A bible for cladists like Harshman?

[pnyikos]

By "cladists like Harshman" I mean what I call "cladophiles" --
cladists who will not tolerate paraphyletic taxa in formal
classifications.

"Paraphyletic" is a term for taxa like the traditional Reptilia which
did not include all of its descendants. [The old Reptilia excluded
mammals and birds.] A sizable percentage of taxa used by
paleontologists like Romer, particularly on the level of families and
subfamilies, were paraphyletic.

Here is a reply to part of a post by the ardent cladophile John
Harshman, from the discussion,
Subject: Re: Paraphyletic taxon =? grade? Re: Turtle genome sequence
and analysis

It revolves around a 1981 article by Joel Cracraft:

http://research.amnh.org/vz/ornithology/pdfs/1981e.Pattern%20process%20in%20paleobiology.pdf

On Apr 26, 9:57 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On 4/26/13 6:42 PM, pnyikos wrote:

> > On Apr 26, 8:58 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> On 4/26/13 5:44 PM, pnyikos wrote:

> >>> "Several reasons can be suggested for the adverse reaction of
> >>> paleontologists towards cladistics. One is that cladists occasionally
> >>> have made provocative statements which naturally released negative
> >>> reactions"
>
> >>> Occasionally, my foot! Cracraft seems blissfully unaware of how
> >>> provocative his relentless repetition of the pejorative "unnatural" to
> >>> describe paraphyletic taxa is. [He even uses the word "nonexistent"
> >>> enclosed in scare quotes.]
[snip]

> >> I'm amazed at your ability to beat on Joel Cracraft from 30+ years ago.
>
> > Why aren't you amazed at the ability of atheists and others to beat on
> > the Bible from 20 centuries or more ago?
>
> Joel will be happy to know that you're equating his paper with the
> bible. But I suppose it's that the bible is still actually a current
> issue, while Joel's 1981 paper isn't by any stretch.

Come off it, Harshman! In most of the posts where we debate the topic
of paraphyletic taxa, you might as well be channeling Joel with your
use of pejorative labels like the ones I quote above, and much else.

In fact, if he was the one who originated the use of pejoratives like
them, then he is to cladophilia as Moses is to Judaism. And one could
make a two-book "bible" of cladophilia with some writings of Hennig
being the analogue of Genesis and all but the last section of Joel's
paper being the analogue of Exodus.

I suspect the reason you stress that his paper is 30+ years old is
that the last section, where he finally gets off his anti-paraphyly
hobbyhorse, is an acute embarrassment to neo-Darwinists. For instance:

"The conclusion that evolution by natural
selection produced hypsodont teeth, or that
change in tooth structure through time is
consistent with population genetics, is axiomatic
(Cracraft 1981). Explanations of this kind, which
are common in the paleontological literature, are
structured so that they can account for any
observation. As such they have limited scientific
value, for how are we to say we are wrong in any
specific instance?" [pp. 466-467]

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
nyikos @ math.sc.edu

[Ray Martinez]

On Apr 30, 11:54�am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> By "cladists like Harshman" I mean what I call "cladophiles" --
> cladists who will not tolerate paraphyletic taxa in formal
> classifications.
>
> "Paraphyletic" is a term for taxa like the traditional Reptilia which
> did not include all of its descendants. �[The old Reptilia excluded
> mammals and birds.] A sizable percentage of taxa used by
> paleontologists like Romer, particularly on the level of families and
> subfamilies, were paraphyletic.
>
> Here is a reply to part of a post by the ardent cladophile John
> Harshman, from the discussion,
> Subject: Re: Paraphyletic taxon =? grade? Re: Turtle genome sequence
> and analysis
>
> It revolves around a 1981 article by Joel Cracraft:
>

> http://research.amnh.org/vz/ornithology/pdfs/1981e.Pattern%20process%...

Peter: Did you forget that you're a neo-Darwinist as well? Why don't
you answer Cracraft's question?

Ray

[John Harshman]

I would just like to respond to this by noting that there is nothing
here worth responding to.

[pnyikos]

I am not a neo-Darwinist, just someone who is convinced about the
reality of common descent. I am with Cracraft on this one, having
posted on "Darwin of the Gaps" last year in reply to Randy C. after
whom I named a different attitude "Randy of the Gaps".

_____________excerpt ___________________________

Randy C's fixation on the phrase "God of the Gaps" inspired me to
come up with the natural counterpart:

Darwin of the Gaps

This is the default, one-size-fits-all, totally unfalsifiable
naturalistic explanation for any and all biological phenomena:

"Well, it's natural selection, y'know. The __________ that did/could/
are __________ had a survival advantage over the ones that didn't/
couldn't/weren't and so they are the ones we see today."

The irony is that I've seen very few U. of Ediacara types even go THIS
far in trying to explain biological phenomena. Randy C certainly
doesn't even pretend to do so below. So I do a little turnabout on
him.
=================end of excerpt
from http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2c01ed40cd08cfe2?dmode=source
Message-ID: <54a41c25-adb7-458e-
ac4a-359...@35g2000prp.googlegroups.com>
The last three symbols before the @ are 85f

Peter Nyikos

[ruben safir]

> I am not a neo-Darwinist, just someone who is convinced about the
> reality of common descent. I am with Cracraft on this one, having
> posted on "Darwin of the Gaps" last year in reply to Randy C. after whom
> I named a different attitude "Randy of the Gaps".

I don't even know or even care what this means. Why don't you just stick
to Paleontology in this section and fuck everything else.



Ruben
--
The Coin Hangout: http://www.coinhangout.com/home

[pnyikos]

On Apr 30, 5:11�pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On 4/30/13 11:54 AM, pnyikos wrote:

> > By "cladists like Harshman" I mean what I call "cladophiles" --
> > cladists who will not tolerate paraphyletic taxa in formal
> > classifications.
>
> > "Paraphyletic" is a term for taxa like the traditional Reptilia which
> > did not include all of its descendants. �[The old Reptilia excluded
> > mammals and birds.] A sizable percentage of taxa used by
> > paleontologists like Romer, particularly on the level of families and
> > subfamilies, were paraphyletic.
>
> > Here is a reply to part of a post by the ardent cladophile John
> > Harshman, from the discussion,
> > Subject: Re: Paraphyletic taxon =? grade? Re: Turtle genome sequence
> > and analysis
>
> > It revolves around a 1981 article by Joel Cracraft:
>

> >http://research.amnh.org/vz/ornithology/pdfs/1981e.Pattern%20process%...

I see jillery agrees on another thread. Opposition to Peter Nyikos
makes for strange bedfellows.

But I have a question.

Is it true that nobody before Joel Cracraft had the chutzpah to label
paraphyletic taxa as "unnatural" and "nonexistent" in a peer reviewed,
NSF-grant sponsored paper?

If you have read what I wrote up there, you have seen me broaching
this issue, though not so explicitly.

Can I put you down for pleading *nolo contendere* on Joel's behalf?

Peter Nyikos

[Dana Tweedy]

On Apr 30, 3:11�pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On 4/30/13 11:54 AM, pnyikos wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > By "cladists like Harshman" I mean what I call "cladophiles" --
> > cladists who will not tolerate paraphyletic taxa in formal
> > classifications.
>
> > "Paraphyletic" is a term for taxa like the traditional Reptilia which
> > did not include all of its descendants. �[The old Reptilia excluded
> > mammals and birds.] A sizable percentage of taxa used by
> > paleontologists like Romer, particularly on the level of families and
> > subfamilies, were paraphyletic.
>
> > Here is a reply to part of a post by the ardent cladophile John
> > Harshman, from the discussion,
> > Subject: Re: Paraphyletic taxon =? grade? Re: Turtle genome sequence
> > and analysis
>
> > It revolves around a 1981 article by Joel Cracraft:
>

> >http://research.amnh.org/vz/ornithology/pdfs/1981e.Pattern%20process%...

This is my only line.

DJT

[pnyikos]

Despite your hostile-seeming attitude, ruben, I always welcome a new
contributor to sci.bio.paleontology.

Is that the newsgroup in which you came across this thread?

Can I count on you to become active on other threads in this
newsgroup? I'd be very glad if you could start a few yourself.

I'm a set-theoretic topologist by profession, but if I had the time
for it, I would love to become a vertebrate paleontologist as well.

Peter Nyikos

[Thrinaxodon]

> Peter Nyikos

You stick to Lamarkism? Probably not. But, you don't accept natural
selection?

[pnyikos]

Got tired of dealing with Ray Martinez? Can't really blame you.

Peter Nyikos

[chris thompson]

<Holding large stick, looks around the field of grass, swearing there was a dead horse around here just a few years ago>

Chris

[John Harshman]

I have no idea.

> If you have read what I wrote up there, you have seen me broaching
> this issue, though not so explicitly.
>
> Can I put you down for pleading *nolo contendere* on Joel's behalf?

No. Why should anyone care who was the first to do this perfectly
reasonable thing? Why should anyone care whether or not it was
NSF-sponsored? Whatever is there in this post that is at all worthy of
any sort of response?

[Dana Tweedy]

Nah, Ray's not that lucky. I was just taking a short break. One can
only deal with insane troll logic for a while before one needs a rest.

DJT

[Ray Martinez]

> reality of common descent. �I am with Cracraft on this one,....

[....snip....]

So you reject the genetical theory (replication error and selection)
while accepting common descent? Very unique (and impossible) position.
The latter cannot be true unless the former occurs.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

All this says is that my logic and your logic are incompatible. Yes,
so very true. The Creation/Evolution debate is about logic and nothing
else. I can and will prove this point when I publish.

Now tell me Dana: What kind of logic posits space aliens as
responsible for biological First Cause? Isn't the impossibility of
abiogenesis seen clearly?

Ray

[Thrinaxodon]

Okay, Ray? He accepts a discredited version of evolution, "neo-
Lamarkism". Strikes my silly, but I deal with people, like the Nyikos
asshole, or you.

[Robert Camp]

At this point in time the logic of an inference to panspermia is
incredibly weak. The only comparable inference that is even weaker is
one that looks outside of this natural reality for its causal agency.
That kind of assertion is an affront to logic.

[Ray Martinez]

He's your evo brother, not mine.

Ray (species immutabilist)

[Ray Martinez]

Are you suggesting interventionism is on par with DPism?

And unlike Peter, I make myself available to answer most questions in
a timely and faithful manner. I've been asking Peter for months two
basic questions: where he obtained the idea that extraterrestrial life
exists or existed, and what exactly justifies an inference to DPism?
It appears unless I somehow obtain a subpoena Peter won't answer.

That said, my logic stands as tested and ready for testing.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

CORRECTION: Not "my logic stands as tested and ready for testing," but
my logic stands as displayed (unlike Peter's logic).

Ray

[Robert Camp]

Assuming you're speaking of some sort of divine interventionism, of
course not.

No matter how weak an inference panspermia may be, it still exists as
a natural alternative. As such it can, in principle, be assigned some
degree of probability (however meager). The probability of an
inference to transcendental agency is literally incalculable, even in
principle, and is therefore not even in the same ballpark.

There is a measure of logic to panspermia, there is no logic at all in
what you call interventionism.

> And unlike Peter, I make myself available to answer most questions in
> a timely and faithful manner. I've been asking Peter for months two
> basic questions: where he obtained the idea that extraterrestrial life
> exists or existed, and what exactly justifies an inference to DPism?
> It appears unless I somehow obtain a subpoena Peter won't answer.

Nyikos' well-known problems aside, you should know very well that
stalking seldom produces results. You've had people following you
around asking about your book for years. Do you feel they are
justified when they complain that you haven't put up?

> That said, my logic stands as tested and ready for testing.

Ahah, yes...no matter how many times I've heard it, you can still
crack me up with that one. Now how about a pollock joke?

[Dana Tweedy]

The problem is, that your "logic" is not compatible with objective
reality. You seem to think that if you don't like something bad
enough, it becomes false, and if you like something well enough, it
becomes true. Worse, you seem to think this wishful thinking is the
same thing as "logic'.

> Yes,
> so very true. The Creation/Evolution debate is about logic and nothing
> else. I can and will prove this point when I publish.

Actually, as you've shown, the "debate" is not about logic, a subject
you know nothing about, but emotion. You reject evolution for purely
emotional, subjective, and non logical reasons. If you ever publish
anything, it will be the same.

>
> Now tell me Dana: What kind of logic posits space aliens as
> responsible for biological First Cause?

First of all, you should realize that no one here is proposing that
"space aliens" are responsible for the biological first cause. As I
understand it, Mr. Nyikos is promoting the that idea that panspermia is
responsible for the first life on Earth, not the first life in the
universe.

Personally, I find that speculation to be rather weakly supported,
and highly unlikely, but it's not actually illogical. The idea that
life began elsewhere in the universe, and brought to Earth by space
travelers is at least a very remote possibility, and is at least as
logically supported as any other such speculation.

> Isn't the impossibility of
> abiogenesis seen clearly?

No, it's not. No one has ever established that abiogenesis is
impossible. Why do you claim it's "seen clearly"? Can you point to
any scientific finding that indicates that naturally occurring
abiogenesis on Earth is not possible?

DJT

[Ray Martinez]

Where did any scientifically minded person obtain the idea that
extraterrestrial life exists or existed? Identify evidence that could
be inferred to support an extraterrestrial cause? Of course my
question is rhetorical.

> As such it can, in principle, be assigned some
> degree of probability (however meager).

In every respect, classic question begging. The degree of meager
probability is throwaway; what is left is an assumption of existence.

> The probability of an
> inference to transcendental agency is literally incalculable, even in
> principle, and is therefore not even in the same ballpark.

Above you wrote: "Assuming you're speaking of some sort of divine
interventionism, of course not," which is now explained to mean, as I
suspected, that DPism is still infinitely more rational than Divine
interventionism.

Based on the fact that science rejects all extraterrestrial claims,
your "degree of probability" generosity is arbitrary and groundless.

> There is a measure of logic to panspermia, there is no logic at all in
> what you call interventionism.

You're obviously granting DPism an honorary degree (of probability or
possibility) based only on a preexisting bias against interventionism.
Victorian Creationism was, at one time, the scientific establishment.
Their logic said design implies Designer. What's the logic of DPism?
Answer: Abiogenesis is impossible so space aliens-did-it?

> > And unlike Peter, I make myself available to answer most questions in
> > a timely and faithful manner. I've been asking Peter for months two
> > basic questions: where he obtained the idea that extraterrestrial life
> > exists or existed, and what exactly justifies an inference to DPism?
> > It appears unless I somehow obtain a subpoena Peter won't answer.
>
> Nyikos' well-known problems aside, you should know very well that
> stalking seldom produces results. You've had people following you
> around asking about your book for years. Do you feel they are
> justified when they complain that you haven't put up?

Hardly the same. Let's not lose sight of the fact that I was after
Peter to answer some basic FAQ questions.

> > That said, my logic stands as tested and ready for testing.
>
> Ahah, yes...no matter how many times I've heard it, you can still
> crack me up with that one. Now how about a pollock joke?

I posted a correction message upthread (fact check and confirm):

"CORRECTION: Not 'my logic stands as tested and ready for testing,'

but my logic stands as displayed (unlike Peter's logic)."

And by the way Robert you remain on-the-run concerning the issue of
the Dawkins quote. Your logic is indefensible.

Ray

[Dana Tweedy]

He seems to be suggesting that "interventionism" is much less logical
than "DPism". At least "DPism" is potentially testable, and
falsifiable.

>
> And unlike Peter, I make myself available to answer most questions in
> a timely and faithful manner.

Except when you run away, like you always do....

> I've been asking Peter for months two
> basic questions: where he obtained the idea that extraterrestrial life
> exists or existed,

Why would that matter, Ray?

> and what exactly justifies an inference to DPism?

whatever the reason, an inference of "DPism" is infinitely more
testable, and falsifiable than appealing to a supernatural being.

> It appears unless I somehow obtain a subpoena Peter won't answer.

Just like you won't answer the question of: Where has anyone ever
observed a supernatural creation event?

>
> That said, my logic stands as tested and ready for testing.

Ray, what you have is wishful thinking, absurd assumptions, and
inability to reason. Logic just isn't involved.


DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

One can obtain that idea from the fact that life on Earth exists. If
life exists on Earth, there is a possibility that life exists elsewhere
in the universe. The conditions the Earth exists under is hardly
unique in the universe. The sun is just one of billions of ordinary
stars. Planets are not particularly rare, as modern astronomy has
indicated.

> Identify evidence that could
> be inferred to support an extraterrestrial cause?

The possibility that life exists elsewhere in the universe is different
from claiming a "extraterrestrial cause" for life on Earth. There is a
great deal more evidence that supports the idea of extraterrestrial life
than would support an idea of interstellar space travel. That life
exists somewhere other than Earth is fairly likely. That such life has
found a way to travel the vast distances between stars is much less
likely.

The problem is, Ray, that you seem to think that an "extraterrestrial
cause" of life on Earth is less likely than a supernatural cause. In
terms of objective reality, a extraterrestrial cause is much more likely
than appealing to a supernatural one. That said, Extraterrestrial life
seeding the Earth is extremely unlikely.

> Of course my
> question is rhetorical.

Of course, your question has an answer you don't want to contemplate.

>
>> As such it can, in principle, be assigned some
>> degree of probability (however meager).
>
> In every respect, classic question begging.

Ray, do you even know what "begging the question" means?

> The degree of meager
> probability is throwaway; what is left is an assumption of existence.

The same way you assume the existence of your own supernatural cause.
The difference is there is some, if vanishingly small evidence that life
on other planets is physically possible. You don't even have that.

>
>> The probability of an
>> inference to transcendental agency is literally incalculable, even in
>> principle, and is therefore not even in the same ballpark.
>
> Above you wrote: "Assuming you're speaking of some sort of divine
> interventionism, of course not," which is now explained to mean, as I
> suspected, that DPism is still infinitely more rational than Divine
> interventionism.

Which is correct. As a scientific concept, panspermia is more rational
than appealing to the supernatural.

>
> Based on the fact that science rejects all extraterrestrial claims,
> your "degree of probability" generosity is arbitrary and groundless.

Science does not reject all extraterrestrial claims. It simply has not
found any such claims that are well supported by the evidence.
Potentially, someone could one day produce such evidence.

>
>> There is a measure of logic to panspermia, there is no logic at all in
>> what you call interventionism.
>
> You're obviously granting DPism an honorary degree (of probability or
> possibility) based only on a preexisting bias against interventionism.

No, "interventionism" is just not a scientific idea. Panspermia,
however little evidence supports it is at least falslifiable, and
testable. Supernatural claims are not.

> Victorian Creationism was, at one time, the scientific establishment.

No, it was a religious belief. It always was, and always will be.

> Their logic said design implies Designer.

There is a massive hole in that "logic". One can't assume a designer
just from the outward appearance of design. The appearance of design
can be produced by natural processes that lack any intentions, or
capacity for cognition. Therefore seeing the appearance of design, one
would be committing a logical fallacy to assume a designer.

> What's the logic of DPism?

The logic is that life exists on Earth, and the conditions that exist on
Earth are most probably not unique in the universe. Therefore, it's
possible that life exists elsewhere, and was brought to Earth before
there was life. Unlikely, yes. Illogical, no.

> Answer: Abiogenesis is impossible so space aliens-did-it?

Well, your own "logic" is that abiogenesis contradicts your personal
religious assumptions, so a supernatural being, from beyond observable
reality must have done it.

Abiogenesis, is not impossible in either case. That is your own,
unsupported, and illogical assumption.

>
>>> And unlike Peter, I make myself available to answer most questions in
>>> a timely and faithful manner. I've been asking Peter for months two
>>> basic questions: where he obtained the idea that extraterrestrial life
>>> exists or existed, and what exactly justifies an inference to DPism?
>>> It appears unless I somehow obtain a subpoena Peter won't answer.
>>
>> Nyikos' well-known problems aside, you should know very well that
>> stalking seldom produces results. You've had people following you
>> around asking about your book for years. Do you feel they are
>> justified when they complain that you haven't put up?
>
> Hardly the same. Let's not lose sight of the fact that I was after
> Peter to answer some basic FAQ questions.

Let's not lose the fact that you've run from many basic questions as
well. Pot, kettle, black.

>
>>> That said, my logic stands as tested and ready for testing.
>>
>> Ahah, yes...no matter how many times I've heard it, you can still
>> crack me up with that one. Now how about a pollock joke?
>
> I posted a correction message upthread (fact check and confirm):

Your correction message still assumes your position has any logic.

>
> "CORRECTION: Not 'my logic stands as tested and ready for testing,'
> but my logic stands as displayed (unlike Peter's logic)."

Ray, you have never displayed ANY logic that can't be described as
"insane".

>
> And by the way Robert you remain on-the-run concerning the issue of
> the Dawkins quote. Your logic is indefensible.

So, why are you running away all this time, Ray?


DJT

[Thrinaxodon]

There is no such thing, as an "evo brother". Evolution, is the changes
of allele frequencies within a population. And, evolution has done
great contributions to the medical field. No, evolution has brought
significant contributions to the medical field, creationism hasn't.

--

Thrinaxodon
A cynodont in a kitchen.

[Robert Camp]

<snip>

> > > > > Now tell me Dana: What kind of logic posits space aliens as
> > > > > responsible for biological First Cause? Isn't the impossibility of
> > > > > abiogenesis seen clearly?
>
> > > > At this point in time the logic of an inference to panspermia is
> > > > incredibly weak. The only comparable inference that is even weaker is
> > > > one that looks outside of this natural reality for its causal agency.
> > > > That kind of assertion is an affront to logic.
>
> > > Are you suggesting interventionism is on par with DPism?
>
> > Assuming you're speaking of some sort of divine interventionism, of
> > course not.
>
> > No matter how weak an inference panspermia may be, it still exists as
> > a natural alternative.
>
> Where did any scientifically minded person obtain the idea that
> extraterrestrial life exists or existed?

I never said that ETs exist or existed. I said an inference to ETs is
a live, naturalistic alternative. We know that natural biological
intelligence exists in this universe. This means an inference to
similar non-human agents as an explanation for some particular
phenomenon has analogical merit. It breaks no rules of logic, it
doesn't ask that we accept anything on faith.

The point, which you so conveniently miss [1], is not that there is
evidence for panspermia, it's that there's no ontological reason there
cannot be evidence for panspermia.

> Identify evidence that could be inferred to support an extraterrestrial cause?

If you mean analogical support for such an inference - The existence
of terrestrial cause.
If you mean hypothetical evidence of alien agency - Radio signals from
another planet.
If you mean actual evidence of alien agency - I know of none.

And so...?

> Of course my question is rhetorical.

And as such indicates you assume your very clueless position [2]. You
never learn, do you?

> > As such it can, in principle, be assigned some
> > degree of probability (however meager).
>
> In every respect, classic question begging.

In *no* respect is there any question begging going on. Do you simply
parrot phrases you've heard elsewhere [3]?

> The degree of meager probability is throwaway; what is left is an assumption of existence.

None of this is accurate. None of it follows from anything I've said.
I have at no point and in no way assumed that ETs exist. Please learn
to read for comprehension [4].

> > The probability of an
> > inference to transcendental agency is literally incalculable, even in
> > principle, and is therefore not even in the same ballpark.

> Above you wrote: "Assuming you're speaking of some sort of divine
> interventionism, of course not," which is now explained to mean, as I
> suspected, that DPism is still infinitely more rational than Divine
> interventionism.

On this, at least, you are correct (assuming a casual use of
"infinitely"). Let's put it even more simply - DP can be a rational
hypothesis, divine interventionism cannot.

> Based on the fact that science rejects all extraterrestrial claims,
> your "degree of probability" generosity is arbitrary and groundless.

When you base your assertions on fictitious "facts," your conclusions
come out looking pretty silly [5].

> > There is a measure of logic to panspermia, there is no logic at all in
> > what you call interventionism.
>
> You're obviously granting DPism an honorary degree (of probability or
> possibility) based only on a preexisting bias against interventionism.

This is not obviously true. In fact it's obviously not true.

> Victorian Creationism was, at one time, the scientific establishment.
> Their logic said design implies Designer. What's the logic of DPism?
> Answer: Abiogenesis is impossible so space aliens-did-it?

I don't know whether it's because you can't, or simply won't, think
clearly enough to understand what I'm saying, but I tire of having to
continually correct your misapprehensions [6]. I'll just note, again,
that I'm not, and never have, defended an inference to DP as an
explanation for any particular effect. I've simply defended its
hypothetical explanatory validity, especially in comparison to
interventionism, which has no validity at all.

Try to understand that I'm making an epistemological argument, not an
empirical one.

> > > And unlike Peter, I make myself available to answer most questions in
> > > a timely and faithful manner. I've been asking Peter for months two
> > > basic questions: where he obtained the idea that extraterrestrial life
> > > exists or existed, and what exactly justifies an inference to DPism?
> > > It appears unless I somehow obtain a subpoena Peter won't answer.
>
> > Nyikos' well-known problems aside, you should know very well that
> > stalking seldom produces results. You've had people following you
> > around asking about your book for years. Do you feel they are
> > justified when they complain that you haven't put up?
>
> Hardly the same. Let's not lose sight of the fact that I was after
> Peter to answer some basic FAQ questions.

It's very much the same. And there's nothing about the "fact" you wish
not to lose sight of that mitigates the similarity.

> > > That said, my logic stands as tested and ready for testing.
>
> > Ahah, yes...no matter how many times I've heard it, you can still
> > crack me up with that one. Now how about a pollock joke?
>
> I posted a correction message upthread (fact check and confirm):
>
> "CORRECTION: Not 'my logic stands as tested and ready for testing,'
> but my logic stands as displayed (unlike Peter's logic)."
>
> And by the way Robert you remain on-the-run concerning the issue of
> the Dawkins quote. Your logic is indefensible.

Frankly, I have no clue what it is I might be "on-the-run"* from, but
feel free to resurrect whatever unfinished business you think
important.

( *[1-6] As you may have noted, I've included handy numbers to help
you understand the kind of illogic and irrationality that causes
people to tire of conversing with you and eventually take a break. One
can only pound one's head against the wall for so long...)

[Ray Martinez]

This is exactly where your defective logic enters the fray. You're
saying when one speaks hypothetically one is then shielded (which
isn't always true). But you didn't speak hypothetically. You said the
inference, however weak, "still exists as a natural alternative" (RC).
Your inference claim, as written, presupposes explicit existence. And
I'm sure you would agree: existence of this particular causal agent is
the whole entire ballgame.

Robert Camp's conception: reality infers ET causal agent.

Existence is, like I said, explicitly assumed.

> I said an inference to ETs is
> a live, naturalistic alternative.

Agreed, which presupposes explicit existence. The inference to a ET
agent assumes existence of the agent.

> We know that natural biological
> intelligence exists in this universe. This means an inference to
> similar non-human agents as an explanation for some particular
> phenomenon has analogical merit. It breaks no rules of logic, it
> doesn't ask that we accept anything on faith.

Total rubbish. How is it that you can't see that ETs are assumed to
exist or have existed? Of course you've baited-and-switched (your only
out).

> The point, which you so conveniently miss [1], is not that there is
> evidence for panspermia, it's that there's no ontological reason there
> cannot be evidence for panspermia.

Speaking ontologically assumes existence as well. Existence of ET life
is what is in dispute. Again, you seem to think that certain concepts
grant an exemption. This belief is entirely subjective and absurd.

> > Identify evidence that could be inferred to support an extraterrestrial cause?
>
> If you mean analogical support for such an inference - The existence
> of terrestrial cause.

Why say "terrestrial" when I said "extraterrestrial"? Of course my
question is rhetorical.

> If you mean hypothetical evidence of alien agency - Radio signals from
> another planet.
> If you mean actual evidence of alien agency - I know of none.

Then what justifies any assumption or inference to an ET agent? Since
you can only reiterate, round and round we go. You're acting like
Peter.

> And so...?

Again, you actually think certain concepts, once invoked, shield you
from my criticism. Since neither you nor Peter can offer ONE thing,
object or phenomenon that supports alien existence, your hypothetical
arguments, justifying the assumption of existence, beg the question.

I'm ignoring the remainder because the same insults intelligence. Your
points seek to shame your opponent into capitulation. Your thinking
and logic is shameful, not mine. My thinking assumes existence; your
thinking alternates between existence and non-existence in a
capricious and arbitrary manner, which is semi or somewhat anti-
reality, also known as delusional thinking.

Ray

[pnyikos]

No, I just don't involve myself in the fine points of how it all comes
together in neo-Darwinian theory. What I know about it doesn't help to
make it possible to answer Cracraft's question.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On May 1, 5:16锟絘m, Thrinaxodon <biolo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 30, 10:18锟絧m, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > reality of common descent. 锟絀 am with Cracraft on this one,....

>
> > [....snip....]
>
> > So you reject the genetical theory (replication error and selection)
> > while accepting common descent? Very unique (and impossible) position.
> > The latter cannot be true unless the former occurs.
>
> > Ray
>
> Okay, Ray? He accepts a discredited version of evolution, "neo-
> Lamarkism".

You should never trust Ray for information about what my positions on
things are. He's a most unreliable witness.

See my reply to him just now for a much more mundane explanation of
what I said earlier.

> Strikes my silly, but I deal with people, like the Nyikos
> asshole, or you.

I'm sorry you think of me as an asshole. But at least it's better
than thinking of me as a pushover about whom anyone can make up any
wild story they please, without me trying to do anything about it.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

What do you say to the frequent creationist rejoinder, "that's
microevolution, with which I have no quarrel" (or words to that
effect)?

Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

That would be you.

[Ray Martinez]

Your answer is almost unbelievable!

A solid basis exists to reject evolutionary theory, but you don't! You
just accept, by blind faith, that there are unifying points of fact,
and that they are valid!. And your admission about Cracraft's very old
question probably explains why Harshman bailed; he can't answer
either!

Ray

[Dana Tweedy]

On 5/3/13 2:34 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On May 2, 5:50 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> On Apr 30, 10:18 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:

snip

>>
>>> So you reject the genetical theory (replication error and selection)
>>> while accepting common descent?
>>
>> No, I just don't involve myself in the fine points of how it all comes
>> together in neo-Darwinian theory. What I know about it doesn't help to
>> make it possible to answer Cracraft's question.
>>
>> Peter Nyikos
>
> Your answer is almost unbelievable!
>
> A solid basis exists to reject evolutionary theory, but you don't!

What is that "solid basis", Ray? Note your own goofy ideas are not a
solid basis.

> You
> just accept, by blind faith, that there are unifying points of fact,
> and that they are valid!

The validity of evolutionary theory has been attested to by science for
over 150 years, Ray. No faith is needed.

> And your admission about Cracraft's very old
> question probably explains why Harshman bailed; he can't answer
> either!

Why bother? You'd just ignore the answer anyway.


DJT

[Mitchell Coffey]

Where do you get the conclusion that Nyikos is a neo-Lamarckian? I've never seen any evidence for such a claim.

Mitchell Coffey

[Mitchell Coffey]

Peter Nyikos does not posit that space aliens are responsible for biological first cause. Come on, Ray, he's explained his ideas to you.

Mitchell Coffey

[Mitchell Coffey]

On Tuesday, April 30, 2013 2:54:45 PM UTC-4, pnyikos wrote:
> By "cladists like Harshman" I mean what I call "cladophiles" --
>
> cladists who will not tolerate paraphyletic taxa in formal
>
> classifications.
>
>
>
> "Paraphyletic" is a term for taxa like the traditional Reptilia which
>
> did not include all of its descendants. [The old Reptilia excluded
>
> mammals and birds.] A sizable percentage of taxa used by
>
> paleontologists like Romer, particularly on the level of families and
>
> subfamilies, were paraphyletic.
>
>
>
> Here is a reply to part of a post by the ardent cladophile John
>
> Harshman, from the discussion,
>
> Subject: Re: Paraphyletic taxon =? grade? Re: Turtle genome sequence
>
> and analysis
>
>
>
> It revolves around a 1981 article by Joel Cracraft:
>
>
>

> http://research.amnh.org/vz/ornithology/pdfs/1981e.Pattern%20process%20in%20paleobiology.pdf

How is an out-of-the-mainstream opinion of one scientist, accomplished in the relevant field, "an acute embarrassment to neo-Darwinists?"

Mitchell Coffey

[John Harshman]

It isn't, and I don't even see it as being out of the mainstream. He's
merely pointing out the difficulty of finding evidence for the mechanism
responsible for an event that happened a long, long time ago.

[Mitchell Coffey]

But that was my guess regarding how Nyikos saw it. (Either that, or he didn't know the correct meaning of "axiomatic", which is highly unlikely.) My original jot was: "How is an opinion of one scientist 'an acute embarrassment to neo-Darwinists'?" I figured if I left it at that, Nyikos would make the issue Cracraft's credentials and/or whether his opinion was out of the mainstream, or maybe some other irrelevancy I hadn't thought of. Peter often avoids on topic responses, while demanding answers to his most drooling "questions."

Anyway, if Cracraft is merely pointing out that just-so stories don't as a rule demonstrate how the giraffe got its neck, then he's trivially mainstream. Just-so stories answer Darwin's fundamental question: in this case, could the giraffe have gotten its neck by neo-Darwinian means.

Mitchell

[John Harshman]

As usual, Peter has assumed, incorrectly, that his point is so obvious
that there's no need to actually state it. We might continue to guess at
what it is, or we might not.

[Rolf]

"Dana Tweedy" <reddf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1dadnUYxPeFrwRnM...@giganews.com...

You are damn right, you might as well argue with a doorknob.

But I'd like to ask Ray a few questions about the existence of the
itjaritjari (Notoryctes typhlops),
that is well explained by evolution but to me seems absurd from a
creationistic pow. But creationism isn't about anything but pure faith and
no regard for facts and evidence.

Rolf

> DJT
>

[Paul J Gans]

I suspect that we will have to hear from the geologists first
as to the actual conditions on early earth. Only then will
the biology and chemistry types have a chance to do their thing.

If experience is any guide, that will be done and not in the
too distant future -- say 2050 for the geology and 2100 for
the biochemistry. And I think it may well be sooner.

That's my speculation on all this.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[Ray Martinez]

On May 4, 6:24�am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On 5/3/13 10:53 PM, Mitchell Coffey wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Friday, May 3, 2013 11:08:22 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 5/3/13 8:00 PM, Mitchell Coffey wrote:
>
> >>> On Tuesday, April 30, 2013 2:54:45 PM UTC-4, pnyikos wrote:
>
> >>>> By "cladists like Harshman" I mean what I call "cladophiles" --
>
> >>>> cladists who will not tolerate paraphyletic taxa in formal
>
> >>>> classifications.
>
> >>>> "Paraphyletic" is a term for taxa like the traditional Reptilia which
>
> >>>> did not include all of its descendants. �[The old Reptilia excluded
>
> >>>> mammals and birds.] A sizable percentage of taxa used by
>
> >>>> paleontologists like Romer, particularly on the level of families and
>
> >>>> subfamilies, were paraphyletic.
>
> >>>> Here is a reply to part of a post by the ardent cladophile John
>
> >>>> Harshman, from the discussion,
>
> >>>> Subject: Re: Paraphyletic taxon =? grade? Re: Turtle genome sequence
>
> >>>> and analysis
>
> >>>> It revolves around a 1981 article by Joel Cracraft:
>

> >>>>http://research.amnh.org/vz/ornithology/pdfs/1981e.Pattern%20process%...

You've made the exact same point to Joaozinho666 numerous times.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

This comment reveals that you're inexcusably ignorant as to what
"biological First Cause" means. These debates presuppose participants
to possess a certain amount of relevant knowledge. I suggest that you
recognize your limitations and refrain from posting until such a time.

Ray

[Burkhard]

Why should any person know the meaning of a term you made up yourself?

[John Harshman]

True. Somehow it never helps.

[Ray Martinez]

On May 4, 2:31�pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:

[....]

> > > > Now tell me Dana: What kind of logic posits space aliens as
> > > > responsible for biological First Cause? Isn't the impossibility of
> > > > abiogenesis seen clearly?
>
> > > > Ray
>
> > > Peter Nyikos does not posit that space aliens are responsible for biological first cause. Come on, Ray, he's explained his ideas to you.
>
> > > Mitchell Coffey
>
> > This comment reveals that you're inexcusably ignorant as to what
> > "biological First Cause" means. These debates presuppose participants
> > to possess a certain amount of relevant knowledge. I suggest that you
> > recognize your limitations and refrain from posting until such a time.
>
> > Ray
>
> Why should any person know the meaning of a term you made up yourself?

http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/search-results?freetext="First
Cause"

The link above provides 50 examples of "First Cause."

http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/search-results?pagesize=50&sort=date-ascending&freetext=%22First%20Cause%22&pageno=2

The link above provides 32 more examples.

[Note: All 82 examples may not be talking about biological First
Cause.]

From, for example, the top or first link:

"This very old argument from the existence of suffering against the
existence of an intelligent First Cause seems to me a strong one;
whereas, as just remarked, the presence of much suffering agrees well
with the view that all organic beings have been developed through
variation and natural selection" (p. 311).

And....

"When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having
an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I
deserve to be called a Theist" (pgs 312-13).

I have been condescending to ignorance by including the word
"biological." Knowledgeable people understand that in the context of
biology "First Cause" is talking about the agent that produced the
first life form on Earth because everyone already knows that life
outside of our atmosphere has not been found.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On May 4, 3:26�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 4, 2:31 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> [....]
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > Now tell me Dana: What kind of logic posits space aliens as
> > > > > responsible for biological First Cause? Isn't the impossibility of
> > > > > abiogenesis seen clearly?
>
> > > > > Ray
>
> > > > Peter Nyikos does not posit that space aliens are responsible for biological first cause. Come on, Ray, he's explained his ideas to you.
>
> > > > Mitchell Coffey
>
> > > This comment reveals that you're inexcusably ignorant as to what
> > > "biological First Cause" means. These debates presuppose participants
> > > to possess a certain amount of relevant knowledge. I suggest that you
> > > recognize your limitations and refrain from posting until such a time.
>
> > > Ray
>
> > Why should any person know the meaning of a term you made up yourself?
>
> http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/search-results?freetext="First
> Cause"

CORRECTION:

The link above is the wrong link; try this one:

http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/search-results?pagesize=50&sort=date-ascending&freetext=%22First+Cause%22&pageno=1

Ray

> The link above provides 50 examples of "First Cause."
>

> http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/search-results?pagesize=50&sort=d...

[Dana Tweedy]

He's not the one who got it wrong, Ray.

> These debates presuppose participants
> to possess a certain amount of relevant knowledge.

Which you lack, if you think 'biological first cause' means only life on
Earth, in regards to panspermia.....

> I suggest that you
> recognize your limitations and refrain from posting until such a time.

Would that Ray take his own advice....


DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

On 5/4/13 4:26 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On May 4, 2:31 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> [....]
>
>>>>> Now tell me Dana: What kind of logic posits space aliens as
>>>>> responsible for biological First Cause? Isn't the impossibility of
>>>>> abiogenesis seen clearly?
>>
>>>>> Ray
>>
>>>> Peter Nyikos does not posit that space aliens are responsible for biological first cause. Come on, Ray, he's explained his ideas to you.
>>
>>>> Mitchell Coffey
>>
>>> This comment reveals that you're inexcusably ignorant as to what
>>> "biological First Cause" means. These debates presuppose participants
>>> to possess a certain amount of relevant knowledge. I suggest that you
>>> recognize your limitations and refrain from posting until such a time.
>>
>>> Ray
>>
>> Why should any person know the meaning of a term you made up yourself?
>
> http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/search-results?freetext="First
> Cause"
>
> The link above provides 50 examples of "First Cause."

Not "biological first cause", though.

>
> http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/search-results?pagesize=50&sort=date-ascending&freetext=%22First%20Cause%22&pageno=2
>
> The link above provides 32 more examples.

Not the phrase you used...

>
> [Note: All 82 examples may not be talking about biological First
> Cause.]
>
> From, for example, the top or first link:
>
> "This very old argument from the existence of suffering against the
> existence of an intelligent First Cause seems to me a strong one;
> whereas, as just remarked, the presence of much suffering agrees well
> with the view that all organic beings have been developed through
> variation and natural selection" (p. 311).
>
> And....
>
> "When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having
> an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I
> deserve to be called a Theist" (pgs 312-13).
>
> I have been condescending to ignorance by including the word
> "biological."

Making it different, and showing the ignorance is all yours.


> Knowledgeable people

I.e. people who are not Ray.

> understand that in the context of
> biology "First Cause" is talking about the agent that produced the
> first life form on Earth because everyone already knows that life
> outside of our atmosphere has not been found.

Which is not the point. If one is suggesting panspermia as the cause of
life on Earth, the "agent" that produced the first life began somewhere
other than Earth, so it's not the "biological first cause".


DJT



>
> Ray
>

[Burkhard]

On May 4, 11:26�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 4, 2:31 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> [....]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > Now tell me Dana: What kind of logic posits space aliens as
> > > > > responsible for biological First Cause? Isn't the impossibility of
> > > > > abiogenesis seen clearly?
>
> > > > > Ray
>
> > > > Peter Nyikos does not posit that space aliens are responsible for biological first cause. Come on, Ray, he's explained his ideas to you.
>
> > > > Mitchell Coffey
>
> > > This comment reveals that you're inexcusably ignorant as to what
> > > "biological First Cause" means. These debates presuppose participants
> > > to possess a certain amount of relevant knowledge. I suggest that you
> > > recognize your limitations and refrain from posting until such a time.
>
> > > Ray
>
> > Why should any person know the meaning of a term you made up yourself?
>
> http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/search-results?freetext="First
> Cause"
>
> The link above provides 50 examples of "First Cause."

And not a single one to "biological first cause"

>
> http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/search-results?pagesize=50&sort=d...

>
> The link above provides 32 more examples.
>
> [Note: All 82 examples may not be talking about biological First
> Cause.]

Not a single one does. as a matter of fact

>
> From, for example, the top or first link:
>
> "This very old argument from the existence of suffering against the
> existence of an intelligent First Cause seems to me a strong one;
> whereas, as just remarked, the presence of much suffering agrees well
> with the view that all organic beings have been developed through
> variation and natural selection" (p. 311).
>
> And....
>
> "When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having
> an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I
> deserve to be called a Theist" (pgs 312-13).
>
> I have been condescending to ignorance by including the word
> "biological." Knowledgeable people understand that in the context of
> biology "First Cause" is talking about the agent that produced the
> first life form on Earth because everyone already knows that life
> outside of our atmosphere has not been found.
>

Knowledgeable people, Ray, know the the term "first cause" has a very
specific meaning in philosophy and theology. It goes back (at least)
to Plato's "Laws", was more thoroughly discussed and given its
classical formulation by by Aristotle in his Book 12 of the
Metaphysics (who was ambivalent about it), incorporated in theology by
several Islamic scholars such as al-Ghazali, was transposed to
Christianity by Aquinas and has ever since seen quite a number of
refinements and reformulations. Present consensus by atheists and
theists alike that it is flawed beyond redemption, but with some
dissenting voices.(e.g. William Lane Craig, and possibly Swinburne)

What they all have in common though is a specific logic that tries to
build in infinite chain of causal explanations. Your term does not
allow for that type of argument, which render it use- and meaningless.
Which is why you won't find the term anywhere in the theological or
philosophical literature. By qualifying "first" with "biological" or
even worse "biological on earth", you crate a meaningless oxymoron,
similar to saying "The first person ever, yesterday" or "The first
crossing the line who was fifth"

[Ray Martinez]

On May 4, 4:28 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> On May 4, 11:26 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 4, 2:31 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > [....]
>
> > > > > > Now tell me Dana: What kind of logic posits space aliens as
> > > > > > responsible for biological First Cause? Isn't the impossibility of
> > > > > > abiogenesis seen clearly?
>
> > > > > > Ray
>
> > > > > Peter Nyikos does not posit that space aliens are responsible for biological first cause. Come on, Ray, he's explained his ideas to you.
>
> > > > > Mitchell Coffey
>
> > > > This comment reveals that you're inexcusably ignorant as to what
> > > > "biological First Cause" means. These debates presuppose participants
> > > > to possess a certain amount of relevant knowledge. I suggest that you
> > > > recognize your limitations and refrain from posting until such a time.
>
> > > > Ray
>
> > > Why should any person know the meaning of a term you made up yourself?
>
> >http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/search-results?freetext="First
> > Cause"
>
> > The link above provides 50 examples of "First Cause."
>
> And not a single one to "biological first cause"

The link is wrong; here is the link that provides the correct link:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/0d75e7e4dcbb0401?hl=en

> >http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/search-results?pagesize=50&sort=d...
>
> > The link above provides 32 more examples.
>
> > [Note: All 82 examples may not be talking about biological First
> > Cause.]
>
> Not a single one does. as a matter of fact

I've now provided abundant examples in relevant literature. Your
denial does not change the fact.

Total evasion of everything I wrote.

Once again:

"I have been condescending to ignorance by including the word
"biological." Knowledgeable people understand that in the context of
biology 'First Cause' is talking about the agent that produced the
first life form on Earth because everyone already knows that life

outside of our atmosphere has not been found" (Ray Martinez).

So the two links provide many examples of First Cause. I had to point
out context (biology) and I had to explain that said phrase (First
Cause) only meant life on Earth. I've now explained what First Cause
means because no evo present possessed even rudimentary knowledge.

*****NOTE: Neither link seems to take one to the page intended.
Everytime I paste the correct link it reverts to an incorrect link. Go
to darwin-online.org.uk and type "First Cause" in the website search
box. The 82 examples will then become available.*****

Ray

[Bill]

On May 5, 7:58 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> *****NOTE: Neither link seems to take one to the page intended.
> Everytime I paste the correct link it reverts to an incorrect link.

Haha. That's us, the evil atheist Darwinian conspiracy, aided and
abetted by a bunch of "theistic evolutionists" messing with your
computer. You'll never get the links to work, hahahahaha....



>
> Ray

[*Hemidactylus*]

Damn you Computer Nerd.

[Dana Tweedy]

Apparently Ray is just as knowledgeable about computers as he is about
everything else......


DJT

[Mitchell Coffey]

Bullshit, Jackass. I know was "biological First Cause" means in English. What does "biological First Cause" mean in your language?

Mitchell Coffey

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 05/04/2013 11:33 PM, Mitchell Coffey wrote:


[snip googlegroups mangled text]

> Bullshit, Jackass. I know was "biological First Cause" means in English. What does "biological First Cause" mean in your language?

Googling "biological first cause" seems to mostly result in links
pointing back to discussions here. That's odd.

Some links come from the evil derkeiler.com where Ray's doppleganger is
known to post.

Is "biological first cause" a neologism coined by Ray?

[Burkhard]

Of course it is. He picked up somewhere the expression "first cause",
and liked it as he saw some of the "big guys" brandishing it around,
so he started using it. But since he did not really understood what it
means, he thought he can simply add the "biological" qualifier to make
it about evolution - not realising that the resulting term is just
pretentious sounding gibberish for everybody with a modicum of
knowledge in philosophy or theology,

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Wed, 1 May 2013 19:15:06 -0400, Ray Martinez wrote
(in article
<fd1d934c-8c49-4785...@tz3g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>):

> On May 1, 2:16ï¿œam, Thrinaxodon <biolo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 30, 10:18ï¿œpm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 30, 2:18ï¿œpm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Apr 30, 3:10 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>

>>>>>> Peter Nyikos
>>>>>> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
>>>>>> University of South Carolinahttp://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
>>>>>> nyikos @ math.sc.edu
>>
>>>>> Peter: Did you forget that you're a neo-Darwinist as well? Why don't
>>>>> you answer Cracraft's question?
>>
>>>>> Ray
>>
>>>> I am not a neo-Darwinist, just someone who is convinced about the

>>>> reality of common descent. ï¿œI am with Cracraft on this one,....
>>
>>> [....snip....]
>>

>>> So you reject the genetical theory (replication error and selection)

>>> while accepting common descent? Very unique (and impossible) position.
>>> The latter cannot be true unless the former occurs.
>>
>>> Ray
>>
>> Okay, Ray? He accepts a discredited version of evolution, "neo-
>> Lamarkism". Strikes my silly, but I deal with people, like the Nyikos
>> asshole, or you.
>

> He's your evo brother, not mine.

1 there ain't no such animal as an 'evo brother'

2 if there were, Peter wouldn't be one, as he's a creationist, and a
dishonest one at that.

>
> Ray (species immutabilist)
>


--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Thu, 2 May 2013 20:55:01 -0400, pnyikos wrote
(in article
<d187a762-6097-446e...@r3g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>):

> I'm sorry you think of me as an asshole.

I doubt this. You put so much effort into being not merely an asshole but an
out loud, extreme, infected, prolapsed rectum that you must be proud of it.

[Ray Martinez]

> ....I know was "biological First Cause" means in English. What does "biological First Cause" mean in your language?
>
> Mitchell Coffey

Slightly upthread I wrote:

"I have been condescending to ignorance by including the word
'biological.' Knowledgeable people understand that in the context of
biology 'First Cause' is talking about the agent that produced the
first life form on Earth because everyone already knows that life
outside of our atmosphere has not been found" (Ray Martinez).

Way back when Peter first introduced his DP FAQ I wrote the words
"First Cause" in a response message. He immediately fired back that
DPism is not about how life began in the universe (outside of Earth's
atmosphere). In rebuttal I told him that the phrase "First Cause," in
relevant history of science literature, is only talking about how life
began on Earth because context is biological and because everyone
already knows life has not been found to exist outside of Earth's
atmosphere. Peter either didn't see what I wrote or he ignored. So
everytime I wrote "First Cause" in a message he would create the same
response about how DPism is not about how life began in the universe.

See, for example, Darwin's autobiography where he uses the phrase
"First Cause" at least two times. Both uses support what I say above:
context is biological and it is presupposed to be talking only about
Earth since life has not been found elsewhere in the universe. This is
the overall context and motivation for writing: "I have been

condescending to ignorance by including the word 'biological.'
Knowledgeable people understand that in the context of biology 'First
Cause' is talking about the agent that produced the first life form on
Earth because everyone already knows that life outside of our
atmosphere has not been found."

Ray

[Mitchell Coffey]

Possibly. But "biological," "first" and "cause" are all common words, so anyone fluent in English and knowledgeable of the context will know what "biological first cause" means.

Mitchell Coffey

[Mitchell Coffey]

You're quoting how Darwin and others have used the term "first cause," not "biological first cause." People fluent in English and aware of the context (DP) will know what the term means, which is not the meaning you have invented for it. You yourself are semi-literate and uneducated, and have no education in the "relevant history of science literature" and so would have no idea what "knowledgeable people understand."

Mitchell Coffey

[Burkhard]

You have failed to find a single use of the term in the literature, to
be more precise. and there are reasons for this, as I explained below
- it is a meaningless term. Nobody denies that there is a term "first
cause", that has a very specific meaning. As a result,unsurprisingly,
you find that term a lot in the literature, educated people are
supposed to know it. Some of the people who use it will be biologists,
but that does not make it a "biological first cause", any more than a
chemist talking about it makes it a chemical first cause, or a cook a
cooking first cause.

Only if in your vocabulary "evasion" and "destruction" are
synonymous.

>
> Once again:
>
> "I have been condescending to ignorance by including the word
> "biological."

No, you have been displaying ignorance by adding a qualifier to the
technical term "first cause" that makes it into gibberish

>Knowledgeable people understand that in the context of
> biology 'First Cause' is talking about the agent that produced the
> first life form on Earth because everyone already knows that life
> outside of our atmosphere has not been found" (Ray Martinez).
>

Citing your own mistakes is not rally a way to support your point.

> So the two links provide many examples of First Cause.

Yes, nobody denies that the term "first cause" exists in the history
of of ideas - I gave a couple of key writers above.

> I had to point
> out context (biology) and I had to explain that said phrase (First
> Cause) only meant life on Earth.

Only in your meaningless and made up term "biological first cause"

> I've now explained what First Cause
> means because no evo present possessed even rudimentary knowledge.
>

"Evos" seem by and large to be aware of the relevant part of the
history of ideas that you keep getting wrong, as your neologism
"biological first cause" shows.

[Nick Keighley]

On Apr 30, 7:54�pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> By "cladists like Harshman" I mean what I call "cladophiles" --
> cladists who will not tolerate paraphyletic taxa in formal
> classifications.

I used to subscribe to New Scientist but life got too busy and unread
ones began to pile up, so I cancelled the subscription. At this point
there were these wierd crazies who rather stridently were trying to
reform the whole biological clasification system (I heard rumours of
near punch ups over museum organisation). Time passed and I started to
read New Scientist again. The lunatics has taken over the asylum.

:-)

[Thrinaxodon]

On May 5, 12:33�pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> On Thu, 2 May 2013 20:55:01 -0400, pnyikos wrote
> (in article

> <d187a762-6097-446e-9f7d-8237d99b7...@r3g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>):

>
> > I'm sorry you think of me as an asshole.
>
> I doubt this. You put so much effort into being not merely an asshole but an
> out loud, extreme, infected, prolapsed rectum that you must be proud of it.
>
> --
> email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

He's an intellectual dropout, and an ass-banger.

[Burkhard]

On 6 May, 11:58, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

I don't think "lunatic" is a clade.Rather a massive example of
convergent evolution

[jillery]

On Mon, 6 May 2013 05:49:04 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

Lunacy is an emergent property.

[John Harshman]

And proud of it, man.

[Burkhard]

On 6 May, 14:45, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 6 May 2013 05:49:04 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk>

property is theft

[pnyikos]

On May 5, 12:31�pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> On Wed, 1 May 2013 19:15:06 -0400, Ray Martinez wrote
> (in article

> <fd1d934c-8c49-4785-bebf-72144a0d4...@tz3g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>):
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 1, 2:16 am, Thrinaxodon <biolo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Apr 30, 10:18 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> >>>> reality of common descent. I am with Cracraft on this one,....

>
> >>> [....snip....]
>
> >>> So you reject the genetical theory (replication error and selection)
> >>> while accepting common descent? Very unique (and impossible) position.
> >>> The latter cannot be true unless the former occurs.
>
> >>> Ray
>
> >> Okay, Ray? He accepts a discredited version of evolution, "neo-
> >> Lamarkism". Strikes my silly, but I deal with people, like the Nyikos
> >> asshole, or you.
>
> > He's your evo brother, not mine.
>
> 1 there ain't no such animal as an 'evo brother'

What shameless hypocrisy! You don't allow Ray to use terms that make
sense, while you ride roughshod over the real meanings of words,
substituting meanings that fly in the face of common sense. See
below.

> 2 if there were, Peter wouldn't be one, as he's a creationist, and a
> dishonest one at that.

Admit it, you pathological liar: you use a dishonest *ad hoc*
definition of "creationist" whereby everyone who suggests that earth
life may be due to directed panspermia is a "creationist" including
that atheist Nobel Laureate, Francis Crick.

The only reason you aren't laughed out of talk.origins is that some
heavyweights, including Michael Coffey and Bob Casanova, are in thrall
to you, while Paul Gans, jillery, and Ron O are allies of yours.

[I could be wrong about that breakdown; Gans might be in thrall to
you also, for instance.]

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On May 5, 12:33�pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> On Thu, 2 May 2013 20:55:01 -0400, pnyikos wrote
> (in article

> <d187a762-6097-446e-9f7d-8237d99b7...@r3g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>):

>
> > I'm sorry you think of me as an asshole.
>
> I doubt this.

I think you are being blatantly insincere. You put so much effort
into being an asshole, that you must surely realize that I am a
completely different person than you are.

Oh. Wait. Maybe being an asshole is something that has naturally
evolved in your character since early childhood, so that the following
example of verbal diarrhea from you comes to your mind with hardly any
effort at all:

> You put so much effort into being not merely an asshole but an
> out loud, extreme, infected, prolapsed rectum that you must be proud of it.

The above is just another example of your shameless dishonesty, after
having deleted the words that help to delineate what my behavior is
*really* all about. Here are those words again:

__________________ begin repost_______

But at least it's better
than thinking of me as a pushover about whom anyone can make up any
wild story they please, without me trying to do anything about it.

============end of repost

And you are the prime example of someone who, while showing too little
imagination to make up wild stories about me (except in one case,
where you fell flat on your face) do hurl wild, defamatory insults at
me in the majority of replies you make to my posts.

TEST OF O'SHEA SIMULATING SOFTWARE :-)

> And you are the prime example of someone who,
> while showing too little imagination to make up
> wild stories about me (except in one case,
> where you fell flat on your face) do hurl wild,
> defamatory insults at me in the majority
> of replies you make to my posts.

Liar.

--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

END OF TEST :-) :-)


Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Mon, 6 May 2013 08:01:21 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

and theft is loss, which means they lost their minds.

[jillery]

Michael Coffey? Perhaps he means his brother Mitchell.

>and Bob Casanova, are in thrall
>to you, while Paul Gans, jillery, and Ron O are allies of yours.
>
>[I could be wrong about that breakdown; Gans might be in thrall to
>you also, for instance.]

And here is a classic example of his understanding of "on-topic".
Where is the tit-for-tat "equivalence" so many claim in his defense?

[pnyikos]

And your evidence for this bizarre claim is....?

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On May 1, 1:32�pm, erik simpson <eastside.e...@gmail.com> wrote:
> All right, I'll bite.
>
> Prof. Nyikos:
>
> What IS your 'big question'?
>
> What do YOU mean by 'neo-Darwinist' (that you are not)?
>
> If paraphyletic taxa are legitimate systematic groups, what do YOU mean by 'taxon'?

species, genus, family, order, class, phylum, kingdom, domain -- and
intermediates such as "suborder," "superfamily, " etc. The good old
fasioned classification, which inevitably produces numerous
paraphyletic taxa when fossils are brought into the picture.

Harshman only works as a professional on extant species, so he is
largely oblivious to the advantage of every organism being classified
as to which of the above entities it is a member of -- which genus,
which family, ...

And what confuses Harshman even more, is that by only working with
extant species, every one of the birds HE is interested in CAN be
classified as above.

In contrast, Archaeopteryx is a complete mess where cladistic
classification is concerned. The smallest clade of which "Archie" is
known to be a member, besides the genus Archaeopteryx itself, is the
class Aves.

And it may be that the genus Archaeopteryx is paraphyletic, with some
Chinese fossils qualfying as possible descendants, not to mention ALL
extant birds as being candidates for descendants.

But Harshman is working under a taboo which he doesn't even realize to
be a taboo: Archie HAS to be a "leaf" on the tree of all life. It is
even "unnatural" to call Archie a candidate for being an ancestor of
all living birds.

> I don't intend these questions to be insulting, but it seems to me that you're either being very obtuse or you're working with different concepts than those of others.

I am working with concepts that were completely standard until the
tremendous onslaught of aggressive cladophiles like Cracraft.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

You're being sarcastic, I'm sure. If you were serious, you would be
what I call a cladomaniac.

But until you clarify this comment, you are still a mere cladophile.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Apr 30, 7:00�pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On 4/30/13 2:59 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 30, 5:11 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> �wrote:

> >> On 4/30/13 11:54 AM, pnyikos wrote:
>
> >>> By "cladists like Harshman" I mean what I call "cladophiles" --
> >>> cladists who will not tolerate paraphyletic taxa in formal
> >>> classifications.
>

> >>> "Paraphyletic" is a term for taxa like the traditional Reptilia which
> >>> did not include all of its descendants. �[The old Reptilia excluded
> >>> mammals and birds.] A sizable percentage of taxa used by
> >>> paleontologists like Romer, particularly on the level of families and
> >>> subfamilies, were paraphyletic.
>
> >>> Here is a reply to part of a post by the ardent cladophile John
> >>> Harshman, from the discussion,
> >>> Subject: Re: Paraphyletic taxon =? grade? Re: Turtle genome sequence
> >>> and analysis
>
> >>> It revolves around a 1981 article by Joel Cracraft:
>
> >>>http://research.amnh.org/vz/ornithology/pdfs/1981e.Pattern%20process%...
>

> >>> On Apr 26, 9:57 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> � �wrote:

> >>>> On 4/26/13 6:42 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>

> >> I would just like to respond to this by noting that there is nothing
> >> here worth responding to.
>

> > I see jillery agrees on another thread. �Opposition to Peter Nyikos
> > makes for strange bedfellows.
>
> > But I have a question.
>
> > Is it true that nobody before Joel Cracraft had the chutzpah to label
> > paraphyletic taxa as "unnatural" and "nonexistent" in a peer reviewed,
> > NSF-grant sponsored paper?
>
> I have no idea.
>
> > If you have read what I wrote up there, you have seen me broaching
> > this issue, though not so explicitly.
>
> > Can I put you down for pleading *nolo contendere* on Joel's behalf?
>
> No. Why should anyone care who was the first to do this perfectly
> reasonable thing? Why should anyone care whether or not it was
> NSF-sponsored?

You say these things, Harshman, because you have been conditioned not
to see anything offensive in the word "unnatural" when applied to
paraphyletic taxa.

In contrast, you (or at least a large segment of our population) have
been conditioned to be offended when someone uses "unnatural" in
connection with homosexual acts--in some cases, very deeply offended.

As for me, I would say it is extremely unprofessional to use the word
"unnatural" in either way in a peer-reviewed paper partially supported
by federal grants.

And I hope that answers your second question, at least. I do try to
leave all signs of my own conditioning out of my posted Usenet
comments, for reasons that I'd rather not go into here.

> Whatever is there in this post that is at all worthy of
> any sort of response?

Hmmm... maybe you ARE proud of being one of the lunatics
(cladomaniacs, to be specific) who have taken over the asylum. :-)

But seriously, perhaps Joel Cracraft was in the same boat you are in
now: *already* conditioned by his fellow cladophile radicals into
thinking there is nothing offensive about his use of words like
"unnatural" as above.

And that would mean that the use of the word "occasionally" was
sincere but naive, rather than blatantly disingenuous, in the
following statement of his:

"Several reasons can be suggested for the adverse
reaction of paleontologists towards cladistics. One is that
cladists occasionally have made provocative statements
which naturally released negative reactions"

Peter Nyikos

Peter Nyikos

[Ray Martinez]

Very angry evasion of everything I wrote.

Ray

[pnyikos]

On May 1, 11:31�am, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Apr 30, 7:56 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > All this says is that my logic and your logic are incompatible. Yes,
> > so very true. The Creation/Evolution debate is about logic and nothing
> > else. I can and will prove this point when I publish.

Hidden premise: "I, Ray, will some day publish."

The smart money says that this premise is contrary to fact.

> > Now tell me Dana: What kind of logic posits space aliens as
> > responsible for biological First Cause? Isn't the impossibility of
> > abiogenesis seen clearly?
>

> At this point in time the logic of an inference to panspermia is
> incredibly weak.

So is the logic of inference to "abiogenesis took place on earth,
rather than taking place on some other planet, with the seeding of
the earth as one outcome billions of years later."

For almost exactly one year now, Camp, you have played a polemical
game, beautifully exemplified your words that appear in the following
post.

You post some disarming, very professional sounding things and then
reveal your true motives after I stick to my guns by your allusion to
the movie, Star Trek IV:

Newsgroups: talk.origins, alt.agnosticism
From: pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 06:16:52 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Tues, May 15 2012 9:16 am
Subject: Re: Intelligent Design Book Meets Obstacle After Proponents
of

On May 10, 11:09 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 10, 10:53 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On May 10, 1:34 am, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On May 9, 6:11 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > On May 9, 4:10 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On May 9, 10:33 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > > > On May 9, 12:43 am, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On May 8, 8:17 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On May 7, 2:45 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On May 7, 10:57 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:


> <snip>


> > So what is it exactly that you think I am missing out on?


> > > Otherwise, perhaps a quick summary of what I'm *not* arguing would be
> > > helpful.

> > > - I'm not saying that panspermia is wrong
> > > - I'm not saying that panspermia is impossible, or even improbable
> > > (though it doesn't seem currently to be calculable)
> > > - I'm not saying that panspermia is unscientific
> > > - I'm not saying that panspermia (at least as you envision it) is not
> > > internally consistent
> > > - I'm not saying that I disagree with your assumptions about
> > > incomplete knowledge of early biochemistry (neither do I agree with
> > > them, I simply accept them for the purposes of discussion)

> > > If you wish to continue, you can stop arguing against any or all of
> > > the above and that should save us loads of time.

> > You've left me with little or nothing to discuss. What's the point
> > you're making that I don't seem to have grasped yet?


> Even accepting as a given all of your assumptions (as I understand
> them) about the data describing the development of biochemistry prior
> to prokaryotes on this planet, an inference to panspermia as an
> explanation for this "problem" is neither necessary nor sufficient. It
> is a conjecture with no apparent connection to the data (unnecessary),
> as well as one that is impotent to actually explain the
> "problem" (insufficient).

> That doesn't mean it's wrong (in the strict sense), or impossible or
> unscientific...just extraneous. By no means am I suggesting that
> parsimony is a determinative heuristic. But it is a useful tool for
> narrowing the field of research. We don't know for sure why whales
> sing, and it's possible that whale-song may actually be an
> extraterrestrially-seeded means of communication. But, as with
> panspermia, it would be a sucker's bet to devote time or energy to
> that avenue of investigation. There's simply no good reason to go
> there (unless you'd prefer not to have future spaceships messing up
> Golden Gate Park).


> RLC



This time, Robert, I have played the game according to your rules. I
have not inserted anything after your first paragraph, so you can't
accuse me of "irrelevant comments about minutiae," nor have I
inserted anything between sentences anywhere, lest I strengthen your
suspicions that I am indulging in "deliberate evasiveness".

Instead, I've read everything through, to better divine "the substance
of [your] argument" and your "point about the rhetorical foundations
in response to [my] claims."

Instead, I've read everything through, to better divine "the substance
of [your] argument" and your "point about the rhetorical foundations
in response to [my] claims."

And, judging from the placement of your real "context" in earlier
posts, the substance and the rhetorical foundations are summarized
thus:


"I, Robert Camp, love to make fun of directed panspermia, because I
believe it is a pile of crap."


NOTE TO OTHER READERS:


You can read about Camp's use of "irrelevant comments about
minutiae," and also how he characterized my rebuttal to "minutiae"
such as you see in his first paragraph above as a "content-free
response", in the following post:


http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/1fbcca002ba678bc?dmod...
Message-ID: <a8044b53-a7a5-44ed-9973-
c12315f14...@vi6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>


This post also features my challenges to these bizarre descriptions of
his. He deleted both his comments and his challenges in his response,
where you can read about "context," as in:


"Please stop chopping up paragraphs and responding to the bits out of
context. It's beginning to suggest deliberate evasiveness."
and
"had you read everything through you would have noticed
that my point was about the rhetorical foundation upon which my
comments in response to your claims ("championing of homegrown
abiogenesis") rested."
and
"missing the substance of the
argument and focusing on irrelevant detail."


http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/6513d0883c7709e4?dmod...
Message-ID:
<4560ce2c-2789-44fa-9cfd-70a43f415...@2g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>
I challenged him on all this in my reply:


http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/3c03c33affbee922
Message-ID: <fdeb4565-650b-4412-
bed4-6167830ac...@l17g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>


and the post to which I am replying here was his response to that, but
you can't find either his allegations nor my challenges in this post,
because their place at the beginning has been taken by the symbol
string


> <snip>


Peter Nyikos

==============end of post archived
at: http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/680932ba1943a802

Message-ID: <67774cd5-45d6-4487-b641-
ac9cfc...@d17g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>
The last three symbols before the @ are 499


> The only comparable inference that is even weaker is
> one that looks outside of this natural reality for its causal
> agency.

Note what I wrote almost a year ago: "...a pile of crap."

> That kind of assertion is an affront to logic.

Wrong. It is an affront only to your closed-mindedly atheistic world
view, evidently conditioned in you starting shortly after you, still a
baby, said your first word.

Peter Nyikos

[eridanus]

El lunes, 6 de mayo de 2013 19:04:05 UTC+1, pnyikos escribi�:

I do not understand why are you so passionate about question
of the clads. In science, theres is a continuous evolution
of ideas and models of classification. This must not be so
important unless it had touched some inner dogma of yours.

If you the science arguments as something impersonal, and that
come be right now and wrong tomorrow... you would the whole
thing with a more relaxed mood.

Don't be so dramatic, Peter. You are making me feel pity of
you. Please, please, relax. Take some time out and have a glass
of whiskey. It would lower your blood pressure.

Eridanus

[pnyikos]

On May 1, 7:27�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On May 1, 8:31�am, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 30, 7:56�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>

> > > On Apr 30, 6:14�pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> > > All this says is that my logic and your logic are incompatible. Yes,
> > > so very true. The Creation/Evolution debate is about logic and nothing
> > > else. I can and will prove this point when I publish.
>

> > > Now tell me Dana: What kind of logic posits space aliens as
> > > responsible for biological First Cause? Isn't the impossibility of
> > > abiogenesis seen clearly?
>
> > At this point in time the logic of an inference to panspermia is

> > incredibly weak. The only comparable inference that is even weaker is

> > one that looks outside of this natural reality for its causal agency.

> > That kind of assertion is an affront to logic.
>

> Are you suggesting interventionism is on par with DPism?
>
> And unlike Peter, I make myself available to answer most questions in
> a timely and faithful manner. I've been asking Peter for months two
> basic questions: where he obtained the idea that extraterrestrial life
> exists or existed,

Huh? All I recall seeing from you were questions that tried to elicit
wild-assed guesses from me as to where Crick and Orgel got the idea
that extraterrestrials may have existed.

I got mine from reading books on astronomy where the authors took
seriously the claim that there was life on Mars, based on seasonal
changes that were attributed to changes in vegetation.

That was around the ages 8-12, and the only sign I saw that this
wasn't the attitude of astronomers in general where one book featured
an imaginary debate between an astronomer who believed in life on
Mars, and one who interpreted the seasonal changes as changes in the
color of rocks or sand.

The author's sympathies were with the former, just as Galileo's were
with the Copernican in his dialogues that got him into hot water.


> and what exactly justifies an inference to DPism?
> It appears unless I somehow obtain a subpoena Peter won't answer.

Actually, I've answered the latter question at great length in my FAQ
and also in the first three posts to the latest thread I started on
the subject of DP.

You cannot get a subpoena for me to do it in a way that YOU will admit
to be "an answer." For that, you would need to kidnap me and take me
to a place where you've persuaded the authoritities to issue a
subpoena to give an answer which will satisfy YOU.

I'm not sure whether there is such a place on earth, but perhaps
Teheran or Saudi Arabia qualifies.


>
> That said, my logic stands as tested and ready for testing.

What logic? All I've seen is mindless repetition of things you may
have picked up from Gene Scott, like the claim that Genesis 1 gives
the complete lowdown on "biological first cause" and that it
therefore contradicts DP.

Had you thought for yourself, you would have come up with a more
logical reason than this appeal either to authority (Gene Scott) or to
a broken record routine.

I'll give you a hint: look at the 4th day of creation.

If you look hard enough, you may actually free yourself from the
indictment of Gilbert and Sullivan:

CHORUS: He never thought of thinking for himself at all.

Be careful, though: you might undermine your case for old-earth (as
opposed to young-earth) creationism.

[Roger Shrubber]

pnyikos wrote:
> On May 1, 1:32 pm, erik simpson <eastside.e...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> All right, I'll bite.
>>
>> Prof. Nyikos:
>>
>> What IS your 'big question'?
>>
>> What do YOU mean by 'neo-Darwinist' (that you are not)?
>>
>> If paraphyletic taxa are legitimate systematic groups, what do YOU mean by 'taxon'?
>
> species, genus, family, order, class, phylum, kingdom, domain -- and
> intermediates such as "suborder," "superfamily, " etc. The good old
> fasioned classification, which inevitably produces numerous
> paraphyletic taxa when fossils are brought into the picture.
>
> Harshman only works as a professional on extant species, so he is
> largely oblivious to the advantage of every organism being classified
> as to which of the above entities it is a member of -- which genus,
> which family, ...

"You can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the
world, but when you're finished, you'll know absolutely
nothing whatever about the bird... So let's look at the bird
and see what it's doing � that's what counts. I learned very
early the difference between knowing the name of something
and knowing something." Richard Feynman.

[Thrinaxodon]

I doubt you mean that. You are an intellectual dropout. When people
disagree with you, you resort to personal attacks. You have done many
lies on behalf of your service. I don't care that you have
credentials, you are immature. You have driven many people away from
this board. When, you accept constructive criticism, I'll possibly
change my mind. But, for now, you are an intellectually dishonest
asshole. My reasons put.

--

Thrinaxodon

A cynodont in a kitchen.

[Thrinaxodon]

Read my other post, responding to you, when you responded to J.J.

[Thrinaxodon]

Are you out of your mind?

[pnyikos]

My time for posting today-- indeed, the first half of May-- is rapidly
nearing an end. I have to finish two final exams, and then after they
are administered tomorrow (back to back) I will have to "bust butt" to
grade them and to turn in the course grades.

And after that come one or two weeks of high quality time with my
family. So I may not be able to post much of anything again until
around May 20.

On May 1, 10:46�pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/1/13 8:08 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > On May 1, 5:44 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On May 1, 4:27 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> >>> On May 1, 8:31 am, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> On Apr 30, 7:56 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Apr 30, 6:14 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:

I do want you to know how glad I am that you are holding Ray's feet
to the fire, Dana. You certainly recovered quickly after I asked you
whether you had grown tired of arguing with him and you replied:

> >>>>>> Nah, Ray's not that lucky. � I was just taking a short break. �One can
> >>>>>> only deal with insane troll logic for a while before one needs a rest.

> >>>>> Now tell me Dana: What kind of logic posits space aliens as
> >>>>> responsible for biological First Cause? Isn't the impossibility of
> >>>>> abiogenesis seen clearly?

[snip polemic by Camp, dealt with in reply to him]

> >>> Are you suggesting interventionism is on par with DPism?

Now come some reasonable comments by Camp:

> >> Assuming you're speaking of some sort of divine interventionism, of
> >> course not.
>
> >> No matter how weak an inference panspermia may be, it still exists as
> >> a natural alternative.
>
> > Where did any scientifically minded person obtain the idea that
> > extraterrestrial life exists or existed?
>
> One can obtain that idea from the fact that life on Earth exists. �If
> life exists on Earth, there is a possibility that life exists elsewhere
> in the universe. � The conditions the Earth exists under is hardly
> unique in the universe. � The sun is just one of billions of ordinary
> stars. �Planets are not particularly rare, as modern astronomy has
> indicated.

That's one traditional answer; I gave another in direct reply to Ray.

My answer was more in the way of evidence; yours is pure inference
without any direct observation to support it.

Granted, the direct observation of seasonal changes on Mars is now
almost surely shown to be unrelated to vegetation, but that doesn't
change the fact that lots of people (including myself) got the idea of
extraterrestrial life from those observations.

By the time I was born, the idea of canals on Mars was pretty much
discredited, but I'm sure a lot of people got *their* idea from
Percival Lowell's books, like _Mars As An Abode of Life_.

> > Identify evidence that could
> > be inferred to support an extraterrestrial cause?
>
> The possibility that life exists elsewhere in the universe is different
> from claiming a "extraterrestrial cause" for life on Earth. �There is a
> great deal more evidence that supports the idea of extraterrestrial life
> than would support an idea of interstellar space travel. �That life
> exists somewhere other than Earth is fairly likely. � That such life has
> found a way to travel the vast distances between stars is much less
> likely.

"found a way to travel" is misleading. My hypothesis is merely that
some technological civilization found a way to *send* life to earth
and perhaps myriads of other planets. Life in the form of microscopic
organisms, which was the original DP hypothesis of Crick and Orgel.

And we have essentially found such a way ourselves. The Pioneer and
Voyager spacecraft are still transmitting, so we know we can send
probes to the Alpha Centauri system using Project Orion and still have
them transmitting information when they get there. Longer distances
are less certain, but I think it is only a matter of time before the
technology is there.

> The problem is, Ray, that you seem to think that an "extraterrestrial
> cause" of life on Earth is less likely than a supernatural cause. �In
> terms of objective reality, a extraterrestrial cause is much more likely
> than appealing to a supernatural one. That said, Extraterrestrial life
> seeding the Earth is extremely unlikely.

Why don't you join my latest thread on directed panspermia, and tell
me what flaws you find in my reasoning or my estimates?

The posts where those estimates appear are:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/7145757e19f6ae3d
Message-ID: <e29b6f8b-1afb-4f8c-bbb2-
a18073...@q9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>

and:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/11f71539b581031c
Message-ID: <2052fe34-
d245-4340-87c...@n4g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>

The preamble post, the first to the thread, may also be helpful:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2c0114c4375b2b77?dmode=source

> > Of course my
> > question is rhetorical.
>
> Of course, your question has an answer you don't want to contemplate.

Touche.

>
>
> >> As such it can, in principle, be assigned some
> >> degree of probability (however meager).
>
> > In every respect, classic question begging.
>
> Ray, do you even know what "begging the question" means?

I don't think he does, because I doubt that he ever took a course in
even the most basic "logic for humanists". The fallacy of appeal to
authority, for instance, seems to be something he never understood.

Rest deleted. but full of good comebacks by you. Keep up the good
work, Dana.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On May 2, 6:40�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 2, 9:43 am, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> > On May 1, 7:08 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > Identify evidence that could be inferred to support an extraterrestrial cause?
>

> > If you mean analogical support for such an inference - The existence
> > of terrestrial cause.
>
> Why say "terrestrial" when I said "extraterrestrial"?

I take it you haven't a clue as to what Camp means by "analogical
support".

Dana Tweedy also gave the same infrerential support. See my reply to
him where I contrast it with observational support.

> Of course my
> question is rhetorical.

Is that because you think you know the answer?

> > If you mean hypothetical evidence of alien agency - Radio signals from
> > another planet.
> > If you mean actual evidence of alien agency - I know of none.
>
> Then what justifies any assumption or inference to an ET agent? Since
> you can only reiterate, round and round we go. You're acting like
> Peter.

No, he is acting like a strawman you've erected and called "Peter".


> > And so...?
>
> Again, you actually think certain concepts, once invoked, shield you
> from my criticism. Since neither you nor Peter can offer ONE thing,
> object or phenomenon that supports alien existence, your hypothetical
> arguments, justifying the assumption of existence, beg the question.
>
> I'm ignoring the remainder because the same insults intelligence.

Admit the truth, Ray: you are ignoring the remainder because Camp
called your bluff, aren't you?

[big snip to get to the point:]


> > > And by the way Robert you remain on-the-run concerning the issue of
> > > the Dawkins quote. Your logic is indefensible.

That unsupported allegation was your bluff. Here is how Robert called
it:

> > Frankly, I have no clue what it is I might be "on-the-run"* from, but
> > feel free to resurrect whatever unfinished business you think
> > important.
>
> > ( *[1-6] As you may have noted, I've included handy numbers to help
> > you understand the kind of illogic and irrationality that causes
> > people to tire of conversing with you and eventually take a break. One
> > can only pound one's head against the wall for so long...)

And you've folded, covering your cowardice with a baseless and
probably insincere taunt:

"I'm ignoring the remainder because the same insults intelligence."

AFAIK, Dana Tweedy is too polite to confront you this directly with
your insincerity, cowardice, and hypocrisy, while Robert Camp is too
amoral to realize the moral significance of your actions, but I'm
neither.

And so, you can thank your lucky stars that holding your feet to the
fire will be their job rather than mine for the next two weeks. See
my preamble in my reply to Dana today.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On May 3, 4:34�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On May 2, 5:50 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 30, 10:18 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 30, 2:18 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 30, 3:10 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>

> > > > > On Apr 30, 11:54 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > By "cladists like Harshman" I mean what I call "cladophiles" --
> > > > > > cladists who will not tolerate paraphyletic taxa in formal
> > > > > > classifications.
>

> > > > > > "Paraphyletic" is a term for taxa like the traditional Reptilia which
> > > > > > did not include all of its descendants. [The old Reptilia excluded
> > > > > > mammals and birds.] A sizable percentage of taxa used by
> > > > > > paleontologists like Romer, particularly on the level of families and
> > > > > > subfamilies, were paraphyletic.
>
> > > > > > Here is a reply to part of a post by the ardent cladophile John
> > > > > > Harshman, from the discussion,
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Paraphyletic taxon =? grade? Re: Turtle genome sequence
> > > > > > and analysis
>
> > > > > > It revolves around a 1981 article by Joel Cracraft:
>
> > > > > >http://research.amnh.org/vz/ornithology/pdfs/1981e.Pattern%20process%...
>

> > > > > > Peter Nyikos
> > > > > > Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

> > > > > > University of South Carolinahttp://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
> > > > > > nyikos @ math.sc.edu
>
> > > > > Peter: Did you forget that you're a neo-Darwinist as well? Why don't
> > > > > you answer Cracraft's question?
>
> > > > > Ray
>
> > > > I am not a neo-Darwinist, just someone who is convinced about the
> > > > reality of common descent. I am with Cracraft on this one,....
>
> > > [....snip....]
>
> > > So you reject the genetical theory (replication error and selection)
> > > while accepting common descent?
>

> > No, I just don't involve myself in the fine points of how it all comes
> > together in neo-Darwinian theory. What I know about it doesn't help to
> > make it possible to answer Cracraft's question.
>
> > Peter Nyikos
>
> Your answer is almost unbelievable!
>
> A solid basis exists to reject evolutionary theory, but you don't!

What's solid about it? I'd have to study it for years before I could
come to that kind of conclusion.


> You
> just accept, by blind faith, that there are unifying points of fact,
> and that they are valid!.

"unifying"? The only unifying things are the fossil record and the
inference from similarity of genomes, and those say nothing about the
CAUSE of evolution, but it massively supports the naked FACT of
massive evolution from simpler life forms.

One small example of that is something about which you have buried
your head deep in the sand: the horse sequence, which you never dared
challenge as unbelievably powerful evidence of speciation. Instead,
you taunted the people who kept holding your feet to the fire about
how that hardly *proves* the naked FACT to which I refer above.

Run, coward, run. Ignore this post or pull another stunt like you did
against Camp when he called your bluff.

Here's some more for you to run away from, if Harshman ever takes you
on:

> And your admission about Cracraft's very old
> question probably explains why Harshman bailed; he can't answer
> either!

By banishing paraphyletic taxa to the outer darkness, Harshman has
thrown away a good many of his talking points, but he still has enough
to bury you many times over.

Not just your head, but your whole case for anti-speciesism. He'll
have to argue a lot more indirectly than I can with the horse
sequence, though.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On May 3, 11:00�pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:

> How is an out-of-the-mainstream opinion of one scientist, accomplished in the relevant field, "an acute embarrassment to neo-Darwinists?"

Because he is undermining natural selection theory. Were it not for
the last section, where he does this, his whole paper could become
the "Exodus of cladophilia".

As it is, the rest could still qualify, with the last section never
repeated, just as Protestant bibles never repeat certain parts of the
book of Ester, and of Daniel, which the Roman Catholics have kept in
their bibles.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On May 4, 8:58锟絧m, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 4, 4:28锟絧m, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 4, 11:26 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 4, 2:31 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > > [....]

>
> > > > > > > Now tell me Dana: What kind of logic posits space aliens as
> > > > > > > responsible for biological First Cause? Isn't the impossibility of
> > > > > > > abiogenesis seen clearly?
>

> > > > > > > Ray
>
> > > > > > Peter Nyikos does not posit that space aliens are responsible for biological first cause. Come on, Ray, he's explained his ideas to you.
>
> > > > > > Mitchell Coffey
>
> > > > > This comment reveals that you're inexcusably ignorant as to what
> > > > > "biological First Cause" means. These debates presuppose participants
> > > > > to possess a certain amount of relevant knowledge. I suggest that you
> > > > > recognize your limitations and refrain from posting until such a time.
>
> > > > > Ray
>

> > > > Why should any person know the meaning of a term you made up yourself?
>
> > >http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/search-results?freetext="First
> > > Cause"
>
> > > The link above provides 50 examples of "First Cause."
>
> > And not a single one to "biological first cause"
>
> The link is wrong; here is the link that provides the correct link:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/0d75e7e4dcbb0401?hl=en
>
> > >http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/search-results?pagesize=50&sort=d...
>
> > > The link above provides 32 more examples.
>
> > > [Note: All 82 examples may not be talking about biological First
> > > Cause.]
>
> > Not a single one does. as a matter of fact
>
> I've now provided abundant examples in relevant literature. Your
> denial does not change the fact.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > From, for example, the top or first link:
>
> > > "This very old argument from the existence of suffering against the
> > > existence of an intelligent First Cause seems to me a strong one;
> > > whereas, as just remarked, the presence of much suffering agrees well
> > > with the view that all organic beings have been developed through
> > > variation and natural selection" (p. 311).
>
> > > And....
>
> > > "When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having
> > > an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I
> > > deserve to be called a Theist" (pgs 312-13).

>
> > > I have been condescending to ignorance by including the word

> > > "biological." Knowledgeable people understand that in the context of

> > > biology "First Cause" is talking about the agent that produced the
> > > first life form on Earth because everyone already knows that life
> > > outside of our atmosphere has not been found.
>

> > Knowledgeable people, Ray, know the the term "first cause" has a very
> > specific meaning in philosophy and theology. It goes back (at least)
> > to Plato's "Laws", was more thoroughly discussed and given its
> > classical formulation by 锟絙y Aristotle in 锟絟is Book 12 of the
> > Metaphysics (who was ambivalent about it), incorporated in theology by
> > several Islamic scholars such as al-Ghazali, 锟絯as transposed to
> > Christianity by 锟紸quinas and 锟絟as ever since seen quite a number of
> > refinements and reformulations. Present consensus by atheists and
> > theists alike that it is flawed beyond redemption, but with some
> > dissenting voices.(e.g. William Lane Craig, and possibly Swinburne)
>
> > What they all have in common though is a specific logic that tries to
> > build in infinite chain of causal explanations. Your term does not
> > allow for that type of argument, which render it use- and meaningless.
> > Which is why you won't find the term anywhere in the theological or
> > philosophical 锟絣iterature. 锟紹y qualifying "first" with "biological" or
> > even worse "biological on earth", you crate a meaningless oxymoron,
> > similar to saying "The first person ever, 锟統esterday" or "The first
> > crossing the line who was fifth"
>
> Total evasion of everything I wrote.
>
> Once again:

>
> "I have been condescending to ignorance by including the word

> "biological." Knowledgeable people understand that in the context of

> biology 'First Cause' is talking about the agent that produced the
> first life form on Earth because everyone already knows that life
> outside of our atmosphere has not been found" (Ray Martinez).
>

> So the two links provide many examples of First Cause. I had to point
> out context (biology) and I had to explain that said phrase (First
> Cause) only meant life on Earth. I've now explained what First Cause
> means because no evo present possessed even rudimentary knowledge.
>
> *****NOTE: Neither link seems to take one to the page intended.
> Everytime I paste the correct link it reverts to an incorrect link. Go
> to darwin-online.org.uk and type "First Cause" in the website search
> box. The 82 examples will then become available.*****
>
> Ray

You seem to be proud of your own dishonesty, Ray. You LIED that these
instances used the term "biological first cause," whereas they simply
use the term "first cause". And that term has been patiently
explained to you by numerous people.

I am surprised they are so patient with you: you've pulled this stunt
so many times, that one might think you WANT people to think you are
dishonest, because you are secretly an evolutionist who wants his
fellow evolutionists to think creationists are either hopeless cretins
or pathologically dishonest.

When I told you that I sometimes suspect you are a Loki, you asked
what that meant. The above paragraph explains not only that but also
my reason for my suspicions.

If the definition is still unclear to you, ask Harshman. He
expressed (feigned?) great surprise when he found out that I didn't
know the special meaning the word "Loki" has in talk.origins. I soon
got excellent explanations.

Peter Nyikos

[Ray Martinez]

On May 6, 12:54�pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On May 2, 6:40�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 2, 9:43 am, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 1, 7:08 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > Identify evidence that could be inferred to support an extraterrestrial cause?
>
> > > If you mean analogical support for such an inference - The existence
> > > of terrestrial cause.
>
> > Why say "terrestrial" when I said "extraterrestrial"?
>
> I take it you haven't a clue as to what Camp means by "analogical
> support".

The same presupposes ET existence; and ET existence is the very claim
at issue and under challenge; so he, like yourself, has begged the
question.

Empty boast.

And you failed to notice that Robert Camp was "defending" the
"plausibility" of DP in the context of a predictable atheistic rant
against interventionism. As for Dana Tweedy, he hasn't said anything
that bothers me in the least----that's why I haven't responded. I
suggest you stop hiding behind the skirts of both Dana and Robert;
defend DPism with intellectual rigor, if you can, when you come back.
I'll be around.

Ray

[John Harshman]

Conditioned? Who would have done such a thing. No, I think the problem
is yours. "Unnatural" is a perfectly valid descriptive word. Some groups
are natural and some are not. We may disagree on what group are natural,
but I don't see any reason to suppose that calling some groups unnatural
is any sort of insult. Cool down.

[pnyikos]

On May 5, 7:30�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 4, 8:33 pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Saturday, May 4, 2013 5:22:32 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > On May 3, 7:52 pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> > > > On Tuesday, April 30, 2013 10:56:44 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > > > > On Apr 30, 6:14 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> > > > > > On Apr 30, 4:21 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Apr 30, 6:13 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > This is my only line.
>
> > > > > > > > DJT
>
> > > > > > > Got tired of dealing with Ray Martinez? Can't really blame you.
>

> > > > > > Nah, Ray's not that lucky. I was just taking a short break. One can
>
> > > > > > only deal with insane troll logic for a while before one needs a rest.
>

> > > > > > DJT
>
> > > > > All this says is that my logic and your logic are incompatible. Yes,
>
> > > > > so very true. The Creation/Evolution debate is about logic and nothing
>
> > > > > else. I can and will prove this point when I publish.
>

> > > > > Now tell me Dana: What kind of logic posits space aliens as
>
> > > > > responsible for biological First Cause? Isn't the impossibility of
>
> > > > > abiogenesis seen clearly?
>
> > > > > Ray
>
> > > > Peter Nyikos does not posit that space aliens are responsible for biological first cause. Come on, Ray, he's explained his ideas to you.
>
> > > > Mitchell Coffey
>
> > > This comment reveals that you're inexcusably ignorant as to what
>
> > > "biological First Cause" means. These debates presuppose participants
>
> > > to possess a certain amount of relevant knowledge. I suggest that you
>
> > > recognize your limitations and refrain from posting until such a time.
>
> > > Ray
>

> > ....I know was "biological First Cause" means in English. What does "biological First Cause" mean in your language?
>
> > Mitchell Coffey
> Slightly upthread I wrote:
>

> "I have been condescending to ignorance by including the word
> 'biological.' Knowledgeable people understand that in the context of
> biology 'First Cause' is talking about the agent that produced the
> first life form on Earth because everyone already knows that life
> outside of our atmosphere has not been found" (Ray Martinez).
>

> Way back when Peter first introduced his DP FAQ I wrote the words
> "First Cause" in a response message. He immediately fired back that
> DPism is not about how life began in the universe (outside of Earth's
> atmosphere). In rebuttal I told him that the phrase "First Cause," in
> relevant history of science literature, is only talking about how life
> began on Earth

You never told me what that alleged literature was, Ray. Your
comments about Darwin below are completely new to me.

> because context is biological and because everyone
> already knows life has not been found to exist outside of Earth's
> atmosphere. Peter either didn't see what I wrote or he ignored. So
> everytime I wrote "First Cause" in a message

...it was preceded by "biological" except for rare exceptions, when
you were trying to tell me that what everyone else means by "First
Cause" is NOT what you mean by it.

> he would create the same
> response about how DPism is not about how life began in the universe.

Because I was reacting to the term "biological first cause,"

******NOT*******TO*******THE***********TERM **********"First Cause"
which has nothing to do with biology.

Did I put enough asterisks in to attract your attention, you low-IQ
simulator?

> See, for example, Darwin's autobiography where he uses the phrase
> "First Cause" at least two times. Both uses support what I say above:
> context is biological and it is presupposed to be talking only about
> Earth

QUOTE Darwin at those times, Ray, and let us see whether the context
really justifies your interpretation.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On May 6, 6:58�am, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> On Apr 30, 7:54 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > By "cladists like Harshman" I mean what I call "cladophiles" --
> > cladists who will not tolerate paraphyletic taxa in formal
> > classifications.
>

> I used to subscribe to New Scientist but life got too busy and unread
> ones began to pile up, so I cancelled the subscription. At this point
> there were these wierd crazies who rather stridently were trying to
> reform the whole biological clasification system (I heard rumours of
> near punch ups over museum organisation). Time passed and I started to

> read New Scientist again. The lunatics has taken over the asylum.
>
> :-)

I wouldn't put it quite so strongly, but there is a large, hard, solid
kernel of truth to your last sentence. See the replies I did to
Harshman today, especially the part about "conditioning".

Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

I'm afraid you are hallucinating on many levels: on the actual content
of Cracraft's quoted paragraph; on its importance to biology; on the
importance of this paper to biology; on the political meaning of
individual papers; and probably more I'm not thinking of. Others have
recognized your bizarre overreactions before, and this is another.

[John Harshman]

On 5/6/13 11:04 AM, pnyikos wrote:
> On May 1, 1:32 pm, erik simpson<eastside.e...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> All right, I'll bite.
>>
>> Prof. Nyikos:
>>
>> What IS your 'big question'?
>>
>> What do YOU mean by 'neo-Darwinist' (that you are not)?
>>
>> If paraphyletic taxa are legitimate systematic groups, what do YOU mean by 'taxon'?
>
> species, genus, family, order, class, phylum, kingdom, domain -- and
> intermediates such as "suborder," "superfamily, " etc. The good old
> fasioned classification, which inevitably produces numerous
> paraphyletic taxa when fossils are brought into the picture.
>
> Harshman only works as a professional on extant species, so he is
> largely oblivious to the advantage of every organism being classified
> as to which of the above entities it is a member of -- which genus,
> which family, ...
>
> And what confuses Harshman even more, is that by only working with
> extant species, every one of the birds HE is interested in CAN be
> classified as above.

For the record, neither of these things confuses me. Peter is, if
anything, projecting.

> In contrast, Archaeopteryx is a complete mess where cladistic
> classification is concerned. The smallest clade of which "Archie" is
> known to be a member, besides the genus Archaeopteryx itself, is the
> class Aves.

Actually, by the modern definition I favor, Archaeopteryx is not a part
of Aves. Contrariwise, there are many clades of which Archaeopteryx is
certainly a part; Maniraptora or Avialae, for example.

> And it may be that the genus Archaeopteryx is paraphyletic, with some
> Chinese fossils qualfying as possible descendants, not to mention ALL
> extant birds as being candidates for descendants.

It's certainly conceivable, but it's almost certainly not true.

I agree, though, that you have a tiny little semblance of a point: if
all taxa are to be assigned to a genus and species, then any genus
including ancestors must be paraphyletic. On the other hand, we have no
real way of knowing this except by phylogenetic analysis, and any genus,
even of fossils, that turns out to be paraphyletic is commonly
disassembled into smaller parts. Your intended real problem arises only
if we can identify a species as ancestral, which -- sorry -- we can't.

> But Harshman is working under a taboo which he doesn't even realize to
> be a taboo: Archie HAS to be a "leaf" on the tree of all life. It is
> even "unnatural" to call Archie a candidate for being an ancestor of
> all living birds.

And a good thing too, because there's just no way it's true. This isn't
a taboo; it's just a common sense bow to the reality of what we can know.

>> I don't intend these questions to be insulting, but it seems to me that you're either being very obtuse or you're working with different concepts than those of others.
>
> I am working with concepts that were completely standard until the
> tremendous onslaught of aggressive cladophiles like Cracraft.

That is, until we learned better, added rigor to systematics and
classification, and thought more clearly. That's scientific progress, in
fact.

[John Harshman]

What if I said I didn't care about your little classifications of
scientists? What would that make me?

[pnyikos]

Sorry about the momentary lapse.

> >and Bob Casanova, are in thrall
> >to you, while Paul Gans, jillery, and Ron O are �allies of yours.
>
> >[I could be wrong about that breakdown; Gans might be in thrall �to
> >you also, for instance.]
>
> And here is a classic example of his understanding of "on-topic".

No, it is an example of *staying* partly off-topic in reply to a
partly off-topic AND blatantly dishonest comment by your ardent ally,
O'Shea.

And here, you are showing your solidarity with him by trying to change
the subject.

And I do believe one of the reasons you are an ally of his is that his
replies to me are not only mostly off topic, but they are so
dishonest, they make you look only slightly dishonest in comparison.

Also, you can trust him to go along with any lies you post about me,
of which there have been many of late. As they say, there is even
honor among thieves.

By the way, you do realize you are being completely off-topic, even in
the part I deleted below, don't you, hypocrite?

[pnyikos]

On May 6, 2:52嚙緘m, eridanus <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> El lunes, 6 de mayo de 2013 19:04:05 UTC+1, pnyikos 嚙箴scribi嚙�

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 1, 1:32嚙緘m, erik simpson <eastside.e...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > All right, I'll bite.
>
> > > Prof. Nyikos:
>
> > > What IS your 'big question'?
>
> > > What do YOU mean by 'neo-Darwinist' (that you are not)?
>
> > > If paraphyletic taxa are legitimate systematic groups, what do YOU mean by 'taxon'?
>
> > species, genus, family, order, class, phylum, kingdom, domain -- and
>
> > intermediates such as "suborder," "superfamily, " etc. The good old
>
> > fasioned classification, which inevitably produces numerous
>
> > paraphyletic taxa when fossils are brought into the picture.
>
> > Harshman only works as a professional on extant species, so he is
>
> > largely oblivious to the advantage of every organism being classified
>
> > as to which of the above entities it is a member of -- which genus,
>
> > which family, ...
>
> > And what confuses Harshman even more, is that by only working with
>
> > extant species, every one of the birds HE is interested in CAN be
>
> > classified as above.
>

> > In contrast, 嚙璀rchaeopteryx is a complete mess where cladistic
>
> > classification is concerned. 嚙確he smallest clade of which "Archie" is

>
> > known to be a member, besides the genus Archaeopteryx itself, is the
>
> > class Aves.
>
> > And it may be that the genus Archaeopteryx is paraphyletic, with some
>
> > Chinese fossils qualfying as possible descendants, not to mention ALL
>
> > extant birds as being candidates for descendants.
>
> > But Harshman is working under a taboo which he doesn't even realize to
>

> > be a taboo: Archie 嚙瘡AS to be a "leaf" on the tree of all life. 嚙瘢t is

>
> > even "unnatural" to call Archie a candidate for being an ancestor of
>
> > all living birds.
>
> > > I don't intend these questions to be insulting, but it seems to me that you're either being very obtuse or you're working with different concepts than those of others.
>
> > I am working with concepts that were completely standard until the
>
> > tremendous onslaught of aggressive cladophiles like Cracraft.
>
> > Peter Nyikos
>
> I do not understand why are you so passionate about question
> of the clads.

It gives away half the battle against creationists, by thoroughly
justifying what Gould said about the "dirty little secret": the
species are all at the leaves of the trees, "never at the nodes."

True, there is still enough to defeat creationism many times over, but
why would anyone want to fight with one hand tied behind his back, by
abolishing the very taxa whose very definition assumes evolution?

> In science, theres is a continuous evolution
> of ideas and models of classification.

NO, there is only punctuated equilibrium: first the traditional
classification, then the cladophile. No intermediates exist, nor are
any looked for.

> This must not be so
> important unless it had touched some inner dogma of yours.

Stop the amateur psychologizing. You aren't good at it.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--