Dr. Jobe Martin's "Evolution of a Creationist"

[Aron-Ra]

[Note: My best friend from high school is now a high school principle, but
as sad fate would have it, he is now a YEC creationist, and the principle of
a Biblical literalist Christian school that operates inside a North Texas
Baptist church. When I told him that I was now an active advocate for the
advancement of reason in science education, he suggested that I read a book
written by Dr. Jobe Martin DMD Th.D. whom he said would likely "sit down
with me and answer any questions I might have". Well, I doubt that very
much. I wrote my friend back, and included the following multi-part critique
of this book.]
***************

Per your suggestion, I read through some of the 'Evolution of a
Creationist', and I have to say I am very disappointed in your choice of
champions, and (no offense intended) but I am also disappointed in you, that
you ever could have thought such infantile tripe as this even sounded
plausible. There will come a day (very very soon) when you will begin to
understand what I mean and blush whenever you remember that you once
purchased this book as if it was of any legitimate value at all.

Jobe Martin did not "evolve" into creationism as he pretends, and he didn't
learn about evolution in college, either. In fact, he still doesn't know the
first thing about it. Not that it would have mattered, because evidence of
any kind was never a factor in his decision. Jobe Martin promotes
creationism for purely religious reasons, because he was taught the very
same thing that you teach your students; that "the Bible is the only source
of truth". That of course means that you will try and force yourself to
continue to believe that even after you know for certain that its wrong. So
when he was told that he should believe the whole Bible literally, or not at
all, then he felt he had to blot reality completely from his mind. Such is
the nature of dogma, and the very reason I am against it. Consequently, he
is forced to deploy a host of less-than-honest tactics in an obvious attempt
at propaganda that has naught to do with science, evidence, reason or
rational thought in any way.

I could write a series of books disproving this one alone, and in fact, I
have probably refuted every argument in it countless times already. I have
seen most of these since my childhood, and some of them have been soundly
exposed so easily by so many people so many times since, that even
Answersingenesis.org now warns their readers not to use them. I guess Jobe
didn't get the memo.

I doubt you would much appreciate my boast without proof, so here it is: I
selected one page of this tract and decided to deal with just that for now.
Like I said, I don't want you to "believe" this book is wrong, I want you to
*know* it, and to understand *why* it is wrong, so that you will be able to
reveal that to others, and maybe save them their dignity.

Quoting from Chapter 4, the Missing Links are Missing!
http://www.harrypottermagic.org/Evolution%20of%20Creationist/Chapter%2004.ht
m

>As a college student I was convinced that evolution was true and that, in
>time, scientists would find the missing pieces.

They have. Not every last one of course, that's not possible. But several
dozen of them have been found, including what appears to be all of the most
important ones, and a whole lot of the others as well.

>I thought science would ultimately provide us with an unbroken chain of
>evidence supporting the evolution and relationship of all things.

For his first tactic, J.M. tries to use is a simple double-standard. As I
said before, the position of faith is based entirely on nothing at all, the
promise of things hoped for, but not seen, in lieu of, or even in spite of,
evidence or logical proof. But he thinks that the only way in which reason
can compete with faith is with "absolute, rock-solid, concrete, conclusive,
undeniable proof"; meaning of course that he will continue to believe in
whatever silly delusion he likes as a priori against all reason as long as
he can still convince himself he has the leeway to do so. This is irrational
at best, but then, fundamentalists also tend to oppose "rationalism".
http://makeashorterlink.com/?C62025448

Here right at the beginning, J.M. begins a long trend of being demonstrably
wrong with every single sentence, starting with this, his first analogy.
Science has evidence, and having evidence means having a reason to accept or
believe [tentatively] whatever it is that you have evidence of. Evangelists
don't have any evidence, so there is no reason to believe them. Its as
simple as that. All they have are sensationalist, paranoid, emotional pleas
and blind assertions without merit; and having no reason to believe, is the
same thing as having a good reason not to believe, particularly in their
case, as openly dishonest claims and practices are commonly exposed among
their number.

Besides, absolute proof of anything is impossible simply because we can
never prove that we're not just pre-programmed disembodied minds living in
an illusion like the Matrix. In which case, you can claim all you want about
what you "know" about God, but at some point, you have to admit you really
don't actually know any such thing, and just choose to believe that you do.
In lieu of any certain knowledge, figures to measure, or hypotheses that can
be tested for conclusive, objective published results, then the Matrix is
just as likely as God, and God is just as likely as Krsna or the Tao. God
might also be real even if Jesus were not, and visa versa. We don't know;
that's why objectivity is paramount and faith serves only as a means of
deception. You can't seek the truth if you can't first admit that you might
not already know it, yet that is exactly what men of faith do.

However, if the Matrix is real, and the only reality we know would be akin
to living in a video game, then it would still be a world that is built on
rules, and that's what evolution is, a fairly simple, even mathematic rule
of the reproductive trends in biological populations. So if you're going to
inhabit this world, then the rules of evolution are still just as real as
the rules of gravity, chemistry, and physics.

Getting back to the point, (assuming our universe is really real and we
aren't just a Zen dream) then we actually do have an "unbroken chain" of
evidence which consistently supports the evolutionary position and "the
relationship of all things" [common ancestry] exclusively. We now have a
whole lot more of those no-longer-missing links for example, in addition to
volumes of evidence of every measurable type from every relevant field of
study within the wealth of human understanding, all of it mutually
confirming the rest, and either implying evolution as the only apparent
option or demanding it as a certain fact, even against our deepest
criticisms; and all of this can be tested in peer-review, so there is no
faith involved. It is self-evident literally whether you want to believe it
or not.

Creationists on the other hand, have ...still ....nothing, nothing in the
world but their own increasingly desperate pleas, and their position is
literally unbelievable unless you have a personal emotional need to believe
them.

>Many scientists are still hoping for this evidence.

Why would anyone hope to get what they already have in abundance? Besides,
no one ever made it big in science by agreeing with everyone else. The way
to gain notoriety in the scientific community is to start a fight, challenge
the dominant Theory if you can, and if you can, refine it, or replace it
with one of your own that explains all the evidence, but does it even better
than anyone else can. That's what Einstein did when he challenged, and
replaced Newton's long-accepted Theory of Gravity with one of his own that
made more sense. Think about it; every other landmark scientist in history,
from Socrates to Stephen Hawking, have all done the same. Debates rage all
the time because exposing and correcting errors in our current perception is
the only way our knowledge of the universe can progress, and creationism is
against that wherever their doctrines must be protected from the light of
reason.

Biological evolution is one of the best-supported fields of study there is.
Anyone (amateur or pro) who could challenge that with actual evidence that
could be measured or tested, and which could withstand critical analysis in
peer review, would become rich and famous overnight, and finish the year
with a Nobel prize. That's how one earns that particular award; by finding
the flaws in the reigning concept, revealing new wisdom, and improving our
understanding of whatever that is.

By the way, here is a list of creationists in the last 100 years who have
made such a substantial original contribution to knowledge as to be awarded
the Nobel prize.

1. _______

>However, Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology at
>Harvard, believes that the unbroken chain of evolutionary evidence will
>never be found -- that what we see in the fossils and in living creatures
is
>more accurately explained with the creation model.

Gould never said that, nor anything like that, ever in his career. Since
Darwin's initial landmark realization, we have discovered that in reality
there are not any unrelated "kinds" anywhere in nature. Everything that has
ever lived is evidently related to everything else; and what we see in the
fossils, and in living creatures is not explained by the creation model
adequately, or indeed at all. In fact, the creationist "model" actively
ignores almost all of it, and will not permit honest inquiry, especially not
to any depth.

>Gould is still an evolutionist,

"Still" an evolutionist, eh? I like that. As if there was ever anything in
the realm of verifiable data that either countered evolution, or which could
possibly make Biblical creationism even seem possible to a rational thinking
person who is well-educated in this area. The only reason anyone ever had to
oppose evolution was a religious preference that is either not supported by
evidence, [Intelligent Design] or is directly dis-proved by substantial
evidence to the contrary [Biblical creationism]. If your perspective is
governed exclusively by evidence and objective reason, then there is no
cause to reject evolution. Gould died an evolutionist as everyone does who
accepts the scientific perspective after in-depth study of the subject.
Once you understand it, you can't go back and pretend it doesn't work
anymore.

>but he writes:
>"The birds of Massachusetts and the bugs in my backyard are unambiguous
>members of species recognized in the same way by all experienced observers.

Now this makes sense. What does not make sense is how J.M. managed to
distort that into this:

>This notion of species as "natural kinds"...fit splendidly with creationist
>tenets....

Once again, we are witness to the creationist's use of creative editing.
What Gould said was that "this notion of species as "natural kinds' fits
splendidly with creationist tenets OF A PRE-DARWINIAN AGE". Dr. Martin
omitted that part for some reason, or maybe he just didn't know about it
since his sources like to deliberately conceal this sort of thing. Later in
the same paragraph, professor Gould indicates that "natural kinds" do not
actually exist; only that they are perceived that way by the uneducated eye.
Gould definitely supports a tree-of-life in which all things are related.

Apart from the under-handed editing of the out-of-context quotations,
Another reason to question J.M.'s honesty here is the fact that the only
investigation he has ever done in this matter has been within the pages of
creationist propaganda or on wholly-disreputable websites like DrDino.com.
Any honest man would do as I have done, and you should do; investigate both
perspectives objectively, and at least try to understand what the other
really says in their own words before you shout that they're wrong. Doctor
Martin has never done that and never will do that. He is a dogmatist, which
means he is forbidden to do so, and is guided by prejudice instead.

Everything Gould ever taught was quite the opposite of Martin's assertions
against him. However, Professor Gould was one of the last scientists to
believe there should be some genetic gap between major taxonomic groups that
could not be bridged by cumulative "micro"evolutionary stages. His
predecessor, Richard Goldschmidt also believed that macro evolutionary
change was determined by special processes -systemic mutations and
saltations- not found operating at the microevolutionary level. But neither
scientist was ever able to identify any actual limit to genetic diversity,
and Gould gave up looking even before he died, so mainstream biologists have
since concluded (in lieu of anything to ever indicate otherwise) that there
is no gap in nature between micro and macroevolution. "Organic evolution is
a unified whole".
--The Evolutionary Process, 2nd edition, A Critical Study of Evolutionary
Theory, Chapter 31,
by Dr. Verne Grant, botanical geneticist and professor emeritus, University
of Texas at Austin

I know you'll think of this as an appeal to authority, but since I don't
have any dentists, evangelical preachers, or charlatan snake-oil salesmen
like Hovind to quote from, I will have to make do with real scientists;
including Nobel laureates and other professional specialists with advanced
degrees and peer-reviewed journal literature in these specific fields. If we
need to discuss gum-disease, or how to buy a cheap college degree without
earning it, then I will consider your sources' expertise.

>But how could a division of the organic world into discrete entities be
>justified by an evolutionary theory that proclaimed ceaseless change as the
>fundamental fact of nature?"

Had Dr. Martin included the entire statement, the next sentence would have
read; "Both Darwin and Lamarck struggled with this question and did not
resolve it to their satisfaction. Both denied to the species any status as a
natural kind." Does it seem strange to you that some, (supposedly honest)
Christian could have omitted this half of the sentence? Especially when
trying to portray evlutionists as believing in "natural kinds", when they
clearly do not? Could anyone have done this without realizing they were
grossly distorting the implication? Twice in one paragraph? I don't think
so. I should also mention that even Linneaus had problems with this, as
"natural kinds" could not explain the existence of "parent" categories in
classification. Only 'parent' organisms could explain that.

>Dr. Gould is making a statement about what we see as opposed to what
>evolution theorizes we ought to be seeing.

No he didn't. Not even close. In fact, he is making a statement that the
creationist view cannot be reconciled by any amount of investigation into
nature. In another book, 'Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections
in Natural History', he talks about how Louis Agassiz was "the greatest and
most influential naturalist of nineteenth-century America" except that he
was "indentured to the creationist world view", and that as a result, he
died "sad and intellectually isolated".

>We see discrete entities, distinct species.

Yet if I ask Dr. Martin to define the word "species" in any functional way
that is applicable in all instances, we will quickly discover that there is
no such thing as discrete, distinct species.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?K19363B38
http://makeashorterlink.com/?M1D452B38

>In the fossil record, there are fish, turtles and cockroaches. They are
individually distinct, identifiable creatures.

Not always. As I have already pointed out in my previous letter, we know of
a few pareiasaurs which are difficult to define outside of the Testudine
[turtle] order. (are they turtles [yet] or not?) That's the nature of
transitional species; they're difficult to categorize because they appear to
represent two related lineages at once, and could be said to belong fully to
both.

The cockroaches J.M. mentions really are cockroaches, but certainly aren't
any modern species that we have today.
http://www.acs.ohio-state.edu/units/research/archive/bigroachpics.htm

I don't think Dr. Martin appreciates just how many species of "cockroach"
there are, or how variant they can be. Now, I know elsewhere in his book, he
claims that cockroaches have never changed. But as I have already shown you,
he was wrong when he said that about turtles, and he's wrong in saying that
about cockroaches too. Blattodea is such a large collective that they are
their own taxonomic order, (that's a level above species, genus, and even
family) with lots of very different-looking members. But whether any one of
that group has wings, or abdominal protrusions, or other appendages, or
oddities, or whatever, they're still all categorized as cockroaches because
they're part of Blattodea, the order of cockroaches.
http://www.angelfire.com/oh2/Roaches/

Dr. Martin is definitely wrong about fish! They certainly aren't as distinct
as he would have us believe, and this is especially true of fossil
varieties. Take a look at this one for example.
http://locolobo.homestead.com/eliginerpeton.html
This guy is Elginerpeton pancheni. Remember that name, because I will bring
it up again in a moment. He was one of several Sarcopterygiian
'amphibi-fish' known primarily from the Devonian period.
http://www.palaeos.com/Paleozoic/Devonian/Frasnian.htm
We know this species only from skeletal fragments, but we have a good idea
what the rest of him looked like because, (as Dr. Martin pointed out) we can
identify others of its ilk, and they all look about like this; except that
several of them seem to form a distinct pattern of transition in the
conquest of land
http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Terrestrial_vertebrates&contgroup=Sarcopterygii
from leggy lunged-fish forefathers [Panderichthys]
http://www.mdgekko.com/devonian/Order/re-panderichthys.html
to fish with strange fingers developing between the rays of their fins
[Sauripterus]
http://www.mdgekko.com/devonian/who/pages/juvenile.html
then axolotl-like salamanderish descendants who still have internal gills,
[Acanthostega]
http://www.rathinker.co.kr/paranormal/creationism/tranfossil/acantho6.jpg
and finally things like ichthyostega, which are amphibians who's only
remnant of their fishy ancestry is the presence of fin-bars in their tails,
and the fact that they still have too many fingers, (more about that another
time).
http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Ichthyostega&contgroup=Terrestrial_Vertebrates
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoLimb.html

I should also point out that humans are "individually distinct, identifiable
creatures" too. They're easily identifiable as apes, and this was known even
by creationists living long before Darwin was ever born.

"I demand of you, and of the whole world, that you show me a generic
character ... by which to distinguish between Man and Ape. I myself most
assuredly know of none. I wish somebody would indicate one to me. But, if I
had called man an ape, or vice versa, I would have fallen under the ban of
all ecclesiastics. It may be that as a naturalist I ought to have done so."
--Carl Linn, AKA Carolus Linnaeus, the "father of taxonomy",
in a letter to J. G. Gmelin, February 14, 1747

>In life, we can also see fish, turtles and cockroaches. We can identify
>them. They are not l/2 fish and l/2 turtle or l/2 turtle and l/2 cockroach.

Now this is just sad. You went to college, earned a degree, and now you're
an educator at the secondary level, and THIS is the guy you think is some
kind of expert on evolution?! Do you see why I am so concerned? I knew more
about evolution than this "expert" did even before I started the second
grade! I think I understood logic a good deal better by then too! Is he
deliberately dishonest or just stupid? Because at this point, I don't see a
third option for anyone who could claim expertise in evolution and yet still
make such a nonsense claim as this.

Of course, any idiot should know that we wouldn't expect to find a 50% fish
/ 50% turtle mix, and especially not a half turtle, half-cockroach. Nowhere
in any evolutionary text is anything like that expected by anyone. In fact,
were such a thing ever found, it would soundly and conclusively DIS-prove
the parent body of evolutionary Theory right then and there. What we did
expect to find, what we predicted we would find, and what we have in fact
since found several times, are fossil fish that are also half-amphibian, and
anapsid reptiles that are also half-turtle. We also found
half-amphibian/half-reptiles, half-reptile/half-mammals, and of course,
Pithecanthropus, (another name for Homo erectus) actually means
"Half-ape/half-man", although that name isn't really accurate since even
modern men are still apes by every character of that definition still in
use.

Dr. Martin should be ashamed for calling himself an expert on evolution when
he hasn't any idea at all about any of the concepts involved or the evidence
at-hand. He is a complete fool, and you are very foolish to cite him as an
authority. You would definitely be better off speaking for yourself! You
were much smarter than this man when you were still in high school.

Just to clarify, turtles are descended from a line of earlier anapsid
reptiles, which were among the first amniotes. Their ancestors were
descended from a line of amphibians who were quite unlike any other
amphibians still around today. They in turn were descended from
stegocephalian fish-with-legs, such as Elginerpeton, the "amphibi-fish" I
mentioned before. The Elginerpeton image is one of my own original
sculptures. When I made it, I had the assistance of Cambridge University
paleontologists, Richard Hammond, and Jenny Clack, both of whom are
specialists in late-Paleozoic vertebrates. The idea was to do a life-like
sculpture of the Darwin-fish seen on so many bumper stickers, and I wanted
to know which subject species that most likely would be. Of course I found
out there were several of them that are both fish and amphibian tetrapods at
the same time. Dr. Martin, are you absolutely sure there are no half-fish /
half amphibians? Or did you just not want to admit to those?

Cockroaches on the other hand are much MUCH more distantly-related, which is
why your dentist tried to use them in his analogy. He is trying very hard to
misrepresent evolution so badly that he could make something very seriously
real seem almost as absurd as the option he wants us to consider instead;
the popular myth that everything was poofed out of nothing by a giant
invisible ghost using only magic words. That is not a parody of creationism;
I didn't have to misrepresent it. That is what creationists actually
believe, that is what the Bible say, and that is what they [you] actually
claim.

>We do not see elephants evolving fins or whales evolving wings.

Here he goes again with his weirdly-distorted parodies. Elephants have no
need of fins, and there is no reason for a whale to need wings since it
still wouldn't be able to fly even if you strapped 20 jet engines to it.
These are straw-men arguments that evolution neither claims nor requires,
and creationists only use these to try to ridicule a fundamental biological
reality that really has practical value in the real world. Conversely,
their [your] position really is just as ridiculous as your creation
"scientists" make it sound; and neither does nor could have any practical
application in agriculture, livestock, medicine or any other biotechnologies
the way evolution definitely does in each case. Dr. Martin is therefore very
deliberately misrepresenting evolution because he is unable to address it
factually.

Let me tell you what we do see. With regard to elephants, we see the very
recent speciation of extant [still-living] African species into at least two
distinctly different groups which are both clearly-related, and which are
both a bit more distantly-related to Asian elephants, which are even more
distantly-related to mammoths, and then mastodons, (multiple species of
each) and then on to other older, and much weirder things that are still
obviously related to elephants, but clearly are not elephants and never
were.
http://www.fossil-museum.netfirms.com/pic/images/dinoelefante_jpg.jpg

What is amusing about this is that this is the one place in the discussion
of evolution where a dentist could have some direct relevance. Elephants
started out as relatively small hippo-like things until their teeth went
crazy and started growing out of control. This is true of the whole order;
consequently Proboscidians are all recognized and categorized not by their
prehensile noses, but by their outrageous incisors.
http://www.colyerinstitute.org/research/elephant_dental_pulp.htm

I will use Moeritherium to represent basal Proboscidia, one of the earliest
of the would-be pachyderms. They had no trunk, and only slightly oversized
upper incisors, which grew pointed like fangs.
http://www.damisela.com/zoo/photo/cq3/moeritherium.jpg

From this Chilotherium skull, we can see that they already had what were
probably very short tapir-like noses but which were already helpful in
feeding. And for chewing, they relied only on their molars, so they weren't
so dependant on the condition of their incisors, except as raking implements
or potential stabbing weapons.
http://perso.club-internet.fr/jflhomme/rhinoceros/fiche_chilotherium.html

Fiomia shows us how these teeth started growing longer than they should have
been.
http://www.fossil-museum.netfirms.com/pic/images/fiomia2_jpg.jpg

This Gomphotherium represents a point in their evolution when both the upper
and lower incisors grew to such proportions that they were unusable for
eating; and of course the length of the nose had to increase right along
with the teeth and lower jaw.
http://www.past.ab.ca/C_Gomphy.htm

These lead to Tetralophodon,
http://www.adias-uae.com/images/tetralophodon.jpg
Trilophodon,
http://www.fossil-museum.netfirms.com/pic/images/trilofodonte2_jpg.jpg
Palaeomastodon,
http://www.fossil-museum.netfirms.com/pic/images/paleomastodonte_jpg.jpg
and Platybelodon.
http://www.fossil-museum.netfirms.com/pic/images/platybelodon1_jpg.jpg

Some of these species didn't have such shovel-like tusks anymore, and there
was a space left where the newly-lengthened nose could slide between, so
that now it could be considered a true trunk, as seen here on
Stegotetrabelodon.
http://www.adias-uae.com/images/stegotetrabelodon.jpg

Obviously, there came a point at which these absurdly mutated teeth had
become useless for feeding, which forced them to use their already-flexible
noses to rake and trowel food into their mouths the same way modern
elephants still do today. Initially, both the top and bottom incisors grew
out as well as the lower jaw. I will use this Deinotherium to represent the
point at which that trend came to an end, when the lower jaw sort of
"dropped off" so to speak, leaving one now-very-long nose, which was out
there by itself as it is on modern elephants.
http://www.fossil-museum.netfirms.com/pic/images/deinotherium2_jpg.jpg

Every species that bore four tusks and elongated lower jaws eventually died
off, leaving only Deinotheres and the more familiar-looking twin-tusked
proboscidians like Anacus,
http://www.fossil-museum.netfirms.com/pic/images/anancus_jpg.jpg
Estegodonte,
http://www.fossil-museum.netfirms.com/pic/images/estegodonte1_jpg.jpg
and of course mammoths, mastodons, and modern elephants.
http://www.acnatsci.org/library/collections/elephant/mastodon.jpg

Now Dr. Martin complains that we don't see these sorts of evolutionary
changes happening all-at-once. Maybe his impression of evolution is more
like the transformations seen in werewolf movies? Indeed the evolution of
the trunk, as indicated here, happened over a very long period of time,
probably tens of thousands of generations, even though it was just a simple
extension of the nose. Had Dr. Martin lived at any earlier stage of that
development, he still would have said that he didn't see anything happening.
He wants to squeeze geologic history into an impossibly short hyper-fast
timeline, and he does this only because his "only source of truth" is a book
of old fables which vaguely implies that the universe might only be a few
thousand years old, so he either ignores or rejects everything else in the
universe that universally indicates otherwise.

Again contrary to his assertions, we do still see stages of evolution that
are still incomplete. Just look at sea lions. Do they look like finished
products to you? Even seals, (which could be considered "more evolved" sea
lions) aren't yet complete. They are on their way to what I call the
"perfect shape". For marine vertebrates, that shape is of course that of a
shark, dolphin, tuna, or ichthyosaur, and that's where seals and sea lions
are apparently headed.

For most other land-based animals, (like elephants and hominids) there is no
particular best possible shape. Kangaroos, rabbits, and impalas can all
inhabit the same ecological niche` in their respective lands with very
different shapes; so for them, anything is possible. But other animals do
have a perfect shape that they eventually achieve because it is the most
efficient in their niche`, like that of the soaring bird, which had already
been adopted by pterosaurs long before birds, and by bats long after them.
The order, Carnivora also has a perfect shape, which was first exploited by
early synapsid reptiles, and also by mesonychid and marsupial predators
since. One of the most perfected shapes for vertebrates predators is that
of the crocodile, which has been adopted by phytosaurs, plateoposaurs,
mosasaurs, and ambulocetus; which brings me back to what Dr. Martin said
about whales.

Like Proboscidians, Cetaceans are also recognized by their teeth, (which in
this case are very primitive, almost crocodile-like) and by their particular
skull shapes, which are somewhat unique, particularly in the area of the
ear. So you could easily tell if you had discovered a whale's skull, even
if the skull you found was attached to a skeleton with four legs with free
toes instead of flippers.
http://www.neoucom.edu/Tour/fatrium.htm

Since the days of commercial whaling, we've known that modern whales had
finger bones in their flippers, which they would never have needed if they
were specially-created in their current state. Nor would all mammals need
to be air-breathers if they were specially-created to live in the open
oceans, especially if they have to feed in the depths. Evolution explains
these things. Creationism explains nothing ever.

We even have an explanation for the unicorn-of-the-sea, the narwhal, a small
whale with a spiraled unicorn-like horn. Well, structurally, that horn is
really two tusks intertwined at the base, with one long tusk continuing the
spiral on its own. Now the fossil record shows us Odobenocetops, another
small whale, this time from the Tertiary period, 3.5 million years ago.
Odobenocetops looked a bit like a walrus, but was essentially a dolphin with
two tusks hanging out of its mouth, with the left tusk being much shorter,
and only half as thick as the tusk on the right, a perfect contender for the
future narwhal.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/seamonsters/factfiles/odobenocetops.shtml?img4

Early whalers also knew that whales had vestigial rear leg bones even though
they have no external rear legs. But the discovery of Basilosaurus, (AKA
zeuglodon, another late Tertiary whale) did have external rear flippers,
even though they were unusually small, and (more importantly) these still
weren't connected to any pelvis, those mounts having disapated generations
ago.
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/fossils11.jpg

We found much the same thing when we discovered what appears to be the
ancestor of modern dolphins, Dorudon.
http://www.pts.org.tw/~web02/beasts/factfiles/primary_ff_displays/dorudon_la
rge.jpg

We found that again when we discovered Rodhocetus, except that this time,
the rear fins were actually on legs that still had a pelvic connection.
http://www.palaeos.com/Vertebrates/Units/520Cetartiodactyla/Images/Protoceti
daeA5.jpg

Rodhocetus and Ambulocetus (the "walking whale") had obviously acheived the
crocodile shape (and lifestyle) before moving into the open ocean. They had
(probably webbed) feet on legs that could support them at least in the
buoyancy of the water. But then we found Pakicetus, another would-be whale
that may have been adapted to an aquatic lifestyle, but could also have
survived entirely on land.
http://www.ens-lyon.fr/DSVT/AGREG_SVT/Ressources/TPTDs/Geol/Evolution/Ambulo
cetus.jpg

Rodhocetus, Ambulocetus and Pakicetus each bore a common feature no one
expected; hooves on their toes instead of claws. This linked them with
another ancient order of hooved, meat-eaters who also had the skulls and
teeth of whales. These were the Mesonychids, and there were several species
of them, the largest, (and therefore most famous) of them was Andrewsarchus,
literally a wolf in sheep's clothing.
http://www.indyrad.iupui.edu/public/jrafert/S,Cooper/ANDREW1.jpg

So again contrary to Dr. Martin's position, the fossil record does show a
very clear series of transition from a whole order of hoofed carnivores,
(every last one of which are now extinct) to several ancient
whales-in-transtion, to the few surviving ceatceans still in the ocean
today.

>The discrete entities we see in the fossil record and in life are not
>"questionable" species.

Yes, of course, many of them are. For example, chalicotheres almost defy
classification, except of course, in light of evolution, where can we
determine that these clawed knuckle-walking things were the cousins of
horses, and more distant cousins of the rhino. Chalicotheres are VERY
questionable species in the creationist perspective.
http://perso.club-internet.fr/jflhomme/touraine/chalicotherides.htm

Another questionable species is hyracotherium, formerly known as Eohippus,
the "dawn horse". Now from an evolutionary perspective, this thing is
"unquestionably" a horse. But creationists insist that these are very
questionable creatures that couldn't be related to horses (or anything else)
at all. Of course, in light of the unusually complete record we have of
equine evolution in the fossils, we all know the only reason they say that
is because they must uphold thier sacred stories against all truth that
stands against them.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html#part2

"Dogma is belief or doctrine held by a religion or other organization to be
authoritative and/or beyond question. Evidence, analysis, or established
fact may or may not be adduced, [cited as proof] depending upon usage."
--Wikipedia

Think about that for a moment. Then think about this: You work in a
fundamentalist Christian school that "stresses the Word of God as the only
source of truth in our world." Of course in the absence of objectivity,
should you be wrong in your priori assumption, you would also refuse to ever
discover that, so you would never know it. That's what "ignorance" means.
Thus you would be doomed (along with your students) to always live in the
shadow of grievous errors which you cannot admit even to yourself.

>They are not transitional forms, as evolution would require.

Notice that he doesn't explain why they are not? I of course can explain
why they are: Even the real serious, foaming-at-the-mouth mindless zealots
who follow Kent Hovind have a strict definition of what a transitional, (or
intermediate) species is; and ironically, it is the same definition
scientists would use:

"A transitional fossil is one that looks like it's from an organism
intermediate between two lineages, meaning it has some characteristics of
lineage A, some characteristics of lineage B, and probably some
characteristics part way between the two. Transitional fossils can occur
between groups of any taxonomic level, such as between species, between
orders, etc. Ideally, the transitional fossil should be found
stratigraphically between the first occurrence of the ancestral lineage and
the first occurrence of the descendent lineage..."
http://www.wasdarwinright.com/Intermediates.asp

As you can see, every single example I have provided thus far meets all
these criteria perfectly. And if you or Dr. Martin disagree, I challenge
you both to defend that contention.

>This is a problem for the evolutionist. If evolution is true, creatures
>should not be so easily identifiable.

Au contraire. If they were specially-created "kinds", they wouldn't likely
be identifiable at all. For example, let's look at some definitely created
"kinds", which I will be forced to draw from the realm of fiction. Let's
imagine you brought a half-dozen magically-created animals to Carl Linn for
classification according to his new taxonomic system. Remember that he was
a creationist living a century before Darwin. You've got a jackalope,
Pegasus, el Chupacabra, a dragon, one of those weird graboid worms from the
Tremors series, and a small (9 foot tall) version of Godzilla, Tristar's or
Toho's, it doesn't matter. How would you both classify these? You
couldn't, and the reason you can't is because they're specially-created
unrelated to anything else, so there is no taxonomic category to fit them
into.

Without realizing it of course, Linn had categorized all the life-forms of
which he was aware according to their biological relationships, a notion he
had never been taught, and in fact never believed. So each of our created
and unrelated animals would occupy their own clades all by themselves,
alone. Everything else is related to other things, so for them there are
sister groups and parent groups, and even parent categories to consider
which envelope all the lesser groups. Everything that really lives fits
every category simultaneously, but these created things would not. There
are features in all of them that are inconsistent with every other group,
and such would exclude them from any group, and make obvious the fact that
these could not have evolved. Godzilla is either shown as a lizard with
dinosaur legs, or a dinosaur with lizard legs in addition to external ears
and other mammalian facial features. As such, there is nowhere in Reptilia
where we could put him. Similar issues apply to the other examples as well.
Such things would defy classification simply because they could not have
evolved from other things that were already classified. If just one Pegasus
were ever found, evolution would be instantly reduced to horse-feathers.
Only the jackalope has any chance of being squeezed into an appropriate
clade, and there would still be problems even with that.

So we see that all taxonomic classification is based on biological
relationships that are dependant on common ancestry, and that this was true
even in the Linnean system, though Linneaus himself never realized that.
For instance, when only a part of a skeleton is found, it is particularly
difficult to identify it. For example, there was a single fragment of a
Devonian jawbone from a particular individual identified as Livoniana
multidentada, which had to be meticulously measured and analyzed to
determine whether it was a fish or an amphibian. If it had been
specially-created, then it could just as likely have been a mammal. But
unlike created kinds, evolved clades are limited to certain consistencies
that can be measured and charted, so that we know if a particular bone came
from a bird or a mammal (for example). Livoniana's jaw has since been
described as exactly half-way between that of Stegocephalian fish and
Devonian tetrapods [amphibians]. And looking at how close all these
seemingly-related species are, there already wasn't much of a gap to close.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2000/missinglink_transcript.shtml

In other words, quite contrary to Dr. Martin's claims, we do indeed find
"half-fish" just like we find "half-turtles". Now, we may never have found a
"half-cockroach", but if we ever did, how could we recognize it as such?

>Every creature should be difficult to categorize, classify and name, if
>evolution is correct (and life is "evolving along").

And that is indeed true, for just that reason. What taxonomists have
discovered is that classifying organisms strictly by their character traits
results in exceptions behind every definition. For example, every character
trait to identify an ape also includes human beings, as we mentioned before.
In fact, the only way to sever men from apes in their taxon is to limit the
word "ape" to apply only to quadrupeds, the "knuckle-walkers". The two
problems that result from this are (1) that one of the defining characters
to distinguish apes from monkeys is their "tendency toward a bi-pedal gait",
and (2) that such a classification would mean that Australopithecines
(including Paranthropines, Ardipithecus and even Oreopithecus would all be
considered human simply because they were all bi-pedal apes as we are. And
believe it or not, that is how these groups are often defined because of
that. We can either refer to other bi-pedal apes as human, or we must refer
to ourselves as apes.
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/may03.html

Consequently, the only way to define any organism in a truly consistent
manner that doesn't require any exception, is by a complete evaluation of
its individual characters, (both physical and genetic) and determine by that
how closely each organism is related to others. Systematists use this
method to assign species to parent clades based on the recency of
hypotheticical common ancestors within that clade and among neighboring
ones. For example, domestic dogs have been found to be more closely-related
to wolves than they are to coyotes, even though coyotes are also directly
descended from wolves. And wolves are more closely-related to wild African
dogs than they are to maned wolves, because each appears to have branched
from the same source; that being something similar to a jackal, perhaps
Hesperocyon, the earliest canid, known from the early Oligocene period.
Canids are of course is more closely-related to foxes than to bears, but
still more closely-related to bears than to weasels, etc. etc. Every new
family flowers out of one branch of another, so what you end up with are
groups within groups; Dogs and wolves within Canids, and canids, bears,
weasels, raccoons, pandas, and seals within Canoidea.

Cats, bearcats, meerkats, civets and hyenas are on the other branch of
Carnivora. Hyenas were once believed to be on the "dog-side", but were
genetically linked on the side of Feloidea. What this means according to
taxonomic definitions is that the common ancestor between hyenas and cats
was probably something like Herpestes antiquus, an already more cat-like
than dog-like carnivorous viverrid that had already diverged from early
sort-of raccoon/panda-like things that eventually lead to dogs. And this
happened a long time before either cats or dogs ever appeared. So it is
especially annoying when creationists reveal their ignorance by claiming
that evolution can't be true since dogs don't give birth to cats. No one
ever claimed they were supposed to.

How can you pretend to disprove a Theory if you don't even know what the
Theory is?

>Could it be that evolution is not correct?

Yes.
Could it be that gravity is not correct? Yes.
Could it be that Atomic Theory is not correct? Again, yes.
But even so, nuclear generators would still work, things would still have
weight, and we would still be biologically related to all the other apes.

>That each animal is easily identifiable (as giraffe or beetle or fish or
>turtle or cockroach) truly does "fit splendidly with creationist tenets."

Not at all. For example, look at the embrithopods of the Oligocene period.
Superficially, they look like rhinos, but analysis reveals that they are not
rhinos at all, but are more closely-related to elephants. Upon deeper
inspection, we are able to identify them relative to other things, but that
fact certainly isn't in line with creationist tenets where such things
should never happen. Now if these animals were specially-created, they
wouldn't always have to appear so closely-related to anything else, yet
absolutely everything on Earth does. Remember the movie, Alien? Well, God
could have created things like that to live on this planet, and every
evolutionist from Darwin on down would have to concede that these things
could not have evolved on this planet, and we would never be able to
categorize the fossils of such things either. They would be a complete
mystery. That each animal is easily identifiable (as giraffe or beetle or
fish or turtle or cockroach) fits only within the tenets of evolution, and
doesn't fit with creationism at all.

Nothing in reality ever fits with the super-simple fantasies associate with
the religious belief in magical creation. As I have already listed in my
previous post, there are a handful of ruminant ungulates that have been
categorized as "sort-of" giraffes, because they're almost giraffe-like, but
not quite giraffes, and yet can't really be classified as anything else
without calling them ½ giraffe / ½ deer. Yes, we have plenty of those, even
though Dr. Martin never studied this topic enough to know it, and wouldn't
like it if he did know it. Considering that just admitting its existence
would contradict one of the other chapters in this book, I wonder how do you
think our dear Dr. Jobe would have classified Paleotragus?
http://my.dreamwiz.com/lyong18/image/giraffe.jpg

Here is another one of those pesky single genome sequence samples which
should help in that determination. Of course these always tend to imply the
very opposite of what our dentist friend wants us to believe, don't they? Oh
well. This won't be the first time a creationist was dead-wrong on
absolutely every single claim he tried to make. It happens all the time. In
fact, I have never seen one be right about anything relevant even once, and
I am not exaggerating at all.
http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/cladestore/Mammalia/Ruminantia1.html

>Ceaseless change in the fossils or living plants and animals does not
appear
>to be "...the fundamental fact of nature".

I think it is time that our "expert on evolution" found out that speciation
has already been directly observed several times. It continues to be
observed because ceaseless change really is a fundamental fact of nature,
and it ain't hard to figure that out if you can pry your eyes, (and your
mind) open.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

And again Dr. Martin refers to a quote that is now known to be wrong because
it was deliberately misrepresented. And its not like there is any chance
that someone didn't know they were being dishonest in that attempt. After
all, as J.M. has already admitted, Stephen J. Gould is still an
evolutionist, and there is obviously good reason for that. As a Harvard
professor of Paleontology, Gould just might have known more about this
subject than any dentist. I am a high school drop-out, and I know more
about this than this particular dentist!

[Aron-Ra]

GOD CREATED KINDS

What is a "kind"? And why do all creationists habitually refuse to define
it? In this whole topic, there is really no more important question we can
ask. If evolution from common ancestry is not true, and some flavor of
special creation of different (as yet unidentified "kinds") is true, then
there would be some surface level(s) in a cladogram where you would accept
an actual evolutionary ancestry according to what creationists accept
according to their particular personal (and wildly-variable) definition of
"micro"-evolution. But there must also be subsequent levels in that
twin-nested hierarchy where life-forms would no longer be the same "kind",
and wouldn't be biologically related at all anymore. At that point, they
would be magically-created separate "kinds" from those listed around it, and
they would only be assigned to those taxonomic categories in the minds of
man.

Throw away any ideas you have about the importance of any other argument you
might be thinking about. None of them compare to this. If creationism is
true of anything more than a single ancestor of all living things, or if the
concept of common ancestry is fundamentally mistaken, then there MUST be a
point in a cladogram where taxonomy falls apart, where what we see as
related to everything is really unrelated to anything else. And unless
you're a Scientologist or a Raelian, that criteria must apply to other
animals besides ourselves. So my challenge to you is this, open up Google
and investigate any cladograms you can find, (I suggest the Tree of Life
pages as they are peer-reviewed) and find for me where that mystic division
is. If there is any validity to Creationism whatsoever, or if there is some
critical flaw in the overall Theory of evolution from common ancestry, then
that flaw MUST be found there, in the evolutionary cladograms, or it simply
can't be anywhere else!
http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Life_on_Earth&contgroup=

>God tells us He created each plant and animal after its own kind
>(Genesis 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25).

Well, no, to be quite blunt, he didn't. The Bible is a human construct no
different than the Zend Avesta, the Bhagavad-Gita, the Q'ran, Enuma Elish,
or the Pearl of Great Price. MEN wrote Genesis, not God. Try to remember
what the Bible says about idolatry, and don't deify a book written by men as
if it were "the word" of God, because clearly it is not; and apparently, if
the Bible is accurate, then God really doesn't like idolaters, and by
worshipping the Bible as "the [unquestionable] Word", you are violating the
very first commandment.

Besides, what the Bible says is that God allowed the Earth to create each
plant and animal after its own kind, and that is exactly what evolution
shows us when we look at taxonomy. In cladistic systematics, once you are
born a tetrapod, mammal, primate, etc., you will only produce others of that
kind; and each new development is still part of the parent group. This is an
extremely important point because it seems that creationists insist on not
understanding it, and Dr. Martin certainly doesn't understand it. But you
can't have half-turtle / half-cockroach mixes because they're both from
different clades. Cockroaches can only beget cockroaches, and even if one is
born like the ones in the movie, MIMIC, (which are 6 feet-tall and disguise
themselves as humans) they are still cockroaches. Likewise, anthropoid
primates [monkeys] can only beget other anthropoid primates [apes] (also
known as hominids) and hominids [apes] beget only other hominids [humans].
So if an ape gave birth to a human, creationists would say that it still
doesn't count as evolution because the new naked, bi-pedal,
highly-intlligent ape is STILL AN APE.

>Nothing evolved from some lower life form and nothing is presently evolving
>into a higher life form.

Evolution doesn't recognize "lower" or "higher" either. For us, evolution is
just about increasing diversity; new groups diverging from ancestral lines,
and changing as their conditions demand. Would you say that a seal is a
"higher" life form than a sea lion? There really isn't any up or down to
it. In fact, I guess common "descent" would imply "down" more than up. I
mean, we DE-scend from our parents, rather than A-scend from them, right?

Why doesn't your "expert" know anything at all about what he claims to be an
"expert" on?

>From a creationist position, what we see in the fossil record and in life
is
>exactly what we would expect to see.

Can you spot the bald-faced lie in the statement above?

Creationists didn't expect to see any of the hundreds of transitional
fossils that have been found so far, and obviously many of them still refuse
to see them even when they know they're there. They didn't expect to see
the geologic column either, and many of them are so upset by that some of
them even pretend that they haven't seen it for themselves even after
admitting that they had. Within that column, they didn't expect to see
footprints and raindrops fossilized between sedimentary layers that couldn't
have been laid down in their flood, (which they expected to find evidence of
and still have not). And despite what you think, they didn't expect
tectonic movement either, (one of the many indicators of an ancient Earth).
Nor did they expect millions of varves or evidence of a series of ancient
ice ages. They sure didn't expect to find any of those 22,000 clay tablets
from Ashurbanipal's library, bearing the original versions of so many of
their sacred stories from Genesis, all dedicated to the elder gods of Hebrew
ancestry. (OK, I realize these weren't fossils, but it was an important
point to make anyway). In short, creationists have never found anything
they hoped to see, and still refuse to see what was found that they hoped
never would be.

>The lack of transitional forms is why evolutionists have the "missing link"
>problem, although some deny this.

I don't deny that I have a problem with the few links that are still
missing. I would rather like to find the one that I expect would bridge the
gap between mixopterycean eurypterids and Palaeozoic aquatic scorpions.
http://locolobo.homestead.com/chelicerates.html
But my problem with Dr. Martin is that he is still trying to pretend that a
great many transitional links are still missing when we have found so many
of them every decade, and some of them had been discovered more than a
century ago, so he should have known about them.

>The "missing links" are missing.

Well, I can't argue with that. Whatever links are still missing, are indeed
missing. But Dr. Martin is implying that a lot of things are missing that
aren't; and he is being very dishonest in that attempt.

>They are completely absent in the fossil record and in living organisms.

See what I mean? Am I to believe for a moment that this self-proclaimed
expert on evolution somehow had never heard of Archaeopteryx, "Lucy",
Acanthostega, Homo erectus, or any of the other numerous examples I have
already listed? Either he is lying about he already knows we've found in
the fossil record, or he is lying about his expertise, and doesn't really
know what he pretends to. Which do you think it is?

>They never will be found.

Now would be a good time to talk about predictions, and by that I do NOT
mean prophesy.

Creationists are like scientists in only one respect; both make predictions,
like the one Dr. Martin just made above. The difference is that when a
scientists' prediction turns out to be wrong, he is forced to alter his
perspective, but a creationist's perspective is sacred, and cannot be
altered no matter how wrong he is, or how often that is made obvious. When
a creationist turns out to be wrong, all he does is to move the goal post,
or push the date back, or make whatever other excuse he needs rather than
admit his mistake. Anyone asserting "absolute truth" is unable to admit any
mistakes, remember? Remember when Pat Robertson said that the world was
going to end in 1982? Remember how people used to tell us all the time that
Jesus would come back BEFORE the year 2000? Prince seemed to think so,
remember? Remember also how even Nostradamos was wrong when he said the
King of Fright would come from the sky in 1999? Well? Where was it? Have
you noticed how people often re-write his quatrains just so he can still be
right about something somehow?

Remember how creationists used to say that Archaeopteryx fossils were faked,
and that no other feathered dinosaurs would ever be found? Then as more and
more of them are found, creationists try to say that they are all faked too.
You yourself said they were "fantasy".

Of course Darwin made predictions too. He predicted that if evolution were
right, we should find feathered dinosaurs, and it happened. We found the
first one while he was still alive. After Archaeopteryx, it took us 150
years to find any more, but we finally did. Darwin predicted that if
evolution were true, speciation should be directly observed also, and it has
been several times since. More importantly, he predicted the existence of
DNA as well, by stating that evolution could not be true unless inheritable
units of information were somehow intermixed between both parents, and
passed onto the offspring, and that of course is exactly what DNA is. This
is what is meant by falsification; figuring out how to prove your own idea
wrong, and then trying to do just that. If you can't prove it wrong, you
can consider it to be at least basically right until or unless something
else indicates otherwise. DNA was eventually discovered, and Darwin was
vindicated many years after his death, where creationists still have never
been, and at the rate they're going, will never be.

See, the reason faith is auto-deceptive is that believers must present their
initial conclusions as "absolute truth", which of course means they're
pretending to have complete and accurate understanding that is free from
error. So even when bits of their belief are proved to be wrong, they are
not permitted to admit it, even to themselves. And that's another reason
why no creationist will ever debate me. The position of faith is quite
opposite from that of science in that faith preserves and protects every
error in our understanding, and refers to them as "sacred truths".

Anyway, Darwin's 1st book was written before the discovery of Archaeopteryx,
so in it he lamented that no transitional species were yet known in his day.
But he predicted they would be found, and he was particularly interested in
what seem like really big evolutionary leaps, like those from land mammals
to fully aquatic or marine mammals.

For example, he knew about Sirenians, but he had no idea how (or if) they
could have evolved. To answer that, we would need a transitional species.
Now evolution requires that all marine mammals must be descended from an
earlier line of mammals that were once fully-adapted to living on land. But
while analysis of the skeltons and other physical structures of manatees,
dugongs, and sea cows collectively revealed that they were all
closely-related to each other, the closest living thing to a manatee on land
was an elephant, which seemed ridiculous at every level, and that meant a
really loooong evolutionary leap, requiring a pretty dramatic series of
transitional species.

At the time, there wasn't even a starting point in the fossil record. In
fact, in Darwin's day, there wasn't much known from the fossil record at
all. But as interest grew, more and more fossil hunters brought in a steady
supply of new paleofauna, and eventually, a potential transitional did
appear, although creationists predicted none would ever be found.

As explained here, Moeritherium, one of the earliest proboscideans, (which I
mentioned earlier in this post) were small hippo-like proto-elephants, and
could have been a transitional species between Proboscidea and Sirenia
because their life-style was one more adapted to living in and around water.
Numerous subtleties in their nasal and other skeletal structures which are
shared between basal proboscidians and modern sea cows implied they were a
possible evolutionary match.
http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/beasts/photo/photo2_zoom7.html

So we had found a species that met all the criteria required to be
transitional, and closed the gap between manatees and elephants by half.
But the creationists still said we had nothing. They wouldn't accept
Moeritherium as a potential link because it was 100% proboscidian, and
creationists think that the right transitional species should be exactly
half of one thing and half the other. That's usually not the case, so of
course, they never thought we would find one like that, but we did, several
of them in fact. Desmostylians, of which, four genera are known from
various locations around the Pacific rim, are exactly the half-and-half
specimens the creationists demand, and the gap between basal proboscideans
and fossil sirenians had just been closed by half. It was determined that
these were very closely-related to the elephant's line even though their
superficial appearance was more like that of a hippo mixed with a walrus,
(since these things also had tusks), and these enigmatic beasts were similar
to sea cows, but they still weren't quite sea cows either, not quite. We
could identify them, just as Dr. Martin implied; but as you can see here,
embrithopods and desmostylians, proboscideans and sirenians are identified
as very closely-related taxonomic groups, and that doesn't fit with
creationist tenets in the least.
http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Eutheria&contgroup=Mammalia

So now we had a handful of transitional species, but creationists still said
we had none, because for the evolution of Sirenians from any land-based
mammals to be true, there should be further evidence in the form of a
transitional sirenian that still had four legs. No modern sirenian has four
limbs, and creationists predicted we would never find one in the fossil
record either, but we did.
http://www.dino-pantheon.com/mineralfair'99/prototherium.jpg

So now we had Prototherium in addition to a few more Sirenian species with
legs, and a few more Desmostylians, and we lost count of how many
transitional species we had, having closed the ever-narrower gap between
four-flippered Sirenians and four-footed Desmostylians by half. But the
creationists still said we had no transitionals, because the rear "legs"
were nothing but tiny flippers which were "designed" for swimming, and God
could have made a four-flippered sea cow if he wanted to. So we had to find
a fossil Sirenian that was still clearly recognizeable as a Sirenian, but
with actual legs that ended in feet instead of flippers, and they should
probably also be both webbed and hoofed at the same time.

Of course, creationists predicted we would never find such an absurdly
impossible thing as that either, but we did, and when we found Pezosiren
portelli, there was no gap to close anymore, and all of our transitional
species counted toward that "unbroken chain of evidence" which Dr. Martin
demands, supporting evolution, and implying again, the bioglogical
relationship of all things.

"Here was the missing link which proved that the seacows descended from land
animals, presumably leaving this habitat in search for a new food resource."
http://home.t-online.de/home/rothauscher/steller/6e.htm

"Creationists claim there is no evidence of macro-evolution-intermediate
forms of animals demonstrating the evolution from one kind of animal to
another. We're finding more and more dramatic evidence by the day that
major changes have occurred in both appearance and adaptation. It's no
longer a matter of theory. We have actual bones in hand representing all
phases of the evolution, from land animal to sea animal, in different groups
of animals."
-- Paleontologist, Daryl Domning
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/10/1010_jamaicaseacow.html

My dear Dr. Martin, I know that the truth hurts and all, especially when
everything you hold dear about your world-view is based on a stack of cheap
lies, but the fact is that lots and lots of transitional species have
already been found for an incredible variety of lineages. Sorry, but you're
just going to have to deal with that or put your head back in the sand.

>God created each plant and animal after its own kind,

This is a baseless assertion of a mere belief, borne of faith in lieu of
evidence, supported only by a single collection of highly-questionable old
fables, and presented as if it were certain knowledge of what even Dr.
Martin knows is really unknown and unknowable. Why then should I believe
this, especially when I see him pretending to know what he knows he really
doesn't know, and hasn't even any good reason to believe?

>therefore, you would not expect to see "missing links".

What really amazes me about creationists is how adamantly some people refuse
to see the any of the links that are no longer missing. Yet those of us not
blinded by our priori dogma do see them....often in fact. I wonder why?
Maybe its because God didn't really create anything? Or maybe evolution is
one of his many ingenious mechanisms? Maybe God and Jesus and all that are
real, but that parts of the Bible are still just man-made myths? Maybe you
shouldn't worship a book? And the wrong one at that? Maybe God is real (in
some form) but your fallible human intellect has the wrong concept of who or
what God is? Or what he wants? Maybe since every religion must be wrong
with only a single possible exception of just one particular denomination
of just one of those religions, (and nobody knows which one that is) then
maybe yours is one of the many slightly wrong religions? Maybe God is the
Tao? Or (and I think this is infinitely more likely) maybe God doesn't
really even exist, and (like all these other gods) was just made-up out of
whole cloth? Maybe the good doctor would like to give me one good reason to
believe that such a thing really does exist, and that it is his particular
god as opposed to the god of the Jews, Muslims, Hindus, or Druids?

>"MISSING LINKS" OR "UNBROKEN TIES"
>
>The evolutionist's propaganda machine constantly barrages us through public
>TV, magazines and newspapers with broad ambiguities and undocumented claims
>supporting evolutionary theory.

This is great! The religious nut who doesn't even understand his own
belief, and believes what he does on pure faith alone in the utter absence
of any demonstrable understanding whatsoever, -is accusing scientists of
"broad ambiguities". That's especially funny when you realize that science
is all about precise measurments, repeatable tests, and hard verifiable
evidence in critical analysis, and on a global scale. Yes, [Darth Vader
voice] 'The irony is strong with this one', especially when he asserts all
he does with utterly no documentation whatsoever (that wasn't taken from
other creationist quote-miners) while ignoring the fact that all science
MUST have evidentiary support, and every claim MUST be testable in
peer-review, and therefore MUST be VERY well-documented in at least one of
the following world-wide publications of scientific journals.
http://www.medbioworld.com/bio/journals/bio-journals.html

Undocumented ambiguities, Dr. Martin? Where is your documentation for that
last ambiguity?

>A letter in the Dallas Morning News by Drs. Alvin and Joel Taurog of
>Southwestern Medical School exemplifies this type of propaganda:

Would this be a good time to point out that the word "propaganda" first
applied to a division of the Roman Curia, that was given authority in the
matter of preaching the gospel, and of establishing the Church among
non-Christians? Dr. Martin is arguing from propaganda. I am arguing from a
perspective of demonstrable reality that he is welcome to test however he
can.

>"Biological evolution asserts that all living organisms are interrelated by
>unbroken ties of genealogy. Although referred to as a theory, evolution is
>as much a fact as anything discovered by science, as well confirmed as the
>rotation of the planets around the sun or the roundness of the earth. The
>concept of evolution is central to biology and a massive body of evidence
>corroborates the evolutionary origin of all living organisms, including
>humans. While much remains to be learned regarding the mechanisms of
>evolution, the evolution of species is accepted by biologists as proven
>fact."

And this is easily verifiable as true.

>Let us evaluate this paragraph of Drs. Taurog. If "...all living organisms
>are interrelated by unbroken ties of genealogy", then the leading
>evolutionary thinker of Harvard, Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, is wrong.

He would be if he had made the same claim today that he made a quarter of a
century ago.

>Gould states:
>"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major
>transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our
>imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been
a
>persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."

....but not for evolution in general, just gradualistic accounts of it. This
paragraph was just a lead-in for him to introduce us to his revolutionary
concept of Punctuated Equilibrium, an idea almost as misinterpreted as
evolution itself, to explain what was seen then as a lack of intermediary
stages between SOME major groups, not all of them. Remember that
Australopithecus afarensis, "Lucy", the long-awaited "missing link" in human
evolution was discovered four years earlier, and of course Homo erectus and
Archaeopteryx were known long before that. So there was not a total lack of
transitional species even in the 1970s. Some of them were already known.
And he said this was a problem "in many cases", as opposed to all cases.
That means that it has not been a problem in all cases, even way back then.

>"Gradualistic evolution" means evolution of one creature into a more
>sophisticated and more complex creature over long periods of time.

This is wholly incorrect. While it does seem to be the way of things that
anything that is ever modified does end up more sophisticated or complex,
these are not required for evolution, nor are they always the case. For
example, dachshunds are not more sophisticated than wolves, right? Would
ratites be more sophisticated than the flying tinemous they came from? I
don't think so. In fact, I think earlier maniraptors may be more "complex"
than some of the birds that evolved from them. Since there really is no way
to quantify complexity, (despite many creationist assertions) and no way to
measure sophistication even to the degree that we could get adequate
determinations for that in any of the fauna above, then these cannot be
applicable.

What "gradualistic evolution" really means is that the rate of mutation or
alteration in the alleles should be relatively steady and constant. For
some reason, this was a popular concept, and still is with some biologists.
Gould (and myself) believe that mutations are not so steady, and that sudden
variables in the environment can dramatically speed the evolutionary process
where long periods of relatively unchallenging conditions wouldn't produce
much speciation because existing species could get on just fine as they are.
This is what he meant by Punctuated equilibrium.

>One creature gradually becomes another if given enough time.

This sounds wrong too. Allow me to explain; There are ancestors which are
not considered to be the same species as all of their distant descendants,
but it isn't one creature becoming another one. When we bred hound dogs
from wolves, did the wolf become another creature? When we bred dachshunds
from things like basset hounds, which were bred from things like wolf
hounds, which were bred from wolves, there are still other members of each
breed who never became the next breed in the implied sequence; and the ones
who did are still in the same clade as their ancestors. One species
branches out to become two or more species that are still so close to each
other as to still be considered members of the same group. These
differences are of course cumulative, so that eventually, we would think of
differing groups, but not when we look at any lineage in depth. Humans are
still apes, which are still anthropoids, which are still primates, which are
still eutherian mammals, which are still synapsid tetrapods, etc. etc. etc.
down to the molecular level.

>Gradualistic evolution, if true, should have evidence of transitional
>intermediate life forms in fossils and in living animals.

And there certainly are; and as technology improves, more are found every
year.

>Gould continues:
>"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little
in
>the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are
>characteristically abrupt."
>What Gould is saying is that the missing links remain missing.

No. He said there were "precious little" transitional forms back in 1977.
Most of which have been found since, including some of the most important
ones. All of the feathered dinosaurs (apart from Archaeopteryx) weren't
discovered until the late 1990s. Acanthostega was discovered by Jenny
Clack, (who helped me with my Elginerpeton rendering) in 1988, and she
subsequently re-examined Ichthyostega to determine that the two were
closely-linked; something that couldn't have been realized when Gould said
what he did. But several others were already known at the time of this
quote. Please remember that in the English language, "few" still means a
bit more than "none".

>There are no transitional (in-between) forms.

In this one post, I have already specifically mentioned Elginerpeton,
Panderichthys, Sauripterus, Acanthostega, ichthyostega, Pithecanthropus
[Homo erectus], Moeritherium, Chilotherium, Fiomia, Gomphotherium,
Deinotherium, Platybelodon, Palaeomastodon, Odobenocetops, Basilosaurus,
Dorudon, Rodhocetus, Ambulocetus, Pakicetus, Mesonychids, Plateoposaurus,
Hyracotherium, Livoniana, Australopithecines, Hesperocyon, Herpestes,
Paleotragus, Desmostylians, Prototherium, Pezosiren, and of course sea
lions, and modern sirenians which should be counted as transitional species
also. They aren't a finished product either, you can tell by their rounded
tails. I have also hinted at half-amphibian/half-reptiles [anthracosaurs
and the cotylosaurs], half-reptile/half-mammals [cynodonts], and early
pre-feline carnivores [Haplogale], and in my earlier email to you, I listed
pareiasaurs, Archelon, Protostega, Proganochelys, Scutosaurus, Deltavjatia,
Climacoceras, Canthumeryx, Paleomeryx, Samotherium, and Eumeryx. My
webpage, which I showed you earlier, also lists Postasuchus, Ceolophysis,
Caudipteryx, Ovaraptor, Rahonavis, Confuciusornis, Archaeopteryx,
Megalancosaurus, Sinosauropteryx, Sinornithosaurus, Bambiraptor,
Enantiornis, Compsognathus, and Protopteryx; and all of them have
explanations next to them so that you can understand why they're
transitional species, if that isn't already obvious.

I have dozens more I could list, but I think these dozens of examples
already listed certainly aren't quite "absent from the fossil record", as
Martin alleges, but are in fact, present and plentiful, and someone is being
considerably less than honest about that.

>No plant or animal is evolving >into a higher form as far as the fossils
can confirm.

That depends on whether you consider things like seals or sea cows to be a
"higher" life-form than sea lions or proto-elephants. But the fossil record
does indeed have hundreds of transitional species which show very clearly
that animals and plants have indeed evolved into newer forms that most
people would usually consider "higher", (whatever that means).

[Aron-Ra]

>"SUNRISE" OR "EARTH TURN"
>
>Where are these "unbroken ties" referred to by Drs. Taurog?

Obviously, I could not show him every link in every lineage all in one post,
so I am inclined to make another challenge of Dr. Martin that if he will
select any extant vertebrate, I will show him the evidence for that animal's
ancestry and transition from earlier forms in fossils, molecular analysis,
synapomorphy, taxonomy, everything.

>They present no scientific evidence to support their view. The evidence is
>only implied.

Since Martin makes this allegation, then when I answer his challenge, he
should be also expected to provide the science behind his position; not just
something which he thinks counters evolution, but something which actually
indicates special creation instead. Considering all I know about the facts
of this matter, why should I believe that any of it indicates anything other
than the only conclusion it logically seems to; that all living things
evolve and have been evolving from successive stages of common ancestry?'
And why should I believe there is a supernatural creator? Or that it
happens to be his particular god? What science can Dr. Martin provide to
answer any of these questions?

>They do appear to erect a "straw-man-creationist" and to take a few
sideways
>swipes at him.

More irony; this coming from the same guy who said "We do not see elephants
evolving fins or whales evolving wings". Which, since we have now closed
the transition between Moeritherium and manatees, I guess we have even seen
that! In a sense, we have seen elephants evolving fins.

>In mentioning the "rotation of the planets around the sun or the roundness
>of the earth" as true science, are they implying that the Bible and
>creationists believe in the "sun rising on a flat earth"?

Yes. Some creationists still believed that the Earth was flat even as
recently as the last decades of 20th century, and there may still be some of
them out there. Most of the Bible was written at a time and place when the
true shape of the Earth was not yet known, and that's why they Bible
repeatedly and consistently describes the Earth as kind of circular table
top.
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm

>How accurate are these doctors in the use of language?

Better than the doctor asking this question. They can at least write at an
adult level.

>Do they say to a patient, "Did you see the beautiful sunrise this morning?"
>Or would they be scientifically accurate and ask "Did you see the beautiful
>earth turn this morning?"

Here Dr. Martin demonstrates his inability to grasp simple concepts. There
are numerous places where the Bible portrays the Earth as flat, yet none
where it is indicated to be a sphere. The best it can accommodate is a flat
circle divided into four quadrants, and on which there are high places where
one can view the whole of the Earth's surface in a single panoramic view;
that and the fact that the Earth already existed "in the beginning", and
that includes the oceans. Obviously, the ancient Hebrew scribes meant to
depict God forming the shapes of the land [Earth] not the planet [Earth].
http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1990/1/1flat90.html

>The Bible uses common, ordinary language. That the
>earth is not flat, but a sphere is taught in Isaiah 40:22: "It is He that
>sitteth upon (above) the circle of the earth..." (KJV).

In this case, the word is chuwg [Strongs] "To describe a circle:- compass".
So it could refer to either a sphere or a flat disk, but it might be more
accurate to use the word "whole" here. "It is he that sitteth upon the
compass of the Earth" would mean that God sits in governance over the whole
[compass] of all that the Earth is, which of course means that God is in
charge of everything. The best you can get with the other translation is
that God sits on the planet with no real implication of his authority or
power over it.

>The Bible teaches that as God looks down upon earth, it appears as
>a sphere or circle.

And Jesus could do that too, from a tall tree [Daniel 4:10-11] or a high
mountain [Matthew 4:8], neither of which would be possible on a sphericle
planet.

>Psalm 19 (New American Standard Version) is a scripture that uses normal
>language and refers to the sun rising. The Bible is not inaccurate because
>it uses common figures of speech.

No. Psalms is inaccurate because it refers to the firmament, which was a
solid dome said to encompass the flat disk-shaped Earth, and under which,
the moon and stars all mingled with the clouds. The sun was sometimes
considered to be outside of the firmament because the sun was believed to be
God, as explained in various passages in the book of Job.

It was a common belief from Mesopotamia to China that the sky was a dome
which was meant to keep the eternal sea above the sky from drowning
everything below. When it rained, it was because windows had opened in the
firmament. Among the many flood myths throughout history is the Chinese
version wherein the flood was caused by a soldier on a mountain-top
accidentally tearing a rift in the firmament with his weapon.

The Hebrew word, raquiya is repeatedly used in Ezekiel's vision in a context
which requires a literal vault or dome. The vault appears above the "living
creatures" and glitters "like a sheet of ice."
http://evolutionofgenesis.homestead.com/firmament.html

When Genesis spoke of the Earth, it didn't refer to the whole planet. The
people who wrote it didn't have a concept of the whole world, and what they
knew of it referred only the land [Earth] above the sea, a sea which was
connected to an eternal abyss above and around the firmament by fountains
amid the pillars beneath the Earth, all of which, we now know never existed.
http://www.student.oulu.fi/~ktikkane/eU_LITT.html

>Where can we find the "massive body of evidence (that) corroborates the
>evolutionary origin of all living creatures, including humans" (as Drs.
>Taurog allege)?

Raise your eyes out of the pages of this book of magic spells which blinds
you, open a window, and look outside. If your eyes still can't adjust to
the light, I would be a happy to help you see what is there.

>The "massive body of evidence" proving the evolution of man
>would not fill a single casket according to evolutionist and prolific
author

(who is not a paleontologist of any sort)

>Dr. Lyall Watson:
>"The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are
>still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that all the
>physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with
room
>to spare, inside a single coffin!"

An average coffin provides over 40 cubic feet of storage space, and most
human remains are partial skeletons or fragmentary, so you could fill it to
the brim with the fossilized remains of a great many individuals. But with
all due respect to the eccentric Dr. Watson, when he said this in 1989, I
don't think it was still true. Nor do I think he knew of all the evidence
that was already known to paleoanthropologists at the time. As of a few
years ago, the "massive body of [physical] evidence" of early humans
included the following:

Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba- 5 sites, 5 individuals
Ardipithecus ramidus ramidus- 2 sites, 50 individuals
Australopithecus afarensis- 11 sites, 120 individuals
Australopithecus africanus- 7 sites, 130 individuals
Australopithecus anamensis- 2 sites, 10 individuals
Australopithecus bahrelghazali- 1 site, 1 individual
Australopithecus garhi- 3 sites, 4 individuals
Homo antecessor- 1 site, 5 individuals
Homo erectus/ergaster- 34 sites, 210 individuals
Homo habilis- 7 sites, 25 individuals
Homo heidelbergensis- 26 sites, 60 individuals
Homo sapiens neanderthalensis- 31 sites, 77 individuals
Homo sapiens sapiens- 75 sites,154 individuals
Homo rudolfensis- 5 individuals
Kenyanthropus platyops- 1 site, 3 individuals
Orrorin tugenensis- 4 sites,5 individuals
Paranthropus aethiopicus- 2 sites, 8 individuals

And also
Paranthropus boisei 9 sites, 43 individuals
Paranthropus robustus 3 sites, 28 individuals
Sahelanthropus tchadensis 1 site, 6 individuals

Based on this limited data above, we have nearly 1,000 individuals, but the
British Natural History Museum estimates as many as 4,000 individuals from a
vast collection of as-yet-unidentified fragmentary hominid remains, and I
don't think all of that could be crushed into a single 40 cubic foot
container.

>Drs. Alvin and Joel Taurog say still more:
>"When religion and science come into conflict, it is generally in the realm
>of belief....Scientific belief is based solely upon evidence that is
>validated by observation, experiment and prediction; neither religious
>belief, nor any other belief system, is subject to these constraints."
>Apparently, Drs. Taurog believe that the evolution model of one cell to man
>is science and thus can be validated with the scientific method.

Which is of course correct. And this would be a good time for me, a high
school drop-out, to explain to Dr. Jobe Martin DMD Th.D. what science really
is, because he obviously doesn't know.

It begins with observation, and the observed facts must be explained. (The
observation of speciation is one of those facts, by the way.) Hypotheses
are conceived to explain these facts, and these must then be tested for
accuracy. That hypothesis, along with the test results and any
modifications that were determined in that must then be submitted to
peer-review, preferably in one of the many scientific journals published
world-wide. Then the entire remaining scientific community (both
professional and amateur) are expected to prod at it to find any flaws they
can in either the procedure or the conclusion. In any mistakes were made,
or if any conclusions were drawn that are not really supported, someone will
find out and expose that flaw, and of course be awarded for doing so; that's
the incentive of success in science. But if a hypothesis can consistently
withstand this ongoing battery of critical tests, then it may be elevated to
the level of Theory, which is as close to "conclusively proven" as anything
in science can ever be. All this is specifically to counter the
auto-deceptive tendency of faith by basing every hypothesis on evidence, and
putting every conclusion to the test, and showing both sound reason for the
conclusion and evidence which can be measured and tested, (and even
potentially falsified) objectively.

>Creation science is apparently religious belief in their view.

Not just in their view, but everyone else's too. If a hypothesis cannot be
tested to be either still-supported or conclusively disproved, meaning that
it is not falsifiable by any means that its proponents will accept, then it
is not science. Since faith refers to a belief that is not based on either
physical (or even logical) evidence, and since defenders of the faith will
not change their minds due to material evidence of any kind, then theirs is
a religion, which is a whole different philosophy from science, and is even
opposed to it as in the case of creation science, where the scientists must
sign wavers promising to ignore any evidence that doesn't support the priori
conclusion.

"The two should not conflict," because science treats factual reality, while
religion struggles with human morality."
--Stephen J. Gould; Impeaching a Self-Appointed Judge".
Book Review of "Darwin on Trial, by Phillip E. Johnson,
Scientific American, July 1992, pp.93-94)

Where science demands testable evidence up front, all religions instead
propose supernatural things that can neither be quantified nor qualified in
any objective way at all, and they expect their followers to believe them,
even on material matters, without any reason in the form of material
evidence or logical reasoning of any kind. Instead, they require "faith",
which is essentially a stoic, unquestionable belief without reason and/or
against all reason, and utterly without any of the criteria required for the
practice of science.

>They add, "The interrelationships among living organisms from microbes to
>man have never been clearer,..." It is not clear precisely what these
>doctors are referring to,

Funny, that sounded crystal clear to me.

>but from the smallest life forms to the largest,
>from the simplest to the most complex, there is no scientific evidence to
>prove that they (small to large or simple to complex) are related as
>ancestors to or progeny from each other.

None except of course for molecular DNA, a gross of obviously-transitional
species in the fossil record, the ages indicated in the stratigraphy of the
geologic column, as well as in varves, dendrochronology, and radioactive
isotopes; the twin-nested hierarchy of derived genetic and morphological
synapomorphies in cladistic taxonomy, (which accounts for and implies the
common ancestry of every last living thing known to man) and of course our
implementation of evolutionary principles and processes in livestock
breeding, agriculture, virology, every field of genetics, and other
biotechnologies including nanotechnology; and of course our direct
observation of the documented fact of macroevolutionary speciation both in
the lab and in naturally-controlled conditions in the field, which has been
independently documented by myriad scientists of various faiths from around
the world numerous times in the last century alone, and which can of course
withstand any battery of tests the best minds of modern age can conceive.

What there remains not a shred of evidence for from any source anywhere, is
Biblical creationism, which was already disproved (by Christians) centuries

before Darwin was ever born.

>Natural History of May 1977 (p. 14) published the words of Dr. Stephen Jay
>Gould:
>"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as
>the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our
>textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest
>is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils... We fancy
>ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our
>favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so
bad
>that we never see the very process we profess to study."

A quarter of a century ago, there was an "extreme rarity of transitional
forms in the fossil record", but there is not anymore. Keeping the data at
the tips and nodes is how systematics works; each lineage is linked to
another not by any specific species (even when that species is known for
sure) but rather by a common ancestor between the two that must be kept
hypothetical to maintain objectivity.

We do have to view our evidence as bad, in that we have to accept that there
may always be some critical data that could dramatically alter our current
perception. But the comment that "we don't actually observe the process" is
phrased in a very misleading way. Obviously, we don't see dinosaurs
evolving into birds in real time, since all the non-avian dinosaurs are all
dead now. But we do directly observe evolution happening in real time with
living species, so we know the process works, and we know how it works, so
of course when we look at the fossil record, it evidently has worked before,
and has been working for a long time.

But the comment about "our favored account" is just bizarre, and its too bad
professor Gould is dead now, or I would ask him what he meant by this.
Perhaps he meant that the evidence favors this? Anyway, I have to wonder
why it is that the only quotes creationists can mine from him are nearly 30
years old when he died only 3 years ago, and he was an active proponent of
evolutionary Theory that entire time. Has he said nothing at all in the
decades since that you could possibly apply to your liking as a creationist?
And if not, why not?

Even if Gould had meant to detract evolution in the manner that some think
this mined quote implies, I would still be able to prove it to be the truest
and best explanation there is for the origin of our species, and I would
still be able to do that to your satisfaction, not mine, guaranteed.

And since you guys seem to think that quotes taken from famous scientists
are so meaningful, here is another for you to enjoy.

"The Creationist movement is lead by a dishonest bunch of operators
and misquotation is the hall mark of their work."
--famed Paleoanthropologist, Dr. Richard Leakey,
in a letter to me, L. Aron Nelson, 05/08/2003

And since you guys respect only your authorities over the facts, then how
about this one:
"I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God
might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are
beasts. For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one
thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have
all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all
[is] vanity."
--Ecclesiastes 3:18-19

I find it amusing that the entirety of Ecclesiastes supports evolution, as
does Genesis 1:9-12.

[Aron-Ra]

>MOLECULAR BIOLOGY DISPROVES EVOLUTION
>
>Even at the level of molecules, evidence to support evolution is lacking.

This comment is dead wrong, and I would very much like Dr. Martin to view
with me any actual genetic data produced by any biogenetics lab in the world
to prove it. I know a few professional paleontologists, plus I have emails
from some of the best, and most famous of them in my inbox. What's more, I
have in my experience seen extensive posts of genetic data which always
consistently support evolution exclusively and conclusively. So I would
like to make a formal challenge of Dr. Martin to provide any actual genetic
research that does not; because quite frankly, I don't believe him, and I
expect him to back up his word with something with enough substance that you
don't need faith to believe it. After all, that is what I offering to you.

Dr. Martin and his fellow proponents of unquestioning dogmatism do not have
the data they claim, and more than that, they KNOW they don't have it. If
they did, they would accept my simple challenge. They cannot because the
evidence in support of creationism isn't just lacking, it is completely
absent in every respect.

What's more I would also like to remind anyone who read his book, as if any
word of it was accurate, that the very best minds from every nation and of
every faith around the world have for more a century and-a-half universally
concluded that biological evolution is at least basically true and mostly
accurate, and they continue to do so, no matter what Dr. Martin & friends
want you to believe. Evolution is not "in crisis", and it is not being
rejected by mainstream scientists like so many creationists try to claim.
The evidence in support of it was already overwhelming 30 years ago, and has
only snowballed since the introduction of genetics. The reason Creationism
is voicing their objections so loudly now, is because the only thing they're
right about is that these are their "last days". I expect that in another
50 years or so, the current creationism movement will be considered a
psychological curiosity of American history, like the Flat-Earth Society, or
the Heaven's Gate cult.

>In chapter 2, we discussed the fact that at the cellular level of living
>creatures there are important differences that distinguish between basic
>kinds of flesh. For instance, the cells that make up the flesh of birds and
>fish are not the same.

The flesh from chickens and turkeys isn't the same either, and they are VERY
closely-related. What is important is *how* they are different, and how
they differ from the other archosaurs. How do they differ from mammals? Or
from other diapsids apart from archosaurs? And how does each group differ
from fish? Not just any fish, but preferably Sarcopterygiian fish?

What these guys are trying to hint at is that birds and fish are somehow
fundamentally different, but they are not. These authors mention
"important" differences, the exact nature of which, I expect we shall never
hear because (like the "basic kinds" they also mention) they do not exist.

Cladistically, birds are classified as maniraptorid dinosaurs, and their
parent characters will be consistent with that. Similarly, maniraptors are
archosaurs, one of two surviving lines of diapsid reptiles, and their parent
characters at higher levels will reflect that as well. Ultimately, birds
are still in the same parent clades as some lungfish, and this is revealed
in the character of the cells from there down. They are still metazoan
organisms with nucleic cells, just as all other animals are, without
exception, and that includes us.

>Scientists are studying even smaller entities than cells as they examine
the
>molecules of the cell. This field of study is named Molecular Biology.

....which has since been labeled "the bane of creationism" for what will soon
be obvious reasons if they are not obvious already.

>A book that every Christian family (and non-Christian, as well) should have
>is, Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins.
>Written by creationists as a supplemental high school biology textbook
>supporting the view that life demands a designer,

It doesn't "support" a designer, it merely pleads for one, and it does so
without any evidentiary justification other than a desperate
need-to-believe. It is faith, not science. This is a homeschool book
written for people who want to prevent their children from learning about
real, objective science, so they can indoctrinate them at home instead, in
order to lend some feeling of credence to their otherwise unjustifiable
religious beliefs.

It isn't even good theology, nor is it remotely accurate even in its most
basic assumptions, such as the assumption that all (or even most) Christians
are creationist. That is clearly not the case. If anything, creationism is
driving Christians away with their whacked-out nonsense. They certainly
aren't drawing any in. The only way they can do that is by indoctrinating
them when they are still at their most impressionable, like homeschooling
them, or sending them to private schools that operate inside of
fundamentalist churches.

>this book deals with the molecular evidence for creation.

No it doesn't. There is not now, and never has been, any evidence which
positively supports creationism, and I mean not from any field of study, and
that includes Theology! The best creationists have yet been able to come up
with are constant (and constantly failed) attempts to refute evolution, as
if that would somehow leave Biblical creation as a viable option, or the
only option; and all the evidence which creationists pretend supports their
position is either entirely bogus, (as it is with all of Dr. Martin's
claims) or that same evidence actually supports evolution better.

>"The study of living things on the molecular level is a relatively new
>field. The information that scientists derive from molecular biology may be
>used to compare and categorize organisms, a field known as biochemical
>taxonomy. Biochemical analysis holds out the promise of making taxonomy a
>more precise science, because it allows differences between various
>organisms to be quantified and measured....

This much is true.

>Proponents of intelligent design read similarity in structure as a
>reflection of similarity in function. All living organisms must survive in
>the same universe and must fit its ecological web. All must fit into a food
>chain. The need to function within a common universe puts common physical
>and chemical requirements on all organisms. It would be both logical and
>efficient for an intelligent agent to design living things with a common
>biochemical base....

Sorry, but this is not correct either. All things that are created may
employ completely different materials for various reasons, and it would be
both logical and efficient for an intelligent agent to design living things
with variable foundational components, structures, and/or materials for
different tasks, or environmental needs. Biological organisms are never
like that. They are restricted to only those materials which appear
inherited and also bear structural details in each case that are apparently
inherited as well. A certain line of automobiles, like the Volkswagen
Beetle for example, may shift from aluminum to iron, air-cooled to
water-cooled, carburetor to fuel-injection, and can either have the engine
located in the front or back. But we never EVER see this sort of thing
happening in nature. Everything that has ever lived is restricted to minor
modifications of structures that already existed in its recent ancestry.
Created "kinds" wouldn't be so restricted.

>The significant new contribution biochemistry offers is a mathematically
>quantifiable means of determining how similar classes of organisms are. But
>when several similarities are put side by side, the pattern that emerges
>contradicts all expectations based on evolution."

This is not just a baseless assertion; this is an out-and-out lie.

"It turns out that all organisms in their genes carry clues to their
evolutionary history -- a unique set of acquired genetic changes passed on
through countless generations." This fact allowed molecular biologist,
Mitchell Sogin, taxonomist, Christine Diaz, and their team of geneticists at
the Marine Biological Laboratory at Woods Hole, Massachusetts to compare and
contrast specific sets of genetic differences between sponges, flies, fish,
frogs, humans and other organisms leading to a discovery which supported the
placement of sponges at the base of the animal kingdom.

"Sogin made this discovery by extracting DNA from a sponge and investigating
one gene common to all animals. After painstakingly sequencing this gene, he
compared its nucleotide sequence (represented by letters) to that of the
same gene in other animals like worms, mammals, insects and more. Little
variation of this gene in different animal groups would signify the groups
were closely related while large variations would represent a more distant
relationship. After comparing all the groups, Sogin traced out an
evolutionary family tree, knowing that the animal at the base of the tree
would be our oldest ancestor. He discovered that sponges indeed, were the
most basal group that must have laid the foundation for all animal life to
follow. "The sponge was the first animal with the genetic blueprint for
living large," Sogin says. "All animals are based upon that same blueprint."
He discovered that sponges, indeed, were the start of the animal kingdom and
laid the foundation for all animals to follow.
http://www.pbs.org/kcet/shapeoflife/

This molecular research profoundly contradicts and refutes the claims of
your dentist and his questionable sources. And don't forget that we share
more than 97% of our DNA with gorillas, and nearly 99% with bonobo
chimpanzees. Of course we also share greater genetic similarity with the
species that are supposed to be more closely-related to us according to
modern evolutionary taxonomists. At the same time, we share less than half
of our DNA with very distantly-related organisms. That pattern also very
definitely supports evolution, as does every other genetic pattern revealed
in microbiology.

Everybody knows about our nearly identical genetics with other hominids. It
has been common knowledge in this country for decades, and I am certain that
Dr. Martin knew it too, which means that he isn't just mistaken here, but
deliberately misrepresenting the facts, even if he did copy it from someone
else.

>Animals that evolutionists have always believed to be closely related in
the
>evolutionary chain are now known to be unrelated when studied at the
>molecular level.

Here is another genetic chart which proves that the "Bondo Mystery Apes" are
really oversized members of a specific sub-group of chimpanzees (Pan
troglodyte) and not a hybrid with gorillas, as has been previously
suggested.
http://karlammann.com/images/bondo/phylogenetic-500.jpg
This illustration beautifully depicts their more-distant relationship with
bonobos, and other elements of chimpanzee lineage as evolution actually
describes it; without "increasing complexity", and without "higher" or
"lower" life forms, but as a simple family-tree of continuously flowering
diversification.
http://karlammann.com/bondo.html

>Kenyon and Davis continue:
>"To use classic evolutionary terminology, amphibians are intermediate
>between fish and the other land-dwelling vertebrates. Yet, analysis of
their
>amino acids does not place amphibians in an intermediate position. This is
>true no matter what species of amphibian we choose for comparison. Based
>upon the evolutionary series, we would expect some amphibians to be closer
>to fish ("primitive" species) and others to be closer to reptiles
>("advanced" species). But this is not the case. No matter which species are
>taken as the basis for comparison, the distance between amphibians and
fish,
>or between amphibians and reptiles, is always the same....

There are several problems with this, not the least of which being that they
didn't use genetic samples from Devonian amphibians, or any species of
Sarcopterygiian fish that they appear to have evolved from. Some species do
retain some generally "primitive" characteristics, which is why we have
salamanders, lizards, opossums and lemurs, but they only seem primitive.
Modern lungfish and modern salamanders have are now been divided by 360
million years of cumulative genetic alterations, and the same applies to
every "advanced" species of reptile. Actually, it's a lot more difference
than that. Lungfish and coelacanths are the only surviving Sarcopterygiian
/ Crossopterygian fish, but neither are from the same line as Panderichthys,
which biologists believe is closest to the one leading to us. Those lines
would have diverged somewhere around 400 million years ago, and the earliest
amphibians wouldn't be recognizable as newts or salamanders until several
million years after their divergence in the late Devonian.

To explain this another way, let's say that reptiles and mammals are
siblings with the same parents. Modern amphibians are related to modern
reptiles through their grandparents, and their great grandparents were fish.
To chart the genetic difference between modern amphibians and modern
reptiles, you would have to trace them back through their parents, to their
grandparents, back up through their great aunts, to their aunts, to the
reptiles, who are now their cousins, not their siblings, as Kenyon and Davis
imply.

"If we just realize that all modern organisms have had equal time to change
from their common ancestor, and that molecular evolution never actually does
stop, this disproof of evolution changes instantly into an argument in favor
of evolution, i.e. the nested hierarchy."
--John Harshman, Ornithological systematist
http://makeashorterlink.com/?W26755B48

>The revolution in molecular biology has given us new, mathematically
>quantifiable data on the similarities in living things. But the data have
>served to support a picture of the organic world consistent with the theory
>of intelligent design."

Just to prove Dr. Martin wrong again, the latest genetic data shows that the
several dozen varieties that were recognized only as breeds of dogs, now
constitute 4 different genetic species, even though we know they are
biologically related, and descended from wolves. The act of speciation is
how Macro-evolution is defined, so these genetic readings are again proof of
that again. But more than that, this also goes on to confirm what could
previously only be hypothesized about their evolutionary origins.

Multiple and Ancient Origins of the Domestic Dog
Science [a peer-reviewed journal] 276: 1687-1689, 13 JUNE 1997.
http://www.idir.net/~wolf2dog/wayne1.htm

I should at this time also point out that there is no Theory of Intelligent
Design, and never was. A scientific theory must cite its evidentiary
support, and it must make testable predictions which can then be tested.
I.D. proponents can't do any of that, and that is why Intelligent Design
"Theory" is a Theory in name only. It has no supportive evidence, can't
make any predictions and wouldn't subject itself to testing anyway. It is a
strictly-religious movement who's advocates and members admit to religious
bias, but who's agenda must of course avoid making that admission.

"A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must
accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model
that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite
predictions about the results of future observations."
--Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time

Most of the more-famous Intelligent Design "Theorists" do try to deny
Darwinian evolution in favor of some other mysterious and unnamed variant
that is guided by some invisible and imperceptible intelligent force which
no one has any evidence of, which is why it can never be classified as a
science in any sense. I don't know what Denton's, Behe's, Dembski's, and
Wells' specific beliefs are, but for the most part, Intelligent Design
"theorists" do however accept and support common ancestry, which is
completely contrary to the claims made by Dr. Martin, especially since they
usually also write harsh criticisms of Biblical creationism, considering it
to be unrealistic fantasy at best.

So I.D., as it is publicly presented, in no way supports the creationist
position. And despite the many claims of creation "scientists" there never
was a Theory of creation either. Amid myriad demands that they cough one
up, every evangelical creationist Christian "scientist" in the world has
refused. Similarly, they also refuse to participate in any other aspect of
scientific endeavor, especially the peer-review process, and not one of them
actually does any relevant research. All they really do is sift through the
work of real scientist to sort what they can distort from what they must
ignore.

There is literally nothing reasonable, scientific (or sane) about creation
science whatsoever, and that's why there will never be a scientific Theory
of creation. Evolution has, since its inception, always been the *only*
functional Theory of origins, and remains the only one that explains all (or
any) of the facts involved. Lamarkian explanations couldn't withstand
critical analysis 200 years ago, and creationism couldn't withstand it
either, (even back then) and it still does not explain any fact we ever
observe ...ever.

>Author Michael Denton [Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Harper and Row,
>1986)], a Ph.D. in molecular biology (who is not a creationist as far as I
>know),

He is actually. That's what "intelligent design" means; a creator. He is
still in the mindset that "I don't know how it could have happened, so it
must be magic" and he can't accept his role as a part of nature because his
ethnocentric bias places him apart from it, and above it. He can't be happy
as he is unless he can believe he is more special than all other life, and
that there must be some magical purpose behind his existence. That would be
the "vanity" that Ecclesiastes was talking about; though Denton is not a
Biblical creationist, and never was. His version of God is not the same
character as that in legendary folklore.

>argues that evolution from one cell to man is not indicated at the
>level of the molecule.

Here is another thing that annoys me about creationists's use of dishonest
propaganda: Its not about "one cell to man". Evolution vs creation is
decided on the difference between natural animals (specifically apes) and
man. Creationists know there is no arguable difference between them, so
they deliberately misrepresent the contraversy to its most
seemingly-improbable conclusion, willfully ignoring every stage of
development known along the way.

As you are a friend, whom I have always respected for his apparent devotion
to truth, I implore you to recognize the attempted deceit employed in every
passage of Denton's work, and realize that you are supporting a faction
which knows not truth and refuses to use for fear they might also see it.

>After looking at molecules for evidence for "missing
>links" between the different classes of creatures, Denton writes (p. 286):
>"There is a total absence of partially inclusive or intermediate classes,
>and therefore none of the groups traditionally cited by evolutionary
>biologists as intermediate gives even the slightest hint of a supposedly
>transitional character."

Then in his second book, 'Nature's Destiny; How the Laws of Biology Reveal
Purpose in the Universe', (The Free Press 1998) in chapter 12, "the Tree of
Life" (p276) there is a paragraph entitled "The Closeness of All Life in DNA
Sequence Space", in which he says; "One of the [his] most surprising
discoveries which has arisen from DNA sequencing has been the remarkable
finding that the genomes of all organisms are clustered very close together
in a tiny region of DNA sequence space forming a tree of related sequences
that can all be interconverted via a series of tiny incremental natural
steps."
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/latest_2003/theory-in-crisis.html

I.D. "theorists" are normally very secretive about thier personal spiritual
beliefs, for obvious reasons, most of them political, but when he wrote
'Evolution: A Theory in Crisis', he was apparently attempting to appeal to
the conventional god of the dominant religions as the creator of life on
Earth, and was listed as "senior fellow" in the Discovery Institute, where
some of the membership have admitted to being Young-Earth Creationists. But
his new book challenges his own former position by making the exact opposite
claims to what Martin and other creationists usually cite from his earlier
work. Of course, he is no longer listed among the fellows of the Discovery
Institute. I wonder why?

>Of course, if there is no evidence for evolutionary relationships at the
>level of molecules, which are the basic building blocks of nature, then the
>idea of evolution of enzymes, proteins, plasma and tissue is totally
absurd.

But, (as Michael Denton himself points out) there is substantial evidence of
evolutionary relationships from the molecular level on up. As his
understanding improved, he changed his position accordingly, and is now a
proponent of the original version of Intelligent Design Theory that I had
proposed in the evolutionary biology classes at the University of Texas back
in 1985, which is that biological evolution is directed by a form of
intelligence, but it is still evolution as opposed to special creation, and
the supernatural intelligence is something more similar to Giai or the Tao.
I no longer support that view, because as my understanding improved, I was
forced to change my position too. To do otherwise would be intellectually
dishonest.

>The Bible says:
>For thus says the Lord, who created the heavens
>(He is the God who formed the earth and made it,
>He established it and did not create it a waste place,
>But formed it to be inhabited).
>I am the Lord, and there is none else...
>And there is no other God besides Me,
>A righteous God and a Savior;
>There is none except Me. (Isaiah 45:18,21b)

So what?

The Bhagavad-Gita says;
"I am the Father of this universe,
and even the Source of the Father.
I am the Mother of this universe,
and the Creator of all".
--Confidential Knowledge of the Ultimate Truth,
Bhagavad Gita 9:17

Lord Krsna said that, and performed some of the same miracles as Jesus
supposedly did 3,000 years before your Y'shua bar Yosseff was ever born, and
there are nearly a billion Hindus who say that the sacred Vedic scriptures
in the Gita are "the Word" of the "One True God". What gives Dr. Martin's
assertion of his evidence-free faith any more authority than theirs? I have
read lots of folklore that is older than the Bible, yet claim similar things
(and also very different things) in the names of different gods. So please
try to present something more than classic fairy tales when actual evidence
is required.

>Dr. Vincent Sarich, an evolutionist and Professor at the University of
>California at Berkeley, did a series of studies at the molecular level on
>the evolution of man. At first, his studies were scorned by his
evolutionary
>colleagues. He had the audacity to announce in 1967 that Ramapithecus
>(proclaimed by Elwyn Simons and David Pilbeam of Yale to be one of the
>earliest ancestors of man) was not at all ancestral to man, but more
>probably an ancestor to the orangutan.

That is correct, and it shows the benefit of the peer-review process I've
been going on about. But far from being "scorned", Sarich's conclusion
found acceptance among the majority of paleoanthropologists, (people who are
capable of changing thier minds if given reason to). Ramapithecus, (a
sub-group of Sivapithecus) is considered to be an ancestor of
Brahmapithecus, Gigantopithecus and modern orangutans. Dryopithecus is the
one popularly thought to be the ancestor of modern chimpanzees and humans.

>"The year was 1967. Sarich and his partner, Allan Wilson, were comparing
>blood proteins from human beings, chimpanzees and gorillas -- finding them
>remarkably similar. After analyzing the slight differences, they decided
>that the ancestors of human beings must have diverged from those of the
>African apes only about 5 million years ago, instead of the 20 million to
30
>million years that fossil evidence seemed to suggest. Their conclusion was
>regarded by many paleontologists as heresy.

This is nothing but sensationalist libel. NO ONE regarded their conclusion
as "heresy", nor could they have. But I would enjoy seeing Dr. Martin try
to present documentation in support of that particular claim.

>It was bad enough that Sarich and Wilson were challenging the conventional
>estimate of the age of the human line. Worse, they were doing it with test
>tubes and biochemistry -- all but ignoring the fossils on which so much
>evolutionary theory was based.

Evolutionary Theory was originally based on taxonomy, not fossils. The
fossil evidence at the time was so sparce that all they had (initially) were
"proto" apes like Proconsul. The 20 million to 30 million year estimate was
based on the assumption that we weren't nearly as similar to the [other]
apes as we later turned out to be.

>Most experts then believed that human beings could trace their ancestry at
>least as far back as a 14 million-year-old creature called Ramapithecus,
and
>paleontologist Elwyn Simons, then of Yale, spoke for many of his colleagues
>when he pronounced the Sarich-Wilson work "impossible to believe."

"Genius is no guarantee against being dead wrong"
--Carl Sagan; Cosmos

>Times have changed. While Simons still thinks Ramapithecus may be a human
>ancestor, he has little company. New fossil discoveries have convinced many
>experts that the animal was ancestral to the orangutan."

That is correct; but I have to wonder what the point was, since none of this
is either critical of evolution nor lends any support whatsoever to the
creationist position?

>Molecular research is eliminating the supposed evolutionary ancestors of
>people, one by one.

With this comment, Dr. Martin has scored a perfect failure rate in that he
was demonstrably dead wrong in every single point he attempted to make.

The very same technology that can finger your daddy even when your momma
can't, and which is conclusive enough to convict felons in serious criminal
cases, (even when no other evidence is present!) is the same process that
was also used to prove some black Americans to be the great-grandchildren of
Thomas Jefferson. It is the same technology that produced the recent
concept of a series of successive Mitochondrial Eves; the same technology
that more recently identified Homo erectus DNA in several modern human
samples taken from distant cultures, and the same technology which
determined that gorillas, bonobos and chimpanzees were actually more
closely-related to humans than either was to the orangutans. It also proved
that we were all more closely-related than previously believed; so much so,
that gorillas, bonobos and chimps, (which used to be call Pongids, or "great
apes" have been reclassified as Hominids, with us. In fact, the genetic
similarity has grown so close that some anthropologists would prefer to
categorize chimpanzees and bonobos as 'human' or redefine man as a sub-group
of chimpanzee.

"HOMINIDAE: Until recently, most classifications included only humans in
this family; other apes were put in the family Pongidae (from which the
gibbons were sometimes separated as the Hylobatidae). The evidence linking
humans to gorillas and chimps has grown dramatically in the past two
decades, especially with increased use of molecular techniques. It now
appears that chimps, gorillas, and humans form a clade of closely related
species; orangutans are slightly less close phylogenetically, and gibbons
are a more distant branch."
http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Hominidae.ht
ml

My friend, I have been debating creation scientists online for the last five
years,
and they have shown a consistent pattern of logical failures, misrepresentat
ion,
open dishonesty, cowardice, and emotional pleas in lieu of evidence all that
time.
And this sadly-predictable universal pattern with them prompts me to wonder;
How can someone be proven to be absolutely wrong about absolutely
everything,
100% of the time, for such a long time, and still believe theirs is the
"absolute truth"?

[John Harshman]

Aron-Ra wrote:
[snip what is a fine reply, though a bit more sharply worded than I
would use with a friend]

> Just to clarify, turtles are descended from a line of earlier anapsid
> reptiles, which were among the first amniotes.

I hate to quibble, yet still I do. Turtles are descended from a line of
earlier anapsid reptiles to the same extent that any other amniote is.
There is increasing evidence, however, that they are not primitively
anapsid, and this also suggests that pareiasaurs are not their closest
relatives either. Instead they may be diapsids, and perhaps even
archosaurs. The evidence so far is not conclusive, but it does rely on
both molecular and morphological characters. I have no doubt that
several groups are now assembling big molecular data sets to answer this
question.

[snip]

> In other words, quite contrary to Dr. Martin's claims, we do indeed find
> "half-fish" just like we find "half-turtles". Now, we may never have found a
> "half-cockroach", but if we ever did, how could we recognize it as such?

There is also some evidence that both mantises and termites are nested
within cockroaches. I don't know of any transitional fossils (Do you?),
but there are suggested living transitional forms to termites, at least,
in a genus of wood-eating, social cockroaches.

[snip the rest]

[John Harshman]

Aron-Ra wrote:

> GOD CREATED KINDS
>
> What is a "kind"? And why do all creationists habitually refuse to define
> it? In this whole topic, there is really no more important question we can
> ask. If evolution from common ancestry is not true, and some flavor of
> special creation of different (as yet unidentified "kinds") is true, then
> there would be some surface level(s) in a cladogram where you would accept
> an actual evolutionary ancestry according to what creationists accept
> according to their particular personal (and wildly-variable) definition of
> "micro"-evolution. But there must also be subsequent levels in that
> twin-nested hierarchy where life-forms would no longer be the same "kind",
> and wouldn't be biologically related at all anymore. At that point, they
> would be magically-created separate "kinds" from those listed around it, and
> they would only be assigned to those taxonomic categories in the minds of
> man.

This of course is the goal of baraminology. Strangely, the
baraminologists don't seem to have made much progress. They can say with
complete assurance that Homo sapiens is a separate kind unto itself, but
there doesn't seem to be much else. I wonder why.

[snip]

[Bjoern Feuerbacher]

"Aron-Ra" <ilc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<G7ednZVvivg...@comcast.com>...

Nominated for POTM (including the follow-up posts!).

Bye,
Bjoern

[Mujin]

*Social* cockroaches!? That's not something I wanted to hear...(OK, I
lied, I wanted to hear about it just as much as I loved seeing film of
peephole toads, but still! <shudder>)

>
>[snip the rest]

--
K

Sweet Analytics, 'tis thou hast ravished me
--Marlowe's Faust

[John Harshman]

Mujin wrote:

Don't worry, they won't be in your house. The main impetus to sociality
is that parents have to pass gut symbionts on to their children, and
individuals need new symbionts after every molt.

Peephole toads?

[Rodjk]

feue...@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de (Bjoern Feuerbacher) wrote in message news:<4bb90092.04051...@posting.google.com>...

Seconded!!

[Victor Eijkhout]

Aron-Ra <ilc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

You have a lot of good points, but your writing style needlessly
antagonises the YEC reader. I don't think disparaging people, however
justified in your mind, is going to win them over.

> Jobe Martin promotes
> creationism for purely religious reasons,

"I hope I can prove to you that JM's creationism is not based on solid
science"

> because he was taught the very
> same thing that you teach your students; that "the Bible is the only source
> of truth".

"but rather on his desire to vindicate the bible as a priori source of
truth."

>That of course means that you will try and force yourself to
> continue to believe that even after you know for certain that its wrong.

Insulting and needless.

> So
> when he was told that he should believe the whole Bible literally, or not at
> all, then he felt he had to blot reality completely from his mind.

He told you this?

> Consequently, he
> is forced to deploy a host of less-than-honest tactics

"In fact, I hope I can convince you that he is often not only wrong, but
actually dishonest"

> in an obvious attempt
> at propaganda that has naught to do with science, evidence, reason or
> rational thought in any way.

Don't say things like "obvious attempt": it's not obvious to your friend
and will only antagonise him.

> >As a college student I was convinced that evolution was true and that, in
> >time, scientists would find the missing pieces.
>
> They have. Not every last one of course, that's not possible. But several
> dozen of them have been found,

There are only a few dozen fossils period that count as transitionals in
any line? Wow.

> Science has evidence, and having evidence means having a reason to accept or
> believe [tentatively] whatever it is that you have evidence of. Evangelists
> don't have any evidence, so there is no reason to believe them.

Hm? If you accept the bible as a bunch of eyewitness accounts (not of
genesis, but other miracles) then there is a lot of reason to at least
wonder if it could be that way. You first have to discredit all the
bible accounts before you can say that there is no reason.

> All they have are sensationalist, paranoid, emotional pleas
> and blind assertions without merit;

You're insulting your reader again.

> Creationists on the other hand, have ...still ....nothing, nothing in the
> world but their own increasingly desperate pleas,

Actually, they claim to have a bunch of claims why accepted science is
wrong. They may be wrong about that, but it's not just a bunch of
"desperate pleas".

> and their position is
> literally unbelievable unless you have a personal emotional need to believe
> them.

No, if you think their science is solid, then you can believe them
without involving your personal needs.

> Once again, we are witness to the creationist's use of creative editing.

"This can only be described as creative editing"

I don't believe you've shown such an example before, so "once again" is
empty rethoric and in fact false.

Ok, maybe I should stop. I think you should present your case as "just
the facts, ma'am", without telling the reader what an idiot he is.

&c.

V.
--
email: lastname at cs utk edu
homepage: cs utk edu tilde lastname

[puppe...@hotmail.com]

"Aron-Ra" <ilc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<G7ednZVvivg...@comcast.com>...

[wonderful excellent post snipped]

The only thing I can find to snipe at is, a very few of the links
do not work for me. In at least one case, the web site claimed that
linking to individual graphics was not allowed. Possibly a few others
react badly to the (multi-level) firewall software I live behind.

I would very much like to see this as a POTM.
Socks

[Harlequin]

k...@nada.kth.se (Kai-Mikael Jää-Aro) wrote in
news:3vbrkr5...@fnatte.nada.kth.se:

> This post and its follow-ups was one of the most educational
> presentations of transitionals and organism relationships I've seen in
> a long time.

There was also another nomination with second. So I would guess
that this would be a fourth.

But I think that this one might be better off going the FAQ
route. There is a long outstanding "Request for FAQ" for
reviews of any major antievolutionist work. This will allow
for Aron-Ra to make for minor revisions based on comments
and for better formatting then one could get presenting
the review in Usenet formating as it would be as PotM.

--
Anti-spam: replace "usenet" with "harlequin2"

"...I think that science would have never have achieved much
progress if it had always imagined unknown obstacles hidden
round every corner."
- Arthur Eddington, _Stars and Atoms_, 1929, p. 20.

[Harlequin]

see...@for.addy (Victor Eijkhout) wrote in
news:1gdrwlt.21te741kwwtjxN%see...@for.addy:

> Aron-Ra <ilc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> You have a lot of good points, but your writing style needlessly
> antagonises the YEC reader. I don't think disparaging people, however
> justified in your mind, is going to win them over.

[snip]

Agreed. I might point out that stated falsehoods might not
be best called a "lie" since it is possible the creationist
in question might actually believe it and the real person
he is lying to is himself. Calling it a falsehood is better
all-around except for extreme case with strong proof.

[Harlequin]

puppe...@hotmail.com wrote in
news:c7976c46.04051...@posting.google.com:

> "Aron-Ra" <ilc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<G7ednZVvivg...@comcast.com>... [wonderful excellent post
> snipped]
>
> The only thing I can find to snipe at is, a very few of the links
> do not work for me. In at least one case, the web site claimed that
> linking to individual graphics was not allowed.

That is probably an anti-bandwidth theft measure. Expect this sort of
thing to become more common as time goes by. Basically if
a site sees a request for an image or media file without seeing
a prior request for HTML (or whatever) file then the system will
assume that an outside site is using their site as free storage
and bandwidth of images instead of paying for it on their own
site.

It is probably a good idea to provide links to the pages that contains
the images rather than the images themselves and if it can't be helped
then provide both.

For more information on Bandwith Theft see:
http://www.tipz.net/sins_bandwidth.htm

[snip]

[Aron-Ra]

"Victor Eijkhout" <see...@for.addy> wrote in message
news:1gdrwlt.21te741kwwtjxN%see...@for.addy...

> Aron-Ra <ilc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> You have a lot of good points, but your writing style needlessly
> antagonises the YEC reader. I don't think disparaging people, however
> justified in your mind, is going to win them over.
>
> > Jobe Martin promotes
> > creationism for purely religious reasons,
>
> "I hope I can prove to you that JM's creationism is not based on solid
> science"

I'm not changing that line. Its one of those "just the facts" lines you
said I should use.

> > because he was taught the very
> > same thing that you teach your students; that "the Bible is the only
source
> > of truth".
>
> "but rather on his desire to vindicate the bible as a priori source of
> truth."

I will not pretend that the Bible is a source of ANY truth.

> >That of course means that you will try and force yourself to
> > continue to believe that even after you know for certain that its wrong.
>
> Insulting and needless.

OK, I already thought this one needed to be changed before I actually send
it to him, which I think I will do on Tuesday morning, just before I see him
again. We're going to lunch on that day.

How about this instead?;

"What I have seen time and again is that anytime anyone, be they Christian,
or Shinto, or Hindu, or whatever -is conditioned to believe in their
scripture's claim of inerrency, of "absolute", and "infallible" "truth",
they will try to force themselves to continue to believe that even after
they know for certain that they're wrong. And I have numerous examples of
that in public archives, one of which I have already shown you with the link
to 'The Difficulty of Dogmatism', but I have many many more accessible in
the Google groups list"

"What Krishna has said 5,000 years ago in the Bhagavad-gita has stood the
test of time. You can read it today and it is still perfectly valid. Your
scientific theories will come and go but the Absolute Truth will not
change".
--Madhudvisah dasa Swami; Talk.Origins, 07/14/95
http://makeashorterlink.com/?X27F52874

> > So
> > when he was told that he should believe the whole Bible literally, or
not at
> > all, then he felt he had to blot reality completely from his mind.
>
> He told you this?

That is my analysis, and I stand by it.

> > Consequently, he
> > is forced to deploy a host of less-than-honest tactics
>
> "In fact, I hope I can convince you that he is often not only wrong, but
> actually dishonest"

"I hope I can convince you?" I KNOW I can, and I don't need to butter it up
to do it.

> > in an obvious attempt
> > at propaganda that has naught to do with science, evidence, reason or
> > rational thought in any way.
>
> Don't say things like "obvious attempt": it's not obvious to your friend
> and will only antagonise him.

It will be obvious as soon as he opens his eyes.

> > >As a college student I was convinced that evolution was true and that,
in
> > >time, scientists would find the missing pieces.
> >
> > They have. Not every last one of course, that's not possible. But
several
> > dozen of them have been found,
>
> There are only a few dozen fossils period that count as transitionals in
> any line? Wow.

Yes. Don't forget I gave a very specific definition, one that allows for
only a few hundred examples that clearly meet all of the criteria.

> > Science has evidence, and having evidence means having a reason to
accept or
> > believe [tentatively] whatever it is that you have evidence of.
Evangelists
> > don't have any evidence, so there is no reason to believe them.
>
> Hm? If you accept the bible as a bunch of eyewitness accounts (not of
> genesis, but other miracles) then there is a lot of reason to at least
> wonder if it could be that way. You first have to discredit all the
> bible accounts before you can say that there is no reason.

I did that when I pointed out that the Bible was no different than the
sacred fables of any other religious tome.

> > All they have are sensationalist, paranoid, emotional pleas
> > and blind assertions without merit;
>
> You're insulting your reader again.

I have an image in mind from an old black-and-white movie, where someone is
delirious and the hero is slapping him in the face, yelling "Snap out of
it".

I am not going to nudge him gently and say "Wakie wakie".

> > Creationists on the other hand, have ...still ....nothing, nothing in
the
> > world but their own increasingly desperate pleas,
>
> Actually, they claim to have a bunch of claims why accepted science is
> wrong. They may be wrong about that, but it's not just a bunch of
> "desperate pleas".

Mmm. Yeah it is. Its just a bunch of desperate pleas that all the experts
are ignorant, genius is stupidity, two and two make five, and everything we
know is wrong.

> > and their position is
> > literally unbelievable unless you have a personal emotional need to
believe
> > them.
>
> No, if you think their science is solid, then you can believe them
> without involving your personal needs.

I was talking about their theology this time. THAT is impossible to believe
with an serious emotional need.

> > Once again, we are witness to the creationist's use of creative editing.
>
> "This can only be described as creative editing"
>
> I don't believe you've shown such an example before, so "once again" is
> empty rethoric and in fact false.

As indicated in text, there was another email before this one, and a
conversation in person before that, in which I told my friend that
absolutely all the "evidence" creationists ever claim is contrived,
distorted, made up of out-of-context quotes, or simply made-up out of
nothing at all.

> Ok, maybe I should stop. I think you should present your case as "just
> the facts, ma'am", without telling the reader what an idiot he is.

Did I do that?

[Mujin]

On Fri, 14 May 2004 14:22:30 +0000 (UTC), John Harshman
<jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:

Well, my main problem with them is simply that they're cockroaches.
For reasons I don't quite understand, although I have no objection at
all to many more objectionable creatures, cockroaches offend me. I
suspect it's the way they move.

>
>Peephole toads?

I'm uncertain if that's the correct common name, since they were
referred to in passing in a nature documentary I was watching some
time ago now: IIRC the female of the species lays eggs on the skin of
the male's back. The skin loosens (incomplete moulting?) and the
immature young live in the space underneath, popping out to feed on
debris etc. It was a most disturbing sight, but no more so than many
of the more obscene^H^H^Hinteresting ways creatures arrange for their
young to be protected during development.
--
K

" Ash nazg durbatuluk,
ash nazg gimbatul,
ash nazg thrakatuluk
agh burzum-ishi krimpatul."
Inscription on the One Ring -
The Lord of the Rings, J.R.R.Tolkein

[mel turner]

In article <k83ba09b9v3bu70rt...@4ax.com>,
ba...@hornedking.com [Mujin] wrote...

>On Fri, 14 May 2004 14:22:30 +0000 (UTC), John Harshman
><jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:

[snip re: Cryptocercus roaches]

>>Peephole toads?
>
>I'm uncertain if that's the correct common name, since they were
>referred to in passing in a nature documentary I was watching some
>time ago now: IIRC the female of the species lays eggs on the skin of
>the male's back. The skin loosens (incomplete moulting?) and the
>immature young live in the space underneath, popping out to feed on
>debris etc. It was a most disturbing sight, but no more so than many
>of the more obscene^H^H^Hinteresting ways creatures arrange for their
>young to be protected during development.

You're thinking of "Suriname toads", not "peephole toads",

http://www.xenopus.com/products.htm#pipa

[but their scientific name _Pipa pipa_ does sound something
like "peephole". Perhaps the documentary narrator was speaking
of "_Pipa_ toads"? The eggs sink into pockets that form in the
females' spongy back skin, and not a space under loose shed
skin:

http://www.honoluluzoo.org/surinam_toad.htm
http://www.honoluluzoo.org/surinam_toad_gallery.htm

They emerge as miniatures of the adults, without a
free-living tadpole stage.

They're weird flattened aquatic anurans

<http://toadstool.se/photos/2002/07/11-Amazon,Peru-Second_Animal_Photo_shoot/29-Surinam_Toad_-_Pipa_Pipa,_top_angle.JPG>

that are closely related to the African "clawed frogs" [Xenopus],
and not to typical "toads"

Speaking of cockroaches, the above site also had
this nice Blaberus roach pic:

<http://toadstool.se/photos/2002/07/11-Amazon,Peru-Second_Animal_Photo_shoot/27-Cockroach_-_Blaberus_americanus.JPG>

cheers

[Victor Eijkhout]

Aron-Ra <ilc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > Ok, maybe I should stop. I think you should present your case as "just
> > the facts, ma'am", without telling the reader what an idiot he is.
>
> Did I do that?

I think so. You don't seem to think so.

[Mujin]

This is definitely not the animal I'm talking about as there was a
tadpole stage. I've been looking for more info, but am starting to
think I may have been duped...

In either case, thanks for the great links!

>
>They're weird flattened aquatic anurans
>
><http://toadstool.se/photos/2002/07/11-Amazon,Peru-Second_Animal_Photo_shoot/29-Surinam_Toad_-_Pipa_Pipa,_top_angle.JPG>
>
>that are closely related to the African "clawed frogs" [Xenopus],
>and not to typical "toads"
>
>Speaking of cockroaches, the above site also had
>this nice Blaberus roach pic:
>
><http://toadstool.se/photos/2002/07/11-Amazon,Peru-Second_Animal_Photo_shoot/27-Cockroach_-_Blaberus_americanus.JPG>
>
>cheers
>

--
K

The sea has an enormous thirst and an insatiable appetite.
French Proverb

[Frank J]

John Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<40A4417D...@pacbell.net>...

Strangely? It seems that they are not even trying to make progress,
but doing whatever they can to avoid it. I'm not sure who calls
themselves a "baraminologist," but as you know, some
anti-evolutionists (IDers) have conceded that there is only one "kind"
on earth, and others at least have conceded that Homo sapiens is not a
unique "kind," even among extant species. That anti-evolutionists who
disagree (e.g YECs, classic OECs) rarely refute them directly, speaks
volumes.

What is interesting, if not strange, is that the few scientists who
actually attempt (poorly, IMO) to find evidence for independent
origins, do not associate with anti-evolutionists who base their
criticisms on semantics, strawmen, and incredulity arguments - IOW the
YECs, OECs and IDers. And that the latter rarely refer to the former,
except to take them out of context.

I haven't read enough of AR's long posts to see if these simple points
are made, but I note that in the above excerpt he calls the
alternative to common descent "special creation" rather than
"independent origins" or "independent abiogenesis." IMO, that plays
right into the hands of the anti-evolution strategists.

[DS]

> I know you'll think of this as an appeal to authority, but since I don't
> have any dentists, evangelical preachers, or charlatan snake-oil salesmen
> like Hovind to quote from, I will have to make do with real scientists;
> including Nobel laureates and other professional specialists with advanced
> degrees and peer-reviewed journal literature in these specific fields. If we
> need to discuss gum-disease, or how to buy a cheap college degree without
> earning it, then I will consider your sources' expertise.
>

Bravo on the whole piece! Do you mind if I steal this one phrase and call it my own?

~DS~

[Theda]

"Aron-Ra" <ilc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<G7ednZVvivg...@comcast.com>...

> [Note: My best friend from high school is now a high school principle, but
> as sad fate would have it, he is now a YEC creationist, and the principle of
> a Biblical literalist Christian school that operates inside a North Texas
> Baptist church. When I told him that I was now an active advocate for the
> advancement of reason in science education, he suggested that I read a book
> written by Dr. Jobe Martin DMD Th.D. whom he said would likely "sit down
> with me and answer any questions I might have". Well, I doubt that very
> much. I wrote my friend back, and included the following multi-part critique
> of this book.]
> ***************
>
> Per your suggestion, I read through some of the 'Evolution of a
> Creationist', and I have to say I am very disappointed in your choice of
> champions, and (no offense intended) but I am also disappointed in you, that
> you ever could have thought such infantile tripe as this even sounded
> plausible. There will come a day (very very soon) when you will begin to
> understand what I mean and blush whenever you remember that you once
> purchased this book as if it was of any legitimate value at all.
>

<snipping the rest>

Dear Aron-Ra,

If you are trying to persuade the unwashed, affront will not get you
there. If you are preaching to the choir only, then a really nice
piece of work is going to likely further alienate those whose thinking
could most profitably be influenced by it. I think this would be too
bad, because your letter really does contain many excellent persuasive
statements and observations. (Boy, I turned those religious
metaphors on their heads, didn't I?)

Here is what Benjamin Franklin had to say:

I made it a rule to forbear all direct contradictions to the
sentiments of others, and all positive assertion of my own. I even
forbade myself the use of every word or expression in the language
that imported a fixed opinion, such as "certainly", "undoubtedly",
etc. I adopted instead of them "I conceive", "I apprehend", or "I
imagine" a thing to be so or so; or "so it appears to me at present".

When another asserted something that I thought an error, I denied
myself the pleasure of contradicting him abruptly, and of showing him
immediately some absurdity in his proposition. In answering I began
by observing that in certain cases or circumstances his opinion would
be right, but in the present case there appeared or seemed to me some
difference, etc.

I soon found the advantage of this change in my manner; the
conversations I engaged in went on more pleasantly. The modest way in
which I proposed my opinions procured them a readier reception and
less contradiction. I had less mortification when I was found to be
in the wrong, and I more easily prevailed with others to give up their
mistakes and join with me when I happened to be in the right.
:Benjamin Franklin, in his autobiography

Much love,

Theda

[Aron-Ra]

"Frank J" <fn...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:38c5d0dd.04051...@posting.google.com...

The long posts are part of a conversation between me and an old friend who
is now the principle of a Christian school that teaches Biblical
creationism. I told him that I could prove evolution was at least basically
true, but that I would also prove that the people who promote Biblical
creationism for his classes are being deliberately deceptive. He has
personally met Kent Hovind, Ken Hamm, and Jobe Martin, so you can imagine
how much fun this is going to be.

[Aron-Ra]

"Victor Eijkhout" <see...@for.addy> wrote in message

news:1gdth7s.1axwreq1qwkea3N%see...@for.addy...

> Aron-Ra <ilc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Ok, maybe I should stop. I think you should present your case as "just
> > > the facts, ma'am", without telling the reader what an idiot he is.
> >
> > Did I do that?
>
> I think so. You don't seem to think so.
>

I am not telling what an idiot he is.

I am letting him know what an idiot he is.

[Aron-Ra]

"DS" <darksyd...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:cf236d7c.0405...@posting.google.com...

Be my guest.

[Aron-Ra]

"Theda" <thed...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6fbfba0d.04051...@posting.google.com...

What do you mean? This being a dear old friend, that paragraph was the most
polite I have ever been!

Can't argue with that. Good advice.

[mel turner]

In article <nq8ca0t4kpu2910fe...@4ax.com>,

No, there are other, very different frogs also with brooding
pouches on the female's back. I now think they probably showed
one of the "marsupial treefrogs", genus Gastrotheca. There are
numerous species. These carry the eggs in a single large pouch
on the female's back. I still think Pipa is weirder than these,
which otherwise are pretty typical treefrogs [but one species
is supposed to be the only living frog species with teeth on
the lower jaw]

http://www.gherp.com/gherp/pages/marsupialtree.htm
http://www.livingunderworld.org/gallery/photos/anura/hylidae/gastrotheca/walkeri/>
<<http://www.livingunderworld.org/gallery/photos/anura/hylidae/gastrotheca/marsupiata/>
http://www.animalfact.com/article1021.html

[Did a search, and learned something new -- appropriately
enough, there are also "marsupial frogs" in Australia:

http://www.geocities.com/gem3007/
see
Assa darlingtoni - Australian Marsupial Frog.

It says that the two brood pouches are on the hips of the male
frog in this species]

>In either case, thanks for the great links!

Sure. Fun topic.

[other links snipped]

cheers

[Harlequin]

fn...@comcast.net (Frank J) wrote in
news:38c5d0dd.04051...@posting.google.com:

> [...] I'm not sure who calls themselves a "baraminologist," [...]

I suppose that Todd Charles Wood and Megan J. Murray would since
they wrote a book on the subject in much the same format as a
rather short textbook.

_Understanding the Pattern of Life_. Nashville: Broadman & Holman
Publishers. 2003. 231 pages. Part of the "Origins and Organization
of the Species" series edited by Kurt P. Wise.

I picked up a used copy in a bookstore in a Christian bookstore
last August. I have not read it yet. Thumbing
through it looks like a creationist version of cladistics!?!

Oh my, they have a what I would call a cladogram with
Hyracotherium, Orohippus, Epihippus, Mesohippus, Miohippus,
Klobatippus, Anchitherium, Merychipppus, Pliohippus,
Dinohippus, Equus, Pseudhipparion, Neohipparion, and
Hipparion. On the strength of a paper published
in _Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on
Creationism_ which Wood is a co-author concludes that
all of these are a single kind. "...The results of this
study indicate that all nineteen fossil equid taxa belong
to a single monobaramin. This evidence directly places fossil
taxa in the same baramin as modern taxa, and by similiarity
to other fossil species, we can infer at least 150 fossil horse
species in the same baramin...." Now because Abraham/Abram got
donkeys from Pharaoh about 370 years after the Flood and
since branching pattern of what I would call a cladogram,
all of these must have arisen in the 370 years after the
flood. Ditto for camels: "...Since we know that Pharoah
and Abram met around 370 years after the Flood (by the
geneology chronology in Gen 11), those 200 camelid species
must have arisen, left fossils, and probably went extinct
in less then 370 years."

The "Baraminology Study Group" has a web page
at http://www.bryancore.org/bsg/

Some Wood's papers on the Web:
http://www.bryancore.org/bsg/opbsg/index.html (2nd one includes horses)
http://www.grisda.org/origins/54005.pdf

There is also a IDist version of baraminology.
See: Siegfried Scherer, "Basic Types of Life: Evidence for
Design from Taxonomy?" In: _Mere Creation: Science, Faith &
Intelligent Design_, William A. Dembski, editor. 1998.
Downer Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

[John Harshman]

Harlequin wrote:

Macroevolution indeed! This would be Simpson's tachytelic mode, to put
it mildly. I'm waiting to see the results of their further research, in
which they conclude that perissodactyls all form a single kind. And in
their next paper they can find that Laurasiatheria is a single kind, and
then Eutheria, and then Mammalia...why, there's no end to the
possibilities of baraminology.

> Ditto for camels: "...Since we know that Pharoah
> and Abram met around 370 years after the Flood (by the
> geneology chronology in Gen 11), those 200 camelid species
> must have arisen, left fossils, and probably went extinct
> in less then 370 years."

Ditto for Artiodactyla (including whales). It's clades all the way down!
In my experience, the baraminologists tend to do only the easy parts:
finding two groups to belong to a single baramin. They never seem to do
the part that involves two groups belonging to different baramins.

> The "Baraminology Study Group" has a web page
> at http://www.bryancore.org/bsg/
>
> Some Wood's papers on the Web:
> http://www.bryancore.org/bsg/opbsg/index.html (2nd one includes horses)
> http://www.grisda.org/origins/54005.pdf
>
> There is also a IDist version of baraminology.
> See: Siegfried Scherer, "Basic Types of Life: Evidence for
> Design from Taxonomy?" In: _Mere Creation: Science, Faith &
> Intelligent Design_, William A. Dembski, editor. 1998.
> Downer Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Scherer has actually published on this in real journals, though the
creationist parts were downplayed for publication. He has weird views on
duck phylogeny, and they are easily demonstrated to be wrong based on
the data. He thinks the family Anatidae is a separate kind, within which
relationships are messy and chaotic. Neither is true. Relationships
within ducks are pretty nicely cladistic (despite their tendencies to
get confused during the mating season), and relationships to groups
outside ducks are very clearly resolved. There's no discontinuity to
hang a baramin on.

[Aron-Ra]

"John Harshman" <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in message

news:40A744EB...@pacbell.net...

>
> Relationships
> within ducks are pretty nicely cladistic (despite their tendencies to
> get confused during the mating season), and relationships to groups
> outside ducks are very clearly resolved.

Could you illustrate that for me? I have a feeling it will come in handy
soon.

[Harlequin]

John Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in

news:40A744EB...@pacbell.net:

Creationist "microevolution" run amok.

I have started to read the book and learned that Marsh also
put all of the fossil horsed into what Wood and friends would
call a monobaramin. (Marsh being the creationist who started
all of this Baramin business six decades ago. He is an important
figure in _The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism_
by Ronald Numbers which is, as you probably know, a history of
creationism from the time of Darwin to just prior to the rise
of the "intelligent design" movement.)

> This would be Simpson's tachytelic mode, to put
> it mildly. I'm waiting to see the results of their further research,
> in which they conclude that perissodactyls all form a single kind. And
> in their next paper they can find that Laurasiatheria is a single
> kind, and then Eutheria, and then Mammalia...why, there's no end to
> the possibilities of baraminology.

..of monobaraminology. They also have apobaraminology to keep creations
separate.

But of course you have hit a fundamental problem for them. I mean
if a creatures as different as _Hyracotherium_ and modern horses
are seperated by less than 370 years of "microevolution" then what
is stopping even more evolution. This is practically giving
away most of the store. Mark Isaak, are you reading this?
That YEC type Biblical creationists have published studies concluding
that fossil horses are indeed genologically connected with modern
horses might be a good thing to point out in CC216.2
( http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC216_2.html ).

The strange thing is that the baramin that includes the horse
would be descended from two individuals. This would be the
ultimate in lacking of genetic diversity and thus evolution really
would have a hard time proceding. I guess that YECs have to
to forget the role of recombination in evolution and that
natural selection needs genetic difference to proceed.
So why don't we see this rapid evolution today when there
is far more genetic diversity for evolution to work with?
Also this means all the extensive deposits which fossil horses are
in are all post-Flood. To save themselves from absurdity they
just create even more of it.

Though looking ahead they seem to use "microevolution" much like a modern
biologist might.

"Once again, rather than adopting evolutionary concepts to
baraminology, we strongly recommend that use of uniquely
creationist terminology to describe species transformation.
Evolutionists have a number of terms for fine-scale evolutionary
changes. {Microevolution} referes to changes that occur within a
species, sometimes generating supspecies, varietyies, or races.
{Speciation} is the process by which new species arise.
Evolutionists usually use {macroevolution} or megaevolution to refer
to evolutionary changes that result in new genera, families, orders,
and even larger groups. If baramins encompass more than one genus
(which they often do), then organismal transforamtions within a
baramin could legitimately be described by all three evolutionary
terms, depending on the diversity of the resulting species. We use
the intrabaraminic {diversification} to describe the genetic process
by which members of a baramin bring forth new species or varieties,
without regard to the magnitude of the change.1"

Woods and Murray, page 170. Words in {} are bold in the original.

Still, most creationists which use the word "microevolution" for
evolution within a created kind or baramin.

>> Ditto for camels: "...Since we know that Pharoah
>> and Abram met around 370 years after the Flood (by the
>> geneology chronology in Gen 11), those 200 camelid species
>> must have arisen, left fossils, and probably went extinct
>> in less then 370 years."
>
> Ditto for Artiodactyla (including whales). It's clades all the way
> down!

Their monobarmins would definately be monophyletic to use cladistic
lingo. They want to do their baraminology with two modes which they
hope converge. The first is discovering monobarmins. This would
involved connecting species via "continuity." The operational
definition of monobaramin used in the Refined Baramin Concept used
by the Baraminology Study Group is "a group of known organisms
(or species) which each individual shares continuity with at least
one other member of the group." The earlier more theoretical
definition was merely having a common ancestor though
the BSG does believe that. Wood and friends break from
Marsh by not requiring hybridization to establish "continuity."
Monobaramins can contain monobaramins just as clades can contain
clades: My father and his descendents are a monobaramin to
make up an example. The idea is to make larger and larger monobaramins.

> In my experience, the baraminologists tend to do only the easy parts:
> finding two groups to belong to a single baramin. They never seem to
> do the part that involves two groups belonging to different baramins.

You are wrong on that account. The second approach is to form
apobaramins. An apobaramin is a of organisms which is discontinuous with
all other organisms. Naturally they believe that members of an
apobaramin do not share a common ancestor with any organism outside of
the apobaramin. Again apobaramins can be nested. Obviously they think
that humans (and whatever fossil humans they think are descended from
Adam and Eve) are an apobaramin. Mammals are also an apobaramin in
their scheme. Naturally the second approach is to find these apobaramins
and then to make smaller and smaller apobaramins.

Naturally the point of all of this is have a convergene of apobaramins
with monobaramins. When a group is both an apobaramin and a monobaramin
it is said to be a holobaramin. Naturally the hope is that the
holobaramins are the "created kind" baramins refered to in Genesis
or are a reasonable approximation. (Using "reasonable" in the creationist
sense.)

Here is a simplified version of an example from Wood and Murray:
Frair in 1984 recognized turtles as an apobaramin. He further
recognized four monobaramins in the turtle apobaramin. Wise in 1992
then recognized apobaramins within the turtle apobaramin. While
Robinson in 1997 was more conservative and instead recognized
in the turtle apobaramin two monobaramins: the family Cheloniidae and
the genus _Gopherus_.

>> The "Baraminology Study Group" has a web page
>> at http://www.bryancore.org/bsg/
>>
>> Some Wood's papers on the Web:
>> http://www.bryancore.org/bsg/opbsg/index.html (2nd one includes
>> horses) http://www.grisda.org/origins/54005.pdf
>>
>> There is also a IDist version of baraminology.
>> See: Siegfried Scherer, "Basic Types of Life: Evidence for
>> Design from Taxonomy?" In: _Mere Creation: Science, Faith &
>> Intelligent Design_, William A. Dembski, editor. 1998.
>> Downer Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
>
> Scherer has actually published on this in real journals, though the
> creationist parts were downplayed for publication. He has weird views
> on duck phylogeny, and they are easily demonstrated to be wrong based
> on the data. He thinks the family Anatidae is a separate kind, within
> which relationships are messy and chaotic. Neither is true.
> Relationships within ducks are pretty nicely cladistic (despite their
> tendencies to get confused during the mating season),

Here is a nice example of a duck really being unclear on concept
during mating season. Those who are eating might want to finish
eating and have it well down before checking:
http://www.nmr.nl/deins815.htm

> and relationships to groups
> outside ducks are very clearly resolved. There's no discontinuity to
> hang a baramin on.

Or rather no discontinuity to hang an apobaramin on. :-)

[Frank J]

Harlequin <use...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<Xns94EADBE43475us...@68.12.19.6>...

Interesting. I poked around the website, but not enough to see if
there was anything scientific. Some interspersed Bible-speak suggested
that there may be a double-standard for evidence. What caught my eye
was:

"A polybaramin is any group of species.
A monobaramin is a group of species that share a common ancestor.
An apobaramin is a group of species that are unrelated to any other
species.
A holobaramin is a group of species that share a common ancestor and
are unrelated to any other species. A holobaramin is approximately
equivalent to Marsh's baramin.

Using these four terms, [Kurt] Wise created baraminology as a
young-earth biosystematics method."

If you or anyone can answer these obvious questions, I'd rather not
try to find them at the website, as I expect that would be difficult:

1. Is there a competing old-earth baraminology, and some healthy
debate between the two?

2. Do YE and OE baraminogists actively refute Behe's (and probably
Dembski's) "there only one monobaramin" implication?

3. Do any baraminogists include any other extant species in the same
monobaramin or holobaramin as H.sapiens (and if so is it mono- or
holo-) ?

[John Harshman]

Aron-Ra wrote:

Sure. Within the family Anatidae there are clear subfamilies and tribes.
I could go into that if you want, but just think of the typical ducks
(one subfamily) and the geese and swans (another). The rest of the
subfamilies and tribes will be generally less familiar, but they are
just as distinctive.

Outside Anatidae, there is the monotypic genus Anseranas, the Australian
magpie goose. It clearly looks rather ducklike, though it has a number
of bizarre and/or primitive characteristics. Outside that is a South
American group called the screamers, family Anhimidae. They don't look
much like ducks (more like chickens, really), but they share a number of
esoteric characters with ducks. That's the order Anseriformes. The
sister group of Anseriformes is Galliformes, chickens and their
relatives. Together we call them Galloanserae. The sister group of
Galloanserae is Neoaves, which consists of almost all other birds.
Together we call those two Neognathae, and they are the sister group of
Paleognathae. All this is supported by just about any molecular evidence
you care to look at. I could list references for quite a while. But
everyone who looks finds just this same tree. So ask your friend, what
are the kinds here? Ducks? Ducks + Anseranas? Anseriformes?
Galloanserae? Where can you draw a line?

[Frank J]

"Aron-Ra" <ilc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<Q5udnfw4ZtS...@comcast.com>...

So what is his take on:

1. The AIG - Hovind disagreements?
2. The YEC-OEC debate?
3. That one of the names most likely to be dropped by the
YEC-on-the-street these days (Behe) is an OEC who accepts common
descent?
4. Schwabe and Senapathy, who advocate apparently "naturalistic"
hypotheses os "independent origins"?

Or does the classic American Physical Society quote come to mind?: "So
much for the pretense that the debate is over the science."

[John Harshman]

Frank J wrote:

Not to my knowledge, though there may be some "big tent" baraminology
going on. I don't think Siegfried Scherer (referenced several times on
that page) is a YEC.

> 2. Do YE and OE baraminogists actively refute Behe's (and probably
> Dembski's) "there only one monobaramin" implication?

No. Big tent.

> 3. Do any baraminogists include any other extant species in the same
> monobaramin or holobaramin as H.sapiens (and if so is it mono- or
> holo-) ?

No. That's an axiom of baraminology. And all holobaramins are also
monobaramins. What I can't figure out is how an apobaramin differs from
a holobaramin.

[Harlequin]

John Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in

news:40A7B303...@pacbell.net:

[snip]

> No. That's an axiom of baraminology. And all holobaramins are also
> monobaramins. What I can't figure out is how an apobaramin differs from
> a holobaramin.

It is a really simple:

Members of an apobaramins are discontinuous (i.e. do not
share a common ancestor) with everything else in the
living world.

Monobaramin: My Dad, myself, my brother, my brother's kids
Holobaramin (or so they claim): Human race
Apobaramin (or so they claim): Mammals

A group is a holobaramin if it is both a monobaramin and an
apobaramin.

[John Harshman]

Harlequin wrote:

> John Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in
> news:40A7B303...@pacbell.net:
>
> [snip]
>
>>No. That's an axiom of baraminology. And all holobaramins are also
>>monobaramins. What I can't figure out is how an apobaramin differs from
>>a holobaramin.
>>
>
>
> It is a really simple:
>
> Members of an apobaramins are discontinuous (i.e. do not
> share a common ancestor) with everything else in the
> living world.
>
> Monobaramin: My Dad, myself, my brother, my brother's kids
> Holobaramin (or so they claim): Human race
> Apobaramin (or so they claim): Mammals
>
>
> A group is a holobaramin if it is both a monobaramin and an
> apobaramin.

This doesn't make sense, but I can't tell if it's your problem or
theirs. A monobaramin is clearly just a clade. A holobaramin is clearly
just the largest possible clade. An apobaramin is...what? You give two
apparently contradictory readings: mammals, to them a nonexistent group
consisting of multiple holobaramins, and something that may be a
holobaramin.

[Harlequin]

John Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in

news:40A7C71A...@pacbell.net:

>
>
> Harlequin wrote:
>
>> John Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in
>> news:40A7B303...@pacbell.net:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>No. That's an axiom of baraminology. And all holobaramins are also
>>>monobaramins. What I can't figure out is how an apobaramin differs from
>>>a holobaramin.
>>>
>>
>>
>> It is a really simple:
>>
>> Members of an apobaramins are discontinuous (i.e. do not
>> share a common ancestor) with everything else in the
>> living world.
>>
>> Monobaramin: My Dad, myself, my brother, my brother's kids
>> Holobaramin (or so they claim): Human race
>> Apobaramin (or so they claim): Mammals
>>
>>
>> A group is a holobaramin if it is both a monobaramin and an
>> apobaramin.
>
>
> This doesn't make sense, but I can't tell if it's your problem or
> theirs. A monobaramin is clearly just a clade.

Correct.

> A holobaramin is clearly
> just the largest possible clade.

Correct (with a few rather irrelevent caveats). The Holobaramin
is supposed to approximate the true created kinds.

> An apobaramin is...what? You give two
> apparently contradictory readings: mammals, to them a nonexistent group
> consisting of multiple holobaramins, and something that may be a
> holobaramin.

It is not contradictory. It is just their terminology and it
_does_ make sense (well if one can ignore that creationism
does not make sense). Your biggest problem in understanding
is the false notion that creationists don't recognize
groups larger than the kind.

apobaramin >= holobaramin >= monobaramin where holobaramins
are intended to approximate the real created kinds.

A apobaramin can be (and in most cases is) larger than a halobaramin.
Indeed either an apobaramin is larger than a halobaramin or
it is a halobaramin.

Mammals are apobaramins (in their lack of reality at least). So
are vertebrates, animals, and eukaryotes. I would assume that
primates would be a apobarimin as well. Of course no YEC
would fail to recognize humans (and whatever fossil humans they
think are descended from Adam) as apobaramin. Human races would
_not_ be apobaramins since they are connected by common ancestory
to members outside of the race.

Take a group of organisms. If every organism that is not
in that group lacks a common ancestor with members of that
group then it is an apobaramin.

Basically to name an apobaramin is to deny evolutionary
relationships with organisms which are not part of the
group.

[Aron-Ra]

"John Harshman" <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in message

news:40A7B22D...@pacbell.net...

There's the classic question no creationist, nor any other brand of
anti-evolutionist, -would dare answer.

[John Harshman]

Harlequin wrote:

OK, I get it. But why would a creationist want to define such a group?
To them, it doesn't exist. I could define a group consisting of all the
green animals, and they have just as little reason to talk about mammals
as I have to talk about the greenozoans.

Their terminology is just silly, and its only purpose seems to have some
sort of parallelism with real cladistic terms. The only term they should
need is one for created kinds (baramin, i.e.). Within kinds, they can
use the standard terms, because within kinds, their systematics doesn't
differ from real systematics. And they don't need any terms for groups
larger than created kinds any more than I need a term for referring to
greenozoans.

While we're at it, I've seen several "research papers" from
baraminologists attempting to show that various species belong to the
same baramin, but never a single paper attempting to show that two
species do not belong to the same baramin. It's as if they're afraid to
make such claims (with good reason). But do you know of any such claims?

[snip]

[Harlequin]

Harlequin <use...@cox.net> wrote in
news:Xns94EB9D408705Bu...@68.12.19.6:

> John Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in
> news:40A7C71A...@pacbell.net:

[snip]

>> An apobaramin is...what? You give two
>> apparently contradictory readings: mammals, to them a nonexistent
>> group consisting of multiple holobaramins, and something that may be
>> a holobaramin.

[snip]

> Basically to name an apobaramin is to deny evolutionary
> relationships with organisms which are not part of the
> group.

Here is a useful reference for the terms being used:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-crs/baraminology.html

[John Harshman]

Harlequin wrote:

> Harlequin <use...@cox.net> wrote in
> news:Xns94EB9D408705Bu...@68.12.19.6:
>
>
>>John Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in
>>news:40A7C71A...@pacbell.net:
>>
> [snip]
>
>>>An apobaramin is...what? You give two
>>>apparently contradictory readings: mammals, to them a nonexistent
>>>group consisting of multiple holobaramins, and something that may be
>>>a holobaramin.
>>>
> [snip]
>
>>Basically to name an apobaramin is to deny evolutionary
>>relationships with organisms which are not part of the
>>group.
>>
>
> Here is a useful reference for the terms being used:
> http://www.christiananswers.net/q-crs/baraminology.html

Fascinating. What an amazing assemblage of unsupported claims and
wishful thinking. I especially like these two bits toward the end:

"It is to be expected that when baraminology is accepted widely, the
science of taxonomy will be revolutionized."

and

"However, this admittedly bold scheme should not be thought of as a
departure from reality."

I wonder why. There actually is a lame attempt at defense of this claim:

"Interestingly, on the first of August during the 1999 International
Botanical Congress in St. Louis an overflow crowd heard a presentation
promoting a so-called PhyloCode, a systematic scheme which would lead to
the abolition of kingdoms, phylums, classes, orders, etc. (Milius,
1999). Also see papers by de Queiroz (1992; 1997a; 1997b). The proposed
uncomplicated systematic procedure focuses on clades, each clade
consisting of a single species and descendants of that species. In other
words, the clade would be a holophyletic (genetically- united) group."

This reveals a pathetic misunderstanding of what the PhyloCode is all
about. I suspect that the author has also never read anything by de
Queiroz on the subject, including the references he cites. Or perhaps he
just wore blinders while reading.

[Harlequin]

John Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in

news:40A7D639...@pacbell.net:

This is not exactly true. Creationist recognize the validity of
taxa such as "birds" and so on even though they don't recognize that
"birds" are an evolutionary groups. And they always
have. Linnaeus was a creationist.

Also Remember that so-called "common design" talk which they think
is an "explanation."

> Their terminology is just silly, and its only purpose seems to have
> some sort of parallelism with real cladistic terms.

Which brings up the point that they use "out groups" as well.

> The only term they
> should need is one for created kinds (baramin, i.e.). Within kinds,
> they can use the standard terms, because within kinds, their
> systematics doesn't differ from real systematics. And they don't need
> any terms for groups larger than created kinds any more than I need a
> term for referring to greenozoans.

Actually, they do have a real need for apobaramins. Indeed showing
the existence of apobaramins is the much the point of creationism!

As I explained in another post the idea is to define an apobaramin
and then define a smaller apobaramin and then.... Meanwhile one
tries to define larger and larger monobaramins. The hope is that
these two means of "inquiry" will converge on a holobaramin which
would correspond to God's baramin.

> While we're at it, I've seen several "research papers" from
> baraminologists attempting to show that various species belong to the
> same baramin, but never a single paper attempting to show that two
> species do not belong to the same baramin. It's as if they're afraid
> to make such claims (with good reason). But do you know of any such
> claims?
>
> [snip]

Yes. I have already described this in another post in this
thread. Of course they are wrong in describing these as apobaramins.
I don't expect scientists to find any real "apobaramins" unless
we make contact with extraterrestrials which would technically
not be in our "apobaramin." The pro-science side would generally
recognize exactly one "apobaramin" on Earth with possible
ancient ones from independent abiogenesis events which have
died out billions of years ago.

Wise recognized some nested apobaramins within the turtle
apobaramin in Wise KP. 1992. Practical baraminology. CENTJ 6:122-137.
(That would be _TJ_ which is AiG's "journal".) Sorry
but I don't have access to it. But it is briefly discussed in
the Wood and Murray book. Maybe I will have more to say when
I read what is the next chapter for me: chapter 6, "Identifying
Ture Discontinuity" which is clearly an attempt to get
apobaramins. Though that one of the section titles is "Using
the Matrix" has got me wondering. I guess they took the
wrong colored pill! (For those who don't what sci-fi movies,
I am making a reference to the _Matrix_ movie.)

[Harlequin]

The Objective parady/loki of fundamentalism has
a page on baraminology:

http://objective.jesussave.us/baraminology.html

[Frank J]

John Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<40A7B303...@pacbell.net>...

From the definition above I would interpret that species within an
apobaramin don't necessarily share a common ancestor as they do in
mono and holo. But I could be wrong, especially since the "logic" of
baraminology seems to be that of any other pseudoscience.

[Lieutenant Kizhe Katson]

Harlequin <use...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<Xns94EADBE43475us...@68.12.19.6>...

I love it. The equids are one of the "standard" examples of
macro-evolution that always get trotted out (pun intended) by our
side, and the Creationists always try to shoot it down. Can we take
it that they are now conceding the point?

Furthermore: whatever criteria they applied to get all those critters
in the same baramin, what happens if the apply it to a set consisting
of: Gorilla, Pan, Homo, Australopithecus and maybe a few other extant
and fossil ape/hominid genera? Seems like there's less difference
between us and chimps than between modern horses and Hyracotherium.

> flood. Ditto for camels: "...Since we know that Pharoah
> and Abram met around 370 years after the Flood (by the
> geneology chronology in Gen 11), those 200 camelid species
> must have arisen, left fossils, and probably went extinct
> in less then 370 years."

[rest snipped]

-- Kizhe

[John Wilkins]

Lieutenant Kizhe Katson <lt_k...@yahoo.ca> wrote:

This crap is just cladisitics with common descent removed, arbitrarily,
of course.
--
Dr John S. Wilkins, www.wilkins.id.au
"I never meet anyone who is not perplexed what to do with their
children" --Charles Darwin to Syms Covington, February 22, 1857

[Steven J.]

"John Harshman" <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:40A7D639...@pacbell.net...
>
-- [snip]

>
> OK, I get it. But why would a creationist want to define such a group?
> To them, it doesn't exist. I could define a group consisting of all the
> green animals, and they have just as little reason to talk about mammals
> as I have to talk about the greenozoans.
>

Darwin, when he first proposed his theory, had no confidence that he could
show that, e.g. pigeons and cucumbers shared a common ancestor. The notion
that all extant life was a single clade was still, ISTM, regarded as highly
questionable a few decades ago. But no taxonomist who accepted common
descent of humans and other animals assumed that there *must* be separate
origins of life. There would seem neither possibility nor point to
identifying groups whose defining trait was that they could not be related
to some other group. Rather, one worked to consolidate smaller groups into
larger ones, never the reverse.

But from a creationist POV, there *must* be multiple unrelated clades,
whether at the species, genus, family or whatever level. An "apobaramin"
isn't an attempt to create a clearly arbitrary group. It's an attempt to
take something a traditional taxonomist would regard as a natural group, and
first, show (or hand-wave) that it's unrelated to any other group (i.e.
establish that nothing *larger* than the apobaramin could be a true clade
containing the species in question), and second, find criteria for
subdividing it into smaller groups which don't share a common ancestor.

The criteria for establishing or subdividing an apobaramin can be
non-biological. For example, whales and artiodactyls can be placed in
separate apobaramins, because whales are sea creatures, and thus created on
the fifth day, while artiodactyls are land animals, created on the sixth
day. If two species belong to "kinds" created on different days, or
otherwise as part of different creation events (e.g. humans and everything
else), they can't belong to the same baramin, and thus there is no reason to
put them in the same apobaramin (or, if you have inadvertantly done so, you
now have grounds for dividing the apobaramin).

>
> Their terminology is just silly, and its only purpose seems to have some
> sort of parallelism with real cladistic terms. The only term they should
> need is one for created kinds (baramin, i.e.). Within kinds, they can
> use the standard terms, because within kinds, their systematics doesn't
> differ from real systematics. And they don't need any terms for groups
> larger than created kinds any more than I need a term for referring to
> greenozoans.
>
> While we're at it, I've seen several "research papers" from
> baraminologists attempting to show that various species belong to the
> same baramin, but never a single paper attempting to show that two
> species do not belong to the same baramin. It's as if they're afraid to
> make such claims (with good reason). But do you know of any such claims?
>
>
> [snip]
>

-- Steven J.

[Harlequin]

fn...@comcast.net (Frank J) wrote in
news:38c5d0dd.04051...@posting.google.com:

[snip]

>> No. That's an axiom of baraminology. And all holobaramins are also
>> monobaramins. What I can't figure out is how an apobaramin differs from
>> a holobaramin.
>
> From the definition above I would interpret that species within an
> apobaramin don't necessarily share a common ancestor as they do in
> mono and holo. But I could be wrong, especially since the "logic" of
> baraminology seems to be that of any other pseudoscience.

Other than the usual caveat of "garbage in; garbage out" there
is nothing wrong with the logic here. The terms do make sense
though apobaramin would be a useless word to have in real
science.

An apobaramin would share a common ancestor when it is the
same as the holobaramin which is by definition a monobaramin.
If the apobaramin is larger than the holobaramin then all
its members will not share a common ancestor. And thus
for us on the pro-science side the only apobaramin which
can be formed is the apobaramin of all life on Earth.

=====

Lets take the opportunity to due some quote mining.
Though Wood and Murray are refreshing in not using
this tactic in their book (unless it is in a chapter
I have not read yet), enough creationists (99%+) to
make some in-context quote mining satisfying.

The first paragraph of section "6.6 Using the Matrix"
is:

"Before we use the matrix, we must understand the
questions are not all equal important. Evidence
gathered for some questions can be more important
than others. Obviously, when the Bible clearly
claims discontinuity, any other evidence is
unnecessary. As a result, the quality of
_Australopithecus_ or whale stratomorphic series
is overruled by the biblical claims of discontinuity
between humans and apes and between whales and
land creatures. By extension, it is likely that some
of the questions in the discontinuity matrixs will not
be as important as others. Only with use will
baraminologists be able to learn which questions are
the most useful."

Wood and Murray, pg. 93.

In a world with William Dembski & co., it is nice to have
some more honest and more blunt creationists around.
Also notice my new .sig file.

--
Anti-spam: replace "usenet" with "harlequin2"

"...The _Archaeopteryx_ is both a stratigraphic and morphological
intermediate between birds and reptiles; nethertheless, we know
from the biblical record that the birds and creeping things are
truly discontinuous. Consequently, the _Archaeopteryx_ cannot be
accepted as evidence of continuity between birds and reptiles,
but can tell us about the nature of discontinuity and its detection."
- Wood and Murray, _Understanding the Pattern of Life_, p. 92.

[Harlequin]

john...@wilkins.id.au (John Wilkins) wrote in
news:1gdxcm1.1yw5mfvnr5k25N%john...@wilkins.id.au:

[snip re: baraminology]

> This crap is just cladisitics with common descent removed, arbitrarily,
> of course.

Not quite. While a lot of the lingo is lifted from cladistics
in some fashion, there are some rather significant differences.

While cladistics does have some potentially arbitary factors,
it is nothing compared to the shear blantant arbitary nature
of their "discontinuity matrix" which would seem to be be able
to produce whatever answer one wants. And I don't think that
cladistics cares too much about hybridization tests.

Though I have not reached the "Statistical Baraminology"
section yet. I might have to transcribe some of the
equations so the specialists here can tell us if they are
taken from cladistics.

Here is another borrowing from Cladistics that also
shows a not too good understanding of it.
Quick context, this is from a subsection on
"Discontinuity Criteria":

"In cladistic terminology, a {synopomorphy} is a
'shared, derived' character and a mark of a
monophyletic group. In other words, a synapomorphy
is a character that every member of a given group
possesses but that closely related outgroups do
not. According to evolutionary assumptions, traits
like synapomorphies evolve rarely. Thus, if we find
a member of a group of species that share a set of
traits, they also likely share a common ancestor.
Within creationism, synapomorphies could indicate
discontinuity if the synapomorphic traits were created
by God. Instead of concluding the shared trait signifies
a common ancestor, baraminologists conclude that
synapomorphies signify a common Creator."

- Wood and Murray, pg. 86. {} represents bold font.

How can they claim that synapomorphies "evolve rarely"?
Would not every branch in a cladogram have its own
synapomorphies?

====

Also Wood and Murray have something in common with us
evolutionists that is different from the vast majority
of creationists: the rejection of essentialism.
I consider this to be a non-trivial concession though
you will probably say that I have been too strongly
influenced by Mayr.

--
Anti-spam: replace "usenet" with "harlequin2"

"...The _Archaeopteryx_ is both a stratigraphic and morphological

[John Wilkins]

Harlequin <use...@cox.net> wrote:

> john...@wilkins.id.au (John Wilkins) wrote in
> news:1gdxcm1.1yw5mfvnr5k25N%john...@wilkins.id.au:
>
> [snip re: baraminology]
> > This crap is just cladisitics with common descent removed, arbitrarily,
> > of course.
>
> Not quite. While a lot of the lingo is lifted from cladistics
> in some fashion, there are some rather significant differences.
>
> While cladistics does have some potentially arbitary factors,
> it is nothing compared to the shear blantant arbitary nature
> of their "discontinuity matrix" which would seem to be be able
> to produce whatever answer one wants. And I don't think that
> cladistics cares too much about hybridization tests.

Nor, so far as I can tell, do many other forms of taxonomy. Breeding
behavior is a corrective, but not a primary datum until then (as in the
male-female morphs of New Guinean (or was it Malayan?) butterflies that
were classified as different species until observed to mate. Or the Rana
pipiens species complex discovered by Murray Littlejohn in the 60s.

I do not think cladistics *as she is practised* is arbitrary in its
choice of characters - but it does rely on the tacit knowledge of the
specialists to eliminate homoplasious data, or at least some of it.

>
> Though I have not reached the "Statistical Baraminology"
> section yet. I might have to transcribe some of the
> equations so the specialists here can tell us if they are
> taken from cladistics.

Bet you a dollar (AUS) that they are from "numerical
taxonomy"/phenetics.

>
> Here is another borrowing from Cladistics that also
> shows a not too good understanding of it.
> Quick context, this is from a subsection on
> "Discontinuity Criteria":
>
> "In cladistic terminology, a {synopomorphy} is a
> 'shared, derived' character and a mark of a
> monophyletic group. In other words, a synapomorphy
> is a character that every member of a given group
> possesses but that closely related outgroups do
> not. According to evolutionary assumptions, traits
> like synapomorphies evolve rarely. Thus, if we find
> a member of a group of species that share a set of
> traits, they also likely share a common ancestor.
> Within creationism, synapomorphies could indicate
> discontinuity if the synapomorphic traits were created
> by God. Instead of concluding the shared trait signifies
> a common ancestor, baraminologists conclude that
> synapomorphies signify a common Creator."
>
> - Wood and Murray, pg. 86. {} represents bold font.
>
> How can they claim that synapomorphies "evolve rarely"?
> Would not every branch in a cladogram have its own
> synapomorphies?

Since a clade is *defined* by its synapomorphies, yes.

>
> ====
>
> Also Wood and Murray have something in common with us
> evolutionists that is different from the vast majority
> of creationists: the rejection of essentialism.
> I consider this to be a non-trivial concession though
> you will probably say that I have been too strongly
> influenced by Mayr.

Not at all. Essentialism is false as a general doctrine of the natures
of organisms. I simply think that Mayr does bad history, not that he is
wrong about the error of essentialism per se. What he is wrong about is
conflating types and essences.

[Harlequin]

I discovered another mistake on the subject of cladistics made
by Wood and Murray. At the start of the "Statistical Baraminology"
chapter they tell us:

"The first thing that novice baraminologists notice is that
conventional systematics methods do not work for baraminology.
All conventional systematics methods conscern themselves
primarily with identifying the historical path taken by
organisms as they evolved. As a result, all conventional
systematics methods _assume_ that the organisms share an
evolutionary ancestor. They offer no way to test the
validity of common ancestory itself and consequently,
several baraminologists developed novel techniques that
we will discuss in this chapter. These techniques
avoid making assumptions about the relationship of the
taxa."

- Woods and Murray, pg. 115.

As those who have read Douglas Theobald's "29+ Evidences"
from which is in the T.O. Archive know that the claim
that these methods do not provide a test of common
ancestory is simply not true. See:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#nested_hierarchy

===

Here is another quote from the chapter on "Hybridization":

"...Marsh believed that true fertilization constituted
evidence of hybridization, but numerous modern observations
seem to disqualify this idea. Most importantly, we now
know that human sperm can fertilize hamster ova, though
no development occurs.7 Since we know that God created
humans separately from hamsters, the 'true fertization' must
not be admissible as evidence of common baraminic membership...."

- Woods and Murray, pg. 102.

[Harlequin]

I continue to go though the Wood and Murray book and it inspired
a look at the web:

http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/abstracts/sum34_4.html
Gives us the following abstract:

A Quantitative Approach to Baraminology With Examples from the
Catarrhine Primates

D. Ashley Robinson and David P. Cavanaugh

Quantitative methods for identifying holobaramins have yet to be
introduced into the field of baraminology. In this report we examine
some quantitative methods which may be applied to a variety of
biological data to empirically estimate the identity of holobaramins.
Organismal relationships are based on a measure of dissimilarity
called baraminic distance. A set of diagnostic statistics is
described that allows the researcher to assess the completeness,
variation, resolving power, and associations within a data set.
Bootstrapped dendrograms are constructed to identify clusters of
organisms, which are subsequently evaluated for phylogenetic
discontinuity by comparing baraminic distance variation, and by
correlating sets of baraminic distances. Using this approach both
related monobaraminic groups and unrelated apobaraminic groups can be
identified. The described methods are illustrated using data from
humans and nonhuman primates, a group assumed by baraminologists to
be polybaraminic. We have found that baraminic distances based on
hemoglobin amino acid sequences, 12S-rRNA sequences, and chromosomal
data were largely ineffective for identifying the Human holobaramin.
Baraminic distances based on ecological and morphological characters,
however, were quite reliable for distinguishing humans from nonhuman
primates.

Another example of how they have given the store away on this subject.
They are clearly trying to cherry pick what evidence to accept based
on the acceptablity of the conclusions that evidence would give.

That paper developed some their math which is implimented in
a in a Perl program by Wood at:

http://www.bryancore.org/bsg/bdist.html

[John Wilkins]

Harlequin <use...@cox.net> wrote:

> I discovered another mistake on the subject of cladistics made
> by Wood and Murray. At the start of the "Statistical Baraminology"
> chapter they tell us:
>
> "The first thing that novice baraminologists notice is that
> conventional systematics methods do not work for baraminology.
> All conventional systematics methods conscern themselves
> primarily with identifying the historical path taken by
> organisms as they evolved. As a result, all conventional
> systematics methods _assume_ that the organisms share an
> evolutionary ancestor. They offer no way to test the
> validity of common ancestory itself and consequently,
> several baraminologists developed novel techniques that
> we will discuss in this chapter. These techniques
> avoid making assumptions about the relationship of the
> taxa."
>
> - Woods and Murray, pg. 115.
>
> As those who have read Douglas Theobald's "29+ Evidences"
> from which is in the T.O. Archive know that the claim
> that these methods do not provide a test of common
> ancestory is simply not true. See:
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#nested_hierarchy
>

Not to mention (dare I? I dare!) pattern cladism...

> ===
>
> Here is another quote from the chapter on "Hybridization":
>
> "...Marsh believed that true fertilization constituted
> evidence of hybridization, but numerous modern observations
> seem to disqualify this idea. Most importantly, we now
> know that human sperm can fertilize hamster ova, though
> no development occurs.7 Since we know that God created
> humans separately from hamsters, the 'true fertization' must
> not be admissible as evidence of common baraminic membership...."
>
> - Woods and Murray, pg. 102.

The true origins of the Hamster Dance!!!

[John Harshman]

Harlequin wrote:

In the timeless words of Keanu Reaves, "Whoa!"

[John Harshman]

Harlequin wrote:

Not quite true. It's a character that changed on the ancestral branch of
a group, but there's no rule that it can't change again later. Four legs
are a synaopmorphy of Tetrapoda, but snakes and whales still belong to
Tetrapoda even though they lack this particular character state.

> According to evolutionary assumptions, traits
> like synapomorphies evolve rarely.

I think they mean that we assume homoplasy to be rare. Of course we
don't, and such assumptions are unnecessary.

> Thus, if we find
> a member of a group of species that share a set of
> traits, they also likely share a common ancestor.
> Within creationism, synapomorphies could indicate
> discontinuity if the synapomorphic traits were created
> by God. Instead of concluding the shared trait signifies
> a common ancestor, baraminologists conclude that
> synapomorphies signify a common Creator."

The same lame explanation for nested hierarchy used by other
creationists. Sad.

> - Wood and Murray, pg. 86. {} represents bold font.
>
> How can they claim that synapomorphies "evolve rarely"?
> Would not every branch in a cladogram have its own
> synapomorphies?

If it didn't, we wouldn't be able to tell it was a branch.

Thanks for posting all these quotes. Where did you get this book? And
where can I? I love these fearless baraminologists, following the
scientific trail wherever it leads. Unless it leads to the wrong place,
that is. Then they just substitute the right answer.

[Lieutenant Kizhe Katson]

Harlequin <use...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<Xns94EBEC454E8ABu...@68.12.19.6>...

Well, I guess those quotes pretty much answer my question from another
post, about what happens if you apply the methods of baraminology to
hominids. If the Bible says two things are unrelated, then you pick
the data that confirms the Bible.

Sheesh: why do these people bother even *pretending* to do science?

-- Kizhé

[Harlequin]

lt_k...@yahoo.ca (Lieutenant Kizhe Katson) wrote in
news:47b867ea.04051...@posting.google.com:

[snip]

> Well, I guess those quotes pretty much answer my question from another
> post, about what happens if you apply the methods of baraminology to
> hominids. If the Bible says two things are unrelated, then you pick
> the data that confirms the Bible.
>
> Sheesh: why do these people bother even *pretending* to do science?

Wood and Murray are very upfront from page one (actually page vii)
about this. They are very explicate that they will always
assume the Bible is true (and by being true they mean their
fundamentalist interpretation). The preface (by Wood alone) starts:

"I pray that what you are about to read will be unlike any
creationist book that you have ever read. It has never been my
intention to write yet another book about the truth of Scripture or
preceived inadequacies of evolution. Instead, this book is an
expression of my attempt, however feeble, to allow the truth of God
to transform my view of biology. Rather than trying to prove the
truth of Scripture, I assume it as a starting point. From there, I
build what I believe to be a reasonable model of biology that fits
both the facts of Scripture and the data of creation. You will find
that evolutionary theories are mentioned only rarely, and when I do
discuss them, I do so to highlight the differences between my ideas
and the conventional view.

"To the skeptics who will no doubt read this book in order to destroy
it, allow me to save you much trouble. this book is unabashedly
'religious' in tone. I wholeheartedly reject the belief that
religion and science occupy separate domains. I belief that the
Bible is the infallable Word of God to man, ture in every detail of
the original autographs. Whether it speaks of the fate of my eternal
soul or on the fate of Noah and the animals during the Great Flood,
it is equally true. Throughout this book, I will consistently check
my interpretation of science against the Bible as my standard of
truth. I will constantly quote from its passages to illustrate the
coherence of my theories and interpretation with the Holy Writ.

"And best of all, I make no apology for this perspective, for the
Word of God is quick and powerful and sharper than any two-edged
sword. The Word of God is the reason that I am a creationist in the
first place; why should I ignore it when I do my science? I have no
time to defend my view, and I have littel need to do so. If the Word
of God is truth, as I believe it is, cow could I, a fallen mortal,
ever hope to defend it? That indeed would be a waste of time, and
the task before me is too great for such distractions.

"To my creationist readers, I issue a gentle warning. This book is
not an apologetic of any kind. If you are looking for evidence for
your faith, I offer none other than the Bible itself. God's Word is
all the reason to believe that you or I could ever need...."

[Harlequin]

john...@wilkins.id.au (John Wilkins) wrote in

news:1gdxoak.vnhmo5nvj4rbN%john...@wilkins.id.au:

> Harlequin <use...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> I discovered another mistake on the subject of cladistics made
>> by Wood and Murray. At the start of the "Statistical Baraminology"
>> chapter they tell us:
>>
>> "The first thing that novice baraminologists notice is that
>> conventional systematics methods do not work for baraminology.
>> All conventional systematics methods conscern themselves
>> primarily with identifying the historical path taken by
>> organisms as they evolved. As a result, all conventional
>> systematics methods _assume_ that the organisms share an
>> evolutionary ancestor. They offer no way to test the
>> validity of common ancestory itself and consequently,
>> several baraminologists developed novel techniques that
>> we will discuss in this chapter. These techniques
>> avoid making assumptions about the relationship of the
>> taxa."
>>
>> - Woods and Murray, pg. 115.
>>
>> As those who have read Douglas Theobald's "29+ Evidences"
>> from which is in the T.O. Archive know that the claim
>> that these methods do not provide a test of common
>> ancestory is simply not true. See:
>> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#nested_hierarchy
>>
> Not to mention (dare I? I dare!) pattern cladism...

Wars have been started for less, much less....

>> Here is another quote from the chapter on "Hybridization":
>>
>> "...Marsh believed that true fertilization constituted
>> evidence of hybridization, but numerous modern observations
>> seem to disqualify this idea. Most importantly, we now
>> know that human sperm can fertilize hamster ova, though
>> no development occurs.7 Since we know that God created
>> humans separately from hamsters, the 'true fertization' must
>> not be admissible as evidence of common baraminic membership...."
>>
>> - Woods and Murray, pg. 102.
>
> The true origins of the Hamster Dance!!!

The True.Origin of the Hamster Dance?

[Harlequin]

John Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in

news:40A8973C...@pacbell.net:

>
>
> Harlequin wrote:
>
[snip]

>> Lets take the opportunity to due some quote mining.
>> Though Wood and Murray are refreshing in not using
>> this tactic in their book (unless it is in a chapter
>> I have not read yet), enough creationists (99%+) to
>> make some in-context quote mining satisfying.
>>
>> The first paragraph of section "6.6 Using the Matrix"
>> is:
>>
>> "Before we use the matrix, we must understand the
>> questions are not all equal important. Evidence
>> gathered for some questions can be more important
>> than others. Obviously, when the Bible clearly
>> claims discontinuity, any other evidence is
>> unnecessary. As a result, the quality of
>> _Australopithecus_ or whale stratomorphic series
>> is overruled by the biblical claims of discontinuity
>> between humans and apes and between whales and
>> land creatures. By extension, it is likely that some
>> of the questions in the discontinuity matrixs

matrix

>> will not
>> be as important as others. Only with use will
>> baraminologists be able to learn which questions are
>> the most useful."
>>
>> Wood and Murray, pg. 93.
>>
>> In a world with William Dembski & co., it is nice to have
>> some more honest and more blunt creationists around.
>> Also notice my new .sig file.
>
>
> In the timeless words of Keanu Reaves, "Whoa!"

If Wood played Neo the movie would have been rather
short because he would take the blue pill.

Fundamentalism is Wood's blue pill.

[Harlequin]

John Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in

news:40A89A...@pacbell.net:

> Thanks for posting all these quotes. Where did you get this book? And
> where can I? I love these fearless baraminologists, following the
> scientific trail wherever it leads. Unless it leads to the wrong place,
> that is. Then they just substitute the right answer.

I got it in the used section of a Christian bookstore
while on vacation.

[Harlequin]

John Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in

news:40A8973C...@pacbell.net:

> In the timeless words of Keanu Reaves, "Whoa!"

Here is another blue pill moment:

"As a supplement to these biblical studies, we can also examine
archaeological remains, particularly artwork that depict modern
species. Early human paintings and sculptures frequently portray
animals that can be identified with modern species. Although some
cave paintings depict extinct creatures such as woolly mammoths, no
representations of earliest pre-Flood horse, camel, cat, or dog
species are known to exist. We may attribute this lack to two
important reasons. First, these early species emerged and died out
so rapidly that they made little contact with people. Second, most
people remained in the region around Babel during most of the period
of diversification, thus avoiding contact with exotic animals. By
the time people dispersed from Babel and encountered other animals,
diversification had produced a wide variety of species and the
Decimation (discussed in chap. 3) had already wiped them out."

- Wood and Murray, page 172.

[John Harshman]

Harlequin wrote:

> John Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in
> news:40A8973C...@pacbell.net:
>
>
>>In the timeless words of Keanu Reaves, "Whoa!"
>>
>
> Here is another blue pill moment:
>
> "As a supplement to these biblical studies, we can also examine
> archaeological remains, particularly artwork that depict modern
> species. Early human paintings and sculptures frequently portray
> animals that can be identified with modern species. Although some
> cave paintings depict extinct creatures such as woolly mammoths, no
> representations of earliest pre-Flood horse, camel, cat, or dog
> species are known to exist. We may attribute this lack to two
> important reasons. First, these early species emerged and died out
> so rapidly that they made little contact with people. Second, most
> people remained in the region around Babel during most of the period
> of diversification, thus avoiding contact with exotic animals. By
> the time people dispersed from Babel and encountered other animals,
> diversification had produced a wide variety of species and the
> Decimation (discussed in chap. 3) had already wiped them out."

The implicit assumption here is that all Cenozoic sediments, at least,
are post-flood. This raises a serious question about the baraminologist
interpretation of geology. To them, which fossils are pre-flood species
and which are post-flood species? Is it the K-T boundary? But in that
case, where are all the pre-flood placental baramins in the fossil
record? Do these guys even think for one second about the implications
of their claims?

[R.Schenck]

Harlequin <use...@cox.net> on 17 May 2004 posted

> John Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in
> news:40A8973C...@pacbell.net:
>
>> In the timeless words of Keanu Reaves, "Whoa!"
>
> Here is another blue pill moment:
>
> "As a supplement to these biblical studies, we can also examine
> archaeological remains, particularly artwork that depict modern
> species. Early human paintings and sculptures frequently portray
> animals that can be identified with modern species. Although some
> cave paintings depict extinct creatures such as woolly mammoths, no
> representations of earliest pre-Flood horse, camel, cat, or dog
> species are known to exist. We may attribute this lack to two
> important reasons. First, these early species emerged and died out
> so rapidly that they made little contact with people. Second, most
> people remained in the region around Babel during most of the period
> of diversification, thus avoiding contact with exotic animals. By
> the time people dispersed from Babel and encountered other animals,
> diversification had produced a wide variety of species and the
> Decimation (discussed in chap. 3) had already wiped them out."
>
> - Wood and Murray, page 172.
>
>

must...control....fist-of-death...

[Harlequin]

John Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in

news:40A960D1...@pacbell.net:

It is worse than that. In chapter 10 "Biological Imperfection" we
have "10.3.5 Rate: Dinosaur carnivory":

"As we noted above, creationists often explain modern preditation by
using an evolutionary mechanism, in which the furture predator gradually
changes from an herbivore to a scavenger and ultimately a preditor.
Accoring to this scenario, active hunting for prey propbel did not come
about until after the Flood. By the time animals turned to active
predation, many carnivores, such as the dinosaurs, had undoubtedly gone
extint. This hypothesis appears consistent with our understanding of a
degenerating creation, but it has been neither tested nor supported by
historical evidence. The hypothesis would be invalidated by direct
evidence of active predation in pre-Flood organism. If we find evidence of
pre-Flood predation or associated agressive behavior, then we would have
evidence to support the rapid emergence of carnivory. Since dinosaur
fossils were deposited during the Flood, the fossilized dinosuars initially
lived prior to the Flood. Thus, examination of dinosaur bones and other
remains can provide evidnec of conditions that existed before the Flood.

...

"...While these evidence so not unequivocally testifor to a predetor,
they strongly imply the kind of aggressive behavior frequently associated
with carnivores that hunt."

- Wood and Murray, pp. 162-3

The evidences mention was dino coprolites with bones in them
which Wood and Murray say might be scavaging and the evidence
that Sue the _T. rex_ had been attacked by another animal.

That all of this is a web of contradictions and nonsense
is an understatement. Clearly if the "hypothesis"
(I not going to dignify it as a hypothesis without quotes)
that predation started after the Flood and dinos are
from Flood strata then we have never seen the remains
of a predatory dinosaur. Of course they ignore that the
evidence of predation is far more extensive then they
mention.

---

A few questions to ask Wood: How come we don't see
any dinosaurs in the post-Flood strata? Why don't
we see the horse-kind fossils, etc. etc. etc. in
the Flood strata?

--

Meanwhile I am currently on chapter 11, "Barminology
and Diversification." Guess what, Wood and Murray
admit that neo-Darwinian mechanism cannot even
remotely explain the post-Flood diversification.
What is more, they recognize that only four alles per
loci are possible for the entire baramin for the
unclean animals leaving Noah's Ark and that
the odds are than many would not have even four since
the baramin had a history from Creation to Flood.

So they must invent a solution which seems "genomic
modularity" and features they call "Altruistic Genetic
Elements" (AGEs). That retrotransposons are AGEs
is almost funny given their use in tracing evolution.

I believe I have already posted this URL:
http://www.grisda.org/origins/54005.pdf

[Harlequin]

Another post which seems to have not made it the first time:

"R.Schenck" <nygdan_mo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:2gt656F...@uni-berlin.de:

> Harlequin <use...@cox.net> on 17 May 2004 posted
>
>> John Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in
>> news:40A8973C...@pacbell.net:
>>
>>> In the timeless words of Keanu Reaves, "Whoa!"
>>
>> Here is another blue pill moment:
>>

[snip the Wood and Murray quote]
>
> must...control....fist-of-death...

You better amputate that fist-of-death (Dogbert will do it
for a "small" fee) before reading the next Blue
Pill Moment (tm) from Wood and Murray page 184:

"...Since God designed baramins to persist and survive, we should
not be surprised that bacteria survive and thrive despite our best
efforts to destory them."

So what creature is in the trilobite baramin?

[Harlequin]

Apologies if this (or any other post) is a duplicate, but I think
this post was also bounced.

I have reached a section which explicately has Precambrian=pre-Flood;
Paleozoic & mesozoic=Flood; and Centazoic=Post-Flood. Now on
to business. I just keep coming into things that are too good
not to share. And now for a...

Blue Pill Moment(tm) taken with a large glass of Pan Galactic Gargle
Blaster:

"Strangely missing from the Flood-deposited strata were most of the
mammals, birds, and angiosperms, and all evidence of human life.
From their nearly complete absence, we can infer that these organism
probably occupied the same biological zone before the Flood. The few
birds and mammals found in the Secondary strata suggest that the
mammal/bird/human zoan was probably adjacent to the
dinosaur/gymnosperm zone. Even more exciting in this regard is the
presence of morphological intermediate organisms, such as the
mammal-like reptiles found in South Africa and the _Archaeopteryx
from a single deposit in Germany. If the border region between the
mammal and dinosaur zones was a sharp ecological transition, it is
possible that the intermediates long interpreted as evidence for
evolution are actually evidence of an ecological transition. These
transitional froms further support the geographic proximity of the
pre-Flood dinosaur and mammal zones."

- Wood and Murray, page 190.

They consider "explanations" for no humans, etc. in Flood stata. They
briefly consider that humans don't fossilize well but dislike that
"explanation" due to fossils like _Archaeopteryx_. They then go on
to an explanation which they seem to like:

They been subducted!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

An alternative "explanation" is that "humans, mammals, and angiosperms"
lived near the foutains of the deep. The breakup of the FotD would have
"easily obliterated any trace of these organisms"!

Honest, I am not making this stuff up.

[R.Schenck]

Harlequin <use...@cox.net> on 17 May 2004 posted

> Another post which seems to have not made it the first time:
>

obviously you are being censored by the free-mason global domination
conspiracy. better send out a post letting everyone know that you are
being censored....

> "R.Schenck" <nygdan_mo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:2gt656F...@uni-berlin.de:
>
>> Harlequin <use...@cox.net> on 17 May 2004 posted
>>
>>> John Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in
>>> news:40A8973C...@pacbell.net:
>>>
>>>> In the timeless words of Keanu Reaves, "Whoa!"
>>>
>>> Here is another blue pill moment:
>>>
> [snip the Wood and Murray quote]
>>
>> must...control....fist-of-death...
>
>
> You better amputate that fist-of-death (Dogbert will do it
> for a "small" fee) before reading the next Blue
> Pill Moment (tm) from Wood and Murray page 184:
>
>
> "...Since God designed baramins to persist and survive, we should
> not be surprised that bacteria survive and thrive despite our best
> efforts to destory them."
>
> So what creature is in the trilobite baramin?

I just don't understand it. What is science supposed to do in the face
of such utter stupidity? Is there any hope? I mean, really, what can be
done with someone who is that god damned stupid? Some creationists have,
upon seeing an honest presentation of the evidence, had the intellectual
and moral, i would say, metal to accept it. But some, no matter what,
seem to be completely impervious to any sort of rational thought if they
are incomfortable with it.

Perhaps a Real Red Pill can be developed for them? A while ago someone
was wondering what the 'brick walls in their minds' are, and while I
still disagree that its -much- more than their choosing to be irrational,
I freely admit that the subject could use some more study. I mean, such
profound, absolutely -profound- stupidity of the hovind type -has- to be
dangerous for the person, they -have- to be suffering in some way. If we
can use thorazine on schizophrenics, surely there is something that can
allow creationists to only be able to think rationally, even if just for
a little while? Or would that in itself be cruel?
>

[John Harshman]

Harlequin wrote:

It would be difficult. Thank you for sharing. And if I understand, these
are the folks touted as the most scientifically rigorous of all the
creation scientists, at the forefront of original research. Well, you
have to agree that it's original.

[Harlequin]

"R.Schenck" <nygdan_mo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:2gtge1F...@uni-berlin.de:

> Harlequin <use...@cox.net> on 17 May 2004 posted
>
>> Another post which seems to have not made it the first time:
>>
>
> obviously you are being censored by the free-mason global domination
> conspiracy. better send out a post letting everyone know that you are
> being censored....
>
>> "R.Schenck" <nygdan_mo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> news:2gt656F...@uni-berlin.de:
>>
>>> Harlequin <use...@cox.net> on 17 May 2004 posted
>>>
>>>> John Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in
>>>> news:40A8973C...@pacbell.net:
>>>>
>>>>> In the timeless words of Keanu Reaves, "Whoa!"
>>>>
>>>> Here is another blue pill moment:
>>>>
>> [snip the Wood and Murray quote]
>>>
>>> must...control....fist-of-death...
>>
>>
>> You better amputate that fist-of-death (Dogbert will do it
>> for a "small" fee) before reading the next Blue
>> Pill Moment (tm) from Wood and Murray page 184:
>>
>>
>> "...Since God designed baramins to persist and survive, we
>> should not be surprised that bacteria survive and thrive despite
>> our best efforts to destory them."

I hope that people realize that there are clear spelling errors in
the quotes that I and not Wood and Murray am the guilty party.
"...destroy them."

>> So what creature is in the trilobite baramin?
>
> I just don't understand it. What is science supposed to do in the
> face of such utter stupidity? Is there any hope? I mean, really,
> what can be done with someone who is that god damned stupid? Some
> creationists have, upon seeing an honest presentation of the evidence,
> had the intellectual and moral, i would say, metal to accept it. But
> some, no matter what, seem to be completely impervious to any sort of
> rational thought if they are incomfortable with it.

The problem in this case really is not stupidity.

Wood has made the choice that he will go with a fundamentalist
reading of the Bible as abolute truth no matter where the evidence
leads. I don't have to tell you where this evidence leads. Indeed
if one had never heard of evidence for evolution before reading this
book one might be able to make a case for it based on what Wood has
written. When people--even otherwise sensible,
decent, and honest people--have committed themselves to a view
no matter what then this kind of nonsense is likely to be generated.

Wood appears to be another case of which some intelligent people
are more likely to fall victim to folly then those are less intelligent.
Such intelligent people are good at thinking up B.S. "explanations"
for their dogma not working.

I might add that Wood seems in his book to be honest with us but is
not honest with himself. The book is arguably Quote Mine Free!
If memory serves there was two Darwin quotes and I did not think at
the time I read them that there was anything wrong with the quotes
though I did not check. I don't off hand recall any other evolutionist
quotes.

> Perhaps a Real Red Pill can be developed for them? A while ago
> someone was wondering what the 'brick walls in their minds' are, and
> while I still disagree that its -much- more than their choosing to be
> irrational,

Of course it is more than choosing to be irrational. Wilkins
can probably correct my terminology...

Wood's choice to to accept the Bible no matter what (I don't think he
will call that irrational in his mind) is the proximate cause.
The question then really becomes why he made that choice in the first
place. Maybe we can call that an "ultimate" cause.

> I freely admit that the subject could use some more study.
> I mean, such profound, absolutely -profound- stupidity of the hovind
> type -has- to be dangerous for the person, they -have- to be suffering
> in some way. If we can use thorazine on schizophrenics, surely there
> is something that can allow creationists to only be able to think
> rationally, even if just for a little while? Or would that in itself
> be cruel?

They can think rationally. They just are not thinking about creationism,
etc. when they are thinking rationally.

Since I have now coined "Blue Pill Moment (tm)" I suppose I
beter define it properly.

A BPM is when an antievolutionist outright tells us evidence
that evolution is right or that creationism is wrong. (Typos
and out-of-context tricks don't count as BPMs.)
The best examples is when they practically admit such and
say that it can't be accepted because of their apriori beliefs.
Those who don't catch the reference, rent the movie _The Matrix_.

[catshark]

On Tue, 18 May 2004 04:42:07 +0000 (UTC), Harlequin <use...@cox.net> wrote:

[...]

>> I just don't understand it. What is science supposed to do in the
>> face of such utter stupidity? Is there any hope? I mean, really,
>> what can be done with someone who is that god damned stupid? Some
>> creationists have, upon seeing an honest presentation of the evidence,
>> had the intellectual and moral, i would say, metal to accept it. But
>> some, no matter what, seem to be completely impervious to any sort of
>> rational thought if they are incomfortable with it.
>
>The problem in this case really is not stupidity.

Wise was smart enough to get a Ph.D. from Harvard under Steve Gould.

>
>Wood has made the choice that he will go with a fundamentalist
>reading of the Bible as abolute truth no matter where the evidence
>leads. I don't have to tell you where this evidence leads. Indeed
>if one had never heard of evidence for evolution before reading this
>book one might be able to make a case for it based on what Wood has
>written. When people--even otherwise sensible,
>decent, and honest people--have committed themselves to a view
>no matter what then this kind of nonsense is likely to be generated.

It is what happens when you start with an unexamined premise. No matter
how good the logic you apply, the results can be no better than the premise
allows. However, to be fair to Wise, Wood and Murray, calling it GIGO
isn't quite right, because they are not applying the premise to science.
They have made the decision to apply this premise in their wider lives, in
terms of what they think of as "eternity." And, to their credit, they are
up front about it. Without knowing all the details of the book or
everything these guys do in their lives, they are head and shoulders over
the average "creation scientist," who seem to me mostly to be just stupid,
and light years beyond the IDiots, who are just flat-out dishonest.

The question I have is: having made this choice, why do they continue with
any pretense of doing science? How do they justify *that* to themselves?

>
>Wood appears to be another case of which some intelligent people
>are more likely to fall victim to folly then those are less intelligent.
>Such intelligent people are good at thinking up B.S. "explanations"
>for their dogma not working.

That is hardly restricted to creationists. Otherwise good scientists have
fallen prey to the temptation to cling to their favorite explanation long
after the data has shown otherwise.

>
>I might add that Wood seems in his book to be honest with us but is
>not honest with himself. The book is arguably Quote Mine Free!
>If memory serves there was two Darwin quotes and I did not think at
>the time I read them that there was anything wrong with the quotes
>though I did not check. I don't off hand recall any other evolutionist
>quotes.

Maybe it is more that he is being honest with himself about what matters
more to him, science or his beliefs.

>
>> Perhaps a Real Red Pill can be developed for them? A while ago
>> someone was wondering what the 'brick walls in their minds' are, and
>> while I still disagree that its -much- more than their choosing to be
>> irrational,
>
>Of course it is more than choosing to be irrational. Wilkins
>can probably correct my terminology...
>
>Wood's choice to to accept the Bible no matter what (I don't think he
>will call that irrational in his mind)

Given his premise, that his beliefs are correct and necessary for
salvation, I think it *is* a rational choice.

>is the proximate cause.
>The question then really becomes why he made that choice in the first
>place. Maybe we can call that an "ultimate" cause.
>
>
>> I freely admit that the subject could use some more study.
>> I mean, such profound, absolutely -profound- stupidity of the hovind
>> type -has- to be dangerous for the person, they -have- to be suffering
>> in some way. If we can use thorazine on schizophrenics, surely there
>> is something that can allow creationists to only be able to think
>> rationally, even if just for a little while? Or would that in itself
>> be cruel?
>
>They can think rationally. They just are not thinking about creationism,
>etc. when they are thinking rationally.

Then the question becomes: just how many of us really think rationally
about our core beliefs?

---------------
J. Pieret
---------------

In the name of the bee
And of the butterfly
And of the breeze, amen

- Emily Dickinson -

[Harlequin]

catshark <cats...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:i5rja05te8ddcg6ap...@4ax.com:

[snip]

> It is what happens when you start with an unexamined premise. No
> matter how good the logic you apply, the results can be no better than
> the premise allows. However, to be fair to Wise, Wood and Murray,
> calling it GIGO isn't quite right, because they are not applying the
> premise to science. They have made the decision to apply this premise
> in their wider lives, in terms of what they think of as "eternity."
> And, to their credit, they are up front about it. Without knowing all
> the details of the book or everything these guys do in their lives,
> they are head and shoulders over the average "creation scientist," who
> seem to me mostly to be just stupid, and light years beyond the
> IDiots, who are just flat-out dishonest.

[snip]

I will admit that he Wood and Murray book, no matter who silly it can
get, is a breath of fresh air when compared to the other creationist
writings I have read.

[Lieutenant Kizhe Katson]

Harlequin <use...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<Xns94ECB7541247Fu...@68.12.19.6>...

Gosh, what refreshing forthrightness from a Creationist -- no
weaseling, no evo-bashing smoke-screen (to hide the fact that they've
got nothing of their own to show). It's actually an attempt at that
Holy Grail, a Theory of Creationism (tm). What a pity they have to
concede that (unlike evolution, or relativity or other scientific
theories) it possesses no persuasive power, and can be falsified only
in the details, not in the whole.

-- Kizhé

[R.Schenck]

Harlequin <use...@cox.net> on 18 May 2004 posted

> "R.Schenck" <nygdan_mo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:2gtge1F...@uni-berlin.de:
>> Harlequin <use...@cox.net> on 17 May 2004 posted

>> >"R.Schenck" <nygdan_mo...@yahoo.com> wrote
snip
>> <nygdan_mo...@yahoo.com> wrote

>> I just don't understand it. What is science supposed to do in the
>> face of such utter stupidity? Is there any hope? I mean, really,
>> what can be done with someone who is that god damned stupid? Some
>> creationists have, upon seeing an honest presentation of the evidence,
>> had the intellectual and moral, i would say, metal to accept it. But
>> some, no matter what, seem to be completely impervious to any sort of
>> rational thought if they are incomfortable with it.

><use...@cox.net> on posted

> The problem in this case really is not stupidity.
>
> Wood has made the choice that he will go with a fundamentalist
> reading of the Bible as abolute truth no matter where the evidence
> leads. I don't have to tell you where this evidence leads. Indeed
> if one had never heard of evidence for evolution before reading this
> book one might be able to make a case for it based on what Wood has
> written. When people--even otherwise sensible,
> decent, and honest people--have committed themselves to a view
> no matter what then this kind of nonsense is likely to be generated.
>
> Wood appears to be another case of which some intelligent people
> are more likely to fall victim to folly then those are less
intelligent.
> Such intelligent people are good at thinking up B.S. "explanations"
> for their dogma not working.

At least, as revealed in another post, he is upfront about 'accepting the
bible first, then trying to make science conform to it'. But even he
must realize that his ideas, the ways in which he has to contort science
and the evidence, are so ludicrous, are such examples of 'special
pleading', that he must -sound- like an idiot.

snip

> Wood's choice to to accept the Bible no matter what (I don't think he
> will call that irrational in his mind) is the proximate cause.
> The question then really becomes why he made that choice in the first
> place. Maybe we can call that an "ultimate" cause.

It woudl appear that he makes 'a leap of faith' on the matter. He
doesn't -know-, or have any reason, to accept the bible literally, and
yet he does, as a matter of faith. Which in a way is admirable for the
'stick-to-it-ivness' that he is presenting. I hadn't realized that he
wasn't trying to say that the evidence lead him to this conclusion before
a little while ago.

Is he making the case that the evidence, when examined scientifically,
leads one to conclude that the bible can be taken literally, or is he
trying to say that, science aside, one can come up with 'possible'
scenarios that would explain the lack of evidence?

Also, i just don't see the point in it. THe evidence is obviously not
there. All this guy, and other creationists have, is the bible. Why
look outside it at all then? They aren't advocating that we can get
extrabiblical religious knowledge by studying creation (characteristics
of the creator and what not). Is it a sort of monkishness then, where,
instead of endlessly copying the bible, they are repeating it by studying
creation?
snip

> Since I have now coined "Blue Pill Moment (tm)" I suppose I
> beter define it properly.
>
> A BPM is when an antievolutionist outright tells us evidence
> that evolution is right or that creationism is wrong. (Typos
> and out-of-context tricks don't count as BPMs.)
> The best examples is when they practically admit such and
> say that it can't be accepted because of their apriori beliefs.
> Those who don't catch the reference, rent the movie _The Matrix_.

There is no spoon.
>
>

[R.Schenck]

catshark <cats...@yahoo.com> on 18 May 2004 posted

> On Tue, 18 May 2004 04:42:07 +0000 (UTC), Harlequin <use...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>> I just don't understand it. What is science supposed to do in the
>>> face of such utter stupidity? Is there any hope? I mean, really,
>>> what can be done with someone who is that god damned stupid? Some
>>> creationists have, upon seeing an honest presentation of the
>>> evidence, had the intellectual and moral, i would say, metal to
>>> accept it. But some, no matter what, seem to be completely
>>> impervious to any sort of rational thought if they are incomfortable
>>> with it.
>>
>>The problem in this case really is not stupidity.
>
> Wise was smart enough to get a Ph.D. from Harvard under Steve Gould.

That must've made for some interesting advisement meetings. Has wise
written about that experience?

[R.Schenck]

Harlequin <use...@cox.net> on 16 May 2004 posted

> john...@wilkins.id.au (John Wilkins) wrote in

> news:1gdxcm1.1yw5mfvnr5k25N%john...@wilkins.id.au:
>
> [snip re: baraminology]
>> This crap is just cladisitics with common descent removed,
arbitrarily,
>> of course.

snip

> Though I have not reached the "Statistical Baraminology"
> section yet. I might have to transcribe some of the
> equations so the specialists here can tell us if they are
> taken from cladistics.
>

shouldn't 'statiscital baraminology' be a type of phenetics? Hmm,
perhaps groups of baramin at least woudl be identified phenetically?

> Here is another borrowing from Cladistics that also
> shows a not too good understanding of it.
> Quick context, this is from a subsection on
> "Discontinuity Criteria":
>
> "In cladistic terminology, a {synopomorphy} is a
> 'shared, derived' character and a mark of a
> monophyletic group. In other words, a synapomorphy
> is a character that every member of a given group
> possesses but that closely related outgroups do

> not. According to evolutionary assumptions, traits
> like synapomorphies evolve rarely. Thus, if we find

> a member of a group of species that share a set of
> traits, they also likely share a common ancestor.
> Within creationism, synapomorphies could indicate
> discontinuity if the synapomorphic traits were created
> by God.

wha? These guys are saying that a baramin (a created and
evolvable/diversifyable kind) has discontinuous characters. But these
aren't synapomorphies. Synapomorhpies are, even according to their own
definition above, 'characts members have but out groups dont' (this, of
course, is not true of actual synapomorphies. A member of a clade
doesn't need a synapomorphy to belong to siad clade). But how does one
define an outgroup in baraminology? One outgroup is just as good as
another. What feature does the camel-baramin have that no other baramin
has? A hump? But there are ancestral camels of which we don't know if
they have a hump or not, and, since they don't have evidence of a hump,
what barmin-morphies do these ancestors have, shared with all other
members of the camel-baramin, that no other kind of animal has? Or what
about birds? Whats the characteristic that all birds have and no other
animal has? Feathers? Ok, then what are the baramin-morphies of
dinosaurs, since extremely dinosaur like animals have feathers?
So these shared traits don't seem to exist. And i would like to
know what anatomical trait seperates mankind from apekind? Perhaps a
weridly structured hyoid apparatus. What does that 'signify' about the
creator then eh, that his wonderful humans are apes with a effed up
throat? If even that? Would that indicate that the trinity and angels
are infact giant independant hyoid apparatii?

> Instead of concluding the shared trait signifies a common ancestor,
>baraminologists conclude that synapomorphies signify a common Creator."

The last statement they make is cause for concern too. Synapomorphies
aren't evidence for evolution writ large to begin with. When we know
that organisms have traits that are variable in a population and
inheritable (ie transformable) then synapomorphies can be used to recover
branching order, no? One can't merely take synapomorphies alone as
evidence for the occurance of evolution, or at least I haven't seen
anyone who understands the situation use it in that way.
Furthermore, -if- we accept that these barminologically redefined
synapomorphies (baramorphies, there ya go, thats better) even exist, how
does that let us talk about different baramin being created by the same
creator? It most certainly doesn't. If anything, the presence of
aboslutely unique characters not shared by non-group-members (the
baramorphies they are talking about, which are not the same as actual
synapomorphies even tho they want to mislead people into thinking that
they are) indicates a different independant creator for each kind. That,
of course, would square with the reading of mutliple gods in genesis, but
I don't think that is what any of them are going for. If there were one
creator, then there would only be one kind. Or to say the least, the
existence of multiple, seperate, discontinuous kinds is most certainly -
not- evidence for a single creator.

>
> - Wood and Murray, pg. 86. {} represents bold font.
>
> How can they claim that synapomorphies "evolve rarely"?
> Would not every branch in a cladogram have its own
> synapomorphies?

every branch? no. But can a clade not have synapomorphies? The
existence of the synapomorphy is defined by the lack of in in the
outgroup, which must be a group more basal that the clades lca
(originator? is there a word for that node? root perhaps?) But a clade
can certainly be defined where there are no characters that are not
shared with an outgroup member. Afterall, a clade is merely (assuming we
are talking monophyletic here) all the descendants of a groups last
common ancestor. So the clade can be defined without reference to
synapomorphies. However, with the type of phylogentic recovery adovcated
by hennig (tho, i have not read hennig's book on this), aka cladistics,
relationships/branching order can only be recovered via synapomorphies.
So the clade can be defined monophyletically without reference to shared
characteristics lacking in the outgrup, but in order to get information
about the phylogeny (although technically this is 'hypotheses about the
phylogeny', no?) of the members, synapomorphies need to be used.

Of course, you could just use sympleisiomorphies or autapomorphies, but
then Hennig will materialize out of the air above you, yell at you
something gutteral in german, and bonk you over the head with a mallet.

> ====
>
> Also Wood and Murray have something in common with us
> evolutionists that is different from the vast majority
> of creationists: the rejection of essentialism.
> I consider this to be a non-trivial concession though
> you will probably say that I have been too strongly
> influenced by Mayr.

how have they rejected essentialism if they are advocating group
identification based on unique characteristics? Or am I not
understanding essentialism?
>

[John Harshman]

R.Schenck wrote:

> Harlequin <use...@cox.net> on 16 May 2004 posted

[snip]

>>Instead of concluding the shared trait signifies a common ancestor,
>>baraminologists conclude that synapomorphies signify a common Creator."
>>
>
> The last statement they make is cause for concern too. Synapomorphies
> aren't evidence for evolution writ large to begin with. When we know
> that organisms have traits that are variable in a population and
> inheritable (ie transformable) then synapomorphies can be used to recover
> branching order, no? One can't merely take synapomorphies alone as
> evidence for the occurance of evolution, or at least I haven't seen
> anyone who understands the situation use it in that way.

I believe I understand the situation, and I believe I use it that way,
if by "synapomorphies alone" you would include the nested hierarchy of
synapomorphies alone.

> Furthermore, -if- we accept that these barminologically redefined
> synapomorphies (baramorphies, there ya go, thats better) even exist, how
> does that let us talk about different baramin being created by the same
> creator? It most certainly doesn't. If anything, the presence of
> aboslutely unique characters not shared by non-group-members (the
> baramorphies they are talking about, which are not the same as actual
> synapomorphies even tho they want to mislead people into thinking that
> they are) indicates a different independant creator for each kind.

In this particular case, they are talking about synapomorphies shared by
multiple baramins. That is, once they figure out what the baramins
within mammals are, and presumably there are many, they will still
recognize a group called Mammalia, identified by the same characters we
use, but interpreted as evidence of a common designer rather than common
ancestry. Of course the common designer theory is vacuous since it would
conform to any pattern in the data, or no pattern at all for that
matter. And of course nested hierarchy is a unique expectation of common
descent. But never mind, they're rolling.

> That,
> of course, would square with the reading of mutliple gods in genesis, but
> I don't think that is what any of them are going for. If there were one
> creator, then there would only be one kind. Or to say the least, the
> existence of multiple, seperate, discontinuous kinds is most certainly -
> not- evidence for a single creator.

Right, and they don't interpret it that way as far as I know. The
existence of multiple kinds would be evidence for one or more creators,
I suppose. It's the similarities that they claim are evidence of a
single creator.

>> - Wood and Murray, pg. 86. {} represents bold font.
>>
>>How can they claim that synapomorphies "evolve rarely"?
>>Would not every branch in a cladogram have its own
>>synapomorphies?
>
> every branch? no. But can a clade not have synapomorphies? The
> existence of the synapomorphy is defined by the lack of in in the
> outgroup, which must be a group more basal that the clades lca
> (originator? is there a word for that node? root perhaps?)

Sometimes called the ingroup node (=last common ancestor of the ingroup
taxa). Since the root of any tree is its ancestral node, if you add an
outgroup to the tree you make the root into the common ancestor of
ingroup + outgroup, which is not the node you're trying to define here.

[snip]

[R.Schenck]

John Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net> on 18 May 2004 posted

>
>
> R.Schenck wrote:
>
>> Harlequin <use...@cox.net> on 16 May 2004 posted
>
> [snip]
>
>>>Instead of concluding the shared trait signifies a common ancestor,
>>>baraminologists conclude that synapomorphies signify a common
>>>Creator."
>>>
>>
>> The last statement they make is cause for concern too.
>> Synapomorphies
>> aren't evidence for evolution writ large to begin with. When we know
>> that organisms have traits that are variable in a population and
>> inheritable (ie transformable) then synapomorphies can be used to
>> recover branching order, no? One can't merely take synapomorphies
>> alone as evidence for the occurance of evolution, or at least I
>> haven't seen anyone who understands the situation use it in that way.
>
>
> I believe I understand the situation, and I believe I use it that way,
> if by "synapomorphies alone" you would include the nested hierarchy of
> synapomorphies alone.

this is because the nested hierarchy can only be formed by markovian
processes and markovian processes are where something is changed peice by
peice no? Which would by definition by evolution (irregardless of
mechanism). I had literally just read that bit about the markovian
process after sending the above email. I -think- i understand it now,
although i don't know anything about markovian processes (i guess that
makes this a religion, since i am accepting 'on faith' that they are what
is claimed...)

>
>
>> Furthermore, -if- we accept that these barminologically
>> redefined
>> synapomorphies (baramorphies, there ya go, thats better) even exist,
>> how does that let us talk about different baramin being created by
>> the same creator? It most certainly doesn't. If anything, the
>> presence of aboslutely unique characters not shared by
>> non-group-members (the baramorphies they are talking about, which are
>> not the same as actual synapomorphies even tho they want to mislead
>> people into thinking that they are) indicates a different independant
>> creator for each kind.
>
>
> In this particular case, they are talking about synapomorphies shared
> by multiple baramins.

...But. But that doesn't even make sense. How can the be shared
'derived' characteristics if they are created anyway.

> That is, once they figure out what the baramins
> within mammals are, and presumably there are many, they will still
> recognize a group called Mammalia, identified by the same characters
> we use, but interpreted as evidence of a common designer rather than
> common ancestry. Of course the common designer theory is vacuous since
> it would conform to any pattern in the data, or no pattern at all for
> that matter. And of course nested hierarchy is a unique expectation of
> common descent. But never mind, they're rolling.

Germans, pearl harbor...

>
>> That,
>> of course, would square with the reading of mutliple gods in genesis,
>> but I don't think that is what any of them are going for. If there
>> were one creator, then there would only be one kind. Or to say the
>> least, the existence of multiple, seperate, discontinuous kinds is
>> most certainly - not- evidence for a single creator.
>
>
> Right, and they don't interpret it that way as far as I know. The
> existence of multiple kinds would be evidence for one or more
> creators, I suppose. It's the similarities that they claim are
> evidence of a single creator.

I don;t see how then can even talk about the similarities as meanigful at
all. In one moment they seem to be using the shared traits to indicate
the extend of the baramin. Then in teh next they are saying that the
shared traits between different baramin indicate a single designer? And
all of this is ignoring convergence and homology?

>
>>> - Wood and Murray, pg. 86. {} represents bold font.
>>>
>>>How can they claim that synapomorphies "evolve rarely"?
>>>Would not every branch in a cladogram have its own
>>>synapomorphies?
>>
>> every branch? no. But can a clade not have synapomorphies? The
>> existence of the synapomorphy is defined by the lack of in in the
>> outgroup, which must be a group more basal that the clades lca
>> (originator? is there a word for that node? root perhaps?)
>
>
> Sometimes called the ingroup node (=last common ancestor of the
> ingroup taxa). Since the root of any tree is its ancestral node, if
> you add an outgroup to the tree you make the root into the common
> ancestor of ingroup + outgroup, which is not the node you're trying to
> define here.

excellent, thanks.
>
> [snip]
>
>

[John Harshman]

R.Schenck wrote:

> John Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net> on 18 May 2004 posted
>
>
>>
>>R.Schenck wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Harlequin <use...@cox.net> on 16 May 2004 posted
>>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>
>>>>Instead of concluding the shared trait signifies a common ancestor,
>>>>baraminologists conclude that synapomorphies signify a common
>>>>Creator."
>>>>
>>>>
>>> The last statement they make is cause for concern too.
>>> Synapomorphies
>>>aren't evidence for evolution writ large to begin with. When we know
>>>that organisms have traits that are variable in a population and
>>>inheritable (ie transformable) then synapomorphies can be used to
>>>recover branching order, no? One can't merely take synapomorphies
>>>alone as evidence for the occurance of evolution, or at least I
>>>haven't seen anyone who understands the situation use it in that way.
>>>
>>
>>I believe I understand the situation, and I believe I use it that way,
>>if by "synapomorphies alone" you would include the nested hierarchy of
>>synapomorphies alone.
>>
>
> this is because the nested hierarchy can only be formed by markovian
> processes and markovian processes are where something is changed peice by
> peice no?

No, and no. The nested hierarchy could be formed by all sorts of
processes, but the common element would be branching with inheritance. A
Markov process is one in which the current state of the system is
determined solely by the immediately previous state of the system. If
the rules also incorporate a requirement that changes be small, then you
have something like what you suggest.

> Which would by definition by evolution (irregardless of
> mechanism). I had literally just read that bit about the markovian
> process after sending the above email. I -think- i understand it now,
> although i don't know anything about markovian processes (i guess that
> makes this a religion, since i am accepting 'on faith' that they are what
> is claimed...)

I don't think a Markov process is a very useful way of thinking about
evolution, although it's certainly useful in various aspects of
evolutionary biology.

>>> Furthermore, -if- we accept that these barminologically
>>> redefined
>>>synapomorphies (baramorphies, there ya go, thats better) even exist,
>>>how does that let us talk about different baramin being created by
>>>the same creator? It most certainly doesn't. If anything, the
>>>presence of aboslutely unique characters not shared by
>>>non-group-members (the baramorphies they are talking about, which are
>>>not the same as actual synapomorphies even tho they want to mislead
>>>people into thinking that they are) indicates a different independant
>>>creator for each kind.
>>>
>>
>>In this particular case, they are talking about synapomorphies shared
>>by multiple baramins.
>>
>
> ...But. But that doesn't even make sense. How can the be shared
> 'derived' characteristics if they are created anyway.

Because, apparently, they were created with shared characteristics.
Under that theory, the derived part is a misnomer. Then again, pattern
cladists don't use that definition of synapomorphy either.

>>That is, once they figure out what the baramins
>>within mammals are, and presumably there are many, they will still
>>recognize a group called Mammalia, identified by the same characters
>>we use, but interpreted as evidence of a common designer rather than
>>common ancestry. Of course the common designer theory is vacuous since
>>it would conform to any pattern in the data, or no pattern at all for
>>that matter. And of course nested hierarchy is a unique expectation of
>>common descent. But never mind, they're rolling.
>
> Germans, pearl harbor...

Exactly. It wasn't over then, and it's not over now.

>>>That,
>>>of course, would square with the reading of mutliple gods in genesis,
>>>but I don't think that is what any of them are going for. If there
>>>were one creator, then there would only be one kind. Or to say the
>>>least, the existence of multiple, seperate, discontinuous kinds is
>>>most certainly - not- evidence for a single creator.
>>>
>>
>>Right, and they don't interpret it that way as far as I know. The
>>existence of multiple kinds would be evidence for one or more
>>creators, I suppose. It's the similarities that they claim are
>>evidence of a single creator.
>
> I don;t see how then can even talk about the similarities as meanigful at
> all. In one moment they seem to be using the shared traits to indicate
> the extend of the baramin. Then in teh next they are saying that the
> shared traits between different baramin indicate a single designer?

Yes, that's one of the fundamental problems of baraminology: telling the
synapomorphies that actually do result from common descent from the
synapomorphies that are just evidence of a common designer. I have no
idea how they solve that problem, because I've never seen a
baraminologist decide that two organisms belong to different baramins
based on anything more than biblical exegesis. And that's probably the
method for telling the difference: same holobaramin, common descent.
Different holobaramins, common designer. QED.

> And
> all of this is ignoring convergence and homology?

I doubt it. But there are probably two types of convergence and two
types of homology: common descent varieties of each, and common design
varieties. Again I have no idea how you tell the difference except a
posteriori.

[catshark]

There's this:

<http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3122.asp>

[R.Schenck]

Harlequin <use...@cox.net> on 16 May 2004 posted

> I discovered another mistake on the subject of cladistics made

> by Wood and Murray. At the start of the "Statistical Baraminology"
> chapter they tell us:
>
> "The first thing that novice baraminologists notice is that
> conventional systematics methods do not work for baraminology.
> All conventional systematics methods conscern themselves
> primarily with identifying the historical path taken by
> organisms as they evolved. As a result, all conventional
> systematics methods _assume_ that the organisms share an
> evolutionary ancestor. They offer no way to test the
> validity of common ancestory itself and consequently,
> several baraminologists developed novel techniques that
> we will discuss in this chapter. These techniques
> avoid making assumptions about the relationship of the
> taxa."
>
> - Woods and Murray, pg. 115.
>
> As those who have read Douglas Theobald's "29+ Evidences"
> from which is in the T.O. Archive know that the claim
> that these methods do not provide a test of common
> ancestory is simply not true. See:
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#nested_hierarchy

" Mere similarity between organisms is not enough to support
macroevolution; the nested classification pattern required by a gradual
evolutionary process, such as universal common descent, is much more
specific than simple similarity. Real world examples that cannot be
objectively classified in nested hierarchies are the elementary particles
(which are described by quantum chromodynamics), the elements (whose
organization is described by quantum mechanics and illustrated by the
periodic table), the planets in our Solar System, books in a library, or
specially designed objects like buildings, furniture, cars, etc."

it hinges on objective. Buildings can't (normally) objectively be
arranged into a nested hierarchy. But is the only objective arrangment
of organisms this nested hierarchy? The mere fact that one can make a
rational system of classification and that it happens to have groups with
in a group doesn't seem to indicate that organisms change thru time. Or
is it turning on that these nested heirarchies only occur in markovian
types of processes, wherein there in modification of one set thru time?
Hmm, i hadn't been convinced by that argument initially, but if thats
what its about then i suppose it does infact mean that the hierarchy is
evidence for evolution itself. Thats independant of cladistics of
course, any objectively obtained nested heirachy is going to mean that
the pattern could be acheived by altering 'members' or generations in
sequence. Hmm, Actually, that doesn't seem to be an arguement against
spontaneous miraculous generation, since the organisms could've been
created with their apearance of having be made thru a normal markovian
process,but then again, there -are- no arguements against miracles
anyway. If it happened naturally, and there is no way to determine that
it didn't and no sort of information that can indicate otherwise, outside
of faith, then it would infact appear that the nested hierarchy is
evidence for evolution.
In fact, it would appear that, if one were an honest creationist,
one would recognize this fact, and try to disprove evolution by getting
at a non-arbitrary classification system wherein a nested heirarchy was
the resutling pattern -but- wasn't formed/expalined by any markovian
processes, no?

> ===

>
> Here is another quote from the chapter on "Hybridization":
>
> "...Marsh believed that true fertilization constituted
> evidence of hybridization, but numerous modern observations
> seem to disqualify this idea. Most importantly, we now
> know that human sperm can fertilize hamster ova, though
> no development occurs.7 Since we know that God created
> humans separately from hamsters, the 'true fertization' must
> not be admissible as evidence of common baraminic membership...."

Isn't the marsh they are talking about a creationist? Not the
paleontologist marsh, but some other marsh? This is more of their
'bending the evidence' to justify their predetermined 'findings'.
Inotherwords, this is a good illustration of how they are -not- doing
anythign remotely close to science, and in fact are practicing pseudo-
science (since it uses the terminology, devices, trappings, but not the
primary methodology and rationale). They -know- that humankind and
hamsterkind are seperate, so now they are merely looking for anything
that indicates that seperateness. If human sperm can fertilize hamster
ova, what does it mean if human sperm can't fertilize say, fish ova?
What I mean is, humankind is no -more- seperate from fishkind than it is
from hamsterkind right? All kinds are equally seperate. Yet here we are
possbibly seeing inconsistent 'indicators' of seperateness. One kind
should'nt be able to fertilize another kinds eggs and then not be able to
fertilize a different kinds eggs, if they are all equally distinct.
At least this indicates that the fertilization/non-fertilization
matter is -not- evidence for the distinctness of kinds, so their
conclusions look to be wrong, or at least 'completely unscientific',
agian.

[R.Schenck]

Harlequin <use...@cox.net> on 17 May 2004 posted

snip

> "I pray that what you are about to read will be unlike any
> creationist book that you have ever read. It has never been my
> intention to write yet another book about the truth of Scripture or
> preceived inadequacies of evolution. Instead, this book is an
> expression of my attempt, however feeble, to allow the truth of God
> to transform my view of biology. Rather than trying to prove the
> truth of Scripture, I assume it as a starting point. From there, I
> build what I believe to be a reasonable model of biology that fits
> both the facts of Scripture and the data of creation. You will
> find that evolutionary theories are mentioned only rarely, and when
> I do discuss them, I do so to highlight the differences between my
> ideas and the conventional view.
>
> "To the skeptics who will no doubt read this book in order to
> destroy it, allow me to save you much trouble. this book is
> unabashedly 'religious' in tone. I wholeheartedly reject the
> belief that religion and science occupy separate domains. I
> belief that the Bible is the infallable Word of God to man, ture in
> every detail of the original autographs. Whether it speaks of the
> fate of my eternal soul or on the fate of Noah and the animals
> during the Great Flood, it is equally true. Throughout this book,
> I will consistently check my interpretation of science against the
> Bible as my standard of truth. I will constantly quote from its
> passages to illustrate the coherence of my theories and
> interpretation with the Holy Writ.
>

snip fer brevity
>
>

ack, honesty, from a creationist, does...not....compute...ack
>

[Harlequin]

They been subducted!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

--

[John Harshman]

Harlequin wrote:

This all seems cheerfully self-contradictory. If dinosaurs were all
non-predators, then why talk about carnivorous dinosaurs going extinct?
(Apparently dinosaurs are not animals, or they were carnivorous but not
predators, or...or...I really don't know.)

> ---
>
> A few questions to ask Wood: How come we don't see
> any dinosaurs in the post-Flood strata? Why don't
> we see the horse-kind fossils, etc. etc. etc. in
> the Flood strata?
>
> --
>
> Meanwhile I am currently on chapter 11, "Barminology
> and Diversification." Guess what, Wood and Murray
> admit that neo-Darwinian mechanism cannot even
> remotely explain the post-Flood diversification.
> What is more, they recognize that only four alles per
> loci are possible for the entire baramin for the
> unclean animals leaving Noah's Ark and that
> the odds are than many would not have even four since
> the baramin had a history from Creation to Flood.
>
> So they must invent a solution which seems "genomic
> modularity" and features they call "Altruistic Genetic
> Elements" (AGEs). That retrotransposons are AGEs
> is almost funny given their use in tracing evolution.
>
> I believe I have already posted this URL:
> http://www.grisda.org/origins/54005.pdf

Yes, I read it. They seem to be substituting a tangled web for the
tangled bank.

[Harlequin]

They been subducted!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

--

[Harlequin]

"R.Schenck" <nygdan_mo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:2gt656F...@uni-berlin.de:

> Harlequin <use...@cox.net> on 17 May 2004 posted
>
>> John Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in
>> news:40A8973C...@pacbell.net:
>>
>>> In the timeless words of Keanu Reaves, "Whoa!"
>>
>> Here is another blue pill moment:
>>

[snip the Wood and Murray quote]
>
> must...control....fist-of-death...

You better amputate that fist-of-death (Dogbert will do it
for a "small" fee) before reading the next Blue
Pill Moment (tm) from Wood and Murray page 184:

"...Since God designed baramins to persist and survive, we should
not be surprised that bacteria survive and thrive despite our best
efforts to destory them."

So what creature is in the trilobite baramin?

--

[Harlequin]

The following was posted Sunday morning (and it would have
been my second contribution on this subject) but has not appeared on
Google or my local news server. That it did not make it
explains a few things. Follows my post as it would have
been:

John Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in

news:40A744EB...@pacbell.net:

> Harlequin wrote:
>
>> fn...@comcast.net (Frank J) wrote in
>> news:38c5d0dd.04051...@posting.google.com:
>>
>>
>>>[...] I'm not sure who calls themselves a "baraminologist," [...]
>>>
>>
>> I suppose that Todd Charles Wood and Megan J. Murray would since
>> they wrote a book on the subject in much the same format as a
>> rather short textbook.
>>
>> _Understanding the Pattern of Life_. Nashville: Broadman & Holman
>> Publishers. 2003. 231 pages. Part of the "Origins and Organization
>> of the Species" series edited by Kurt P. Wise.
>>
>> I picked up a used copy in a bookstore in a Christian bookstore
>> last August. I have not read it yet. Thumbing
>> through it looks like a creationist version of cladistics!?!
>>
>> Oh my, they have a what I would call a cladogram with
>> Hyracotherium, Orohippus, Epihippus, Mesohippus, Miohippus,
>> Klobatippus, Anchitherium, Merychipppus, Pliohippus,
>> Dinohippus, Equus, Pseudhipparion, Neohipparion, and
>> Hipparion. On the strength of a paper published
>> in _Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on
>> Creationism_ which Wood is a co-author concludes that
>> all of these are a single kind. "...The results of this
>> study indicate that all nineteen fossil equid taxa belong
>> to a single monobaramin. This evidence directly places fossil
>> taxa in the same baramin as modern taxa, and by similiarity
>> to other fossil species, we can infer at least 150 fossil horse
>> species in the same baramin...." Now because Abraham/Abram got
>> donkeys from Pharaoh about 370 years after the Flood and
>> since branching pattern of what I would call a cladogram,
>> all of these must have arisen in the 370 years after the
>> flood.
>
> Macroevolution indeed!

Creationist "microevolution" run amok.

I have started to read the book and learned that Marsh also
put all of the fossil horsed into what Wood and friends would
call a monobaramin. (Marsh being the creationist who started
all of this Baramin business six decades ago. He is an important
figure in _The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism_
by Ronald Numbers which is, as you probably know, a history of
creationism from the time of Darwin to just prior to the rise
of the "intelligent design" movement.)

> This would be Simpson's tachytelic mode, to put
> it mildly. I'm waiting to see the results of their further research,
> in which they conclude that perissodactyls all form a single kind. And
> in their next paper they can find that Laurasiatheria is a single
> kind, and then Eutheria, and then Mammalia...why, there's no end to
> the possibilities of baraminology.

..of monobaraminology. They also have apobaraminology to keep creations
separate.

But of course you have hit a fundamental problem for them. I mean
if a creatures as different as _Hyracotherium_ and modern horses
are seperated by less than 370 years of "microevolution" then what
is stopping even more evolution. This is practically giving
away most of the store. Mark Isaak, are you reading this?
That YEC type Biblical creationists have published studies concluding
that fossil horses are indeed genologically connected with modern
horses might be a good thing to point out in CC216.2
( http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC216_2.html ).

The strange thing is that the baramin that includes the horse
would be descended from two individuals. This would be the
ultimate in lacking of genetic diversity and thus evolution really
would have a hard time proceding. I guess that YECs have to
to forget the role of recombination in evolution and that
natural selection needs genetic difference to proceed.
So why don't we see this rapid evolution today when there
is far more genetic diversity for evolution to work with?
Also this means all the extensive deposits which fossil horses are
in are all post-Flood. To save themselves from absurdity they
just create even more of it.

Though looking ahead they seem to use "microevolution" much like a modern
biologist might.

"Once again, rather than adopting evolutionary concepts to
baraminology, we strongly recommend that use of uniquely
creationist terminology to describe species transformation.
Evolutionists have a number of terms for fine-scale evolutionary
changes. {Microevolution} referes to changes that occur within a
species, sometimes generating supspecies, varietyies, or races.
{Speciation} is the process by which new species arise.
Evolutionists usually use {macroevolution} or megaevolution to refer
to evolutionary changes that result in new genera, families, orders,
and even larger groups. If baramins encompass more than one genus
(which they often do), then organismal transforamtions within a
baramin could legitimately be described by all three evolutionary
terms, depending on the diversity of the resulting species. We use
the intrabaraminic {diversification} to describe the genetic process
by which members of a baramin bring forth new species or varieties,
without regard to the magnitude of the change.1"

Woods and Murray, page 170. Words in {} are bold in the original.

Still, most creationists which use the word "microevolution" for
evolution within a created kind or baramin.

>> Ditto for camels: "...Since we know that Pharoah
>> and Abram met around 370 years after the Flood (by the
>> geneology chronology in Gen 11), those 200 camelid species
>> must have arisen, left fossils, and probably went extinct
>> in less then 370 years."
>
> Ditto for Artiodactyla (including whales). It's clades all the way
> down!

Their monobarmins would definately be monophyletic to use cladistic
lingo. They want to do their baraminology with two modes which they
hope converge. The first is discovering monobarmins. This would
involved connecting species via "continuity." The operational
definition of monobaramin used in the Refined Baramin Concept used
by the Baraminology Study Group is "a group of known organisms
(or species) which each individual shares continuity with at least
one other member of the group." The earlier more theoretical
definition was merely having a common ancestor though
the BSG does believe that. Wood and friends break from
Marsh by not requiring hybridization to establish "continuity."
Monobaramins can contain monobaramins just as clades can contain
clades: My father and his descendents are a monobaramin to
make up an example. The idea is to make larger and larger monobaramins.

> In my experience, the baraminologists tend to do only the easy parts:
> finding two groups to belong to a single baramin. They never seem to
> do the part that involves two groups belonging to different baramins.

You are wrong on that account. The second approach is to form
apobaramins. An apobaramin is a of organisms which is discontinuous with
all other organisms. Naturally they believe that members of an
apobaramin do not share a common ancestor with any organism outside of
the apobaramin. Again apobaramins can be nested. Obviously they think
that humans (and whatever fossil humans they think are descended from
Adam and Eve) are an apobaramin. Mammals are also an apobaramin in
their scheme. Naturally the second approach is to find these apobaramins
and then to make smaller and smaller apobaramins.

Naturally the point of all of this is have a convergene of apobaramins
with monobaramins. When a group is both an apobaramin and a monobaramin
it is said to be a holobaramin. Naturally the hope is that the
holobaramins are the "created kind" baramins refered to in Genesis
or are a reasonable approximation. (Using "reasonable" in the creationist
sense.)

Here is a simplified version of an example from Wood and Murray:
Frair in 1984 recognized turtles as an apobaramin. He further
recognized four monobaramins in the turtle apobaramin. Wise in 1992
then recognized apobaramins within the turtle apobaramin. While
Robinson in 1997 was more conservative and instead recognized
in the turtle apobaramin two monobaramins: the family Cheloniidae and
the genus _Gopherus_.

>> The "Baraminology Study Group" has a web page
>> at http://www.bryancore.org/bsg/
>>
>> Some Wood's papers on the Web:
>> http://www.bryancore.org/bsg/opbsg/index.html (2nd one includes
>> horses) http://www.grisda.org/origins/54005.pdf
>>
>> There is also a IDist version of baraminology.
>> See: Siegfried Scherer, "Basic Types of Life: Evidence for
>> Design from Taxonomy?" In: _Mere Creation: Science, Faith &
>> Intelligent Design_, William A. Dembski, editor. 1998.
>> Downer Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
>
> Scherer has actually published on this in real journals, though the
> creationist parts were downplayed for publication. He has weird views
> on duck phylogeny, and they are easily demonstrated to be wrong based
> on the data. He thinks the family Anatidae is a separate kind, within
> which relationships are messy and chaotic. Neither is true.
> Relationships within ducks are pretty nicely cladistic (despite their
> tendencies to get confused during the mating season),

Here is a nice example of a duck really being unclear on concept
during mating season. Those who are eating might want to finish
eating and have it well down before checking:
http://www.nmr.nl/deins815.htm

> and relationships to groups
> outside ducks are very clearly resolved. There's no discontinuity to
> hang a baramin on.

Or rather no discontinuity to hang an apobaramin on. :-)

--
Anti-spam: replace "usenet" with "harlequin2"

"...I think that science would have never have achieved much
progress if it had always imagined unknown obstacles hidden
round every corner."
- Arthur Eddington, _Stars and Atoms_, 1929, p. 20.

[John Wilkins]

John Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:

> R.Schenck wrote:
>
> > John Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net> on 18 May 2004 posted
> >
> >
> >>
> >>R.Schenck wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Harlequin <use...@cox.net> on 16 May 2004 posted
> >>>

...

> >>> Furthermore, -if- we accept that these barminologically
> >>> redefined
> >>>synapomorphies (baramorphies, there ya go, thats better) even exist,
> >>>how does that let us talk about different baramin being created by
> >>>the same creator? It most certainly doesn't. If anything, the
> >>>presence of aboslutely unique characters not shared by
> >>>non-group-members (the baramorphies they are talking about, which are
> >>>not the same as actual synapomorphies even tho they want to mislead
> >>>people into thinking that they are) indicates a different independant
> >>>creator for each kind.
> >>>
> >>
> >>In this particular case, they are talking about synapomorphies shared
> >>by multiple baramins.
> >>
> >
> > ...But. But that doesn't even make sense. How can the be shared
> > 'derived' characteristics if they are created anyway.
>
>
> Because, apparently, they were created with shared characteristics.
> Under that theory, the derived part is a misnomer. Then again, pattern
> cladists don't use that definition of synapomorphy either.

In pattern cladism, a synapomorphy is still a derived character, as I
understand it, only the derivation is a formal (i.e., pattern based) one
rather than directly an evolutionary (process-based) one. They treat
processual derivations as something to be tested by the patterns.
...
--
Dr John S. Wilkins, www.wilkins.id.au
"I never meet anyone who is not perplexed what to do with their
children" --Charles Darwin to Syms Covington, February 22, 1857

[Harlequin]

John Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in

news:40AAB5D3...@pacbell.net:

[snip]

> Yes, that's one of the fundamental problems of baraminology: telling the
> synapomorphies that actually do result from common descent from the
> synapomorphies that are just evidence of a common designer. I have no
> idea how they solve that problem, because I've never seen a
> baraminologist decide that two organisms belong to different baramins
> based on anything more than biblical exegesis. And that's probably the
> method for telling the difference: same holobaramin, common descent.
> Different holobaramins, common designer. QED.

[snip]

As I have repeatedly pointed out they _do_ give examples of
"demonstrating" apobaramins. However when you really
get down to it, it is mostly the same old games we are all
familiar with for denying common descent with a statistical
window dressing. And most of the nitty-gritty detail for
these examples is in "papers" in sources that might
be difficult to obtain without funding creationist organizations.

As for that statistical window dressing, it has been suggested
that it might have been swiped from the phenetics fad of
a few decades back. I don't know enough to judge that, though
I will note that even within a baramin Wood and Murray
reject the notion of only using bifucating trees.

Unfortunately I am very much unqualified to comment in
detail of their statistical methods since I am unfamiliar
with the rigorous mathematical basis of cladistics or
phenetics. Of course you will be able to fix that when
you get your copy. But it all comes to an attempt to
say "it is just too hard."

[John Harshman]

Harlequin wrote:

> Apologies if this (or any other post) is a duplicate, but I think
> this post was also bounced.
>
> I have reached a section which explicately has Precambrian=pre-Flood;
> Paleozoic & mesozoic=Flood; and Centazoic=Post-Flood.

Any indication at all as to how they can possibly know that?

> Now on
> to business. I just keep coming into things that are too good
> not to share. And now for a...
>
> Blue Pill Moment(tm) taken with a large glass of Pan Galactic Gargle
> Blaster:
>
> "Strangely missing from the Flood-deposited strata were most of the
> mammals, birds, and angiosperms, and all evidence of human life.
> From their nearly complete absence, we can infer that these organism
> probably occupied the same biological zone before the Flood.

Whatever "biological zone" means. It's apparently something that's
worldwide, and occupies multiple habitats, including marine ones (based
on, for example, angiosperm pollen and seabird fossils). I wonder how
they differed from the biological zones occupied by dinosaurs and
trilobites.

> The few
> birds and mammals found in the Secondary strata suggest that the
> mammal/bird/human zoan was probably adjacent to the
> dinosaur/gymnosperm zone. Even more exciting in this regard is the
> presence of morphological intermediate organisms, such as the
> mammal-like reptiles found in South Africa and the _Archaeopteryx
> from a single deposit in Germany. If the border region between the
> mammal and dinosaur zones was a sharp ecological transition, it is
> possible that the intermediates long interpreted as evidence for
> evolution are actually evidence of an ecological transition. These
> transitional froms further support the geographic proximity of the
> pre-Flood dinosaur and mammal zones."

Sad.

> - Wood and Murray, page 190.
>
> They consider "explanations" for no humans, etc. in Flood stata. They
> briefly consider that humans don't fossilize well but dislike that
> "explanation" due to fossils like _Archaeopteryx_. They then go on
> to an explanation which they seem to like:
>
> They been subducted!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> An alternative "explanation" is that "humans, mammals, and angiosperms"
> lived near the foutains of the deep. The breakup of the FotD would have
> "easily obliterated any trace of these organisms"!

I thought the fountains of the deep were in, well, the deep. Bottom of
the ocean and all that. Were people living at the bottom of the ocean?
Adam as Aquaman?

[John Harshman]

Harlequin wrote:

> The following was posted Sunday morning (and it would have
> been my second contribution on this subject) but has not appeared on
> Google or my local news server. That it did not make it
> explains a few things. Follows my post as it would have
> been:

Much of this has subsequently been raised and discussed. Is propagation
getting dicier lately, or is it just nostalgia for the good old days?

[snip]

>>In my experience, the baraminologists tend to do only the easy parts:
>>finding two groups to belong to a single baramin. They never seem to
>>do the part that involves two groups belonging to different baramins.
>>
>
> You are wrong on that account. The second approach is to form
> apobaramins.

I know they want to do that, but do you have concrete examples where
they do it other than by biblical exegesis? I mean by genuine scientific
(or pseudoscientific) reasoning?

> An apobaramin is a of organisms which is discontinuous with
> all other organisms. Naturally they believe that members of an
> apobaramin do not share a common ancestor with any organism outside of
> the apobaramin. Again apobaramins can be nested. Obviously they think
> that humans (and whatever fossil humans they think are descended from
> Adam and Eve) are an apobaramin. Mammals are also an apobaramin in
> their scheme. Naturally the second approach is to find these apobaramins
> and then to make smaller and smaller apobaramins.
>
> Naturally the point of all of this is have a convergene of apobaramins
> with monobaramins. When a group is both an apobaramin and a monobaramin
> it is said to be a holobaramin. Naturally the hope is that the
> holobaramins are the "created kind" baramins refered to in Genesis
> or are a reasonable approximation. (Using "reasonable" in the creationist
> sense.)
>
> Here is a simplified version of an example from Wood and Murray:
> Frair in 1984 recognized turtles as an apobaramin.

How?

> He further
> recognized four monobaramins in the turtle apobaramin. Wise in 1992
> then recognized apobaramins within the turtle apobaramin.

Again, how?

> While
> Robinson in 1997 was more conservative and instead recognized
> in the turtle apobaramin two monobaramins: the family Cheloniidae and
> the genus _Gopherus_.

But unless he's recognizing more restrictive apobaramins, he's not doing
what I'm looking for. Monobaramins are easy. Apobaramins are hard
(because they don't exist). I'm looking for methodology that's actually
used to identify apobaramins.

>>>The "Baraminology Study Group" has a web page
>>>at http://www.bryancore.org/bsg/
>>>
>>>Some Wood's papers on the Web:
>>>http://www.bryancore.org/bsg/opbsg/index.html (2nd one includes
>>>horses) http://www.grisda.org/origins/54005.pdf
>>>
>>>There is also a IDist version of baraminology.
>>>See: Siegfried Scherer, "Basic Types of Life: Evidence for
>>>Design from Taxonomy?" In: _Mere Creation: Science, Faith &
>>>Intelligent Design_, William A. Dembski, editor. 1998.
>>>Downer Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
>>>
>>Scherer has actually published on this in real journals, though the
>>creationist parts were downplayed for publication. He has weird views
>>on duck phylogeny, and they are easily demonstrated to be wrong based
>>on the data. He thinks the family Anatidae is a separate kind, within
>>which relationships are messy and chaotic. Neither is true.
>>Relationships within ducks are pretty nicely cladistic (despite their
>>tendencies to get confused during the mating season),
>>
>
> Here is a nice example of a duck really being unclear on concept
> during mating season. Those who are eating might want to finish
> eating and have it well down before checking:
> http://www.nmr.nl/deins815.htm

Was that the famous homosexual necrophiliac? Sure gets around.

>>and relationships to groups
>>outside ducks are very clearly resolved. There's no discontinuity to
>>hang a baramin on.
>>
>
> Or rather no discontinuity to hang an apobaramin on. :-)

Using "baramin" in the original sense of created kind, which to us
modrun signtists would be "holobaramin".

[John Harshman]

Harlequin wrote:

> John Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in
> news:40AAB5D3...@pacbell.net:
>
> [snip]
>
>>Yes, that's one of the fundamental problems of baraminology: telling the
>>synapomorphies that actually do result from common descent from the
>>synapomorphies that are just evidence of a common designer. I have no
>>idea how they solve that problem, because I've never seen a
>>baraminologist decide that two organisms belong to different baramins
>>based on anything more than biblical exegesis. And that's probably the
>>method for telling the difference: same holobaramin, common descent.
>>Different holobaramins, common designer. QED.
>>
> [snip]
>
> As I have repeatedly pointed out they _do_ give examples of
> "demonstrating" apobaramins. However when you really
> get down to it, it is mostly the same old games we are all
> familiar with for denying common descent with a statistical
> window dressing. And most of the nitty-gritty detail for
> these examples is in "papers" in sources that might
> be difficult to obtain without funding creationist organizations.
>
> As for that statistical window dressing, it has been suggested
> that it might have been swiped from the phenetics fad of
> a few decades back.

Phenetics had two general techniques: clustering through overall
similarity, and delimitation of clusters through ordination. Similarity
clustering methods essentially come up with an index of similarity, for
example, the proportion of characters in which two organisms are
identical. Then clustering methods form dendrograms by joining the most
similar individuals, then the next most similar, and so on until
everyone's in the tree. I suppose you could agree to stop at some
arbitrary point.

There are hints that some creationists are using a form of ordination,
but I'm not clear on its details. Ordination methods, the most widely
known of which is principal components analysis, attempt to project a
multidimensional distribution of points into fewer dimensions, hopefully
the dimensions that will summarize the information in the original space
and reliably separate groups into obvious clusters. Think of this as
shining a flashlight into a bunch of marbles suspended at various points
in a 3D grid by strings. You move the flashlight around, watching the
shadow the marbles cast on the wall, until you get maximum separation
among marble shadows along some axis. That's the first principal
component. And so on. Gould explains this well in The Mismeasure of Man.

> I don't know enough to judge that, though
> I will note that even within a baramin Wood and Murray
> reject the notion of only using bifucating trees.

As does everyone else.

[Harlequin]

John Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in

news:40AAC77D...@pacbell.net:

>
>
> Harlequin wrote:
>
>> Apologies if this (or any other post) is a duplicate, but I think
>> this post was also bounced.
>>
>> I have reached a section which explicately has Precambrian=pre-Flood;
>> Paleozoic & mesozoic=Flood; and Centazoic=Post-Flood.
>
> Any indication at all as to how they can possibly know that?

Not really, but it is pushing the scope of the book.

>> Now on
>> to business. I just keep coming into things that are too good
>> not to share. And now for a...
>>
>> Blue Pill Moment(tm) taken with a large glass of Pan Galactic Gargle
>> Blaster:
>>
>> "Strangely missing from the Flood-deposited strata were most of the
>> mammals, birds, and angiosperms, and all evidence of human life.
>> From their nearly complete absence, we can infer that these organism
>> probably occupied the same biological zone before the Flood.
>
>
> Whatever "biological zone" means. It's apparently something that's
> worldwide, and occupies multiple habitats, including marine ones (based
> on, for example, angiosperm pollen and seabird fossils). I wonder how
> they differed from the biological zones occupied by dinosaurs and
> trilobites.

You are not supposed to ask that! :-)

They clearly still have heavy bagage from the George McCready Price era.

>> The few
>> birds and mammals found in the Secondary strata suggest that the
>> mammal/bird/human zoan was probably adjacent to the
>> dinosaur/gymnosperm zone. Even more exciting in this regard is the
>> presence of morphological intermediate organisms, such as the
>> mammal-like reptiles found in South Africa and the _Archaeopteryx
>> from a single deposit in Germany. If the border region between the
>> mammal and dinosaur zones was a sharp ecological transition, it is
>> possible that the intermediates long interpreted as evidence for
>> evolution are actually evidence of an ecological transition. These
>> transitional froms further support the geographic proximity of the
>> pre-Flood dinosaur and mammal zones."
>
> Sad.

It it is hard to know where to start on just how absurd this is. But
it is standard Flood "geology."

>> - Wood and Murray, page 190.
>>
>> They consider "explanations" for no humans, etc. in Flood stata. They
>> briefly consider that humans don't fossilize well but dislike that
>> "explanation" due to fossils like _Archaeopteryx_. They then go on
>> to an explanation which they seem to like:
>>
>> They been subducted!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>> An alternative "explanation" is that "humans, mammals, and angiosperms"
>> lived near the foutains of the deep. The breakup of the FotD would have
>> "easily obliterated any trace of these organisms"!
>
>
> I thought the fountains of the deep were in, well, the deep. Bottom of
> the ocean and all that. Were people living at the bottom of the ocean?
> Adam as Aquaman?

They are probably thinking of the FotD as being undergroup and not
underwater.

>> Honest, I am not making this stuff up.

No one has yet to accuse me of playing some sort of loki game yet.

[Harlequin]

John Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in

news:40AAC5F5...@pacbell.net:

>
>
> Harlequin wrote:
[snip]

>> Here is a simplified version of an example from Wood and Murray:
>> Frair in 1984 recognized turtles as an apobaramin.
>
>
> How?
>
>> He further
>> recognized four monobaramins in the turtle apobaramin. Wise in 1992
>> then recognized apobaramins within the turtle apobaramin.
>
>
> Again, how?
>
>> While
>> Robinson in 1997 was more conservative and instead recognized
>> in the turtle apobaramin two monobaramins: the family Cheloniidae and
>> the genus _Gopherus_.
>
>
> But unless he's recognizing more restrictive apobaramins, he's not
> doing what I'm looking for. Monobaramins are easy. Apobaramins are
> hard (because they don't exist). I'm looking for methodology that's
> actually used to identify apobaramins.

Thery are unsurprisingly a bit vague of the detail letting
the cited "papers" handle the details. Robinson used
mtDNA to "prove" apobaramins.

Here is one:

A Mitochondrial DNA Analysis of the Testudine Apobaramin

D. Ashley Robinson, B.S.,

Baraminology is a biosystematic discipline for reclassifying
organisms within the young-earth creation model. The method is
presently dependent on 15 theoretically-defined membership criteria
that are designed to reveal patterns of phylogenetic discontinuity in
nature. This survey examines the utility of the molecular criterion
for resolving phyletic divisions. As a case study, the
non-trionychoidea cryptodires (turtles with hard shells and
retractable necks) have been analyzed with a panel of nine
mitochondrial genes. Sequence comparisons with non-testudines
supported a previous hypothesis that the turtles were apobaraminic or
phylogenetically distinct from other vertebrates. Analyses within the
testudines suggested the non-trionychoidea cryptodires were composed
of at least two monobaramins including the Cheloniidae family and
Gopherus genus.

http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/abstracts/sum33_4.html

There is a library with CRSQ local to me so I will see what
I can see.

Does anyone have a collection of back issues of AiG's
so called technical journal? If so, Wise's "Practical
Baraminology" in _CENTJ_ 6 (1992): 122-37 would be useful
for this discussion.

But "references" and "methods" notwithstanding, it is all
the old game of "too much difference" or "its too hard
to evolve." The some old appeal to ignorance or
appeal to incredulity that we expect from creationists.

It is bad, really bad.

[snip]

[Harlequin]

John Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in

news:40AACB2F...@pacbell.net:

[snip]

> There are hints that some creationists are using a form of ordination,
> but I'm not clear on its details. Ordination methods, the most widely
> known of which is principal components analysis, attempt to project a
> multidimensional distribution of points into fewer dimensions, hopefully
> the dimensions that will summarize the information in the original space
> and reliably separate groups into obvious clusters. Think of this as
> shining a flashlight into a bunch of marbles suspended at various points
> in a 3D grid by strings. You move the flashlight around, watching the
> shadow the marbles cast on the wall, until you get maximum separation
> among marble shadows along some axis. That's the first principal
> component. And so on. Gould explains this well in The Mismeasure of Man.

[snip]

They are doing this, big time.

And if they can find a way to make this "analysis" form distinct
groups then they have a basis for an apobaramin. They would then
use some other means to "confirm" what they find like their
notion of "baraminic distance."

[John Harshman]

Harlequin wrote:

Note: two monobaramins. Nothing there. The statement that turtles +
other vertebrates are an apobaramin is promising. I wonder what the
supporting evidence might be. Personally, I wouldn't use mtDNA at such
high levels of divergence. Best to use conserved nuclear genes. There
actually are people doing this now. So why, if turtles are unrelated to
other vertebrates, do they consistently fall within a monophyletic
Reptilia (counting birds) in analyses? Why aren't they ever closest to
frogs, or trout, or petunias for that matter? I know, common designer
yadda yadda. We're back with the notion that some synapomorphies
indicate common descent and others just common design, with no
information on how to tell the difference.

[John Harshman]

Harlequin wrote:

> John Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in
> news:40AAC77D...@pacbell.net:
>
>
>>
>>Harlequin wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Apologies if this (or any other post) is a duplicate, but I think
>>>this post was also bounced.
>>>
>>>I have reached a section which explicately has Precambrian=pre-Flood;
>>>Paleozoic & mesozoic=Flood; and Centazoic=Post-Flood.
>>>
>>Any indication at all as to how they can possibly know that?
>>
>
> Not really, but it is pushing the scope of the book.

In real science, all claims are supported either by original research or
by citation of other original research (or by citation of something that
cites something, etc.). That's a rule that has proven quite useful.

If this were real science, you would get something like "Post-flood
deposits are equivalent to the standard Cenozoic (Ren and Stimpy 1997)",
and then in the bibliography you would see
"Ren, J., and J. Stimpy. 1997. Correspondence between the geological
column and flood geology. Journal of Silly Science 14:783-792." which
you could then look up to determine if this claim was supported by
convincing evidence. Perhaps it would lead you to a whole literature on
telling flood from post-flood sediments. If this were real science.

That would seem to violate the standard biblical usage of "the deep".

>>>Honest, I am not making this stuff up.
>>>
>
> No one has yet to accuse me of playing some sort of loki game yet.

Because what you are quoting is no more implausible than what we usually
get. Next to, say, Painful Church, it's downright rational.

[John Harshman]

Harlequin wrote:

> John Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in
> news:40AACB2F...@pacbell.net:
>
> [snip]
>
>>There are hints that some creationists are using a form of ordination,
>>but I'm not clear on its details. Ordination methods, the most widely
>>known of which is principal components analysis, attempt to project a
>>multidimensional distribution of points into fewer dimensions, hopefully
>>the dimensions that will summarize the information in the original space
>>and reliably separate groups into obvious clusters. Think of this as
>>shining a flashlight into a bunch of marbles suspended at various points
>>in a 3D grid by strings. You move the flashlight around, watching the
>>shadow the marbles cast on the wall, until you get maximum separation
>>among marble shadows along some axis. That's the first principal
>>component. And so on. Gould explains this well in The Mismeasure of Man.
>>
> [snip]
>
> They are doing this, big time.
>
> And if they can find a way to make this "analysis" form distinct
> groups then they have a basis for an apobaramin. They would then
> use some other means to "confirm" what they find like their
> notion of "baraminic distance."

That would be fine if we had no explanation for the existence of
discrete clusters, or of a process that would be capable of changing a
species' position in morphospace. Come to think of it, they postulate
such mechanisms themselves (AGEs), so how do discrete clusters show
anything at all, even to them?

[Harlequin]

John Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in

news:40AB4BEA...@pacbell.net:

[snip]

> Note: two monobaramins. Nothing there. The statement that turtles +
> other vertebrates are an apobaramin is promising. I wonder what the
> supporting evidence might be. Personally, I wouldn't use mtDNA at such
> high levels of divergence. Best to use conserved nuclear genes. There
> actually are people doing this now. So why, if turtles are unrelated to
> other vertebrates, do they consistently fall within a monophyletic
> Reptilia (counting birds) in analyses? Why aren't they ever closest to
> frogs, or trout, or petunias for that matter? I know, common designer
> yadda yadda. We're back with the notion that some synapomorphies
> indicate common descent and others just common design, with no
> information on how to tell the difference.

[snip]

Lets summarize:

If you critically examine creationism, even when done by otherwise
intelligent and honest people, it simply falls apart.

But still, I should have realized that problem with mtDNA since
even with only a lay background on this I knew that mtDNA was
used on small scale evolution like humans and their immediate
relatives because it evolves relatively quickly. Of course
I have an execuse: there were so many more glaring errors.

Still maybe when I said it was not right that these people
had never "identified" apobaramins, I should have instead
said that instead they had produced pathetically weak
cases for apobaramins. But then again when you are dealing
with creationists, that goes without saying.