
bpuharic
wrote:
>Can any evolutionist, atheist, agnostic, secularist, or academic
>elitist produce unambiguous, empirical evidence that purely
>naturalistic biological transformational change occurred in prehistory
>or is occurring now? Supposedly the evidence of biological
>"transformational" change is overwhelming. We'll see.
no one knows what you consider a 'transformational change'.
creationsits are linguistic prostitutes, promiscuously changes
definitions, concepts, meanings, etc. to suit their theology
example: 'all seeing' requested evidence of speciation. when this was
given he THEN wanted evidence that speciation leads to 'fish to man'
types of changes....in a human lifetime
so it really doesnt matter what proof is given you. as historian dan
diner has pointed out, fundamentalists are unable to understand modern
science. and the creationist world is one of a child: magical places
where demons and ghosts rule the world
>
>No rules.
>
>I will reply to every post as time permits except for those asking for
>definitions. Anyone needing a definition should go to any good
>English language dictionary.
which you will then do your damndest to destroy
Ron O
Pags should look into the artificial brain thread. Anything has to be
better than what he is stuck with.
Ron Okimoto
Eric Root
> elitist produce unambiguous, empirical evidence that purely
> naturalistic biological transformational change occurred in prehistory
> or is occurring now?
So, you won't accept evidence from anybody but the above? Why would
that be?
(snip)
Eric Root
guscubed
> Can any evolutionist, atheist, agnostic, secularist, or academic
> elitist produce unambiguous, empirical evidence that purely
> naturalistic biological transformational change occurred in prehistory
> or is occurring now?
Not to your ever-changing standards of proof, no. Evidence to you is
'that which does not prove my ill-conceived notions incorrect'.
Thankfully reality does not conform to your delusions.
All-seeing-I
But the dachshund has not undergone a "biological transformational
change" to the point that it is now no longer anything like the wolf.
.
The dachshund is still a variation of the wolf. Nothing has changed
that fact even though reproductive isolation has taken place. You have
also proved quite niecly that micro evolution (variation) moves
horozonallity and always foward from one kind to the next.
created Canis --->wolf--->variations of the wolf --->dogs ---
>variations of the dog ---->any future variations of the dogs
Which follows the biblical principal for life filling the earth: "each
after his own kind" to the letter.
richardal...@googlemail.com
You have been given examples of this, such as the transitional series
which shows the origin of the bird wing from the forelimb of theropod
dinosaurs.
You have not given any reason why such a series of fossils does *not*
show "transformational change", or provided any alternative
explanation for the fossils which can be tested - i.e. it makes
predictions about fossils we haven't found yet.
This means that in denying the evidence for "transformational change",
you are either incapable of reading for comprehension, or are lying.
Bearing in mind that you cast the head of your own church as a liar,
it seems more likely that you find lying an acceptable form of
argument.
What do you think you demonstrate by lying, Tony?
RF
Ye Old One
Have you compared the two recently?
>.
>The dachshund is still a variation of the wolf.
No, though it is a descendant.
> Nothing has changed
>that fact even though reproductive isolation has taken place. You have
>also proved quite niecly that micro evolution (variation) moves
>horozonallity and always foward from one kind to the next.
>
>created Canis --->wolf--->variations of the wolf --->dogs ---
>>variations of the dog ---->any future variations of the dogs
I asked you elsewhere where the fox come in to your warped picture?
>
>
>Which follows the biblical principal for life filling the earth: "each
>after his own kind" to the letter.
But, run the sequence backwards, go back beyond the wolf, beyond the
first canid, beyond the first carnivore, beyond the first mammal....
--
Bob.
When D-G made Madman out of clay he forgot to magic the brain. I think
that explains everything.
Rolf
A question like that is meaningless; we have already established that we
cannot rule out supernatural intervention. Nor can we rule it in. It is just
that we have no means of detecting such activity in nature, past or present.
As long as that is the case we are doomed to proceed in the traditional way
with the study of nature, collecting and interpreting evidence, make
hypotheses and theories and test them to the best of our ability.
It is interesting to note though, that so far no gods, angels, demons,
djinns, intelligent designers and other spurious creations of the human mind
have been sighted. Maybe there are lots of good reasons to ignore them until
they take pity on us an reveal themselves?
Case settled.
> Regards,
> T Pagano
bpuharic
>
>But the dachshund has not undergone a "biological transformational
>change" to the point that it is now no longer anything like the wolf.
>.
>The dachshund is still a variation of the wolf. Nothing has changed
>that fact even though reproductive isolation has taken place. You have
>also proved quite niecly that micro evolution (variation) moves
>horozonallity and always foward from one kind to the next.
so he continues to assert that jellyfish and sharks are just fish...no
evolution...they're just fish
creationism is useless
Boikat
You mean....SPECIATION....?
>You have
> also proved quite niecly that micro evolution (variation) moves
> horozonallity and always foward from one kind to the next.
>
> created Canis --->wolf--->variations of the wolf --->dogs ---
>
> >variations of the dog ---->any future variations of the dogs
>
> Which follows the biblical principal for life filling the earth: "each
> after his own kind" to the letter.-
For a sufficiently loose definition of "kind", which apparently allows
for speciation (evolution) to occur.
I've never shot myself in the foot before. Does it hurt much?
Boikat
UC
No, the presumption of natural causation is a prerequisite for doing
science. Nothing else can be considered.
Steven L.
> Can any evolutionist, atheist, agnostic, secularist, or academic
> elitist produce unambiguous, empirical evidence that purely
> naturalistic biological transformational change occurred in prehistory
> or is occurring now? Supposedly the evidence of biological
> "transformational" change is overwhelming. We'll see.
1. There is the example of change in Galapagos finches, where immigrant
birds of one species have become segregated by the songs they sing, so
that interbreeding with the parent species no longer occurs.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/11/17/in-galapagos-finches-biologists-catch-evolution-in-the-act/
or
http://tinyurl.com/yf2fnb9
2. There have already been reported strains of H1N1 flu that are
resistant to the antiviral drug Tamiflu. H1N1 is a new strain of flu,
an antigenic shift. It emerged a year or two ago. And yet within that
short time, it's already becoming resistant to Tamiflu.
But how can I prove that these changes are "purely naturalistic"??? How
can I prove that anything that happens in this world is "purely
naturalistic"???
Many people of faith believe that God constantly intervenes in this
world to fight evil and to reward the pious. How can I prove them wrong?
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Steven L.
No new phyla have emerged within recorded history, that is true.
We infer that new phyla and genera can emerge, because there is plenty
of evidence that new species within a genus or phylum can emerge. Ring
species are a striking example of this: Subspecies that gradually
diverge so far from the parent species that they can no longer
interbreed with it and must be considered new species:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species
Why should there be this arbitrary line that says that change like this
can occur within a phylum, but phylum cannot change? Did God define
what a "genus" was? Or a phylum? And reserve the right to change those
for Himself?
I don't understand why you creationists have such a problem with this.
EVERYTHING in our universe, including our own bodies, are in a constant
dynamic state of flux. Why do you believe it was not always so?
All-seeing-I
has anyone oberrved either giving rise to a cat when allowing enough
time?
All-seeing-I
The fox is a variation of the original created canis moron. I drew you
pictures in crayon yet you still cannot understand
>
>
>
> >Which follows the biblical principal for life filling the earth: "each
> >after his own kind" to the letter.
>
> But, run the sequence backwards, go back beyond the wolf, beyond the
> first canid, beyond the first carnivore, beyond the first mammal....
what part of "original created canis" was so hard to understand freak?
> --
> Bob.
>
> When D-G made Madman out of clay he forgot to magic the brain. I think
> that explains everything.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Kermit
As we are just variations of the fish.
For those willing to read, I highly recommend Shubin's "Your Inner
Fish".
Kermit,
who is still a chordate
Kermit
[...]
When we say that a process takes tens or hundreds of millions of
years, we don't mean a specific *birth.
If that *did happen (without genetic engineering involvement), it
would cast doubt on most of biology.
If you mean did a species which *you couldn't differentiate from a
shark (but not actually a shark) give rise to multiple species one of
which, in time, gave rise to house cats? Yes. And we have described
the evidence numerous times, and provided links which you ignored, and
listed books which you have not read.
At least you have finally noticed the idea of "sufficient time".
Kermit
John Stockwell
Well, basically Tony, since you have to ask the question, then the
answer
would be no. As far as scientists are concerned, evolution is not an
issue
and for a person who was seriously interested in learning, I would
point them
to a current undergraduate textbook on the subject of evolution. For a
goal-post
moving anti-science miscreant such as your self, I can only suggest
that you
get a life.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
-John
VoiceOfReason
> Can any evolutionist, atheist, agnostic, secularist, or academic
> elitist produce unambiguous, empirical evidence that purely
> naturalistic biological transformational change occurred in prehistory
> or is occurring now?
Yes, but we're not showing you until you say pretty please. :P
John Harshman
Well, now, the list does include "evolutionist". Who else would be
presenting such evidence?
Augray
>Can any evolutionist, atheist, agnostic, secularist, or academic
>elitist produce unambiguous, empirical evidence that purely
>naturalistic biological transformational change occurred in prehistory
>or is occurring now?
So you're open to accepting Theistic Evolution?
Dan Listermann
"All-seeing-I" <ap...@email.com> wrote in message
news:589e8646-e46f-4403...@o31g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 23, 4:15 am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 00:03:52 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
> <ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
"The fox is a variation of the original created canis moron. I drew you
pictures in crayon yet you still cannot understand"
Do tell us about this "origional canis." What did it look like? Was it
alone or created with all the other "canis" at the same time. Have some
gone extinct? Has anything replaced theh extinct ones? How might this
happen? Does it still happen? I need someone to explain to me what
"creation" looks like. What evidence has it left behind? Can it be
replicated or demonstrated? What is its fossil record look like.
I am not holding my breath.
.
All-seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
You simply cannot show that happenes unless you make up exotic stories
over what few bones you have.
It is that simple ya know.
Augray
<ap...@email.com> wrote in
<589e8646-e46f-4403...@o31g2000vbi.googlegroups.com> :
You just contradicted yourself. "Canis" is the name of the genus that
includes dogs, wolves, coyotes, and jackals, but not foxes. I think
the question at hand is how you recognize an animal as being descended
from the "original created canis". For instance, are bears descended
from the "original created canis"? If not, why not?
T Pagano
<delaney...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Nov 22, 8:30 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>> Can any evolutionist, atheist, agnostic, secularist, or academic
>> elitist produce unambiguous, empirical evidence that purely
>> naturalistic biological transformational change occurred in prehistory
>> or is occurring now? Supposedly the evidence of biological
>> "transformational" change is overwhelming. We'll see.
>>
>> No rules.
>>
>> I will reply to every post as time permits except for those asking for
>> definitions. Anyone needing a definition should go to any good
>> English language dictionary.
>>
>> Regards,
>> T Pagano
>
>Well, you do make debate difficult by employing terms
>that may have multiple meanings, and then refusing in
>advance to tell us what you mean by them. Nonetheless
>I will try to guess at what you really mean by "purely
>naturalistic biological transformational change".
"Transformational" is the operative word.
>
>Compare the dachshund to the grey wolf. Presumably,
>you will concede that the former is descended from the
>latter. By any reasonable criterion, various of the
>smaller breeds of the domestic dog, including the
>dachshund, are different enough from the grey wolf to
>merit the description "biological transformational
>change". The relative length of their legs is a result
>of a particular mutation, so the morphology of the
>dachshund has been permanently altered. See
>http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/316/5821/112
Apparently DeLaney doesn't know how to use an English language
dictionary. Or he decided to ignore the word "transformational"
since he knows there is no evidence of that particular kind of change.
To "transform" is to markedly change function, nature, form, or
condition. In what respect is changing the length of one's legs a
"transformation?" It is a change but not a transformational change.
Darwin's finch beaks didn't mutate with changing environmental
conditions. What was observed was the change in relative frequency of
variations in beak size which already existed within the genome of the
population.
The problem is to explain the emergence and development to maturity of
the finch beak and canine legs not variations of their expression once
in existence. For example, what physical evidence exists that the
mesonychid transformed into a whale over time?
>We might well be able, by further selective breeding, to
>come up with a dachshund that could survive in the wild.
>Presumably, this breed would be selected to compete with
>the badger as a predator of small mammals. But whether
>we could be successful is unimportant to the assertion
>that the dachshund has undergone "biological
>transformational change".
DeLaney unwittingly demonstrates that intelligently guided breeding
shows an upper end to the degree and extent of change possible. That
is, the breeder may select and preserve "any" heritable feature which
ALREADY exists within the population and is expressed. He may also be
successful at spreading that feature throughout some population under
his control.
And there is a tremendous variability which already exists within
EVERY population of any relatively large size. Nonetheless the
breeder ONLY has the ability to change the relative frequency of
existing characteristics within a population NOT generate new organs,
new systems, new structures or new creatures. He is NOT the engine of
transformational change.
On the other hand populations in the "wild" generally exhibit
significantly less change. Natural Selection coupled with Haldane's
Dilemma does nothing analgous to the intelligent breeder. Natural
Selection is "highly" conservative; it tends to conserve that which
already exists and tends to attenuate change to the minimum necessary
for survival and reporduction.
>Except for the fact that we
>know the history of Canis lupus familiaris,
You only know the history of this population after it already existed.
You have not one shred of evidence how organs, structures, and systems
came to exist in the first place. That is the challenge of this
thread.
> we would
>certainly classify the dachshund as a separate species.
>They would never mate in the wild with the wolf, even
>though we'd expect, because we know their evolutionary
>history, that they could in theory produce viable and
>fertile offspring.
"Species" is classification label for some set of individuals not a
physical attribute of an individual. Whether groups tend to separate
their breeding habits has little if nothing to do with how those
creatures and their attendent structures, organs and systems arose in
the first place.
Cichlid species flocks abound, multiply and separate into breeding
populations with greater frequency than most yet this rapid
"speciation" never results in anything-but more Cichlids.
The question of the the thread is to show empirical evidence of how
the Cichlid arose in the first place not how one Cichlid breeding
population separates into several.
>One objection you might lodge is that the dachshund is
>the product of selective breeding, which is "artificial"
>selection. But humans are also part of nature, and the
>distinction between artificial and natural selection is
>not one that matters much.
I don't object at all.
There is simply no evidence of transformational change whether via
nature or through the efforts of an intelligent breeder. Minor
variation of existing systems and structures, back and forth, within
limits, is not in dispute. What is in dispute is the transformational
change, over time, to new structures, new systems and new organs which
did not exist even in rudimentary form in predecessor populations.
And since life purportedly started from a self replicating molecule
EVERY structure, system, organ and creature had to emerge and
transform to maturity. Evidence of this process should abound. I ask
to see that evidence. What doesn't count as evidence is stringing
discrete, unchanging fossil populations together via atheistic
philosophy.
The best example that novelty does NOT emerge and transform to
maturity is Lenski's 20 year breeding experiment of 40,000+
generations of E coli. Not one genuinely new function, system or
organ has emerged and transformed to maturity.
>
>Note, if you will, that the dachshund has descended from
>the wolf in a geological eyeblink. It is so different from
>Canis lupus that it's clear that transformational change
>has taken place. Without a mutation that reverses the
>mutation referred to above, you could never breed a wolf
>from it. It is, and always will be, a different animal.
>
>Tim
Again dog breeders have selected and preserved significant variations.
This has been unremarkable for 4000 years. They are nonetheless four
legged canines from start to finish. The task of the thread is to
show empirical evidence of how the caninie, and its legs, etc. emerged
and transformed to maturity in the first place.
Regards,
T Pagano
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>On Nov 23, 8:04 am, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 00:03:52 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
>>
>> <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>> >But the dachshund has not undergone a "biological transformational
>> >change" to the point that it is now no longer anything like the wolf.
>> >.
>> >The dachshund is still a variation of the wolf. Nothing has changed
>> >that fact even though reproductive isolation has taken place. You have
>> >also proved quite niecly that micro evolution (variation) moves
>> >horozonallity and always foward from one kind to the next.
>>
>> so he continues to assert that jellyfish and sharks are just fish...no
>> evolution...they're just fish
>>
>> creationism is useless
>
>has anyone oberrved either giving rise to a cat when allowing enough
>time?
how much is 'enough time'?
oh. you think it's measured in months
yeah. that sounds like a creationist.
i guess you were disappointed in 'jaws' when the killer jellyfish
didn't kill quint...
bpuharic
>You simply cannot show that happenes unless you make up exotic stories
>over what few bones you have.
>
>It is that simple ya know.
says the creationist who makes up stories about old fairy tales from
cultures long dead
hersheyh
Foxes are not members of the genus Canis; they are members of the
genus Vulpes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox
But, further back the members of Canis and the member of Vulpes do
share a common ancestor, because they are both in the family Canidae.
Are you claiming that "kind" refers to all the species in what *real*
biologists call a "family"? If so, let us know your feelings about
the family Hominidae.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae
More evidence that poor blind "all-seeing" is addicted to kindergarten
taxonomy and verbal promiscuity (using words like a dictator in "1984"
where "peace is war").
> > >Which follows the biblical principal for life filling the earth: "each
> > >after his own kind" to the letter.
>
> > But, run the sequence backwards, go back beyond the wolf, beyond the
> > first canid, beyond the first carnivore, beyond the first mammal....
>
> what part of "original created canis" was so hard to understand freak?
Other than the fact that foxes are not members of the group that is
called "canis"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canis
The problem of kindergarten taxonomy is that it will come back and
bite you on the ass like a rabid fox.
Dana Tweedy
> You simply cannot show that happenes unless yosnu make up exotic stories
> over what few bones you have.
The fossils are not even required at all to show that it happened. The
genetic evidence shows it much more convincingly. That the fossil record
exists, and does match the genetic record is massive support for evolution.
>
> It is that simple ya know.
It's simple to understand the evidence. Turning a blind eye to the
evidence, and relying on old legends and folk tales only shows your
insecurity.
DJT
Tim DeLaney
So now the criterion is "anything like"?
If you can find *any*
> .
> The dachshund is still a variation of the wolf. Nothing has changed
Any child of four could tell you that a dachshund
is fundamentally different from a wolf. Its
genome is permanently changed, its shape is
transformed, its habits are utterly different,
and it would certainly die quickly if placed
in a wolf pack. It's *not* a wolf, and saying
that it is doesn't make it a wolf.
> that fact even though reproductive isolation has taken place. You have
> also proved quite niecly that micro evolution (variation) moves
> horozonallity and always foward from one kind to the next.
Your 'reasoning' is even worse than your spelling.
>
> created Canis --->wolf--->variations of the wolf --->dogs ---
>
> >variations of the dog ---->any future variations of the dogs
>
> Which follows the biblical principal for life filling the earth: "each
> after his own kind" to the letter.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Your childlike diagram doesn't correspond to
biological reality. Your naive belief that
the Bible is authoritative about biology is
noted with amusement.
Tim
Dana Tweedy
>>
>> Note, if you will, that the dachshund has descended from
>> the wolf in a geological eyeblink. It is so different from
>> Canis lupus that it's clear that transformational change
>> has taken place. Without a mutation that reverses the
>> mutation referred to above, you could never breed a wolf
>> from it. It is, and always will be, a different animal.
>>
>> Tim
>
> But the dachshund has not undergone a "biological transformational
> change" to the point that it is now no longer anything like the wolf.
It's annoying that no matter how often this has been explained to you, you
still repeat the same misconception. All of life is something like it's
pedecessors. There is no organism alive today that is not "something" like
it's ancestors. The Dachshund (one individual of which is sleeping on my
lap as I type this) shares many features with wolves, but it's obviously not
a "wolf", anymore than a wolf is it's ancient ancestor a Myacid.
> .
> The dachshund is still a variation of the wolf. Nothing has changed
> that fact even though reproductive isolation has taken place.
All life is a variation on it's ancient ancestors. Why do you have such a
problem with that concept? What HAS change is that the dog breed known
as a dachshund has undergone extensive morphological change from it's
ancestor species, the wolf. You can't say that "nothing" has changed,
because doxies are quite different in size, shape, behavior, and physiology
from wolves.
> You have
> also proved quite niecly that micro evolution (variation) moves
> horozonallity and always foward from one kind to the next.
Evoluton "moves" in branching patterns. Doxies did not evolve directly
from a population of wolves. There were many intermediate populations
inbetween. There are few, if any fossils that document that change,
because it's unlikely for fossils to document such a fast (in geologic
terms) change. Do you deny that such changes occurred?
>
> created Canis --->wolf--->variations of the wolf --->dogs ---
>> variations of the dog ---->any future variations of the dogs
The problem is that canids had fossil ancestors as well as genetic links to
other carnivoria. There's no evidence that indicates canids simply appeared
without ancestors. Therefore there was no "created Canis". Canids
evolved from other carnivores.
>
>
> Which follows the biblical principal for life filling the earth: "each
> after his own kind" to the letter.
All life evolves following a branching pattern of existence. If you want to
call this "each after his own kind", it's still macroevolution.
DJT
Ye Old One
So, the dog is a variation of the wolf, the fox isn't? The wolf and
the fox are variations of an older (>7ma) common ancestor, right?
Wow! You accept evolution. Good for you Mudbrain.
>>
>>
>>
>> >Which follows the biblical principal for life filling the earth: "each
>> >after his own kind" to the letter.
>>
>> But, run the sequence backwards, go back beyond the wolf, beyond the
>> first canid, beyond the first carnivore, beyond the first mammal....
>
>what part of "original created canis" was so hard to understand freak?
The part where you offer no evidence whatsoever for there being an
"original created canid".
>
Madman (aka Mudbrain) is on record as claiming:-
Science causes disease.
That 3.5% actually means 25%...
That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...
That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...
That wars have been fought because some scientific finding discredited
some facet of some religion...
To have a "higher education" than most posters to this news group...
To understand how geologists determine the age of any given sample of
rock...
That trilobites were Cambrian mammals... [that one still makes me
laugh]
And that he has "created genes" and not evolved ape genes...
That linguists have traced all the world's languages to the Middle
East region and back to around the same time as the bible claims Noah
and his sons rebuilt mankind.
Claimed that talk.origin's moderator was a troll.
Claimed cigarettes do not cause cancer.
Now, I ask you, is this the sort of guy you would give an credence to?
Certainly I don't.
--
Bob.
bpuharic
wrote:
>On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 18:33:27 -0800 (PST), Tim DeLaney
><delaney...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>Well, you do make debate difficult by employing terms
>>that may have multiple meanings, and then refusing in
>>advance to tell us what you mean by them. Nonetheless
>>I will try to guess at what you really mean by "purely
>>naturalistic biological transformational change".
>
>"Transformational" is the operative word.
it's also an alice-in-wonderland word, unique to tony, that means
exactly what he wants it to mean, no more, no less
to normal people, he's never explained what 'transformative' is...so
we have no idea what he's thinking about.
>
>Apparently DeLaney doesn't know how to use an English language
>dictionary. Or he decided to ignore the word "transformational"
>since he knows there is no evidence of that particular kind of change.
>
>To "transform" is to markedly change function, nature, form, or
>condition. In what respect is changing the length of one's legs a
>"transformation?" It is a change but not a transformational change.
ah. like developing the ability to metabolize citrate in bacteria that
couldn't do it before....as has been observed
and creationism? we're still waiting, after 2000 years, for it it tell
us anything about nature at all.
>
>Darwin's finch beaks didn't mutate with changing environmental
>conditions. What was observed was the change in relative frequency of
>variations in beak size which already existed within the genome of the
>population.
relative frequencies of genes in populations change. that's called
'evolution'.
>
>The problem is to explain the emergence and development to maturity of
>the finch beak and canine legs not variations of their expression once
>in existence. For example, what physical evidence exists that the
>mesonychid transformed into a whale over time?
the fossil record. it's right there.
and creationists? they called whales 'fish'.
so much for their knowledge of biology
>
>
>
>>We might well be able, by further selective breeding, to
>>come up with a dachshund that could survive in the wild.
>>Presumably, this breed would be selected to compete with
>>the badger as a predator of small mammals. But whether
>>we could be successful is unimportant to the assertion
>>that the dachshund has undergone "biological
>>transformational change".
>
>DeLaney unwittingly demonstrates that intelligently guided breeding
>shows an upper end to the degree and extent of change possible.
tony thinks that, if humans can make salt in a lab, that means god
made those little salt packs at mcdonald's.
this shows how ridiculous creationism is. it has no ability at all to
define its limits, its terms or its methods. it just lumps everything
together
That
>is, the breeder may select and preserve "any" heritable feature which
>ALREADY exists within the population and is expressed. He may also be
>successful at spreading that feature throughout some population under
>his control. \\
natural selection does teh same thing. variations in genes are random.
that variation is teh BASIS of evolution
but tony doesnt know this. in fact tony doesnt tell us what he thinks
evolution is .
he tells us nothing about nothing
>
>And there is a tremendous variability which already exists within
>EVERY population of any relatively large size. Nonetheless the
>breeder ONLY has the ability to change the relative frequency of
>existing characteristics within a population NOT generate new organs,
>new systems, new structures or new creatures. He is NOT the engine of
>transformational change.
that is correct. such changes, as evolution predicts, do not happen in
a human lifetime. at least the moron has THIS correct.
of course, the fact he DOES think birds change into whales in a human
lifetime tells you how little creationists know about science
>
>On the other hand populations in the "wild" generally exhibit
>significantly less change. Natural Selection coupled with Haldane's
>Dilemma does nothing analgous to the intelligent breeder. Natural
>Selection is "highly" conservative; it tends to conserve that which
>already exists and tends to attenuate change to the minimum necessary
>for survival and reporduction.
correct at last. that's because environments generally don't change.
>
>Again dog breeders have selected and preserved significant variations.
>This has been unremarkable for 4000 years. They are nonetheless four
>legged canines from start to finish. The task of the thread is to
>show empirical evidence of how the caninie, and its legs, etc. emerged
>and transformed to maturity in the first place.
>
tony seems to think jellyfish are whales becaue both are fish.
he's kinda stupid that way
All-seeing-I
Would that be the genetic evidence that is not fully understood yet?
Why yes. I think it is.
Tim DeLaney
The doxie's transformation is not just one of
leg size. I cited the leg size because
scientists have identified the mutation that
produced the change.
The doxie's nature has been markedly changed.
It can no longer function as a predator running
in packs, but must now rely on its human partner
for food.
The doxie's form has also been markedly changed.
Their legs are markedly shorter than those of the
wolf, and this is the result of a permanent change
in their genome.
The doxie's condition has been markedly changed.
It lives a radically different life from its
ancestors.
To characterize the changes as being too trivial
to consider them transformational is to ignore
completely the definition you yourself just
cited.
>
> Darwin's finch beaks didn't mutate with changing environmental
> conditions. What was observed was the change in relative frequency of
> variations in beak size which already existed within the genome of the
> population.
>
> The problem is to explain the emergence and development to maturity of
> the finch beak and canine legs not variations of their expression once
> in existence. For example, what physical evidence exists that the
> mesonychid transformed into a whale over time?
Is this the Pagano equivalent of the
"Gish gallop"?
>
> >We might well be able, by further selective breeding, to
> >come up with a dachshund that could survive in the wild.
> >Presumably, this breed would be selected to compete with
> >the badger as a predator of small mammals. But whether
> >we could be successful is unimportant to the assertion
> >that the dachshund has undergone "biological
> >transformational change".
>
> DeLaney unwittingly demonstrates that intelligently guided breeding
> shows an upper end to the degree and extent of change possible. That
> is, the breeder may select and preserve "any" heritable feature which
> ALREADY exists within the population and is expressed. He may also be
> successful at spreading that feature throughout some population under
> his control.
Pagano ignores the fact that doxies have a feature
that never existed before. Are you saying that
there was always a gene for short legs in the
ancestral wolf population?
>
> And there is a tremendous variability which already exists within
> EVERY population of any relatively large size. Nonetheless the
> breeder ONLY has the ability to change the relative frequency of
> existing characteristics within a population NOT generate new organs,
> new systems, new structures or new creatures. He is NOT the engine of
> transformational change.
>
> On the other hand populations in the "wild" generally exhibit
> significantly less change. Natural Selection coupled with Haldane's
> Dilemma does nothing analgous to the intelligent breeder. Natural
> Selection is "highly" conservative; it tends to conserve that which
> already exists and tends to attenuate change to the minimum necessary
> for survival and reporduction.
>
> >Except for the fact that we
> >know the history of Canis lupus familiaris,
>
> You only know the history of this population after it already existed.
> You have not one shred of evidence how organs, structures, and systems
> came to exist in the first place. That is the challenge of this
> thread.
Pagano tries to change the subject. Sorry,
Tony, the topic was stated in the subject
line. I don't accept your attempt to
change it.
>
> > we would
> >certainly classify the dachshund as a separate species.
> >They would never mate in the wild with the wolf, even
> >though we'd expect, because we know their evolutionary
> >history, that they could in theory produce viable and
> >fertile offspring.
>
> "Species" is classification label for some set of individuals not a
> physical attribute of an individual. Whether groups tend to separate
> their breeding habits has little if nothing to do with how those
> creatures and their attendent structures, organs and systems arose in
> the first place.
>
> Cichlid species flocks abound, multiply and separate into breeding
> populations with greater frequency than most yet this rapid
> "speciation" never results in anything-but more Cichlids.
>
> The question of the the thread is to show empirical evidence of how
> the Cichlid arose in the first place not how one Cichlid breeding
> population separates into several.
Again, I reject your attempt to change the subject.
>
> >One objection you might lodge is that the dachshund is
> >the product of selective breeding, which is "artificial"
> >selection. But humans are also part of nature, and the
> >distinction between artificial and natural selection is
> >not one that matters much.
>
> I don't object at all.
>
> There is simply no evidence of transformational change whether via
> nature or through the efforts of an intelligent breeder. Minor
> variation of existing systems and structures, back and forth, within
> limits, is not in dispute. What is in dispute is the transformational
> change, over time, to new structures, new systems and new organs which
> did not exist even in rudimentary form in predecessor populations.
>
> And since life purportedly started from a self replicating molecule
> EVERY structure, system, organ and creature had to emerge and
> transform to maturity. Evidence of this process should abound. I ask
> to see that evidence. What doesn't count as evidence is stringing
> discrete, unchanging fossil populations together via atheistic
> philosophy.
>
> The best example that novelty does NOT emerge and transform to
> maturity is Lenski's 20 year breeding experiment of 40,000+
> generations of E coli. Not one genuinely new function, system or
> organ has emerged and transformed to maturity.
More Pagano gallop. Unable to make a case
that doxies are merely a variety of wolf,
Tony attempts to change the subject. We're
discussing the evolution of canids, Tony,
not E coli.
>
>
>
> >Note, if you will, that the dachshund has descended from
> >the wolf in a geological eyeblink. It is so different from
> >Canis lupus that it's clear that transformational change
> >has taken place. Without a mutation that reverses the
> >mutation referred to above, you could never breed a wolf
> >from it. It is, and always will be, a different animal.
>
> >Tim
>
> Again dog breeders have selected and preserved significant variations.
> This has been unremarkable for 4000 years. They are nonetheless four
> legged canines from start to finish. The task of the thread is to
> show empirical evidence of how the caninie, and its legs, etc. emerged
> and transformed to maturity in the first place.
I showed what any objective observer would term
a transformational change. I will concede that
the doxie did not sprout new limbs or grow
another tail. But the differences between
wolf and doxie are by any objective measure
transformational, even by your own definition.
Tim
hersheyh
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 18:33:27 -0800 (PST), Tim DeLaney
>
>
>
> <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >On Nov 22, 8:30 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> >> Can any evolutionist, atheist, agnostic, secularist, or academic
> >> elitist produce unambiguous, empirical evidence that purely
> >> naturalistic biological transformational change occurred in prehistory
> >> or is occurring now? Supposedly the evidence of biological
> >> "transformational" change is overwhelming. We'll see.
>
> >> No rules.
>
> >> I will reply to every post as time permits except for those asking for
> >> definitions. Anyone needing a definition should go to any good
> >> English language dictionary.
>
> >> Regards,
> >> T Pagano
>
> >Well, you do make debate difficult by employing terms
> >that may have multiple meanings, and then refusing in
> >advance to tell us what you mean by them. Nonetheless
> >I will try to guess at what you really mean by "purely
> >naturalistic biological transformational change".
>
> "Transformational" is the operative word.
>
>
> >Compare the dachshund to the grey wolf. Presumably,
> >you will concede that the former is descended from the
> >latter. By any reasonable criterion, various of the
> >smaller breeds of the domestic dog, including the
> >dachshund, are different enough from the grey wolf to
> >merit the description "biological transformational
> >change". The relative length of their legs is a result
> >of a particular mutation, so the morphology of the
> >dachshund has been permanently altered. See
> >http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/316/5821/112
>
> Apparently DeLaney doesn't know how to use an English language
> dictionary. Or he decided to ignore the word "transformational"
> since he knows there is no evidence of that particular kind of change.
Like I said, Pagano is using "transformational" as the weasel-word du
jour. Whatever example of change is presented, Pagano can claim that
it is not sufficient to meet his criteria for being
"transformational". Nor will he give any specific testable idea of
what would meet his criteria (other than the creationist canard of a
canard giving birth to a dodo, although that is mostly change not much
greater than a wolf transforming into a dachshund)
> To "transform" is to markedly change function, nature, form, or
> condition.
No. The definition of "transform", in my dictionary, does not include
the weasel-word "markedly". *You* obviously added that weasel-word in
order to insure that you had an 'out' when evidence of
"transformation" was presented.
> In what respect is changing the length of one's legs a
> "transformation?" It is a change but not a transformational change.
See. I was right. You are re-defining words so that you can weasel
out of any possible example given.
>
> Darwin's finch beaks didn't mutate with changing environmental
> conditions.
Mutation *must* occur before there can be selection. 'Changing
environmental conditons' (with the exception of adding mutagens to the
environment) doesn't "create" variants. It selects among variants
that actually exist.
> What was observed was the change in relative frequency of
> variations in beak size which already existed within the genome of the
> population.
Well, duh. You were maybe expecting the environment to select
variants that didn't exist within that population? That would be what
creationism says, that some magical something poofed something out of
nothing.
>
> The problem is to explain the emergence and development to maturity of
> the finch beak and canine legs not variations of their expression once
> in existence.
The bird beak first appeared well before the existence of the group of
birds collectively called finches. And tetrapod legs first appeared
well, wel,l well before the existence of canines. So any specific
finch beak was inherited from an ancestor that had a beak and the beak
was simply "modified" (aka, "transformed") to the form that was
optimal for that species of finch in its local environment. And any
canine also inherited its legs from an ancestor and these legs were
simply "modified" (aka, "transformed") into the form optimal for that
species of breed of canine (although a dachshund's legs arose by human-
guided artificial selection to suit a particular human need).
>For example, what physical evidence exists that the
> mesonychid transformed into a whale over time?
The existence of mesonychid fossils with intermediate features at the
right time (layer of the geological record). The *pattern* of the
record in time (layer of the geological record) is what is important.
The *pattern* is consistent with the expectations of change through
time. Of course, that is not a fine-grained detailed record, but it
is certainly good enough to rough out the general pattern. For fine-
grained detailed records of transformation, you need to look at
organisms with an even more complete fossil record.
> >We might well be able, by further selective breeding, to
> >come up with a dachshund that could survive in the wild.
> >Presumably, this breed would be selected to compete with
> >the badger as a predator of small mammals. But whether
> >we could be successful is unimportant to the assertion
> >that the dachshund has undergone "biological
> >transformational change".
>
> DeLaney unwittingly demonstrates that intelligently guided breeding
> shows an upper end to the degree and extent of change possible.
Three points. First, intelligently guided breeding by humans can be
so rapid (relative to the rate of change that would be required by
natural selection) that it can essentially remove the available
reservoir of variation in a population. Second, humans do breeding to
generate organisms that meet human needs, not necessarily organisms
that are healthy. Third, selection for any single trait can indeed
run into a temporary block where the deficits of that trait and the
benefits are balanced. Going further directionally often requires
changes and selection in other sites.
> That
> is, the breeder may select and preserve "any" heritable feature which
> ALREADY exists within the population and is expressed.
As I have already mentioned: Well, duh. You were maybe expecting
selection (which is what *real* human breeders do in artificial
selection and what *real* environments do in the absence of human
guidance) to somehow magically poof desired mutations into existence
rather than merely select among the variations that actually exist?
Magical poofing is *your* explanation, not mine.
> He may also be
> successful at spreading that feature throughout some population under
> his control.
Yes. But how is that different in its fundamental mechanism from a
feature successfully spreading throughout a population because it
allows, for example, the exploitation of a previously unavailable
resource? What is the environment doing that the human isn't?
>
> And there is a tremendous variability which already exists within
> EVERY population of any relatively large size. Nonetheless the
> breeder ONLY has the ability to change the relative frequency of
> existing characteristics within a population NOT generate new organs,
> new systems, new structures or new creatures. He is NOT the engine of
> transformational change.
New systems (new biochemical pathways) have been generated by
selection of mutants in bacteria. Of course, as would be expected for
*real* evolution rather than magical poofing creationism, these new
biochemical pathways doing new things are *modifications* of pre-
existing ancestral systems that did something else.
But, being the pimp that prostitutes the words that you exploit, I am
quite aware of the fact that you have chosen terms like 'organs',
'systems', 'structures', and 'creatures' with the explicit realization
that (*because* evolution proposes that any novelty must arise by
modification of past capacities) you can always claim that any change
is not change enough to meet your (always unstated) criteria. Dealing
with word pimps is frustrating that way.
> On the other hand populations in the "wild" generally exhibit
> significantly less change. Natural Selection coupled with Haldane's
> Dilemma does nothing analgous to the intelligent breeder. Natural
> Selection is "highly" conservative; it tends to conserve that which
> already exists and tends to attenuate change to the minimum necessary
> for survival and reporduction.
Human breeders, unlike nature, often are willing to adapt environments
so that organisms with features they desire can survive...even when
they would not in non-human nature. But non-human nature allows
changes to accrue over *much* longer time frames than your personal
attention span or life span.
> >Except for the fact that we
> >know the history of Canis lupus familiaris,
>
> You only know the history of this population after it already existed.
> You have not one shred of evidence how organs, structures, and systems
> came to exist in the first place. That is the challenge of this
> thread.
No. The challenge of this and any creationist thread is to keep
pointing out that they are word pimps prostituting the language to
achieve whatever they want.
> > we would
> >certainly classify the dachshund as a separate species.
> >They would never mate in the wild with the wolf, even
> >though we'd expect, because we know their evolutionary
> >history, that they could in theory produce viable and
> >fertile offspring.
>
> "Species" is classification label for some set of individuals not a
> physical attribute of an individual.
Since when is "dachshund" an individual?
> Whether groups tend to separate
> their breeding habits has little if nothing to do with how those
> creatures and their attendent structures, organs and systems arose in
> the first place.
>
> Cichlid species abound, multiply and separate into breeding
> populations with greater frequency than most yet this rapid
> "speciation" never results in anything-but more Cichlids.
Yet *species* with different diets, different reproductive habits, and
different form have been produced, all rather recently. What, exactly
would you expect from an evolutionary perspective? That a species of
cichlid give birth to what? A shark? A flounder? Those are species
in separate lineages. When does a cichlid give birth to a non-cichlid
if each new speciation event must arise from a not-to-great
modification of an ancestral cichlid? Such events can only be
observed by looking at events that have already happened, by looking
at the common ancestor to the modern group of fish we call cichlids
and to its most closely related modern group that we don't call
cichlids. Since cichlid is a *family* of fish, (making you the winner
in the use of the broadest "kindergarten taxonomy" category that is
lumped together and considered trivially different from each other) we
must look for another family in the *order* Perciformes, but my guess
is that you would simply say that all the Perciformes are basically
the same fishy "kind" as the cichlids.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cichlid
> The question of the the thread is to show empirical evidence of how
> the Cichlid arose in the first place not how one Cichlid breeding
> population separates into several.
All the 220 genera and all 1300 (making this one of the largest
vertebrate families) species of the family group we call cichlids
arose from an ancestral member of the order Perciformes. You seem to
be claiming that all 1300 cichlids are the same "kind" of fish, am I
right? Despite speciation variation in size from 2.5 cm to 1 meter.
Variation from strongly laterally compressed (angelfish are cichlids)
to cylindrial in shape (e.g. pike cichlids).
> >One objection you might lodge is that the dachshund is
> >the product of selective breeding, which is "artificial"
> >selection. But humans are also part of nature, and the
> >distinction between artificial and natural selection is
> >not one that matters much.
>
> I don't object at all.
>
> There is simply no evidence of transformational change whether via
> nature or through the efforts of an intelligent breeder. Minor
> variation of existing systems and structures, back and forth, within
> limits, is not in dispute.
Apparently variation that is able to produce an angelfish and tilapia
is "minor" variation of existing systems and structures in Tony's pimp-
like view of words whereas the variation that distinguishes H. sapiens
from, say, H. habilis is probably "major". Isn't it all marvelously
flexible and weaselly?
> What is in dispute is the transformational
> change, over time, to new structures, new systems and new organs which
> did not exist even in rudimentary form in predecessor populations.
>
> And since life purportedly started from a self replicating molecule
> EVERY structure, system, organ and creature had to emerge and
> transform to maturity. Evidence of this process should abound. I ask
> to see that evidence. What doesn't count as evidence is stringing
> discrete, unchanging fossil populations together via atheistic
> philosophy.
If intermediate forms existed at the right time, such fossil evidence
does count as evidence supporting change. Not a particularly fine-
grained set of evidence, but exactly what would be predicted by the
assumption of descent with modification.
>
> The best example that novelty does NOT emerge and transform to
> maturity is Lenski's 20 year breeding experiment of 40,000+
> generations of E coli. Not one genuinely new function, system or
> organ has emerged and transformed to maturity.
>
Except, of course, the ability to use citrate *is* a new function for
E. coli. In fact, the inability of E. coli to do so is often used a
species-defining feature. If that isn't a new "function", what would
be, given that evolution must work by modifying previously existing
features rather than by magically poofing what it needs out of thin
air.
> >Note, if you will, that the dachshund has descended from
> >the wolf in a geological eyeblink. It is so different from
> >Canis lupus that it's clear that transformational change
> >has taken place. Without a mutation that reverses the
> >mutation referred to above, you could never breed a wolf
> >from it. It is, and always will be, a different animal.
>
> >Tim
>
> Again dog breeders have selected and preserved significant variations.
> This has been unremarkable for 4000 years. They are nonetheless four
> legged canines from start to finish.
And humans remain tetrapods too, even though they have modified one
set of legs for different purposes, including Tony's verbal diarrhea
being input into his keyboard.
> The task of the thread is to
> show empirical evidence of how the caninie, and its legs, etc. emerged
> and transformed to maturity in the first place.
Which is it that we have to show? That there were ancestral canids
from which the modern canis arose? Or that there were two-legged
(well, any number but four-legged) canids from which the modern canis
arose?
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
raven1
Back to your mantra of "we don't know everything, therefore we know
nothing", I see. We actually do understand a lot more than you think,
but you would have no way of knowing that, given your determination to
remain ignorant.
Ye Old One
No, it is the genetic evidence that we fully understand.
>
>Why yes. I think it is.
Again, you never show any evidence of thinking.
--
Bob.
Have you ever wondered what your life would be like if you had had
enough oxygen at birth?
UC
> Can any evolutionist, atheist, agnostic, secularist, or academic
> elitist produce unambiguous, empirical evidence that purely
> naturalistic biological transformational change occurred in prehistory
> or is occurring now? Supposedly the evidence of biological
> "transformational" change is overwhelming. We'll see.
>
> No rules.
>
> I will reply to every post as time permits except for those asking for
> definitions. Anyone needing a definition should go to any good
> English language dictionary.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
I'm no "academic elitist". You may have me confused with someone else.
Augray
<ap...@email.com> wrote in
<73e90cf1-9a24-421f...@g31g2000vbr.googlegroups.com> :
As opposed to the "ancient texts" that aren't fully understood? Or are
you claiming that the metaphors are all comprehended?
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>On Nov 23, 8:04 am, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 00:03:52 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
>>
>> <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>> >But the dachshund has not undergone a "biological transformational
>> >change" to the point that it is now no longer anything like the wolf.
>> >.
>> >The dachshund is still a variation of the wolf. Nothing has changed
>> >that fact even though reproductive isolation has taken place. You have
>> >also proved quite niecly that micro evolution (variation) moves
>> >horozonallity and always foward from one kind to the next.
>>
>> so he continues to assert that jellyfish and sharks are just fish...no
>> evolution...they're just fish
>>
>> creationism is useless
>
>has anyone oberrved either giving rise to a cat when allowing enough
>time?
yeah. the fossil record has the evidence
bpuharic
and ancient texts are understood?
hmm....seems creationists dont even know their own subject...
Augray
<hers...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<33e1b7b9-1d07-4364...@k9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com> :
[snip]
>Like I said, Pagano is using "transformational" as the weasel-word du
>jour. Whatever example of change is presented, Pagano can claim that
>it is not sufficient to meet his criteria for being
>"transformational". Nor will he give any specific testable idea of
>what would meet his criteria (other than the creationist canard of a
>canard giving birth to a dodo, although that is mostly change not much
>greater than a wolf transforming into a dachshund)
I suspect that Harshman would disagree with that.
[snip the rest]
heekster
heekster
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>But the dachshund has not undergone a "biological transformational
>change" to the point that it is now no longer anything like the wolf.
>.
>The dachshund is still a variation of the wolf. Nothing has changed
>that fact even though reproductive isolation has taken place. You have
>also proved quite niecly that micro evolution (variation) moves
>horozonallity and always foward from one kind to the next.
Tell ya what.
Lock yourself in a big room with 4 dachsunds and no food, for 24
hours.
Then repeat the experiment, except substitute 4 grey wolves for the
dachsunds.
See the difference, idiot?
Nashton
ASI isn't a woman.
hersheyh
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 12:25:34 -0800 (PST), hersheyh
> <33e1b7b9-1d07-4364-a398-87989f35e...@k9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com> :
>
> [snip]
>
> >Like I said, Pagano is using "transformational" as the weasel-word du
> >jour. Whatever example of change is presented, Pagano can claim that
> >it is not sufficient to meet his criteria for being
> >"transformational". Nor will he give any specific testable idea of
> >what would meet his criteria (other than the creationist canard of a
> >canard giving birth to a dodo, although that is mostly change not much
> >greater than a wolf transforming into a dachshund)
>
> I suspect that Harshman would disagree with that.
>
> [snip the rest]
I probably should have used "a canard giving birth to a silly goose"
to make it a little closer.
Eric Root
> On Nov 22, 8:33 pm, Tim DeLaney <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > > Can any evolutionist, atheist, agnostic, secularist, or academic
> > > elitist produce unambiguous, empirical evidence that purely
> > > naturalistic biological transformational change occurred in prehistory
> > > or is occurring now? Supposedly the evidence of biological
> > > "transformational" change is overwhelming. We'll see.
>
> > > No rules.
>
> > > I will reply to every post as time permits except for those asking for
> > > definitions. Anyone needing a definition should go to any good
> > > English language dictionary.
>
> > > Regards,
> > > T Pagano
>
> > that may have multiple meanings, and then refusing in
> > advance to tell us what you mean by them. Nonetheless
> > naturalistic biological transformational change".
>
> > Compare the dachshund to the grey wolf. Presumably,
> > you will concede that the former is descended from the
> > latter. By any reasonable criterion, various of the
> > smaller breeds of the domestic dog, including the
> > dachshund, are different enough from the grey wolf to
> > merit the description "biological transformational
> > change". The relative length of their legs is a result
> > of a particular mutation, so the morphology of the
> > dachshund has been permanently altered. Seehttp://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/316/5821/112
>
> > come up with a dachshund that could survive in the wild.
> > Presumably, this breed would be selected to compete with
> > the badger as a predator of small mammals. But whether
> > we could be successful is unimportant to the assertion
> > that the dachshund has undergone "biological
> > know the history of Canis lupus familiaris, we would
> > certainly classify the dachshund as a separate species.
> > They would never mate in the wild with the wolf, even
> > though we'd expect, because we know their evolutionary
> > history, that they could in theory produce viable and
> > fertile offspring.
>
> > the product of selective breeding, which is "artificial"
> > selection. But humans are also part of nature, and the
> > distinction between artificial and natural selection is
> > not one that matters much.
>
> > the wolf in a geological eyeblink. It is so different from
> > Canis lupus that it's clear that transformational change
> > has taken place. Without a mutation that reverses the
> > mutation referred to above, you could never breed a wolf
> > from it. It is, and always will be, a different animal.
>
> > Tim
>
> change" to the point that it is now no longer anything like the wolf.
> .
> The dachshund is still a variation of the wolf. Nothing has changed
> that fact even though reproductive isolation has taken place. You have
> also proved quite niecly that micro evolution (variation) moves
> horozonallity and always foward from one kind to the next.
>
Right. Evolution in action.
(snip)
Eric Root
Iain
> Can any evolutionist, atheist, agnostic, secularist, or academic
> elitist produce unambiguous, empirical evidence that purely
> naturalistic biological transformational change occurred in prehistory
> or is occurring now? Supposedly the evidence of biological
> "transformational" change is overwhelming. We'll see.
>
> No rules.
>
> I will reply to every post as time permits except for those asking for
> definitions. Anyone needing a definition should go to any good
> English language dictionary.
Yes, on all counts.
Evolution is like erosion. Once you've seen a day of it, you've seen
all aspects of it.
--Iain
John Stockwell
> "All-seeing-I" <ap...@email.com> wrote in message
>
> news:589e8646-e46f-4403...@o31g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
> > On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 00:03:52 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
> > <ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> "The fox is a variation of the original created canis moron. I drew you
> pictures in crayon yet you still cannot understand"
The original "canis moron"? Whould that be the All-seeing-eye dog?
>
> Do tell us about this "origional canis." What did it look like? Was it
> alone or created with all the other "canis" at the same time. Have some
> gone extinct? Has anything replaced theh extinct ones? How might this
> happen? Does it still happen? I need someone to explain to me what
> "creation" looks like. What evidence has it left behind? Can it be
> replicated or demonstrated? What is its fossil record look like.
>
> I am not holding my breath.
>
> .
John Wilkins
<sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> No new phyla have emerged within recorded history, that is true.
Actually, if any lineages that emerged in recorded history last long
enough, then new phyla *will* have arisen recently. Trouble is, they
won't be obvious *as phyla* until a rather long time later.
Phylum is an arbitrary rank.
John Wilkins
> Ye Old One wrote:
>
>
> ASI isn't a woman.
>
Yeah, 'coz where's he gonna gestate the fetus? Inna box?
chris thompson
> Can any evolutionist, atheist, agnostic, secularist, or academic
> elitist produce unambiguous, empirical evidence that purely
> naturalistic biological transformational change occurred in prehistory
> or is occurring now? Supposedly the evidence of biological
> "transformational" change is overwhelming. We'll see.
>
> No rules.
>
> I will reply to every post as time permits except for those asking for
> definitions. Anyone needing a definition should go to any good
> English language dictionary.
>
> T Pagano
The only obvious change around here is the way you transform normally
stationary goalposts into structures capable of breaking the sound
barrier.
Chris
Mark Isaak
> Can any evolutionist, atheist, agnostic, secularist, or academic
> elitist produce unambiguous, empirical evidence that purely
> naturalistic biological transformational change occurred in prehistory
> or is occurring now? Supposedly the evidence of biological
> "transformational" change is overwhelming. We'll see.
No, you will not see. The empirical unambiguous evidence is obvious and
ubiquitous. If you have not seen it already, it can only be because you
are incapable of seeing it.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
Mark Isaak
T Pagano
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>T Pagano wrote:
>> Can any evolutionist, atheist, agnostic, secularist, or academic
>> elitist produce unambiguous, empirical evidence that purely
>> naturalistic biological transformational change occurred in prehistory
>> or is occurring now? Supposedly the evidence of biological
>> "transformational" change is overwhelming. We'll see.
>
>No, as far as you're concerned. It's impossible to show evidence that
>any given transformation, past or present, was not accompanied by a
>miracle of some sort, just as it's impossible to show that any
>particular rain storm wasn't caused by the hammer of Thor, or that fruit
>fly allele frequencies are not divinely guided. At most, we can show
>that supernatural explanations are unnecessary.
In other words there is no evidence of biological transformational
change. And to divert his loyal readers from this painful fact
Harshman misleads them into believing that I assert that EVERY event
in natural history is the result of miraculous action. Harshman
couldn't produce quotes of such nonsense from any creationist in the
forum let alone from my posts. Now let's get back to the facts:
Darwin wished to formulate a theory which, in part, explained the
origin of biological novelty. He had no clue, whatsoever, about
genetic mechanisms, but he reasoned that as long as any new biological
feature could arise and develp via successive, gradual and natural
progression over time an Intelligent Creator was unnecessary. Descent
with modification over time was forumlated as a purely naturalistic
and gradualistic process. Dawkins agrees.
As a naturalist Darwin was well aware that all purely naturalistic
processes proceed along a linear-like path from any point A to any
point B and that such pathways have----by necessity---overlaps between
segments all along the path. This is important because it is
testable. Because of the nature of this naturalistic process Darwin
rightly saw nothing special about any class labeled "species." It was
nothing more than part of a continuous and overlapping class between
predecessor and ancestor populations.
Darwin examined the fossil record and this process of purely
naturalistic, gradualistic, biological transformationism was
contradicted by the fossil record. The fossil record shows
NOTHING-BUT discrete, discontinuous populations which appear suddenly,
remain markedly unchanged for millions of years before disappearing.
Darwin rightly expected the fossil record to abound with nascent
structures and genuine overlapping transitional forms between
populations. Yet he saw NONE of this. We still find none.
Today we have atheists in the scientific community stringing together
discrete fossil populations with metaphysical axioms not testable
mechanisms.
>
>What can be shown is that transformations happened unless someone has an
>elaborate plan to fool us, and we have no reason to suppose these
>changes weren't natural. I can give examples on request, but you should
>know of quite a few already; common descent of humans and chimps, e.g.
We have chimp fossils and human fossils but the supposed common
ancestor is nowhere to be found. In fact the fossil record is made
up almost exclusively of end nodes. The purported common ancestors
are ALL missing.
There does not exist one experiment where transformational change has
been induced in a coherent, progressive and directional manner. NOT
ONE. By transformational change it is NOT meant the minor variations
of existing structures but evidence of how the structures arose in the
first place.
Lenski's 40,000+ generation artificial breeding experiment hasn't
produced one iota of evidence that E coli populations with their
genetic mechanisms have the capacity for transformational change. That
is, the propensity for biological novelty to emerge and develop to
maturity in a coherent, progressive and directional manner.
>As I understand it, you aren't merely questioning the natural status of
>transformations;
Their natural status is merely a theory and poorly supported, if at
all. I ask in this thread for empirical evidence that biological
novelty has emerged via neoDarwinian means and that this novelty has
progressed coherently and naturalistically to maturity.
> you deny that they have happened at all.
We have evidence of the change in relative frequency of existing
information, back-and-forth within limits. We have no empirical
evidence of how the existing information arose in the first place.
>So merely
>demonstrating change should be good enough to refute your favorite
>theory. I can see why you offered something more difficult as a
>challenge, though.
Harshman argues the absurdity that any kind (and degree) of biological
change is evidence of all kinds of change. Taken to its absurd
conclusion one could argue that the relative change in finch beak
size, back and forth, with changing environmental conditions is
evidence of the emergence of the fist avian lung. One could also
argue the contradiction that any change is evidence of discontinuous
changes. Discontinuous changes are prohibited in purely naturalistic
processes.
Harshman's absurdity is very similar to the absurdities issuing from
Dawkins about his gradualistic reductionism. That I can pile a few
bricks on top of one another is no more evidence that I can construct
a 50 story sky scrapter than is the relative change in allele
frequency (of existing information) evidence that the known genetic
mechanisms have the propensity for coherent, progressive and
directional change leading to genuinely NEW information.
>
>> No rules.
>>
>> I will reply to every post as time permits except for those asking for
>> definitions. Anyone needing a definition should go to any good
>> English language dictionary.
>
>Your definitions frequently depart from the dictionary. But never mind.
No quotes, no examples.
And in conclusion: No evidence, special pleading, and the usual
reductio ad absurdum.
Next victim.
Regards,
T Pagano
bpuharic
wrote:
>On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 18:53:56 -0800, John Harshman
><jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>>T Pagano wrote:
>>> Can any evolutionist, atheist, agnostic, secularist, or academic
>>> elitist produce unambiguous, empirical evidence that purely
>>> naturalistic biological transformational change occurred in prehistory
>>> or is occurring now? Supposedly the evidence of biological
>>> "transformational" change is overwhelming. We'll see.
>>
>>No, as far as you're concerned. It's impossible to show evidence that
>>any given transformation, past or present, was not accompanied by a
>>miracle of some sort, just as it's impossible to show that any
>>particular rain storm wasn't caused by the hammer of Thor, or that fruit
>>fly allele frequencies are not divinely guided. At most, we can show
>>that supernatural explanations are unnecessary.
>
>In other words there is no evidence of biological transformational
>change
wow. he completely ignored any response at all and went off on his
creationist tangent. he forgot he inserted the term 'markedly' before
'transformational'...and thus made an unintelligible position even
more incoherent
which is the only way he can defend his position
.. And to divert his loyal readers from this painful fact
>Harshman misleads them into believing that I assert that EVERY event
>in natural history is the result of miraculous action. Harshman
>couldn't produce quotes of such nonsense from any creationist in the
>forum let alone from my posts. Now let's get back to the facts:
well since your position is similar to trying to read the newspaper
wearing opaque lenses, no one knows what your assertions are. you
backpedal, twist, re-define and employ any other strategem designed to
avoid meaningful ideas
>
>
>As a naturalist Darwin was well aware that all purely naturalistic
>processes proceed along a linear-like path from any point A to any
>point B
really? was he? well, then, perhaps pagano can us why chemical
reactions often have side reactions...competing reactions...that
branch out from a starting point.
he keeps making this assertion. no one believes it. but, i guess if
you're a creationist, you get to make up any idea you want and rely on
god to cover your ass
>
>Darwin examined the fossil record and this process of purely
>naturalistic, gradualistic, biological transformationism was
>contradicted by the fossil record. The fossil record shows
>NOTHING-BUT discrete, discontinuous populations which appear suddenly,
>remain markedly unchanged for millions of years before disappearing.
well i guess pagano is unaware of the abundant fossil record showing
speciation of diatoms in the carribbean...millions of years of
gradual, slow evolution and speciation
which contradicts everything he just said.
but, then, he's a creationist, so facts dont matter. magic matters.
ghosts and demons matter. facts don't
and he keeps invoking these little mantras he's made up even when
he's corrected. he gets a hard core asskicking every time he shows
up...but, then, he's no different than any other creationist who is
the inheritor of a legacy of 2000 years of failure
>
>Today we have atheists in the scientific community stringing together
>discrete fossil populations with metaphysical axioms not testable
>mechanisms.
creationism, by definition, excludes testability and mechanisms from
its conceptual framework. instead, it relies on myth, fairy tales and
vague, undefined words to build a theology
>
>>
>>What can be shown is that transformations happened unless someone has an
>>elaborate plan to fool us, and we have no reason to suppose these
>>changes weren't natural. I can give examples on request, but you should
>>know of quite a few already; common descent of humans and chimps, e.g.
>
>We have chimp fossils and human fossils but the supposed common
>ancestor is nowhere to be found. In fact the fossil record is made
>up almost exclusively of end nodes. The purported common ancestors
>are ALL missing.
except for
-diatoms
-horses
-whales
and a host of other organisms...
>
>There does not exist one experiment where transformational change has
>been induced in a coherent, progressive and directional manner. NOT
>ONE. By transformational change it is NOT meant the minor variations
>of existing structures but evidence of how the structures arose in the
>first place.
more word salad. what is a 'coherent progressive and directional
manner'?
he keeps invoking the dictionary as if it's the 4th person of the
trinity.
>
>Lenski's 40,000+ generation artificial breeding experiment hasn't
>produced one iota of evidence that E coli populations with their
>genetic mechanisms have the capacity for transformational change.
except, of course, for the development of a COMPLETELY NEW method of
metabolizing citrate....
guess he wanted to ignore that, too.
>
>
>>As I understand it, you aren't merely questioning the natural status of
>>transformations;
>
>Their natural status is merely a theory and poorly supported, if at
>all. I ask in this thread for empirical evidence that biological
>novelty has emerged via neoDarwinian means and that this novelty has
>progressed coherently and naturalistically to maturity.
>
>
>> you deny that they have happened at all.
>
>We have evidence of the change in relative frequency of existing
>information, back-and-forth within limits. We have no empirical
>evidence of how the existing information arose in the first place.
god of the gaps. always nice to see creationists invoking the
classic...and failed...arguments against science. if this were
justification for creationism, creationists would still be invoking
demons as a cause for earthquakes and foul weather, like they did in
the past
how'd that work out for you guys?
tony relies on
-ignoring or denying evidence (evolution of horses, whales and
lenski's experiments)
-word salad (what the hell is 'mature, progressive, directional'
evolution?)
-invocation of demons and ghosts to explain features of nature even
though these have ALWAYS been wrong
other than that he's got a great argument!
Tim DeLaney
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 18:53:56 -0800, John Harshman
>
Tony, Tony, Tony
You have failed completely in this debate. To declare
that dachshunds and wolves are merely variations of a
kind is ludicrous. Any 4-year old would laugh you out
of the classroom for such a silly notion. Please retire
to lick your wounds.
Tim
David Fritzinger
<1c97d46f-efd8-430a...@g1g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
John Stockwell <john.1...@gmail.com> wrote:
In the "Blind leading the blind" category:
> On Nov 23, 9:33 am, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
> > "All-seeing-I" <ap...@email.com> wrote in message
heekster
<john.1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 23, 9:33 am, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
>> "All-seeing-I" <ap...@email.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:589e8646-e46f-4403...@o31g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
>> On Nov 23, 4:15 am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>>
>
>
>
>> > On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 00:03:52 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
>> > <ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>
>> "The fox is a variation of the original created canis moron. I drew you
>> pictures in crayon yet you still cannot understand"
>
>The original "canis moron"? Would that be the All-seeing-eye dog?
>
LMFAO.
Ilas
5ramg5t4bt7594e87...@4ax.com:
>
> Next victim.
Tee hee. You're funny.
All-Seeing-I
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 12:13:07 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
> <ap...@email.com> wrote in
>
> - Show quoted text -
I do not claim the ancient texts are necessarily true. I claim they
are another possible reason for man's origins. And as long as there is
more then one possible reason for man's origins then evolution becomes
exactly what it is. Which is just a possible explanation for man's
origins.
But you evo-freaks do not present evolution as a posible reason for
man's origins.
Instead you present evolution as if it were fact in the class rooms
and in the media.
But it is not.
All-Seeing-I
<dfrit...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article
> <1c97d46f-efd8-430a-b70b-f48b4eee9...@g1g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
> John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> In the "Blind leading the blind" category:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 23, 9:33 am, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
> > > "All-seeing-I" <ap...@email.com> wrote in message
> >> "The fox is a variation of the original created canis moron. I drew
> you
> > > pictures in crayon yet you still cannot understand"
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes. All life started with an "original" and "created" kind
That fits the evidence better then "we all came from a magical planet
that can create life and then evolve it with no help"
like you seem to believe.
Ye Old One
You only just discovered that?
Bugger but you are really thick.
--
Bob.
People may not always remember exactly what you said, but they will
always remember just how bright you made them feel.
bpuharic
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>I do not claim the ancient texts are necessarily true. I claim they
>are another possible reason for man's origins. And as long as there is
>more then one possible reason for man's origins then evolution becomes
>exactly what it is. Which is just a possible explanation for man's
>origins.
absolulely no one knows what this means. how is 'god did it' an
explanation for anything? it can explain anything and it's not
testable. science is about explanations.
creationism is about excuses
>
>But you evo-freaks do not present evolution as a posible reason for
>man's origins.
sure we do.
>
>Instead you present evolution as if it were fact in the class rooms
>and in the media.
>
>But it is not.
evolution is observed. god isn't. when you find a fossilized angel,
you be sure and let me know, m'kay?
richardal...@googlemail.com
..yet offer no objective way of distinguishing what is true from what
is myth or fable.
> I claim they
> are another possible reason for man's origins.
...but offer no evidence in support of that claim other than rather
dubious interpretations of carefully selected "ancient texts" by
pseudo-scholars.
> And as long as there is
> more then one possible reason for man's origins then evolution becomes
> exactly what it is. Which is just a possible explanation for man's
> origins.
...and one which, unlike your "ancient texts", is based on evidence
from the natural world.
>
> But you evo-freaks do not present evolution as a posible reason for
> man's origins.
>
> Instead you present evolution as if it were fact in the class rooms
> and in the media.
Evolution is a fact - after all, we can observe it in action in the
natural world and replicate it in the laboratory. Evolutionary theory
explains how evolution works, and is the only scientific theory
compatible with the evidence.
Why should we *not* teach it in classrooms? It is, according to most
biologists, the unifying theory which makes sense of their science.
>
> But it is not.
So what alternative explanation do you have for the evidence and how
do you propose to test it?
RF
Augray
<85f32ade-1a33-4c31...@x16g2000vbk.googlegroups.com> :
>On Nov 23, 3:12�pm, Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 12:13:07 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
>> <ap...@email.com> wrote in
>> <73e90cf1-9a24-421f-bc16-0519feaf3...@g31g2000vbr.googlegroups.com> :
>>
>> >On Nov 23, 12:43�pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>> >> All-seeing-I wrote:
>> >> > On Nov 23, 10:03 am, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> snip
>>
>> >> > You simply cannot show that happenes unless yosnu make up exotic stories
>> >> > over what few bones you have.
>>
>> >> The fossils are not even required at all to show that it happened. � The
>> >> genetic evidence shows it much more convincingly. � That the fossil record
>> >> exists, and does match the genetic record is massive support for evolution.
>>
>> >> > It is that simple ya know.
>>
>> >> It's simple to understand the evidence. �Turning a blind eye to the
>> >> evidence, and relying on old legends and folk tales only shows your
>> >> insecurity.
>>
>> >> DJT
>>
>> >Would that be the genetic evidence that is not fully understood yet?
>>
>> >Why yes. I think it is.
>>
>> As opposed to the "ancient texts" that aren't fully understood? Or are
>> you claiming that the metaphors are all comprehended?
>
>I do not claim the ancient texts are necessarily true.
What bunk! Of *course* you claim they're true. What *else* do you base
your arguments on? Without "ancient texts", there's no reason to point
to anomalies of the coast of India as evidence for a global flood.
Heck, without "ancient texts" there's no reason to think that the
flood happened at all.
And then you post things like this in
http://groups.google.ca/group/talk.origins/msg/1b296a1b6ec16398 :
For an ancient man, I think Enoch did a pretty good job
describing what Uriel showed him with the words that he had at
his disposal.
Face it: You write as if the "ancient texts" are factual accounts
>I claim they
>are another possible reason for man's origins.
"Ancient texts" aren't a reason for man's origins. Learn to write what
you mean.
>And as long as there is
>more then one possible reason for man's origins then evolution becomes
>exactly what it is. Which is just a possible explanation for man's
>origins.
If it's possible, then why do you reject it?
>But you evo-freaks do not present evolution as a posible reason for
>man's origins.
In fact, we do. But there are not other alternatives with any evidence
in favor of them.
>Instead you present evolution as if it were fact in the class rooms
>and in the media.
That's what the evidence points to
>But it is not.
When are you going to demonstrate that?
heekster
>Ye Old One wrote:
>
>
>ASI isn't a woman.
Thanks for the news flash, Crocodile Dundee.
Could you ascertain this just by looking, or did you have to grab the
naughty bits?
LT
I'll let the images say it:
http://afrocityblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/irony.jpg
and of course:
http://skepacabra.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/creationists.jpg
LT
Ye Old One
Evolution is a fact.
>
>But you evo-freaks do not present evolution as a posible reason for
>man's origins.
>
>Instead you present evolution as if it were fact in the class rooms
>and in the media.
Because evolution IS a fact.
>
>But it is not.
Liar!
Madman (aka Mudbrain) is on record as claiming:-
Science causes disease.
That 3.5% actually means 25%...
That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...
That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...
That wars have been fought because some scientific finding discredited
some facet of some religion...
To have a "higher education" than most posters to this news group...
To understand how geologists determine the age of any given sample of
rock...
That trilobites were Cambrian mammals... [that one still makes me
laugh]
And that he has "created genes" and not evolved ape genes...
That linguists have traced all the world's languages to the Middle
East region and back to around the same time as the bible claims Noah
and his sons rebuilt mankind.
Claimed that talk.origin's moderator was a troll.
Claimed cigarettes do not cause cancer.
Now, I ask you, is this the sort of guy you would give an credence to?
Certainly I don't.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
<allse...@usa.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Nov 23, 10:30 pm, David Fritzinger
><dfrit...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
>> In article
>> <1c97d46f-efd8-430a-b70b-f48b4eee9...@g1g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
>> John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> In the "Blind leading the blind" category:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Nov 23, 9:33 am, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
>> > > "All-seeing-I" <ap...@email.com> wrote in message
>> >> "The fox is a variation of the original created canis moron. I drew
>> you
>> > > pictures in crayon yet you still cannot understand"
>>
>> > The original "canis moron"? Whould that be the All-seeing-eye dog?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Yes. All life started with an "original" and "created" kind
So. Which was the created kind, the wolf or the fox?
>
>That fits the evidence better then "we all came from a magical planet
>that can create life and then evolve it with no help"
>
>like you seem to believe.
>
>
--
Bob.
If brains were dynamite, you wouldn't have enough to blow your nose.
Dan Listermann
"All-Seeing-I" <allse...@usa.com> wrote in message
news:d57d3178-9a3c-4c5b...@k9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 23, 10:30 pm, David Fritzinger
<dfrit...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article
> <1c97d46f-efd8-430a-b70b-f48b4eee9...@g1g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
> John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> In the "Blind leading the blind" category:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 23, 9:33 am, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
> > > "All-seeing-I" <ap...@email.com> wrote in message
> >> "The fox is a variation of the original created canis moron. I drew
> you
> > > pictures in crayon yet you still cannot understand"
>
> > The original "canis moron"? Whould that be the All-seeing-eye dog?- Hide
> > quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
"Yes. All life started with an "original" and "created" kind"
Can you bother yourself to describe an "original" and "created" kind" of
canis and what has since descended from it?
.
John Harshman
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 18:53:56 -0800, John Harshman
> <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> T Pagano wrote:
>>> Can any evolutionist, atheist, agnostic, secularist, or academic
>>> elitist produce unambiguous, empirical evidence that purely
>>> naturalistic biological transformational change occurred in prehistory
>>> or is occurring now? Supposedly the evidence of biological
>>> "transformational" change is overwhelming. We'll see.
>> No, as far as you're concerned. It's impossible to show evidence that
>> any given transformation, past or present, was not accompanied by a
>> miracle of some sort, just as it's impossible to show that any
>> particular rain storm wasn't caused by the hammer of Thor, or that fruit
>> fly allele frequencies are not divinely guided. At most, we can show
>> that supernatural explanations are unnecessary.
>
> In other words there is no evidence of biological transformational
> change.
In other words, by that standard, there is no evidence of anything. Once
we admit an omnipotent being to the mix, nothing can be ruled out.
> And to divert his loyal readers from this painful fact
> Harshman misleads them into believing that I assert that EVERY event
> in natural history is the result of miraculous action. Harshman
> couldn't produce quotes of such nonsense from any creationist in the
> forum let alone from my posts.
You misunderstand as usual, perhaps on purpose. You don't claim such a
thing, it's merely the unavoidable inference from what you do claim. I
can see you have trouble with inferences.
> Now let's get back to the facts:
>
> Darwin wished to formulate a theory which, in part, explained the
> origin of biological novelty. He had no clue, whatsoever, about
> genetic mechanisms, but he reasoned that as long as any new biological
> feature could arise and develp via successive, gradual and natural
> progression over time an Intelligent Creator was unnecessary. Descent
> with modification over time was forumlated as a purely naturalistic
> and gradualistic process. Dawkins agrees.
>
> As a naturalist Darwin was well aware that all purely naturalistic
> processes proceed along a linear-like path from any point A to any
> point B and that such pathways have----by necessity---overlaps between
> segments all along the path. This is important because it is
> testable. Because of the nature of this naturalistic process Darwin
> rightly saw nothing special about any class labeled "species." It was
> nothing more than part of a continuous and overlapping class between
> predecessor and ancestor populations.
Up to here, it's fine.
> Darwin examined the fossil record and this process of purely
> naturalistic, gradualistic, biological transformationism was
> contradicted by the fossil record. The fossil record shows
> NOTHING-BUT discrete, discontinuous populations which appear suddenly,
> remain markedly unchanged for millions of years before disappearing.
No, that's not it at all. The fossil record shows mostly discontinous
snapshots of time and space. There are very few long-term, continuous
records of any sort, whether of stasis or change. And of course there
are some fine-scale records that do show transformation between species,
as in the Phacops rana example of Eldredge and Gould. Then again, many
apparent species do continue, apparently unchanged, for millions of
years; that's stasis.
I will point out that this stasis has nothing to do with Tony's
challenge as expressed, since these abrupt transitions are between
similar species, and are not transformational change of the sort Tony is
talking about. Those big transformations take time, and we have abundant
fossil documentation on that scale. For example, the transformation from
primitive synapsid to mammal is well-documented: a discontinuous series
of morphotypes (though few of them continuously recorded enough to
suppose stasis; most are known from single time-horizons), but each only
slightly different from the next, not enough for Tony to call it
transformative, yet eventually ending up in a very different place from
the start.
And of course the main evidence for common descent isn't the fossil
record at all.
> Darwin rightly expected the fossil record to abound with nascent
> structures and genuine overlapping transitional forms between
> populations. Yet he saw NONE of this. We still find none.
Darwin expected no such thing. In fact he explained why, though
finescale transitions must have existed, we would be unlikely to find
them in the fossil record. As for nascent structures, though, they're
common enough. What is the wing of Archaeopteryx other than a nascent
structure? It's just a slightly elongated theropod forelimb covered with
asymmetrical feathers. All the specialized features of a true bird wing
came later, and are nicely documented by the fossil record too.
> Today we have atheists in the scientific community stringing together
> discrete fossil populations with metaphysical axioms not testable
> mechanisms.
Pro forma note that Tony wrongly equates science with atheism.
>> What can be shown is that transformations happened unless someone has an
>> elaborate plan to fool us, and we have no reason to suppose these
>> changes weren't natural. I can give examples on request, but you should
>> know of quite a few already; common descent of humans and chimps, e.g.
>
> We have chimp fossils and human fossils but the supposed common
> ancestor is nowhere to be found. In fact the fossil record is made
> up almost exclusively of end nodes. The purported common ancestors
> are ALL missing.
Actually, we don't have any chimp fossils. If you had been paying
attention, you would have known that the evidence I was talking about
has nothing to do with the fossil record.
> There does not exist one experiment where transformational change has
> been induced in a coherent, progressive and directional manner. NOT
> ONE. By transformational change it is NOT meant the minor variations
> of existing structures but evidence of how the structures arose in the
> first place.
I have no interest in arguing about what is and isn't transformational
change. But of course we don't expect big changes to happen over a short
time frame. The evidence for common descent doesn't come from experiment.
> Lenski's 40,000+ generation artificial breeding experiment hasn't
> produced one iota of evidence that E coli populations with their
> genetic mechanisms have the capacity for transformational change. That
> is, the propensity for biological novelty to emerge and develop to
> maturity in a coherent, progressive and directional manner.
Whatever that means. I'm not sure how to even recognize transformational
change in bacteria.
>> As I understand it, you aren't merely questioning the natural status of
>> transformations;
>
> Their natural status is merely a theory and poorly supported, if at
> all. I ask in this thread for empirical evidence that biological
> novelty has emerged via neoDarwinian means and that this novelty has
> progressed coherently and naturalistically to maturity.
>
>
>> you deny that they have happened at all.
>
> We have evidence of the change in relative frequency of existing
> information, back-and-forth within limits. We have no empirical
> evidence of how the existing information arose in the first place.
You aren't paying attention. I'm not talking about how it happened. I'm
talking about the evidence that it did happen.
>> So merely
>> demonstrating change should be good enough to refute your favorite
>> theory. I can see why you offered something more difficult as a
>> challenge, though.
>
> Harshman argues the absurdity that any kind (and degree) of biological
> change is evidence of all kinds of change.
No he doesn't. You really are incapable of reading for comprehension. I
argue the non-absurdity that common descent is evidence for whatever
degree of change appears within the commonly descended group. It may not
be evidence for the mechanism of that change, but it is evidence for
that change. Your argument below, proceeding as it does from a
completely false impression of my claims, is pointless.
> Taken to its absurd
> conclusion one could argue that the relative change in finch beak
> size, back and forth, with changing environmental conditions is
> evidence of the emergence of the fist avian lung. One could also
> argue the contradiction that any change is evidence of discontinuous
> changes. Discontinuous changes are prohibited in purely naturalistic
> processes.
>
> Harshman's absurdity is very similar to the absurdities issuing from
> Dawkins about his gradualistic reductionism. That I can pile a few
> bricks on top of one another is no more evidence that I can construct
> a 50 story sky scrapter than is the relative change in allele
> frequency (of existing information) evidence that the known genetic
> mechanisms have the propensity for coherent, progressive and
> directional change leading to genuinely NEW information.
So when do you plan to address anything I actually said?
>>> No rules.
>>>
>>> I will reply to every post as time permits except for those asking for
>>> definitions. Anyone needing a definition should go to any good
>>> English language dictionary.
>> Your definitions frequently depart from the dictionary. But never mind.
>
> No quotes, no examples.
I said "never mind".
> And in conclusion: No evidence, special pleading, and the usual
> reductio ad absurdum.
You make it sound as if reductio ad absurdum is an invalid form of
argument. Why?
> Next victim.
ARTHUR:
Eh. You are indeed brave, Sir Knight, but the fight is mine.
BLACK KNIGHT:
Oh, had enough, eh?
ARTHUR:
Look, you stupid bastard. You've got no arms left.
BLACK KNIGHT:
Yes, I have.
ARTHUR:
Look!
BLACK KNIGHT:
Just a flesh wound.
John Stockwell
> On Nov 23, 10:30 pm, David Fritzinger
>
>
>
>
>
> <dfrit...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <1c97d46f-efd8-430a-b70b-f48b4eee9...@g1g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > In the "Blind leading the blind" category:
>
> > > On Nov 23, 9:33 am, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
> > > > "All-seeing-I" <ap...@email.com> wrote in message
> > >> "The fox is a variation of the original created canis moron. I drew
> > you
> > > > pictures in crayon yet you still cannot understand"
>
> > > The original "canis moron"? Whould that be the All-seeing-eye dog?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Yes. All life started with an "original" and "created" kind
>
> That fits the evidence better then "we all came from a magical planet
> that can create life and then evolve it with no help"
>
> like you seem to believe.
The fossil record does not support the notion of "kinds". A "kind" is
merely a handwaving
reference to taxonomy. Between the law of taxonomy and the law of
faunal succession,
we see the fabric of the relatedness of life, a fabric which
biologists study in fine
detail with the relatedness of organisms persisting all the way down
to the molecular
level. That is success that keeps delivering. So, no I don't believe
in magic, I believe
science, because science delivers the goods.
T Pagano
>On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 20:30:39 -0500, T Pagano <not....@address.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Can any evolutionist, atheist, agnostic, secularist, or academic
>>elitist produce unambiguous, empirical evidence that purely
>>naturalistic biological transformational change occurred in prehistory
>>or is occurring now? Supposedly the evidence of biological
>>"transformational" change is overwhelming. We'll see.
>
>no one knows what you consider a 'transformational change'.
>creationsits are linguistic prostitutes, promiscuously changes
>definitions, concepts, meanings, etc. to suit their theology
>
>example: 'all seeing' requested evidence of speciation. when this was
>given he THEN wanted evidence that speciation leads to 'fish to man'
>types of changes....in a human lifetime
>
>so it really doesnt matter what proof is given you. as historian dan
>diner has pointed out, fundamentalists are unable to understand modern
>science. and the creationist world is one of a child: magical places
>where demons and ghosts rule the world
>
>>
>>No rules.
>>
>>I will reply to every post as time permits except for those asking for
>>definitions. Anyone needing a definition should go to any good
>>English language dictionary.
>
>which you will then do your damndest to destroy
In other words there is no evidence of transformational change.
It looks like this claim of a mountain of evidence by atheists is
urban myth.
next victim.
Regards,
T Pagano
T Pagano
wrote:
>On Nov 22, 8:30 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>> Can any evolutionist, atheist, agnostic, secularist, or academic
>> elitist produce unambiguous, empirical evidence that purely
>> naturalistic biological transformational change occurred in prehistory
>> or is occurring now?
>
>So, you won't accept evidence from anybody but the above? Why would
>that be?
>
>(snip)
>
>Eric Root
Root apparently unable to produce any evidence so he diverts. Typical.
Another atheist bites the dust.
Regards,
T Pagano
T Pagano
<james.pr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 23, 12:30 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>> Can any evolutionist, atheist, agnostic, secularist, or academic
>> elitist produce unambiguous, empirical evidence that purely
>> naturalistic biological transformational change occurred in prehistory
>> or is occurring now?
>
>Not to your ever-changing standards of proof, no. Evidence to you is
>'that which does not prove my ill-conceived notions incorrect'.
>Thankfully reality does not conform to your delusions.
>
>> Supposedly the evidence of biological
>> "transformational" change is overwhelming. We'll see.
>>
>> No rules.
>>
>> I will reply to every post as time permits except for those asking for
>> definitions. Anyone needing a definition should go to any good
>> English language dictionary.
>>
>> Regards,
>> T Pagano
guscubed fails to produce any evidence whatsoever that
transformational change ever occurred anywhere...ever.
Where is all of this mountain of evidence? All the atheists can
produce is evidence of the change of relative frequency of existing
characteristics. Darwin already produced that evidence 160 years ago
and so did Mendel. Sadly for atheism this is not proof of the ORIGIN
of anything.
We need real, tangible evidence that a dinosaur forearm actually can
and did transform into an avian wing via the gradualistic neoDarwinian
process.
Another crash and burn.
hersheyh
I think the species of the genus Canis called "Canis moron" is
popularly called "loopy-de-lupe" and is sometimes confused with "Wily
coyote" who is seen in the creationist filmed roadrunner documentaries.
bpuharic
wrote:
>>
>guscubed fails to produce any evidence whatsoever that
>transformational change ever occurred anywhere...ever.
you mean other than the fossil record, genetics and comparative
anatomy
>
>Where is all of this mountain of evidence? All the atheists can
>produce is evidence of the change of relative frequency of existing
>characteristics.
which is called 'evolution'.
of course, to pagano, a catholic bishop is an atheist...
>
>We need real, tangible evidence that a dinosaur forearm actually can
>and did transform into an avian wing via the gradualistic neoDarwinian
>process.
>
>Another crash and burn.
2000 years of creationism
2000 years of failure.
bpuharic
wrote:
backpedaling? first it was 'markedly progressive, directional
transformational supercalifragilisticexpedaladocious change'
no it's transformational change.
when you learn the english language and can write a scientifically
meaningful sentence, c'mon back
because right now you're just another mealy mouthed creationist, being
buggered by your 2000 year history of failure
>
>It looks like this claim of a mountain of evidence by atheists is
>urban myth.
science has been around 300 years. it's explained the universe
creationism has been around 2000.
it's explained....NOTHING
so, again, pagano, c'mon back when you learn english. you guys are
always welcome. you might learn something.
hersheyh
Well, he is more right in that claim than in his claim that all the
cichlids (all 220 genera and 1300 or so living species ranging from
angelfish to pike cichlid in shape and from 2.5 cm to 1 m in size --
cichlids are one of the largest families of fish) are a single
"kind". I think I begin to see a pattern of the creationist
definition of "kind": The closer an organism is to human, the smaller
the category of "kind" becomes, with H. sapiens being its own "kind"
and 'bacteria' being a "kind" at the other extreme. Sort of like the
classic map of the U.S. drawn by New Yorkers.
If I am wrong in this assumption that "kind" is a category that
resides solely in the biased mind of a human observer (and changes
according to need), Tony can tell me how creationists systematically
determine where a species goes into a "kind".
John Stockwell
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 18:53:56 -0800, John Harshman
>
> <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >T Pagano wrote:
> >> Can any evolutionist, atheist, agnostic, secularist, or academic
> >> elitist produce unambiguous, empirical evidence that purely
> >> naturalistic biological transformational change occurred in prehistory
> >> or is occurring now? Supposedly the evidence of biological
> >> "transformational" change is overwhelming. We'll see.
>
> >No, as far as you're concerned. It's impossible to show evidence that
> >any given transformation, past or present, was not accompanied by a
> >miracle of some sort, just as it's impossible to show that any
> >particular rain storm wasn't caused by the hammer of Thor, or that fruit
> >fly allele frequencies are not divinely guided. At most, we can show
> >that supernatural explanations are unnecessary.
>
> In other words there is no evidence of biological transformational
> change. And to divert his loyal readers from this painful fact
> Harshman misleads them into believing that I assert that EVERY event
> in natural history is the result of miraculous action. Harshman
> couldn't produce quotes of such nonsense from any creationist in the
> forum let alone from my posts.
No, Tony, the evidence exists on several fronts. The first
is taxonomic law, the second is the law of faunal succession.
The third is genetic, with the evidence being in the form of
duplications, transpositions, translocations, as well as point
mutations.
If you are claiming that these genetic changes are of a supernatural
origin, then there is no way we can discount that, because there
is no way of telling what "supernatural" means. Common descent
holds. If you don't believe common descent, then you are asserting
"separate descent". If you claim that the various lines of organisms
are all the descendents of separately created lines, then remember
that as we go back in the fossil record, species disappears. As
we go back further, then the various levels of taxonomic
classification
progressively disappear. By the time we get back to the Cambrian,
then we are up to the level of phyla. We can identify organisms as
belonging to some of the same phyla as we see today, but that
is about it.
Again, we cannot discount "supernatural" origins, but since
we don't know what "supernatural" means, there is no point
in pursuing such an explanation.
>Now let's get back to the facts:
>
> Darwin wished to formulate a theory which, in part, explained the
> origin of biological novelty. He had no clue, whatsoever, about
> genetic mechanisms, but he reasoned that as long as any new biological
> feature could arise and develp via successive, gradual and natural
> progression over time an Intelligent Creator was unnecessary. Descent
> with modification over time was forumlated as a purely naturalistic
> and gradualistic process. Dawkins agrees.
Since we have no science telling us what an "intelligent creator"
is, there is no point in invoking such an ad hoc construct. This
does not mean that there is not an Intelligent Creator, only
that there is no reason to believe that special action was required
by such a Creator for the origin and development of life. Any
claims to the contrary are merely arguments from ignorance,
and are not worthy of consideration.
>
> As a naturalist Darwin was well aware that all purely naturalistic
> processes proceed along a linear-like path from any point A to any
> point B and that such pathways have----by necessity---overlaps between
> segments all along the path. This is important because it is
> testable. Because of the nature of this naturalistic process Darwin
> rightly saw nothing special about any class labeled "species." It was
> nothing more than part of a continuous and overlapping class between
> predecessor and ancestor populations.
The Linnean classification system is a law, in that it is a reduction
of what is observed in biology. It is not arbitrary.
>
> Darwin examined the fossil record and this process of purely
> naturalistic, gradualistic, biological transformationism was
> contradicted by the fossil record. The fossil record shows
> NOTHING-BUT discrete, discontinuous populations which appear suddenly,
> remain markedly unchanged for millions of years before disappearing.
> Darwin rightly expected the fossil record to abound with nascent
> structures and genuine overlapping transitional forms between
> populations. Yet he saw NONE of this. We still find none.
The fossil record is not continuous in space or in time, but
this this does not mean that biology is discontinuous. The
fossil record is not a breeder's pedegree, it is a collection of
non-uniform snapshots in time and in space. There is not sufficient
spatio-temporal resolution for us to have a record
of all of biology.
There are plenty of transitional forms at the right times
in the fossil record for us to conclude that we are not looking
at an ever increasing collection of "separate origin events".
>
> Today we have atheists in the scientific community stringing together
> discrete fossil populations with metaphysical axioms not testable
> mechanisms.
The "stringing together" is what scientific theories---all
scientific theories---do. If you want to argue separate descent,
then you have to disprove EVERY ONE of those identifications
of transitional forms by the soundest principles of biology, and
provide an alternate mechanism for the origin of those species.
Get to work now. Your job gets harder every day.
>
>
>
> >What can be shown is that transformations happened unless someone has an
> >elaborate plan to fool us, and we have no reason to suppose these
> >changes weren't natural. I can give examples on request, but you should
> >know of quite a few already; common descent of humans and chimps, e.g.
>
> We have chimp fossils and human fossils but the supposed common
> ancestor is nowhere to be found. In fact the fossil record is made
> up almost exclusively of end nodes. The purported common ancestors
> are ALL missing.
We have a hominid fossil record spanning more than 1000 individuals,
all of which have to a greater or lesser degree characteristics that
are uniquely human and which are uniquely ape. All of which fall
taxonomically somewhere between chimps and humans.
>
> There does not exist one experiment where transformational change has
> been induced in a coherent, progressive and directional manner. NOT
> ONE. By transformational change it is NOT meant the minor variations
> of existing structures but evidence of how the structures arose in the
> first place.
Evolution is not progressive, nor is it directional. As to
experiments,
I suggest that you read about the stuff they are doing in evo
devo. If you want to be a pompous brat demanding the scientific
community to deliver goods on YOUR schedule, then you
will simply have to get over yourself. The science is the science,
the data are the data, and evolution is the best tool that we
currently
have for understanding biology. Even an ID theory would be
an evolution theory, with an added mechanism for mutation.
>
> Lenski's 40,000+ generation artificial breeding experiment hasn't
> produced one iota of evidence that E coli populations with their
> genetic mechanisms have the capacity for transformational change. That
> is, the propensity for biological novelty to emerge and develop to
> maturity in a coherent, progressive and directional manner.
Nobody in biology says that evolution "progresses" in any
manner. There is certainly nothing "directional" about evolution.
So basically you are demolishing strawmen.
Lenski has seen plenty of evolution in his e-coli.
>
> >As I understand it, you aren't merely questioning the natural status of
> >transformations;
>
> Their natural status is merely a theory and poorly supported, if at
> all. I ask in this thread for empirical evidence that biological
> novelty has emerged via neoDarwinian means and that this novelty has
> progressed coherently and naturalistically to maturity.
The evidence has been given to you, numerous times, over decades
and the fact that you don't accept it is not the fault of the
evidence.
>
> > you deny that they have happened at all.
>
> We have evidence of the change in relative frequency of existing
> information, back-and-forth within limits. We have no empirical
> evidence of how the existing information arose in the first place.
Of course, Tony doesn't understand that "information" is neither
conserved, nor is it what he thinks it is. In information theory
terms, doubling a gene sequence, and flipping a few bits creates
"information". Certainly the environment imprints variation on
the genomes of organisms through natural selection.
>
> >So merely
> >demonstrating change should be good enough to refute your favorite
> >theory. I can see why you offered something more difficult as a
> >challenge, though.
>
> Harshman argues the absurdity that any kind (and degree) of biological
> change is evidence of all kinds of change. Taken to its absurd
> conclusion one could argue that the relative change in finch beak
> size, back and forth, with changing environmental conditions is
> evidence of the emergence of the fist avian lung. One could also
> argue the contradiction that any change is evidence of discontinuous
> changes. Discontinuous changes are prohibited in purely naturalistic
> processes.
Basically, Tony, you are a denialist. Instead of studying the science,
you make assertions, misrepresentations, and insist like a spoiled
child that the world *must* go the way you say it should. But,
look at your own life. What have you ever done that makes you
an authority? Or even would give you the ability to understand what
the people you claim as authorities are talking about? You are a
person who demands that the knowledge of the world be given
to you in easy to understand one liners.
>
> Harshman's absurdity is very similar to the absurdities issuing from
> Dawkins about his gradualistic reductionism. That I can pile a few
> bricks on top of one another is no more evidence that I can construct
> a 50 story sky scrapter than is the relative change in allele
> frequency (of existing information) evidence that the known genetic
> mechanisms have the propensity for coherent, progressive and
> directional change leading to genuinely NEW information.
Consider gene duplication. You get two copies of the gene making
a protein, or whatever, so one of the copies can undergo mutations.
That is information creation. There is nothing "coherent",
"progressive", or "directional" about change in biology, except in
hindsight.
>
>
>
> >> No rules.
>
> >> I will reply to every post as time permits except for those asking for
> >> definitions. Anyone needing a definition should go to any good
> >> English language dictionary.
>
> >Your definitions frequently depart from the dictionary. But never mind.
>
> No quotes, no examples.
>
> And in conclusion: No evidence, special pleading, and the usual
> reductio ad absurdum.
>
> Next victim.
The victim is you, Tony, of your own ignorance and stubbornness.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
John.
T Pagano
"richardal...@googlemail.com"
<richardal...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 23, 1:30 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>> Can any evolutionist, atheist, agnostic, secularist, or academic
>> elitist produce unambiguous, empirical evidence that purely
>> naturalistic biological transformational change occurred in prehistory
>> or is occurring now? Supposedly the evidence of biological
>> "transformational" change is overwhelming. We'll see.
>>
>> No rules.
>>
>> I will reply to every post as time permits except for those asking for
>> definitions. Anyone needing a definition should go to any good
>> English language dictionary.
>>
>> Regards,
>> T Pagano
>
>You have been given examples of this, such as the transitional series
>which shows the origin of the bird wing from the forelimb of theropod
>dinosaurs.
Each of these fossil examples appeared in the fossil record fully
formed and each remained in the fossil record for millions of years
markedly unchanged. Forest's bald assertion that such discrete
entities are not really discrete but related lineally in some
continuous naturalistic process is not scientific evidence. And as
near as I can determine there is no empirical evidence or observable
mechanism connecting them. They are connected only by the
metaphysical claim that similarity (and extent of similarity) is
evidence of lineal descent.
Darwin was aware of these kinds of fossil finds and knew that they
contradicted the gradualistic process that he proposed. Darwin's
theory of gradualistic and naturalsitic change entailed an abundance
of Nascent structures and overlapping transitional forms along each
continuous path explaining biological diversity. The fossil record
has never shown this and it is voluminous and purportedly an adequate
sampling of prehistoric life. Gould and hs camp agreed with Darwin.
That is, the gradualistic and naturalistic transformism proposed by
Darwin is inconsistent with the fossil record.
Forrest has to produce----if he is interested in science----observable
evidence of a biological mechanism with a propensity to make coherent,
progressive and directional change suffiicent to explain the
transformation from forearm to wing. The mechanisms that are
currently observable are insufficient. The ones we can observe are
conservative, they shuffle existing information with a high degree of
precision, and nothing more. All artificial selection experiments
which can preserve changes and control environmental conditions have
never, never, never observed coherent, progressive, directional
change----NEVER.
So not only does Forrest have to produce some new observable mechanism
he must explain why the fossil record failed to produce evidence of
continuity. Gould at least admitted the problems:
1. gradualism is inconsistent with the fossil record
2. and why did the fossil record never record a single unambiguous
example of continuity.
Gould, to his credit, tried to solve the problem rather than make
believe it didn't exist as does Dawkins, Forrest, and the rest of the
atheist faithful.
>
>You have not given any reason why such a series of fossils does *not*
>show "transformational change", or provided any alternative
>explanation for the fossils which can be tested - i.e. it makes
>predictions about fossils we haven't found yet.
In brief the fossil record shows nothing-but discrete, mature, fossil
populations. Darwin's gradualistic theory retrodicts naturalistic
continuity, including an abundance of nascent structures and
overlapping transitional forms along the prehistorica pathway. The
fossil record DISconfirms this. All that is found are fully formed
discrete fossil populations. If Forrest is interested in science
rather than naturalistic metaphysics he needs to produce an observable
mechanism that would predict the fossil record. In 1859 Darwin could
justifiably claim poverty of the record. However, in 2009 Forrest may
not.
Next, whether I can produce a better explanation consistent with the
fossil record is irrelevent to neoDarwinism's failure. The aim of
science is the truth about our material world. Better to have no
theory than to waste resources on a failed one.
Darwinian theory does explain why populations are resilient---change
in relative frequency of existing alleles within the population guided
by natural selection. It doesn't explain and never has explained how
the alleles arose in the first place. Forrest has made quite clear
here that there is no unambiguous evidence confirming that novelty
arose and transformed to maturity via neoDarwinian means. And beyond
metaphysical fiat he has no clue how precisely the dinosaur forarem
transmogrified into an avian wing.
>
>This means that in denying the evidence for "transformational change",
>you are either incapable of reading for comprehension, or are lying.
>Bearing in mind that you cast the head of your own church as a liar,
>it seems more likely that you find lying an acceptable form of
>argument.
>
>What do you think you demonstrate by lying, Tony?
>
>RF
Ahh, yes the old standby of the intellectually bankrupt. When all
else fails accuse the opponent of lying.
Regards,
T Pagano
heekster
This page contains a canonical list of the pseudo-Latin names given to
the taxa containing Wile E. Coyote, and the Road Runner.
Dana Tweedy
> On Nov 23, 12:43 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>> All-seeing-I wrote:
>>> On Nov 23, 10:03 am, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> snip
>>
>>> You simply cannot show that happenes unless yosnu make up exotic
>>> stories over what few bones you have.
>>
>> The fossils are not even required at all to show that it happened.
>> The genetic evidence shows it much more convincingly. That the
>> fossil record exists, and does match the genetic record is massive
>> support for evolution.
>>
>>
>>
>>> It is that simple ya know.
>>
>> It's simple to understand the evidence. Turning a blind eye to the
>> evidence, and relying on old legends and folk tales only shows your
>> insecurity.
>>
>> DJT
>
> Would that be the genetic evidence that is not fully understood yet?
Yes, it would. The same genetic evidence that sends people to jail, and
establishes paternity. Being that all of genetics is not "fully
understood" does not refute what is understood.
>
> Why yes. I think it is.
Absolutely. And unless you take refuge in nihilism again, that evidence
plainly indicates that tetrapods evolved from lobe finned fish.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
>
> I do not claim the ancient texts are necessarily true.
Yet you seem to think they trump actual evidence to the contrary.
> I claim they
> are another possible reason for man's origins.
Possible, perhaps, but highly unlikely. Why should they be taken seriously
at all?
> And as long as there is
> more then one possible reason for man's origins then evolution becomes
> exactly what it is. Which is just a possible explanation for man's
> origins.
However, science gives a way of evaluating possible explanations, and
determining which is most likely correct. Your own belief has no such way.
You just assume what you want, and evidence be damned.
>
> But you evo-freaks do not present evolution as a posible reason for
> man's origins.
Of course it's presented as a possible reason. In fact it's the only
possible reason that fits the evidence.
>
> Instead you present evolution as if it were fact in the class rooms
> and in the media.
It's as "true" as anything can be established to be true. Other
explanations don't fit the evidence, and a lot actually contradict the
evidence. Therefore they aren't worthy of serious consideration.
>
> But it is not.
What is your "reasoning" for this assertion?
DJT
Dana Tweedy
> On Nov 23, 10:30 pm, David Fritzinger
> <dfrit...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
>> In article
>> <1c97d46f-efd8-430a-b70b-f48b4eee9...@g1g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
>> John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> In the "Blind leading the blind" category:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 23, 9:33 am, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
>>>> "All-seeing-I" <ap...@email.com> wrote in message
>>>> "The fox is a variation of the original created canis moron. I drew
>> you
>>>> pictures in crayon yet you still cannot understand"
>>
>>> The original "canis moron"? Whould that be the All-seeing-eye dog?-
>>> Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Yes. All life started with an "original" and "created" kind
There's no evidence of that, and more importantly, there's no evidence that
"canis" was a created kind. It's too closely related to other carnivores.
>
> That fits the evidence better then "we all came from a magical planet
> that can create life and then evolve it with no help"
Since the only one proposing magic, is you, why is this relevant?
>
> like you seem to believe.
Evolution of life is not magic. Creationism is,
DJT
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 00:20:32 -0800 (PST),
>
>
>
> <richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >On Nov 23, 1:30 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> >> Can any evolutionist, atheist, agnostic, secularist, or academic
> >> elitist produce unambiguous, empirical evidence that purely
> >> naturalistic biological transformational change occurred in prehistory
> >> or is occurring now? Supposedly the evidence of biological
> >> "transformational" change is overwhelming. We'll see.
>
> >> No rules.
>
> >> I will reply to every post as time permits except for those asking for
> >> definitions. Anyone needing a definition should go to any good
> >> English language dictionary.
>
> >> Regards,
> >> T Pagano
>
> >You have been given examples of this, such as the transitional series
> >which shows the origin of the bird wing from the forelimb of theropod
> >dinosaurs.
>
> Each of these fossil examples appeared in the fossil record fully
> formed
MISREPRESENTATION #1
What the fuck else would you expect? However, they *do* show
intermediate stages in the evolution of the bird wing.
> and each remained in the fossil record for millions of years
> markedly unchanged.
FALSEHOOD #1
Most are represented only by a few specimens from a limited geological
horizon.
> Forest's bald assertion that such discrete
> entities are not really discrete but related lineally in some
> continuous naturalistic process is not scientific evidence.
FALSEHOOD #2
Actually, they represent evidence for the evolution of a bird wing
from a theropod dinosaur forearm. The existence of such forms was
predicted by evolutionary theory - Heilman published a book in 1926
which postulated a bird ancestor with feathered fore and hind limbs,
for example. This prediction was confirmed by the discovery of
Microraptor.
Science - as has been explained to you on numerous occasions - looks
at the evidence, forms hypotheses on the evidence and tests them by
the acquisition of more evidence.
How do *you* explain the discovery of fossils with a morphology
predicted by evolutionary theory, and how can your *explanation* be
tested using the tools of science?
> And as
> near as I can determine there is no empirical evidence or observable
> mechanism connecting them.
Then you are an ignorant fool or a blatant liar. Evolution - a process
we can observe in action in populations of existing organisms -
provides a mechanism.
> They are connected only by the
> metaphysical claim that similarity (and extent of similarity) is
> evidence of lineal descent.
It is not metaphysical to make predictions based on a theory and to
find that those predictions are met.
>
> Darwin was aware of these kinds of fossil finds and knew that they
> contradicted the gradualistic process that he proposed.
FALSEHOOD #3
You have been corrected on this previously. A lack of fossil evidence
confirms nothing. Since Darwin's time thousands of the transitional
forms predicted by his theory have been found - contrary to the lies
of creationists.
> Darwin's
> theory of gradualistic and naturalsitic change entailed an abundance
> of Nascent structures and overlapping transitional forms along each
> continuous path explaining biological diversity.
FALSEHOOD #4
It "entailed" nothing of the sort, and only someone deeply ignorant of
Darwin would make such a blatantly false statement.
Or do you feel justified in lying because you believe the head of your
own church to be a liar?
> The fossil record
> has never shown this and it is voluminous and purportedly an adequate
> sampling of prehistoric life.
FALSEHOOD #5
> Gould and hs camp agreed with Darwin.
> That is, the gradualistic and naturalistic transformism proposed by
> Darwin is inconsistent with the fossil record.
FALSEHOOD #6
To quote *YET AGAIN* Gould's *OWN* words on the subejct:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html
"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is
infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether
through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the
fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are
generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between
larger groups."
Read Gould's essay, and stop lying about him.
>
> Forrest has to produce----if he is interested in science----observable
> evidence of a biological mechanism with a propensity to make coherent,
> progressive and directional change suffiicent to explain the
> transformation from forearm to wing.
It's there in the scientific literature.
It's called "evolution".
If you have a better explanation for the evidence which can be tested
using the tools of science, feel free to offer it.
> The mechanisms that are
> currently observable are insufficient.
UNSUPPORTED ASSERTION #1
How on earth can you know this? You have demonstrated not only a
profound ignorance of evolutionary theory coupled with a point-blank
refusal to learn anything about the subject, but are profoundly
ignorant of science and the tools of science.
> The ones we can observe are
> conservative, they shuffle existing information with a high degree of
> precision, and nothing more.
FALSEHOOD #7
..and one you *know* is false, because you have actually cited a paper
which describes the emergence of a new metabolic capacity by selection
action on variation induced by mutation.
Do you think that because you think that the head of your own church
is a liar, it's okay for you to lie?
> All artificial selection experiments
> which can preserve changes and control environmental conditions have
> never, never, never observed coherent, progressive, directional
> change----NEVER.
MISREPRESENTATION #2
What the hell is "progressive, directional change", and where is it
predicted by evolutionary theory?
>
> So not only does Forrest have to produce some new observable mechanism
FALSEHOOD #8
I've produced an observable mechanism. It's called "evolution".
> he must explain why the fossil record failed to produce evidence of
> continuity. Gould at least admitted the problems:
> 1. gradualism is inconsistent with the fossil record
FALSEHOOD #9
Gould said nothing of the sort, as you would know if you had actually
read anything he wrote for comprehension.
> 2. and why did the fossil record never record a single unambiguous
> example of continuity.
MISPRESENTATION #3
Steven L.
If I showed you photographs of a person when he was:
a. A newborn infant
b. A toddler
c. A student in elementary school
d. A student in high school
e. A student in college
f. In the prime of his life
g. Elderly and retired
Would you deny from this that there had been "transformational change"
from one stage to another? Do you need to see all 30,000 snapshots of
the person at every single day of his life, to be convinced there was
"transitional change"??? Or are the seven snapshots I gave you sufficient?
All science EVER has to work with are snapshots and samples.
Astrophysicists have developed an entire theory of the life cycle of
stars, from interstellar dust clouds to white dwarfs and supernovae,
based only on snapshots of each stage they viewed through their
telescopes. No one could ever see any one star go through its entire
life cycle, since that takes billions of years and human civilization
has only existed for a millionth of that time. Yet we know that stars
to go through this life cycle. And we know that our own Sun, billions
of years hence, will end up a white dwarf star--even though Man himself
may be extinct by that time.
How do we know?
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
richardal...@googlemail.com
FALSEHOOD #10
Read Gould's essay. Find out what Gould *actually* wrote rather than
how he is misrepresented in creationists sources.
>
>
>
> >You have not given any reason why such a series of fossils does *not*
> >show "transformational change", or provided any alternative
> >explanation for the fossils which can be tested - i.e. it makes
> >predictions about fossils we haven't found yet.
>
> In brief the fossil record shows nothing-but discrete, mature, fossil
> populations.
MISREPRESENTATION #4
Steven L.
> On Nov 23, 8:04 am, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 00:03:52 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
>>
>>
>>> But the dachshund has not undergone a "biological transformational
>>> change" to the point that it is now no longer anything like the wolf.
>>> .
>>> The dachshund is still a variation of the wolf. Nothing has changed
>>> that fact even though reproductive isolation has taken place. You have
>>> also proved quite niecly that micro evolution (variation) moves
>>> horozonallity and always foward from one kind to the next.
>> so he continues to assert that jellyfish and sharks are just fish...no
>> evolution...they're just fish
>>
>> creationism is useless
>
> has anyone oberrved either giving rise to a cat when allowing enough
> time?
Are you prepared to say that science should not attempt to learn about
processes that took place before human civilization existed on Earth?
You don't care to learn what science has to say about the formation of
the Universe, the formation of our Galaxy, our Solar System, or planet
Earth?
It seems like you want to declare that anything in the Universe that
happened prior to the emergence of Man on Earth should be declared a
province of supernaturalism, off-limits to scientific investigation.
And for no better reason than you just don't like the answers that
science has come up with.
richardal...@googlemail.com
MISREPRESENTATION #4
What the hell else *would* you expect it to show?
>Darwin's gradualistic theory retrodicts naturalistic
> continuity, including an abundance of nascent structures and
> overlapping transitional forms along the prehistorica pathway.
FALSEHOOD #12
It predicts nothing of the sort.
> The
> fossil record DISconfirms this.
FALSEHOOD #13
Predictions made by evolutionary theory have led to the discovery of
new fossils matching those predictions.
> All that is found are fully formed
> discrete fossil populations
What the hell *do* you think that evolutionary theory predicts?
.> If Forrest is interested in science
> rather than naturalistic metaphysics he needs to produce an observable
> mechanism that would predict the fossil record.
I have. It's called "evolution". It can and has made predictions about
fossil we have not yet found. It led, for example, to the discovery of
Tiktaalik.
> In 1859 Darwin could
> justifiably claim poverty of the record. However, in 2009 Forrest may
> not.
I don't. I merely point to the fossil record. Unlike you, I have no
need to lie about it.
>
> Next, whether I can produce a better explanation consistent with the
> fossil record is irrelevent to neoDarwinism's failure.
Actually, evolutionary theory, contrary to your assertion, is the only
scientific theory which explain not only the fossil record but much of
the science of biology.
> The aim of
> science is the truth about our material world.
FALSEHOOD #13
John Harshman
[snip]
> Where is all of this mountain of evidence? All the atheists can
> produce is evidence of the change of relative frequency of existing
> characteristics. Darwin already produced that evidence 160 years ago
> and so did Mendel. Sadly for atheism this is not proof of the ORIGIN
> of anything.
Again, this isn't atheism. It's biology. And you have been shown plenty
of evidence. I have already mentioned the various primate genomes and
the wing of Archaeopteryx. You just ignore that evidence.
> We need real, tangible evidence that a dinosaur forearm actually can
> and did transform into an avian wing via the gradualistic neoDarwinian
> process.
You understand that these are two separate questions, right? We have
real, tangible evidene that a dinosaur forearm did gradually transform
into an avian wing, because we have a large series of intermediate
fossils, plus that nested hierarchy that makes such a transformation
necessary, even without fossils. On the other hand, there is very little
possible information on what caused that transformation, and most of it
would relate to the proximal, genetic changes, not to the ultimate,
selective regime you're asking for.
So, to recap: wing transformation is certain; but the causes of that
transformation are nearly impossible to determine. It's even conceivable
that god guided the transformation, though we have no evidence of such a
thing. Nor is it clear what would be evidence for that.
richardal...@googlemail.com
FALSEHOOD #13
Science is not a search for "truth". It is a search for the best,
testable explanation for phenomena we can observe and measure, and
holds all such explanations to be provisional.
> Better to have no
> theory than to waste resources on a failed one.
Well, the people who have actually *studied* the subject don't regard
evolutionary theory as "failed".
What do you know that they don't?
>
> Darwinian theory does explain why populations are resilient---change
> in relative frequency of existing alleles within the population guided
> by natural selection. It doesn't explain and never has explained how
> the alleles arose in the first place.
No, but the discovery of mutations to the genome in the early part of
the 20th century does.
> Forrest has made quite clear
> here that there is no unambiguous evidence confirming that novelty
> arose and transformed to maturity via neoDarwinian means.
FALSEHOOD #15
I've actually made it crystal clear, and as there is no alternative
explanation for the evidence, it looks pretty unambiguous.
> And beyond
> metaphysical fiat he has no clue how precisely the dinosaur forarem
> transmogrified into an avian wing.
FALSEHOOD #16
The evidence shows that it is by a process called "evolution".
>
>
>
> >This means that in denying the evidence for "transformational change",
> >you are either incapable of reading for comprehension, or are lying.
> >Bearing in mind that you cast the head of your own church as a liar,
> >it seems more likely that you find lying an acceptable form of
> >argument.
>
> >What do you think you demonstrate by lying, Tony?
>
> >RF
>
> Ahh, yes the old standby of the intellectually bankrupt.
Or, more likely, an accurate description of your behaviour.
> When all
> else fails accuse the opponent of lying.
Of course, it could simply be that you are a liar.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
Tell us, Tony, do you think that because you believe the head of your
own church to be a liar you are justified in lying?
RF
John Harshman
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 00:20:32 -0800 (PST),
> "richardal...@googlemail.com"
> <richardal...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Nov 23, 1:30 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>>> Can any evolutionist, atheist, agnostic, secularist, or academic
>>> elitist produce unambiguous, empirical evidence that purely
>>> naturalistic biological transformational change occurred in prehistory
>>> or is occurring now? Supposedly the evidence of biological
>>> "transformational" change is overwhelming. We'll see.
>>>
>>> No rules.
>>>
>>> I will reply to every post as time permits except for those asking for
>>> definitions. Anyone needing a definition should go to any good
>>> English language dictionary.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> T Pagano
>> You have been given examples of this, such as the transitional series
>> which shows the origin of the bird wing from the forelimb of theropod
>> dinosaurs.
>
> Each of these fossil examples appeared in the fossil record fully
> formed and each remained in the fossil record for millions of years
> markedly unchanged.
That just isn't true. Each of these fossil examples, if you're talking
about the bird wing, is known from a single time horizon, generally from
a single spot. We have no way of knowing if they persisted unchanged for
millions of years.
> Forest's bald assertion that such discrete
> entities are not really discrete but related lineally in some
> continuous naturalistic process is not scientific evidence.
Of course it is. First, they show small-scale intermediate conditions
between theropod forelimb and bird wing. And none of the transitions
between conditions is what you would call "transformational". They only
become transformational if you compare the end members. And of course
the evidence for relationship is the nested hierarchy in which the
fossils are organized.
> And as
> near as I can determine there is no empirical evidence or observable
> mechanism connecting them. They are connected only by the
> metaphysical claim that similarity (and extent of similarity) is
> evidence of lineal descent.
"As near as I can determine" isn't relevant, because you make no attempt
to learn the least little thing. First, there is no claim that the
fossils are related by lineal descent. They are instead related in an
evolutionary tree. If one was ancestral to another, we would have no way
to distinguish that from their being cousins. What we do have is that
tree, a nested hierarchy for which common descent is the only
explanation that fits.
> Darwin was aware of these kinds of fossil finds and knew that they
> contradicted the gradualistic process that he proposed. Darwin's
> theory of gradualistic and naturalsitic change entailed an abundance
> of Nascent structures and overlapping transitional forms along each
> continuous path explaining biological diversity. The fossil record
> has never shown this and it is voluminous and purportedly an adequate
> sampling of prehistoric life. Gould and hs camp agreed with Darwin.
> That is, the gradualistic and naturalistic transformism proposed by
> Darwin is inconsistent with the fossil record.
Whenever you mention Gould, I know you're going to misrepresent him. And
so you do. As Gould explained many times, but you have somehow managed
to miss in your exhaustive study of his works, the sorts of transitions
that are missing are the fine-scale transitions between closely related
species, just the sort of thing you aren't talking about when you say
"transformation", and just the sorts of things that are easily observed
in, say, dogs. But transitions at larger scales are abundant.
> Forrest has to produce----if he is interested in science----observable
> evidence of a biological mechanism with a propensity to make coherent,
> progressive and directional change suffiicent to explain the
> transformation from forearm to wing. The mechanisms that are
> currently observable are insufficient.
What evidence do you have of that? Notice that we're back into the
question of mechanism, which is separate from the question of
transformation itself.
> The ones we can observe are
> conservative, they shuffle existing information with a high degree of
> precision, and nothing more.
Nonsense. Novel mutations are frequently fixed too. Consider dwarfism in
dogs, for example.
> All artificial selection experiments
> which can preserve changes and control environmental conditions have
> never, never, never observed coherent, progressive, directional
> change----NEVER.
All caps doesn't make a naked assertion more believable. Of course, the
more weasel words you put in, the more you can reject evidence as not
fitting your requirements. Notice that in the previous sentence you had
not included the weasel words.
> So not only does Forrest have to produce some new observable mechanism
> he must explain why the fossil record failed to produce evidence of
> continuity. Gould at least admitted the problems:
> 1. gradualism is inconsistent with the fossil record
No, he said that *phyletic gradualism* is inconsistent. PE actually
proposes that evolution is gradual within populations in the same was
Darwin did. You are confusing time scales again.
> 2. and why did the fossil record never record a single unambiguous
> example of continuity.
Of course it did. There were actually two of them in the 1972 Eldredge &
Gould paper.
> Gould, to his credit, tried to solve the problem rather than make
> believe it didn't exist as does Dawkins, Forrest, and the rest of the
> atheist faithful.
You have no idea what Dawkins or Forrest, or Gould, or anyone else, is
or was claiming.
>> You have not given any reason why such a series of fossils does *not*
>> show "transformational change", or provided any alternative
>> explanation for the fossils which can be tested - i.e. it makes
>> predictions about fossils we haven't found yet.
>
> In brief the fossil record shows nothing-but discrete, mature, fossil
> populations.
Actually, there are a number of fine-scale transitions. They are merely
rare. And of course they don't show "transformation", because that isn't
the sort of thing that happens in a short time. Now these "discrete,
mature fossil populations" do show transformation by small steps; it's
the transitions between these small steps that are mostly absent,
because of the imperfections of the record. Which is to say, that what
we don't see is the part you agree can happen by known mechanisms, and
what we do see is the part you think can't.
> Darwin's gradualistic theory retrodicts naturalistic
> continuity, including an abundance of nascent structures and
> overlapping transitional forms along the prehistorica pathway. The
> fossil record DISconfirms this. All that is found are fully formed
> discrete fossil populations. If Forrest is interested in science
> rather than naturalistic metaphysics he needs to produce an observable
> mechanism that would predict the fossil record. In 1859 Darwin could
> justifiably claim poverty of the record. However, in 2009 Forrest may
> not.
Yes he may. Isn't this about the time in your tirade where you quotemine
M. J. Benton to the effect that the fossil record is adequate?
> Next, whether I can produce a better explanation consistent with the
> fossil record is irrelevent to neoDarwinism's failure. The aim of
> science is the truth about our material world. Better to have no
> theory than to waste resources on a failed one.
Don't be dishonest. We know you do have a theory. You are just unwilling
to subject it to public examination. Why?
> Darwinian theory does explain why populations are resilient---change
> in relative frequency of existing alleles within the population guided
> by natural selection. It doesn't explain and never has explained how
> the alleles arose in the first place.
However, we have genetics for that. The sources of mutation are pretty
well known by now. If you're going to claim that mutation doesn't
happen, or that new alleles are never selected, you are going to have to
dismiss a lot more than just evolutionary biology.
> Forrest has made quite clear
> here that there is no unambiguous evidence confirming that novelty
> arose and transformed to maturity via neoDarwinian means. And beyond
> metaphysical fiat he has no clue how precisely the dinosaur forarem
> transmogrified into an avian wing.
Of course he does. He knows many of the steps in the process. He just
doesn't know (though he may suspect) what drove those steps.
>> This means that in denying the evidence for "transformational change",
>> you are either incapable of reading for comprehension, or are lying.
>> Bearing in mind that you cast the head of your own church as a liar,
>> it seems more likely that you find lying an acceptable form of
>> argument.
>>
>> What do you think you demonstrate by lying, Tony?
>>
>> RF
>
> Ahh, yes the old standby of the intellectually bankrupt. When all
> else fails accuse the opponent of lying.
That's the charitable inference. I prefer to think that you're mostly
lying to yourself. That's why you run away.
Burkhard
> On Nov 23, 3:12 pm, Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 12:13:07 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
> > <ap...@email.com> wrote in
> > <73e90cf1-9a24-421f-bc16-0519feaf3...@g31g2000vbr.googlegroups.com> :
> > >> > On Nov 23, 10:03 am, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> snip
>
> > >> > You simply cannot show that happenes unless yosnu make up exotic stories
> > >> > over what few bones you have.
>
> > >> The fossils are not even required at all to show that it happened. The
> > >> genetic evidence shows it much more convincingly. That the fossil record
> > >> exists, and does match the genetic record is massive support for evolution.
>
> > >> > It is that simple ya know.
>
> > >> It's simple to understand the evidence. Turning a blind eye to the
> > >> evidence, and relying on old legends and folk tales only shows your
> > >> insecurity.
>
> > >> DJT
>
> > >Would that be the genetic evidence that is not fully understood yet?
>
>
> > you claiming that the metaphors are all comprehended?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> are another possible reason for man's origins. And as long as there is
> more then one possible reason for man's origins then evolution becomes
> exactly what it is. Which is just a possible explanation for man's
> origins.
>
Reminds me, you still haven´t refuted my theory that the bible is just
possibly a 400 years old fake - so that remains valid as well I
suppose, and you should stop presenting it as a fact??
> But you evo-freaks do not present evolution as a posible reason for
> man's origins.
>
> Instead you present evolution as if it were fact in the class rooms
> and in the media.
>
> But it is not.- Zitierten Text ausblenden -
>
> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -
guscubed
Tony, Tony, Tony. Not only do you move your goalposts constantly, but
you try to hide them too.
What evidence would satisfy you that evolution hs been observed. What
evidence would satisfy you that evolution has NOT been observed?