Pulverizing Pagano's Pathetic Polemics (was: Re: Elsberry's Transition Fossil Challenge Met on 01Mar2001.)
Wesley R. Elsberry
to his original stuff now; anything further will have to wait until
later.
In article <3B0A8BA4...@fast.net>, A Pagano <apa...@fast.net> wrote:
AP>[NOTE: I met Elsberry's Challenge on Mar 1, 2001. Elsberry
AP>confirmed publiclly that I met his challenge and wrote that
AP>he didn't have time immediately to rebut because of pressing
AP>academic responsibilities. As far as I know he has not
AP>defended his challenge in this forum. Pasted below for
AP>Elsberry's benefit with some minor revisions is that post.
Pagano misleads with the above statements. I don't recall
ever having stipulated that Pagano "met" the TFEC. I do
recall acknowledging that Pagano had made a *response* to the
TFEC.
One of the significant points raised by the TFEC is the issue
of whether the anti-evolutionist making the claim of "no
transitional fossils" does so based upon detailed knowledge of
the fossil evidence or out of ignorance.
[Quote]
Please note that unfamiliarity with the reference above is a
failure of the claim of absence of transitional sequences --
the claim requires *complete* knowledge of fossil sequences,
and unfamiliarity with any is prima facie evidence that the
claimant doesn't have the basis for the claim.
[End Quote - original text of the challenge presented to
Pagano, 1997/07/01]
By Pagano's own admission, he had no knowledge of the specific
evidence of the G. trilobus to O. universa transition when he
made his original universal claim. To my mind, "meeting" the
TFEC would mean that the anti-evolutionist already had
knowledge of the relevant evidence at the time that they make
their universal claim of "no transitional fossils exist".
Pagano certainly has no hope of representing himself as
knowledgeable in this way. Pagano made his original claim
in ignorance, not based upon knowledge, and nothing he says
now can change that cold, hard fact.
AP>For the benefit of others Elsberry's transitional fossil
AP>challenge (which has been around at least since 1996) rises
AP>and falls with how broadly one uses the label "transition."
AP>Elsberry apparently uses that label to mean any sort of
AP>sequence of change. But this is a trivial claim since human
AP>breeders have been able to produce sequences of
AP>change----within limits----for 3000(?) years. The sort of
AP>"transitions" at issue are those which show the
AP>transformation to nascent structures.
AP>The "transition" to structures which did not previously
AP>exist. I believe Elsberry has misused the citation he offered
AP>in defense of his long standing challenge. The authors of
AP>that article presupposed the existence of "transitionals" in
AP>the first paragraph and used this as one of their premises in
AP>deciding whether the divergence of the two planktonic foram
AP>populations was the result of allopatric speciation. As a
AP>result one can hardly use their observations and conclusions
AP>as proof of the premise they assumed to be true.
The sort of transitions at issue are the ones that Pagano
*specified* as not existing in 1997. Here's the quote:
[Quote]
AP> Pagano replies: > Ah, the
AP>never surpassed source of all knowledge, the talk.origin FAQ.
AP>Evolutionists talk a lot about ***intermediates*** as opposed
AP>to transitional forms. All sorts of conjectures are made by
AP>evolutionists that this fossil or that represents an
AP>intermediate form between others. Evolutionists propose
AP>numerous ***intermediates,**** but few transitional forms.
AP> Unfortunately the test of the validity
AP>of the intermediate is in producing the **transitional**
AP>fossils which corroborate the continuity from predecessor to
AP>intermediate to descendant. Of the few fossils which
AP>evolutionists propose to be transitional, none are unambiguous.
*AP>NeoDarwinism would predict that there should be numerous (I
*AP>think Darwin said innumerable) **transitional** forms, yet none
*AP>are to be found. Gould was one of the few evolutionists to
AP>confront this and describe the actual attribute of the fossil
AP>record: stasis and sudden appearance. My opinion is this
AP>constitutes (to some degree) refutation of neoDarwinism. I
AP>suspect Gould and Eldredge felt the same or they would not have
AP>proposed punctuated equilibrium.
[End Quote - A Pagano, Message-ID <33B86C56...@fast.net>]
There are several things to notice about Pagano's claim above
with respect to my challenge. There are certain issues that
Pagano raises above, and others which are not part of his
claim. I challenged the claim quoted above; the issues that
Pagano raises in other claims are thus *irrelevant* to
discussion of whether Pagano can support the above claim in
light of the evidence of fossils. Some of these irrelevancies
that Pagano is bringing up now include requirements about
"nascent structures" or "diversity" which formed no part of
his original claim.
In other words, Pagano's original claim did not have the set
of qualifiers that he is pushing now, and thus was much
broader than what he is discussing here. Pagano's tactic is
known as "bait and switch". It's yet another Non-Evidentiary
Response Item (NERI). I'll reproduce my discussion of NERIs
here, for I think it likely to be useful as a field guide to
the remainder of Pagano's "discussion".
Evidentiary and Non-Evidentiary Responses to Challenges
There are two main ways in which respondents can deal with the
Transitional Fossil Existence Challenge. The intellectually
honest and appropriate way is with specific discussion of the
fossil evidence as described and discussed in the primary
literature. This is by far the least common approach taken by
those who have been given the TFEC, and typically only follows
after a long period of non-response, the elapsed time
apparently serving as an index of the claimant's unfamiliarity
with the specific evidence.
The other category of approach is to ignore, so far as
possible, any mention or discussion of actual fossil evidence.
These varied strategies are what I term "non-evidentiary"
responses, since they are completely independent of empirical
data. There are many routes to achieving this end. The
simplest is non-response. The challenged person may decide
that not saying anything further is the best option, sometimes
in the hope that there will be no long-term penalty for this
behavior, and that eventually few, if any, persons will
remember the abandonment of the original claim. Another
common non-evidentiary response is digression. Bringing up a
different topic as if it held some relevance to the TFEC
allows someone to give a semblance of a reply, even though few
will be fooled by it. Yet another strategy is to discuss
theoretical issues as if theory did away with the need to
actually look at the empirical data. A variant of the theory
strategy is the quote-mining of those people who expound
theory. Usually, though, quotes reveal nothing about the
specific data at hand, and often come from sources whose
opposition to anti-evolutionary action is otherwise
well-known. Still another variant upon the theory strategy is
the definition game. One can construct connotations of
"transitional" such that no real-world evidence can satisfy
all the piled-on conditions. It is useful to know when an
anti-evolutionist simply defines evidence out of existence,
though. Another possible tactic is to dismiss the taxonomic
category from which the cited example comes. A respondent can
claim that they really meant no transitional fossils in some
other taxonomic hierarchy, but they often seem to forget that
this means that the "no transitional fossils" claim is then
self-admittedly false. A particularly brazen non-evidentiary
response is to play an "even if" game, as in, "Even if this is
true, it doesn't mean anything." That ignores that if the
cited sequence does contain transitional fossils, it at least
means that the claim of no transitional fossils is false.
The following is a short form for response to the TFEC, if
a challenged person wishes to ignore the evidence and simply
adopt one of the non-evidentiary tactics for their own. Simply
indicate which one or more of the following Non-Evidentiary
Response Items (NERI) fits what would otherwise involve a bunch
of redundant typing.
Non-Evidentiary Response Items:
A. You have your faith; I have mine.
B. I meant that no vertebrate transitional fossils exist.
C. I meant that no transitional fossils above taxonomic rank
____________ (fill in the blank) exist.
D. I have quotes from _______________ (give list of names) that
say that no transitional fossils exist.
E. My understanding of ________________ theory (fill in blank)
is that transitional fossils cannot exist.
F. My connotation of "transitional fossils" is ____________
(fill in blank), which means that none can exist.
G. I have a cool rebuttal of ___________ (fill in blank).
What were you saying about transitional fossils?
H. Even if the cited example does show transitional fossils,
it doesn't mean anything.
I. I cannot be bothered to support my claim, so I will not be
giving you a reply.
J. I promise to support my claim Real Soon Now. I will be in
touch. My reply will be devastating to you and completely
and utterly convincing to everyone. Just you wait. It's
in the mail.
"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' "Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't -- till I
tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"
"But `glory' doesn't mean `a nice knock-down argument,'" Alice
objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone,
"it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.
It appears that Pagano would like to use NERI "F", but objects
to filling in the blank. Pagano may, like Humpty-Dumpty, use
a word to mean whatever he wants it to mean. When Pagano
decides that he's willing to tell us what meaning he attaches
to "transitional", he should let us know.
AP>Only replies from Elsberry will be considered.}
Well, I decided to take a break from writing my dissertation
to make this response. Further responses will have to wait a
while yet.
>"Wesley R. Elsberry" wrote:
WRE> The Challenge:
WRE> This challenge is to show just how much familiarity the
WRE> anti-evolutionist making the claim of no transitional fossil
WRE> sequences has with the actual evidence of the fossil record.
AP>The only transitional creatures whose existence is in dispute
AP>are those which are clear examples of the creation of novelty
AP>leading to the biodiversity we can observe now and in the
AP>prehistoric record.
That's interesting, because it bears so little resemblance to
Pagano's original text which earned him a place on the TFEC.
Let's again review the claim that Pagano made and which he is
supposed to be supporting:
[Quote]
AP> Pagano replies: > Ah, the
AP>never surpassed source of all knowledge, the talk.origin FAQ.
AP>Evolutionists talk a lot about ***intermediates*** as opposed
AP>to transitional forms. All sorts of conjectures are made by
AP>evolutionists that this fossil or that represents an
AP>intermediate form between others. Evolutionists propose
AP>numerous ***intermediates,**** but few transitional forms.
AP> Unfortunately the test of the validity
AP>of the intermediate is in producing the **transitional**
AP>fossils which corroborate the continuity from predecessor to
AP>intermediate to descendant. Of the few fossils which
AP>evolutionists propose to be transitional, none are unambiguous.
*AP>NeoDarwinism would predict that there should be numerous (I
*AP>think Darwin said innumerable) **transitional** forms, yet none
*AP>are to be found. Gould was one of the few evolutionists to
AP>confront this and describe the actual attribute of the fossil
AP>record: stasis and sudden appearance. My opinion is this
AP>constitutes (to some degree) refutation of neoDarwinism. I
AP>suspect Gould and Eldredge felt the same or they would not have
AP>proposed punctuated equilibrium.
[End Quote - A Pagano, Message-ID <33B86C56...@fast.net>]
AP>Elsberry's source (identified below)
AP>from the "Journal of the Geological Society" does not meet
AP>that burden.
It meets the burden of a counterexample to Pagano's original
claim. As far as I can tell, it meets the burden of providing
a counterexample to Pagano's later variant as well. Enclosing the
primitive trochospiral shell is a novelty, and we now have two
species instead of one, which is an increase in diversity.
AP>The real challenge is for neoDarwinians to
AP>demonstrate with clear, convincing and unambiguous evidence
AP>that the innumerable transitions which are explained in their
AP>framework to have existed in prehistory in fact did exist.
Irrelevant. We are discussing Pagano's claim that no
transitional sequences exist, not whether the proportionality
or numbers of such sequences exceeds some threshold.
WRE> By making a universal claim concerning transitional fossils,
WRE> the anti-evolutionist should be prepared to back up the claim
WRE> with extended technical discussion of the reasons why all
WRE> sequences that others believe to be transitional in nature
WRE> really are not transitional.
AP>Like the word "evolution" the word "transition" can be an
AP>over-arching label and evolutionists frequently take
AP>advantage of the ambiguities associated with its broad scope.
AP>I suspect this is what Elsberry is doing here---consciously
AP>or unconsciously. The challenge apparently rises or falls on
AP>how broadly we define "transition."
Not really. If the anti-evolutionist defines transitionals
out of existence, then that indicates that their claim that
none exist is one of those meaningless noises. Such an
anti-evolutionist has used the Humpty-Dumpty technique to
claim something that they can't obtain by consideration of the
evidence.
The evidence exists. Differences of opinion concerning
whether a particular label is applied to the evidence does not
change the evidence. The professional community of discourse
which examines fossil evidence does not seem to have a problem
with using the term "transitional" for various and sundry
indentified sequences. The recalcitrance of
anti-evolutionists in admitting that the evidence is
well-described by the term could conceptually be based upon
analysis of the evidence, but in examining responses to my
TFEC and other anti-evolutionary writings on the topic it
appears that actual consideration of the evidence is usually
quite far from the approach taken. Instead,
anti-evolutionists use those Non-Evidentiary Response Items by
preference, and a great fondness for excluding "transitional"
sequences by definition is apparent. By my experience, none
of the anti-evolutionists making some form of the claim that
"no transitional fossils exist" come into the discussion with
any good grounding in the extent and nature of the evidence
that they claim must not exist. This has certainly been the
case with Anthony Pagano, who took over three years to get
around to obtaining the relevant citation. Pagano has given
no indication of familiarity with any *other* evidence of
fossil sequences that might be considered transitional. And
when Pagano did finally obtain a copy of the relevant
citation, he mischaracterized it. Pagano's statements about
the evidence presented by Pearson et alia significantly differ
in many respects from what was stated by them. Pagano fails
to distinguish his erroneous restatements of what Pearson et
alia said from the actual content of the statements of Pearson
et alia.
AP>Elsberry argues that if he can produce evidence of the
AP>existence of a sequence of gradual change OF ANY SORT then he
AP>prevails.
I argue that a transitional fossil sequence of the sort
excluded by Pagano's 1997 universal claim falsifies his claim.
So far, Pagano has given no reason to exclude the sequence
described by Pearson et alia as just that sort of sequence.
AP>Unfortunately such examples are, relatively speaking, minor
AP>variations of existing structures. The observation of such
AP>changes provides little insight into how those structures
AP>came to exist in the first place. And learning how they came
AP>to be in the first place (purportedly naturalisitically and
AP>mechanistically) is what the search for "transitionals" is
AP>all about.
Pagano is blathering here. Notice the lack of discussion of
the evidence at hand. I notice that Pagano dropped the word
"anagenesis" from this revision.
Note that Pagano made this statement in his original claim:
AP> Unfortunately the test of the validity
AP>of the intermediate is in producing the **transitional**
AP>fossils which corroborate the continuity from predecessor to
AP>intermediate to descendant.
According to Pagano's own "rules", the validity of a
transitional sequence has nothing to do with the degree of
morphological change. Further, the morphological change in
the sequence examined by Pearson et alia is described by them
as "profound" (p.301).
AP>The creationist claim can be made a little less than
AP>universal and a little more objectively: Of all the millions
AP>of fossil creatures which have been uncovered there does not
AP>exist among them a single, clear, convincing and unambiguous
AP>example of a transitional creature.
That's still a universal claim, as I have pointed out
before. "No X exists" is a universal claim, however X is
expanded. And what I and others have been asking is what
excludes the example. So far, Pagano has provided precisely
zero reasons to exclude it. Pagano has made several
*assertions* to that effect, but no reasons.
AP>This does not mean they did not exist in prehistory, simply
AP>that there is no fossil evidence of their existence. By
AP>"transitional" creationists mean to describe fossil creatures
AP>which are evidence of the creation of novelty---that is,
AP>nascent structures---leading to the biodiversity we can
AP>observe where in prior history such structures and creatures
AP>did not exist before.
Again, Pagano indulges in his bait-and-switch rhetoric. If
Pagano wants to explicitly admit, rather than just imply, that
his original claim was in error, that would suffice as a
response to the TFEC.
AP>Evidence of anagenesis and cladogenesis simply don't meet
AP>this burden. But if the neoDarwinian framework is correct
AP>the fossil record should show some sampling of such
AP>transitionals. Darwin lamented their complete absence in
AP>1859, but little has changed in that regard in 2001. When
AP>paleontologists discovered that stasis was the rule it was
AP>completely unexpected.
Here's a passage written by one of the first researchers to
describe what looks like an expectation of stasis:
[Quote]
Many will exclaim that these several causes are amply
sufficient wholly to stop the action of natural selection. I do
not believe so. On the other hand, I do believe that natural
selection will always act very slowly, often only at long
intervals of time, and generally on only a very few of the
inhabitants of the same region at the same time. I further
believe, that this very slow, intermittent action of natural
selection accords perfectly well with what geology tells us of
the rate and manner at which the inhabitants of this world
have changed.
[End Quote - Charles Darwin, OoS, 1859, pp.152-153]
Pagano is invited to explain his peculiar connotation of
"completely unexpected".
WRE> Because there have been many
WRE> such sequences put forward by various researchers, this
WRE> challenge focusses upon one case at a time.
AP>Elsberry is going to have to do much better than this.
Why? A single counterexample sinks Pagano's original claim.
So far, Pagano has given no reasons to exclude the example
of Pearson et alia as a valid counterexample to his original
claim.
AP>And I have a sneaking suspicion that the other 100 citations
AP>he boasts about are little better than the one offered by him
AP>below.
That's big talk for someone who hasn't yet given us cause to
set aside the evidence of the one example, and who is
apparently completely ignorant of the rest.
AP>Presenting observational reports of the existence of a
AP>sequence of minor morphological changes in the G trilobus
AP>shell which existed for over 1 million years before the
AP>divergence of G trilobus and O universa does not qualify as
AP>evidence that there existed creatures throughout prehistory
AP>exhibiting NASCENT structures leading to genuine novelty and
AP>new creatures.
This discussion by Pagano provides no reason to exclude the
sequence of the paper as a transitional fossil sequence in
contravention of Pagano's 1997 claim.
Pagano's paragraph has so many misleading elements in it that it
is difficult to figure out where to start on replying to it.
The sequence does show a series of morphological changes, each
one a minor change in itself. In sum, though, the difference
between the morphology of G. trilobus and the O. universa
daughter species is major. This is exactly what one would
like to see in a transitional sequence.
Pagano's reference to the timing strikes me as odd. Figure 2
on page 298 gives stratigraphic ranges on four categories of
forams. First is G. trilobus, shown with an extent from the
Early Miocene to the present. Next is G. bisphericus, noted
in the text as having a restricted stratigraphic range and
being used as a biohorizon. Its extent appears to cover about
2.6 Ma, from within the Early Miocene to the end of Biozone M6
at 14.8 Ma. Third is the group of Praeorbulina spp., starting
at at Middle Miocene (16.4 Ma). Last is O. universa,
extending from 15.1 Ma to the present. Yes, populations varied
for a considerable amount of time before specimens meeting the
dual diagnostic criteria of O. universa show up. How this is
supposed to represent a difficulty for this sequence as an
example of a transitional fossil sequence eludes me and is not
explicated by Pagano. The categories each subsume a lot of
populational and morphospecies variation, as described in the
text. It seems to me that this is just what one should expect
in an evolving lineage.
The G. trilobus to O. universa transitional sequence meets the
requirements of providing a counterexample to Pagano's
original claim. It might even meet the requirements of
Pagano's new bait-and-switch claim, if Pagano ever gets around
to defining what his Humpty-Dumpty terminology means.
WRE> The first such
WRE> case is found in:
WRE> Pearson, P.N.; Shackleton, N.J.; and Hall, M.A., 1997. Stable
WRE> isotopic evidence for the sympatric divergence of
WRE> _Globigerinoides_trilobus_ and _Orbulina_universa_ (planktonic
WRE> foraminifera). Journal of the Geological Society, London, v.154,
WRE> p.295-302.
AP>While the scientific report does show evidence of a
AP>sequential change (basically a change in the shape of the
AP>foram shell), the sequential change is not the sort of change
AP>which qualifies as evidence of the emergence of a nascent
AP>structure or system leading to novelty and diversity. So one
AP>could not even legitimately infer the existence of
AP>naturalistic evolutionary transformations from such minor
AP>morphological changes of an EXISTING structure.
This discussion by Pagano provides no reason to exclude the
sequence of the paper as a transitional fossil sequence in
contravention of Pagano's 1997 claim.
Let's review Pagano's original claim again.
[Quote]
AP> Pagano replies: > Ah, the
AP>never surpassed source of all knowledge, the talk.origin FAQ.
AP>Evolutionists talk a lot about ***intermediates*** as opposed
AP>to transitional forms. All sorts of conjectures are made by
AP>evolutionists that this fossil or that represents an
AP>intermediate form between others. Evolutionists propose
AP>numerous ***intermediates,**** but few transitional forms.
AP> Unfortunately the test of the validity
AP>of the intermediate is in producing the **transitional**
AP>fossils which corroborate the continuity from predecessor to
AP>intermediate to descendant. Of the few fossils which
AP>evolutionists propose to be transitional, none are unambiguous.
*AP>NeoDarwinism would predict that there should be numerous (I
*AP>think Darwin said innumerable) **transitional** forms, yet none
*AP>are to be found. Gould was one of the few evolutionists to
AP>confront this and describe the actual attribute of the fossil
AP>record: stasis and sudden appearance. My opinion is this
AP>constitutes (to some degree) refutation of neoDarwinism. I
AP>suspect Gould and Eldredge felt the same or they would not have
AP>proposed punctuated equilibrium.
[End Quote - A Pagano, Message-ID <33B86C56...@fast.net>]
Pagano's original claim is notable for the absence of any such
terminology as "nascent structure" or "diversity". Instead,
Pagano was claiming then that the fossil evidence did not
address relating ancestors and descendants. The Pearson et
alia paper addresses precisely this point. It aims to present
the evidence that the G. trilobus to O. universa transition is
a sympatric speciation event.
Once Pagano defines "nascent structures" and the rest of his
bafflegab, we can discuss whether the example fits his criteria
there as well.
AP>The purpose of the author's research was to test the
AP>hypothesis that the divergence of Globigeriniodes tribolus
AP>and Orbulina universa was probably the result of allopatric
AP>speciation rather than sympatric speciation.
This discussion by Pagano provides no reason to exclude the
sequence of the paper as a transitional fossil sequence in
contravention of Pagano's 1997 claim.
The authors found evidence of sympatric divergence. This has
significance for Pagano's original claim, quoted a couple of
times previously.
AP>Whether or not
AP>the minor variations in the foram shell was the result of
AP>geographic or non geographic speciation events is only of
AP>mild interest because as far as I know neoDarwinians do not
AP>assert that diversity is simply the result of a series of
AP>speciation events (except maybe the punc eq'ers).
This discussion by Pagano provides no reason to exclude the
sequence of the paper as a transitional fossil sequence in
contravention of Pagano's 1997 claim.
It's just more bait-and-switch from Pagano. He talks about
"diversity" here, when that topic was conspicuously absent
from his original claim. Let's clear up the errors of
Pagano's original claim before moving on to the newer errors
that he offers.
The issue of sympatric divergence is of greater interest than
Pagano will admit. Pagano originally claimed that no
transitional sequences linked ancestors with descendents. One
of the objections that an ideologically committed naysayer
like Pagano can deploy is to look at the fossil record of some
group and say that because one or more speciation events
occurred via allopatry we cannot assume any continuity of a
population. Sympatric divergence vitiates that objection.
On the issue of the degree of morphological change seen,
Pagano apparently failed to read the paper concerning the
description of the morphology of O. universa, where the
authors cite a study pointing out that, "It is in fact a feat
of organized complexity for Orbulina to construct a
near-spherical chamber (Spero 1988)." They also said, "It is
impossible not to be impressed by the profound morphological
changes which have occurred in the evolution of Orbulina, for
which there is still no satisfactory explanation." (Pearson
et alia obviously have not had the privilege of meeting
Anthony Pagano.) The morphological difference between
G. trilobus and O. universa is held by the people who have
studied them to be far from "minor". Pagano simply asserts
that the morphological differences are "minor", but adduces no
reasons why anyone else should consider them so, nor does
Pagano give reasons why the authors' description of those same
morphological differences as "profound" should be set aside.
Further, Pagano's original claim made no reference to whether
morphological change was minor, major, or somewhere between.
The issue Pagano originally addressed was whether ancestors
could be linked to intermediates and thence to descendents.
The Pearson et alia paper does an admirable job on this issue.
Pagano gives no reason on the evidence for why this example
does not falsify his original claim.
AP>Both of these creatures (G tribolus and O universa) are
AP>planktonic foraminifera and both have existed together on the
AP>earth for the last 15.1 million years. That sounds
AP>dangerously like stasis although the authors deny this in the
AP>report. The authors didn't set out to prove that the Orbulina
AP>lineage was an example of an evolutionary transition in
AP>prehistory they accepted it as received wisdom in the first
AP>paragraph.
This discussion by Pagano provides no reason to exclude the
sequence of the paper as a transitional fossil sequence in
contravention of Pagano's 1997 claim.
That two species either do or do not show stasis *following*
cladogenesis is irrelevant to the issue of whether the
cladogenetic event itself is well-documented. Refer again to
Pagano's original claim.
Pagano ignores the inconvenient fact that establishing
sympatric speciation requires an evolutionary transition
sampled finely enough to exclude allopatry. The authors set
out to show that this sequence meets even more stringent
requirements than the general class of transitional sequences,
which include sequences in which allopatric speciation occurs.
Pagano also ignores the iconvenient fact that others had studied
the transition before this time.
[Quote]
The evolutionary transition from Globigerinoides to Orbulina was
hypothesized by Cushman and Dorsey (1940) and described in detail
by Blow (1956) and Jenkins (1968). [...]
[End Quote - Pearson et alia (1997), p. 296]
This isn't "received wisdom"; it's scientific research.
I suppose it is too much to expect Pagano to recognize the
distinction.
WRE> Now, it is up to you to show why the fossil sequence described
WRE> therein fails to show transitional fossils. After you outline
WRE> your objections to this sequence, I have another 100 or so
WRE> citations of sequences that are said to show fine grained
WRE> transitions ready to go, one at a time, until either you
WRE> demonstrate that none are actually transitional, or you give
WRE> up your claim.
WRE> Consider yourself challenged.
AP>The authors attribute the minor morphological variations in
AP>the foram shell to cladogenesis and anagenesis.
AP>Unfortunately these are descriptive labels not explanatory.
AP>It was unknown according to the authors what caused the
AP>morphological changes in the shell. What they did discover
AP>was the minor changes in the existing shell occurred over a
AP>wide geographic area, at the same time throughout the
AP>population without any discernable geographic or depth
AP>partitioning.
This discussion by Pagano provides no reason to exclude the
sequence of the paper as a transitional fossil sequence in
contravention of Pagano's 1997 claim.
The authors don't refer to this as a minor morphological
variation, which Pagano would know if he were able to read for
comprehension. "It is impossible not to be impressed by the
profound morphological changes which have occurred in the
evolution of Orbulina, for which there is still no
satisfactory explanation." Obviously, the authors only
considered people who might care what the evidence shows
rather than blindly following their prior ideological
commitments. But explanation is not required to show that
there is evolutionary continuity. Nor is "explanation" a part
of Pagano's original claim. Pagano was talking then about
evidence linking ancestors and descendants. Pagano is
avoiding talking about that now.
AP>Based upon this the authors "concluded" that
AP>the speciation evidents which caused the divergence was not
AP>allopatric but sympatric. If so, then Punc Eq had nothing to
AP>do with this divergence and one could reasonably question the
AP>claim of randomness.
This discussion by Pagano provides no reason to exclude the
sequence of the paper as a transitional fossil sequence in
contravention of Pagano's 1997 claim.
It is not a foregone conclusion that sympatric divergence rules
out PE. G&E 1977 outlines the requirements for considering
a sympatric speciation event to be considered an instance of
PE.
What "claim of randomness"? That seems to come out of left field.
AP>Finally there is barely evidence that
AP>the morphospecies is truly a new biological species let alone
AP>that it represented a transition in evolutionary history.
Pagano also failed to read for comprehension concerning the
status of G. trilobus and O. universa as biospecies. These
are good species as seen in extant populations.
So far, Pagano has apparently failed to read the paper for
comprehension, much less present a case for dismissal of this
sequence as a counter-example to his original claim on
evidential grounds. Pagano deprecated the relevance of the
evidence of sympatric divergence, yet that is of great
relevance to Pagano's original claim. Pagano claimed that the
authors presented the transition as one showing minor
morphological differences; the authors, in fact, said that the
morphologic changes were profound and would impress anyone.
In summary, Pagano engages in various forms of dodging and
misrepresentation. Pagano dodges the inconvenient fact that
his original claim under scrutiny is falsified by the evidence
of Pearson et alia. Pagano's irrelevant new formulation of a
claim about transitional sequences can then only be supported
by Pagano by dint of misrepresenting the content of the
Pearson et alia paper. Many of Pagano's claims and assertions
about the evidence are counter to what the authors relate via
both the text and figures. Pagano gives no reason that we
should accept his fanciful and apparently ignorant assertions
over what the authors themselves relate.
In a recent article (Message-ID <3B6D7C98...@fast.net>),
Pagano says:
AP>Elsberry was the expert and this reply came 24 days after I
AP>read his source and met the challenge.
I haven't noticed that Pagano has "met" the challenge. Certainly
no post that passed through my newsreader would lend me that
impression.
AP>In the time (and number of lines) it took Elsberry to write
AP>this he should have been able to respond---he was the expert
AP>and I'm the creationist fool.
I prefer to respond substantively, and not just utilize
naysaying like Pagano. That has the disadvantage of taking
time to compose, time which I am all too short of this year.
Simple naysaying, as practised so masterfully by Pagano, is
quite economical in both the author's time and the number
of lines needed to convey it. Unfortunately, it's also
intellectually barren, as so much of Pagano's rhetoric
has been.
AP>My guess is that Elsberry picked the source from an
AP>electronic abstract and didn't have immediate access to the
AP>source and never bothered to read it. And good judgement
AP>told him that he might be discredited and embarrassed if he
AP>attempted to rebut me until he actually read the source.
That's an interesting theory that Pagano has got. A falsifier
of that theory would be if there were a record indicating my
acquaintance with the contents of the paper at some point
prior to Pagano's response earlier this year. Pagano should
acquaint himself with the evidence of my comments to David
Buckna back on 1999/05/04, where I cite page numbers within
the Pearson et alia paper in my response. Pagano's commitment
to the principle of falsification will be apparent from his
further responses. If he ignores or otherwise abandons this
claim of his, we will know that his stance is just that of the
ideologically committed polemicist who cannot be bothered to
acknowledge inconvenient evidence.
However, my familiarity with this source or that source is not
the issue. Pagano made a sweeping universal claim back in
1997, and is still aparently unclear on the concept that he
has been caught with his hand in the cookie jar. It is
interesting to see the various counterfactual fabrications and
digressions Pagano makes in order to divert attention from
this simple fact.
AP>Since 24 Mar Elsberry has vanished. By Horn's definition
AP>this is "running." Horn should be regularely criticizing
AP>his evolutionist brother as a "runner."
I have more important things to do than to tell Anthony Pagano
that he is ignorant, misleading, and annoying in an active
thread. As the AI Jargon File says, it's dogwash. So far, I
have integrated findings from acoustic, physiologic,
endoscopic, anatomic, and computed tomography data in my
dissertation research on bottlenose dolphins. I've got
perhaps two-thirds of my text written towards that
all-important first draft. I keep telling myself, "If it were
easy, somebody else would have already done it." If Pagano
wants to label my set of priorities as "running", I can live
with that. I assume other readers will be somewhat more
perspicacious.
Pagano should get back to me when he has read the paper for
comprehension and is ready to discuss the evidence. Or, I
guess, if he's ready to admit that his original claim was
bogus. In any case, it's back to the research grindstone for
me for a while. I hope to be able to rejoin active
talk.origins participation within the next few months. Until
then, Pagano, silence does *not* indicate assent.
Appendix A: The Transitional Fossil Existence Challenge
Transitional Fossil Existence Challenge
Last Updated: 2001/08/13
The Claim:
Anti-evolutionists often make a claim that the fossil record
contains no transitional fossils. This runs counter to the
claims of many researchers in paleontology.
The Challenge:
This challenge is to show just how much familiarity the
anti-evolutionist making the claim of no transitional fossil
sequences has with the actual evidence of the fossil record.
By making a universal claim concerning transitional fossils,
the anti-evolutionist should be prepared to back up the claim
with extended technical discussion of the reasons why all
sequences that others believe to be transitional in nature
really are not transitional. Because there have been many
such sequences put forward by various researchers, this
challenge focusses upon one case at a time. The first such
case is found in:
Pearson, P.N.; Shackleton, N.J.; and Hall, M.A., 1997. Stable
isotopic evidence for the sympatric divergence of
_Globigerinoides_trilobus_ and _Orbulina_universa_ (planktonic
foraminifera). Journal of the Geological Society, London, v.154,
p.295-302.
Now, it is up to you to show why the fossil sequence described
therein fails to show transitional fossils. After you outline
your objections to this sequence, I have another 100 or so
citations of sequences that are said to show fine grained
transitions ready to go, one at a time, until either you
demonstrate that none are actually transitional, or you give
up your claim.
Consider yourself challenged.
Andrew Macrae pointed out the citation listed above. Other
bibliographic entries come from the examples in Tables 1 & 2 in
Roger Cuffey's excellent paper, Paleontologic evidence and
organic evolution, which can be found in Montagu's "Science and
Creationism" or the Journal of the American Scientific
Affiliation 24(4), just in case you want to get a jump-start on
the rest of the entries.
Please note that unfamiliarity with the reference above is a
failure of the claim of absence of transitional sequences --
the claim requires *complete* knowledge of fossil sequences,
and unfamiliarity with any is prima facie evidence that the
claimant doesn't have the basis for the claim.
Andrew Macrae's commentary on the cited paper:
[Quote]
In the example I cite above, it is a transition between
two species that are assigned to separate genera. Furthermore,
there are 4 other species "between" them, 3 of which are
assigned to yet another genus. It could always be argued that
the genera have been "oversplit" in the foraminifera, but that
does not change the obvious morphologic pattern or the fact
that one morphology incrementally diverged into two that
remained subsequently distinct.
[End quote -- A. Macrae, Message-ID <5prq71$d91$1...@kerberos.ediacara.org>]
Figures from the Pearson et al. paper are now on the WWW at
<http://www.best.com/~dlindsay/creation/fossil_series.html>,
<http://www.best.com/~dlindsay/creation/orbulina.html>,
<http://www.best.com/~dlindsay/creation/orbulina_chart.html>,
and
<http://www.best.com/~dlindsay/creation/orbulina_pic.html>.
Evidentiary and Non-Evidentiary Responses to Challenges
There are two main ways in which respondents can deal with the
Transitional Fossil Existence Challenge. The intellectually
honest and appropriate way is with specific discussion of the
fossil evidence as described and discussed in the primary
literature. This is by far the least common approach taken by
those who have been given the TFEC, and typically only follows
after a long period of non-response, the elapsed time
apparently serving as an index of the claimant's unfamiliarity
with the specific evidence.
The other category of approach is to ignore, so far as
possible, any mention or discussion of actual fossil evidence.
These varied strategies are what I term "non-evidentiary"
responses, since they are completely independent of empirical
data. There are many routes to achieving this end. The
simplest is non-response. The challenged person may decide
that not saying anything further is the best option, sometimes
in the hope that there will be no long-term penalty for this
behavior, and that eventually few, if any, persons will
remember the abandonment of the original claim. Another
common non-evidentiary response is digression. Bringing up a
different topic as if it held some relevance to the TFEC
allows someone to give a semblance of a reply, even though few
will be fooled by it. Yet another strategy is to discuss
theoretical issues as if theory did away with the need to
actually look at the empirical data. A variant of the theory
strategy is the quote-mining of those people who expound
theory. Usually, though, quotes reveal nothing about the
specific data at hand, and often come from sources whose
opposition to anti-evolutionary action is otherwise
well-known. Still another variant upon the theory strategy is
the definition game. One can construct connotations of
"transitional" such that no real-world evidence can satisfy
all the piled-on conditions. It is useful to know when an
anti-evolutionist simply defines evidence out of existence,
though. Another possible tactic is to dismiss the taxonomic
category from which the cited example comes. A respondent can
claim that they really meant no transitional fossils in some
other taxonomic hierarchy, but they often seem to forget that
this means that the "no transitional fossils" claim is then
self-admittedly false. A particularly brazen non-evidentiary
response is to play an "even if" game, as in, "Even if this is
true, it doesn't mean anything." That ignores that if the
cited sequence does contain transitional fossils, it at least
means that the claim of no transitional fossils is false.
The following is a short form for response to the TFEC, if
a challenged person wishes to ignore the evidence and simply
adopt one of the non-evidentiary tactics for their own. Simply
indicate which one or more of the following Non-Evidentiary
Response Items (NERI) fits what would otherwise involve a bunch
of redundant typing.
Non-Evidentiary Response Items:
A. You have your faith; I have mine.
B. I meant that no vertebrate transitional fossils exist.
C. I meant that no transitional fossils above taxonomic rank
____________ (fill in the blank) exist.
D. I have quotes from _______________ (give list of names) that
say that no transitional fossils exist.
E. My understanding of ________________ theory (fill in blank)
is that transitional fossils cannot exist.
F. My connotation of "transitional fossils" is ____________
(fill in blank), which means that none can exist.
G. I have a cool rebuttal of ___________ (fill in blank).
What were you saying about transitional fossils?
H. Even if the cited example does show transitional fossils,
it doesn't mean anything.
I. I cannot be bothered to support my claim, so I will not be
giving you a reply.
J. I promise to support my claim Real Soon Now. I will be in
touch. My reply will be devastating to you and completely
and utterly convincing to everyone. Just you wait. It's
in the mail.
The Challenged:
The people whose names appear below all made a claim or
implication of absence of transitional sequences, and were
served up with a version of the Transitional Fossil Existence
Challenge. This is a roster of who they were, when they were
challenged, where they were, and how they responded to the
challenge.
Date Name Forum/Source Response
19940228 Bruce Willis CONTROV Disappeared
19940309 Michael Funk CONTROV None
19940510 Johnnie Odom CONTROV None
19940714 Andrew Cummins Evolution "Prove all biologists accept it"
19940717 Ras Mikael Enoch t.o. None
19940718 Jim Pattison CONTROV "Can't find the reference"
19940816 Charles Edward Evolution None
19940917 Davey Jones Evolution None
19941002 Lane P. Lester Evolution None
19941030 John Shirey t.o. None
19941129 Kevin Clark Evolution None
19941208 Doug Wagner Evolution None
19941214 Jim Loucks t.o. None
19950312 Mark Russell misc.education.science None
19950322 Ross Wolfle t.o. Implied recantation
19950401 Scott Brian Allen t.o. None
19950404 B. Schweig (?) t.o. "No time to do research"
19950407 Lawrence Free Email "I only meant vertebrate transitions"
19950514 Arthur Biele t.o.
Irrelevant re-posted criticisms of Hunt's FAQ (19961116)
Irrelevant re-re-posted criticisms of Hunt's FAQ (19990305)
First mention of Barnard's paper (19990306)
Misquoted Barnard (19990306, M-ID
<19990306111112...@ng-fr1.aol.com>)
Misrepresented Barnard (19990306, M-ID
<7brtg0$9su$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>)
Claims differences are due to temperature or environment (19990306)
See <http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=452898756> for
my rebuttal (19990309)
Some further highly selective commentary on Barnard has been posted
by Biele, in which he misrepresents Barnard as disputing any
change at the species level or higher.
19950610 Tony Ermie Evolution None
19960408 Jahnu Das Email "I am really not qualified to discuss
evolution on a technical level."
19960506 David Markwordt Evolution None
19960520 Ted Holden t.o. None
19960828 David Ford t.o. DF actually looked up the article, quoted
Barnard saying that he had transitionals across genera, but did not
admit existence of transitionals. Has since engaged in a great deal
of rhetorical excess, none of which disestablishes Barnard's examples.
19961027 Steve Sorenson t.o. "You've got your faith; I've got mine."
19961109 Tim Harwood t.o. None
19961230 Karl Crawford t.o. None
19970125 Herman Reimann t.o. None
19970224 Darren Serhal t.o. None
19970324 Eldridge t.o. "Put the paper on a WWW page."
19970412 Joe Potter t.o. None
19970421 RevMike t.o. None
19970423 Larry Cavender t.o. "Do you believe the Bible?"
19970603 Yehuda Silver t.o. None
19970701 A Pagano t.o. Didn't understand the logic behind the challenge;
failed to address the evidence for over three years.
2001/01/29: Whined that the Pearson citation was in a journal other
than "Science"; admitted that he was ignorant of the evidence
discussed by Pearson et alia.
2001/03/01: Posted a response saying that the Pearson et alia 1997
sequence didn't show "nascent structures" and "increasing diversity",
neither of which appeared in Pagano's 1997 claim.
2001/08/04: Repost of the 2001/03/01 post, with some additional
comments about the lack of a reply from me (I've been writing up
my dissertation; Pagano is welcome to disagree with my assignment
of priorities.)
19970816 Jonathon O'Quinn t.o. None
19980717 Publius t.o. None
19981006 Alal t.o. None
19981110 Minor...@aol.com t.o. None
19990107 Teno Groppi http://www.vbe.com/~tdg/creation/cedebate.html
"These figments of imagination are renewed constantly. It
used to be Archaoepteryx and the Equuine series. One they
were disproved, it was something else. Once that was
debunked it was another. Now this. How much you wanna bet
this is replaced by another wild claim next year?" (19990108)
"They are not transitions FROM anything, they are not
transitions TO anything. The entire claim is totally bogus and
a figment of your imagination. [...] When did I agree to a
wager? Was that as one groundless as your alleged
transition?" (19990114)
19990224 Steve Sorenson (again) t.o. None
19990225 Mark Allison t.o "Worst case scenario (for me): all 100
of your examples are at least possible scenarios to prove you
completely correct. But... here are three reasons why this wouldn't
prove ANYTHING:" No discussion of Barnard or the fossil evidence (19990304)
19990309 Katy Moffitt atl.general None
19990417 Rhett alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic None
19990421 Brad Clark alt.christnet None
19990505 MS Goodrich talk.origins None
20000202 JerryG talk.origins None
20000217 Todd talk.origins None
20000815 Erik talk.origins "Sorry, your challenge, as
written, is impossible. Trying to prove a negative is
impossible. The burden of proof lies on you to prove a
positive." (2000/08/16)
Erik wasn't asked to prove his entire claim all at once.
Erik was asked why the specific evidence cited should not
be considered transitional. Erik did not address the
existing evidence.
20001107 "Pastor Dave" Raymond alt.christnet Original
statement: "The fact remains, that there are no
transitional fossil records."
Response to TFEC (2000/11/28): "Another faulty and false tactic.
It is never up to me to prove a negative. It is up to the ones
making the claim that something is the way they say it is, to
prove that it is. The fact remains, there are no transitional
fossils."
Pastor Dave completely ignored the evidence of the fossils
and gave no reason to discount the cited example as
documenting a transitional fossil sequence.
20010116 Ed Finn alt.politics.bush Original statement:
"The most shocking fact is that the fossil record has
absolutely no transitional forms between species."
Response: Pending.
20010118 'd ocean' talk.origins Original statement:
"there are NO transitional fossils, and there is NO proof
that the fossil record confirms macro-evolution."
Response: Pending.
20010120 John B. Williston alt.games.baldurs-gate Original
statement: "What would be nice would be a clear,
consistent and slowly gradual record of even *one* species'
transition. And to date, there is none to be had."
Response: "More specifically, I should not have said that
*no* evidence for transitional forms exists; rather, I
should have said only that there is a startling *dearth* of
evidence." (20010121)
No *evidentiary* response within a month causes the "Pending"
to be changed to "None". A "None" response can be changed to
something else if an *evidentiary* response is eventually
made, or a particularly revealing non-evidentiary response is
made. Responses sent via non-public channels confer an
irrevocable right of publication to Wesley R. Elsberry. I
can't have unquotable responses showing up in my incoming
email or snailmail. I plan to create a web page that includes
every follow-up made to the TFEC, whether the contents are
relevant or not, for public documentation of all claims and
counterclaims, arguments and rebuttals.
--
Wesley R. Elsberry, Student in Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences, Tx A&M U.
Visit the Online Zoologists page (http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry)
CNS BBS FTP Archive: ftp://inia.cls.org/pub/CNS/bbs/
"i asked him how about a microbe and he turned pale as he thought it over" -a.
Mike Goodrich
> Sigh. I've become aware of Pagano's recent diatribes. One response
> to his original stuff now; anything further will have to wait until
> later.
>
> In article <3B0A8BA4...@fast.net>, A Pagano <apa...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> AP>[NOTE: I met Elsberry's Challenge on Mar 1, 2001. Elsberry
> AP>confirmed publiclly that I met his challenge and wrote that
> AP>he didn't have time immediately to rebut because of pressing
> AP>academic responsibilities. As far as I know he has not
> AP>defended his challenge in this forum. Pasted below for
> AP>Elsberry's benefit with some minor revisions is that post.
>
> Pagano misleads with the above statements. I don't recall
> ever having stipulated that Pagano "met" the TFEC. I do
> recall acknowledging that Pagano had made a *response* to the
> TFEC.
>
> One of the significant points raised by the TFEC is the issue
> of whether the anti-evolutionist making the claim of "no
> transitional fossils" does so based upon detailed knowledge of
> the fossil evidence or out of ignorance.
>
Of course sceptics, the *other* significant point raised is the
issue of wether the *anti-(evolutionism-sceptic)* making the claim
of "best evidence for the existence of transistional forms" (or similar)
does so based upon detailed knowledge of the fossil evidence or out
of ignorance/presumption or just plain old bluster.
Pagano took the time to actually examine the "best evidence"
cited to him and has effectively called Elsberry's bluff. The reference
is apparently concerned only with speciation and employs the typically weak
definition of 'speciation' given to the term. Did Elsberry think noone would
actually call his bluff on this disingenuous citation?
What follows is a lot of subterfuge, clever word play, and sophistry by
Elsberry as he resorts to these rhetorical devices in an attempt to
avoid looking bad. Do you (true) sceptics find it convincing?
for your consideration,
-mike goodrich
"Buy the truth, and sell it not".
-Solomon - King in Israel
Eric Gill
>
<snip>
> What follows is a lot of subterfuge, clever word play, and sophistry by
> Elsberry as he resorts to these rhetorical devices in an attempt to
> avoid looking bad.
Funny- if I were to summarize Elseberry's response I'd label it a
precise and properly referenced debunking of Pagano's propogandistic and
substance-free grandstanding.
Is there anyone at home who considers you both sane and honest? If so,
have they ever read your newsgroup persona?
> Do you (true) sceptics find it convincing?
Your tripe? Not in the least- up to and including the obviously implied
re-definition of "skeptic" to anyone who swallows your swill.
<snip re-quoted material and sig>
muju51
<9eb2c5ac.01081...@posting.google.com>:
>Of course sceptics, the *other* significant point raised is the
>issue of wether the *anti-(evolutionism-sceptic)* making the claim
>of "best evidence for the existence of transistional forms" (or similar)
>does so based upon detailed knowledge of the fossil evidence or out
>of ignorance/presumption or just plain old bluster.
You want to run that one by me again? I'm having a hard time parsing it
for some reason.
>Pagano took the time to actually examine the "best evidence"
>cited to him and has effectively called Elsberry's bluff.
Actually, I think it would be more accurate to say Pagano has
*ineffectively* called Elsberry's bluff. All Pagano did was essentially to
say that he looked at the evidence, and chose not to accept it. He didn't
give any particularly telling reasons why the evidence should be rejected,
and since he offered no clear, *measurable* standard for determining the
degree to which a particular structure is transitional/nascent/fully-
formed/mature/etc, his objections boil down to the empty "Does Not!" of
childhood debates.
>The reference
>is apparently concerned only with speciation and employs the typically
>weak definition of 'speciation' given to the term.
Are you saying that the paper by Pearson et al does *not* discuss "the
difference between the morphology of G. trilobus and the O. universa", as
Elsberry claims? Such a discussion would seem to bear directly on the
claims made by Pagano, as well as the original Transitional Fossil
Existence Challenge, whether you call the intermediates "species" or not.
>Did Elsberry think
>noone would actually call his bluff on this disingenuous citation?
Calling his bluff would require explaining exactly why the incremental
changes discussed by Pearson et al would not reasonably be considered
transitional. Pagano tried to quibble over the definition of
"transitional," but he never supplied a better definition (or indeed any
clear, measurable definition of the term at all).
>What follows is a lot of subterfuge, clever word play, and sophistry by
>Elsberry as he resorts to these rhetorical devices in an attempt to
>avoid looking bad.
Please show one example of actual subterfuge in Elsberry's posting?
>Do you (true) sceptics find it convincing?
Well, it certainly does a better job of presenting clear, objective
evidence than any creationist postings I've seen so far.
muju
Joe Cummings
(Mike Goodrich) wrote:
<Great big snip>
Hi, Mike,
I wonder if you could show us how you came to be convinced
that Pagano had done a good creationist job on Wesley Elsberry?
Something like the points that were made, and the logical
steps that were deployed in the argument.
I'm really curious to know your thought processes.
Have fun,
Joe Cummings
Dave Horn
"Mike Goodrich" <sce...@cx318157-c.chspk1.va.home.com> wrote in message
news:9eb2c5ac.01081...@posting.google.com...
>
> "Wesley R. Elsberry" <w...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com> wrote in message
news:<2001081318...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com>...
[Snip]
> > Pagano misleads with the above statements. I don't
> > recall ever having stipulated that Pagano "met" the
> > TFEC. I do recall acknowledging that Pagano had
> > made a *response* to the TFEC.
What about this, Mike? Did Pagano lie, then, when he claimed that Wesley
"admitted" that the challenge was met? As was pointed out then and as Wes
has confirmed, Wes said no such thing. Yet Pagano claimed it and insisted
on it.
What about that, Mike?
> > One of the significant points raised by the TFEC is
> > the issue of whether the anti-evolutionist making the
> > claim of "no transitional fossils" does so based upon
> > detailed knowledge of the fossil evidence or out of
> > ignorance.
>
> Of course sceptics, the *other* significant point raised is the
> issue of wether the *anti-(evolutionism-sceptic)* making the
> claim of "best evidence for the existence of transistional forms"
> (or similar) does so based upon detailed knowledge of the
> fossil evidence or out of ignorance/presumption or just plain
> old bluster.
I can attest that Wesley has far greater knowledge than you and Pagano put
together, if that was part of your point, since I confess that after a long
day, I had a hard time parsing what you write above.
By the way, what's all this about "best evidence?" Who claimed it was "best
evidence." The TFEC was a challenge written the first time many years ago.
The first time I ever saw a version of it was in the old FidoNet EVOLUTION
echo, long before I ever posted to this newsgroup. By that time, Wes and I
had interacted enough that I was thoroughly convinced of his knowledge of
the fossil record.
Wes is absolutely correct. When an anti-evolutionist claims that there are
no transitional forms, that presupposes that the claimant (Pagano, in this
case) has at least a good working knowledge of the fossil record.
Consequently, the TFEC, first issues to Pagano roughly four years ago, was
perfectly appropriate to what Pagano was claiming.
The only bluffs being exposed here are Pagano's and yours - assuming you
really want to play mindless cheerleader to pompous Pagano's pontifications.
> Pagano took the time to actually examine the "best
> evidence" cited to him...
There it is again.
Who claimed "best evidence," Mike? Give us an article citation.
> ...and has effectively called Elsberry's bluff. The
> reference is apparently concerned only with
> speciation and employs the typically weak definition
> of 'speciation' given to the term.
Really?
The issue had to do with Pagano's claims with respect to transitional forms.
Let's remember that you have made similar claims but...but...waitaminnit!
Mike, weren't you presented with the TFEC back in 1999 or so?
Let me look again at Wes's article...yep, there it is.
"19990505 MS Goodrich talk.origins None"
That means you were presented with the challenge and never answered, Mike?
As they say these days, "what's up with that?" Could it be that this speech
you're making now is predicated on a bit of self-interest, since you had no
answer for the TFEC then and, after all, it took Pagano four *years* to try
to deal with it.
By the way, didn't you find it the least bit interesting that Pagano
*finally* decided to approach the issue when it was clear that Wes's level
of participation was almost nil?
But I digress...
Why don't you show us about bluffs, Mike, and explain just how this article
citation by Wes "exploits a typically weak definition" of speciation and
does *not* provide evidence of transition.
To do that, you'll have to read the article, won't you?
> Did Elsberry think noone would actually call his bluff
> on this disingenuous citation?
Since you've never read the referenced article and you, yourself, ducked out
on the challenge two years ago, how would you know what is bluff and what is
not? Are you simply taking Pagano's word for it because you already have a
philosophical agreement with his position and you would automatically
discount any evidence that contradicts that view?
You've already demonstrated that you're afraid of detailed discussion and
debate with respect to these issues, Mike. Why should we believe anything
you tell us? In fact, you would be best served not to cozy up so readily to
the likes of Pagano, who has demonstrated that he has no scruples when it
comes to these issues.
At any rate, there was no bluff on Wes's part. Wes demonstrated quite
thoroughly and in no uncertain terms that Pagano did *not* meet the
challenge and certainly lied when he claimed that Wes admitted that the
challenge had been met. Wes demonstrated quite thoroughly that Pagano
evaded the challenge and added conditions later (this is not a new tactic of
Pagano's - who seems to think that "confused christians" like you are too
stupid to pick up on it - and who knows...maybe he's right about that).
Pagano *still* has not honestly addressed the challenge. Furthermore, there
were several detailed rebuttals in addition to Wes's and Pagano ran from
every one of them.
Who was bluffing? Who was being disingenuous?
Pagano was bluffing, of course.
And you are being disingenuous. You've never read the article and you
definitely have a self-interest involved here.
> What follows is a lot of subterfuge...
Really?
Where? Exactly?
> ...clever word play, and sophistry by Elsberry as he
> resorts to these rhetorical devices in an attempt to
> avoid looking bad.
Really?
Where? Exactly? Be specific.
> Do you (true) sceptics find it convincing?
Absolutely. Wes approached the subject honestly and with a great deal of
knowledge and expertise.
What have you got against that?
> for your consideration...
Pagano was slam-dunked. You're just too blinded to see it.
A Pagano
"Wesley R. Elsberry" wrote:
>
> Sigh. I've become aware of Pagano's recent diatribes. One response
> to his original stuff now; anything further will have to wait until
> later.
>
> In article <3B0A8BA4...@fast.net>, A Pagano <apa...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> AP>[NOTE: I met Elsberry's Challenge on Mar 1, 2001. Elsberry
> AP>confirmed publiclly that I met his challenge and wrote that
> AP>he didn't have time immediately to rebut because of pressing
> AP>academic responsibilities. As far as I know he has not
> AP>defended his challenge in this forum. Pasted below for
> AP>Elsberry's benefit with some minor revisions is that post.
>
> Pagano misleads with the above statements. I don't recall
> ever having stipulated that Pagano "met" the TFEC. I do
> recall acknowledging that Pagano had made a *response* to the
> TFEC.
Pagano replies:
The fact that Elsberry's usual nonsubstantive dismissal wasn't
sufficient was in effect an admission that his challenge had been met.
In fact he implies above that additional rebuttal may be necessary.
Regards,
T Pagano
Dave Horn
rebuts something that Pagano (or anyone says) does not, in and of itself,
mean that a challenge was "met." Pagano once again squirms under the
massive weight of the evidence that has been brought to bear against him and
relies on nonstandard understanding of phrases.
Pagano did *not* meet the challenge...and what Pagano seems to want folks to
forget is that he claimed that Wes *admitted* that the challenge was "met."
Pagano, in his arrogance, may assume that he met the challenge, but he lies
to us when he tries to tell is - *despite* Wes's statements - that Wes
admitted anything of the kind.
"A Pagano" <apa...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:3B78AB7D...@fast.net...
Only in Pagano's dreamworld. First of all, Wes's rebuttal and refutation of
Pagano's unspecific and unsubstantive presumption with respect to the
challenge does not result "in effect" in any sort of admission that the
challenge was "met." This is simply fantasy on the part of Pagano. The
challenge has *not* been met; and Wes's response was not "nonsubstantive."
I predict that this is the last we'll hear from Pagano on the subject.
Pagano will not provide a substantive, detailed discussion of the issue with
respect to an actual evaluation of the evidence. At best, he will take full
advantage of the fact that Wes cannot devote much time to this newsgroup and
might make another speech.
> In fact he implies above that additional rebuttal may be
> necessary.
Wes's statement to that effect indicates nothing more than if further input
from Pagano (or anyone else) occurs, any rebuttal or response from Wes will
have to wait until he has attended to more important matters.
Meanwhile, Pagano still owes us for two links...and for much more...
A Pagano
Elsberry continues:
> One of the significant points raised by the TFEC is the issue
> of whether the anti-evolutionist making the claim of "no
> transitional fossils" does so based upon detailed knowledge of
> the fossil evidence or out of ignorance.
Pagano replies:
I never claimed I was an expert and the notion that I must have a
detailed working knowledge of ALL the existing evidence in order to
criticize the claim that so-called "transitional" creatures existed is
nonsense.
The scientific report which Elsberry offered as evidence of the
existence of "transitionals" wasn't anything of the sort. The authors
of that report explicitly presupposed the existence of "transitionals"
in the first paragraph. I should point out to the elitist academian
that to suggest that the observations and conclusions drawn by the
authors represented evidence in favor of that which they assumed to be
true from the start is called CIRCULAR LOGIC. From philosophy of logic
101 circular logic is considered poor reasoning. In fact what was at
issue in the author's investigation was whether the divergence between
the two FORAM populations was the result of sympatric or allopatric
speciation.
*******************************
Elsberry continues:
> [Quote]
>
> Please note that unfamiliarity with the reference above is a
> failure of the claim of absence of transitional sequences --
> the claim requires *complete* knowledge of fossil sequences,
> and unfamiliarity with any is prima facie evidence that the
> claimant doesn't have the basis for the claim.
Pagano replies:
No such scientific standard exists which requires "complete" knowledge
before harsh criticism may be offered or theories may be offered. All
this arbitrary rule does is attempt by fiat rather than scientific
argument to stave off casting his challenge in the scrap heap.
***********************************
Elsberry continues:
> [End Quote - original text of the challenge presented to
> Pagano, 1997/07/01]
>
> By Pagano's own admission, he had no knowledge of the specific
> evidence of the G. trilobus to O. universa transition when he
> made his original universal claim.
Pagano replies:
My claim that there does not exist a single unambiguous transitional
fossil creature is conjectural. That I made such a conjecture with
conviction and bravado did not make it any less conjectural. It is
always open for refutation. It is exactly because we are infinitely
ignorant and can NEVER HAVE COMPLETE information that our background
knowledge is always conjectural. The question is: does the existence of
the two populations of foram (O. universa and G. trulobus) stand as a
refutation of my conjecture? I seriously doubt it.
As I pointed out in March 2001 Elsberry's challenge rises or falls on
how broadly he defines change. Elsberry apparently claims that any sort
of finely graded change qualifies as evidence of the existence of true
"transitionals." Hence the endless citations for foram observations
which evolutionists proudly point to because of the finely graded
transitions. Unfortunately one can hardly argue that because the foram
shell changed in shape (how ever finely) over time therefore genuinely
nascent structures arose in prehistory and therefore evolutionary
transformism is true.
If scientists could not offer a conjecture unless they had "complete"
knowledge (as Elsberry suggests) then not a single theory could ever be
advanced. Theories are sometimes advanced after a single observation.
My conjecture could be refuted at any time by producing the goods.
Darwin knew that such evidence had not been found in 1859 and it still
has not been found. Producing evidence that one population of foram
evolved into another population of foram really doesn't rise to the
occassion. That such variations show finely graded sequences of change
of existing structures isn't disputed. The structures in question
already existed, the variations are minor. The search for
transitionals is the search for REAL HISTORICAL EVIDENCE of how and when
new structures ORIGINATED.
Regards,
T Pagano
Mike Dunford
In point of fact, Elsberry took time out from work on his dissertation
to address, in detail, why he felt that you had not met the challenge.
He did this in the remaining 900+ lines of the reply which you deleted.
You have addressed none of the points which he brought up, choosing
instead to cut and evade.
You have responded to Elsberry's challenge. He has explained to you, in
detail, why he finds your response unsatisfactory. Many, if not all of
the issues he raises in your response appear to me to be more than
reasonable. In fact, a number of them are similar to points I have
raised with you, as well. You have chosen to address none of the
substantive issues, instead seizing on the introduction instead of the
message.
Are you willing to face the same harsh criticism which you have
repeatedly stated is key to science, or do you feel that you are exempt?
+
I will again raise the point which I think holds one of the major flaws
in your response to the challenge:
On what grounds do you claim that the origin of a _new_ chamber in the
shell of _Orbulina_universa_ fails to meet your own criteria for a
nascent structure. As I have pointed out in prior posts, we have a new
shell chamber, one which did not exist in _Globigerinoides_trilobus_,
but which existed in an incomplete form in _G._bisphericus, and in a
somewhat more complete form in _Praeorbulina_spp._
This would appear to fulfill any reasonable definitions of both
'nascent' and 'structure.' Further, since this transition has resulted
in a net increase in the number of species of foram presently extant, it
would seem to fulfill any reasonable definition of 'diversity' as well.
+
Unfortunately, the type of reply which Pagano has just posted --
snipping over 900 relevant lines, and addressing the introduction
instead -- is all too typical of his posting style in this forum. I am
not sure whether the dodge-and-twist posting style is due to the
realization that his claims cannot withstand even superficial critical
inspection, or what some of my British friends refer to as "sheer
bloody-mindedness." Either way, it is a shame. Given past history, I
don't even expect a reply to any of the substantive issues which I have
with his post. (For ease of identification, they are in this post
bracketed by '+' marks.)
--Mike Dunford
Joe Cummings
Cummings) wrote:
I should have added, Mike, "What do you understand Pagano's
definition of 'transitional' to be?"
Perhaps a pointer to where he defined transitional would help.
Have fun,
Joe Cummings
Mike Dunford
A Pagano wrote:
>
> This is a continuation of a reply to Elsberry.
>
> Elsberry continues:
> > One of the significant points raised by the TFEC is the issue
> > of whether the anti-evolutionist making the claim of "no
> > transitional fossils" does so based upon detailed knowledge of
> > the fossil evidence or out of ignorance.
>
> Pagano replies:
> I never claimed I was an expert and the notion that I must have a
> detailed working knowledge of ALL the existing evidence in order to
> criticize the claim that so-called "transitional" creatures existed is
> nonsense.
>
> The scientific report which Elsberry offered as evidence of the
> existence of "transitionals" wasn't anything of the sort. The authors
> of that report explicitly presupposed the existence of "transitionals"
> in the first paragraph. I should point out to the elitist academian
> that to suggest that the observations and conclusions drawn by the
> authors represented evidence in favor of that which they assumed to be
> true from the start is called CIRCULAR LOGIC. From philosophy of logic
> 101 circular logic is considered poor reasoning. In fact what was at
> issue in the author's investigation was whether the divergence between
> the two FORAM populations was the result of sympatric or allopatric
> speciation.
Again, and as Elsberry pointed out, the 'assumption' of transition in
this case was based on a body of scientific research which had already
been published, and which was cited in the paper at hand. If you wish, I
will attempt to obtain copies of the relevant citations for you, and you
can address the same fossil series based on them. That will not help
your arguments, however, since the fossil evidence is still there. The
authors did not 'assume' ad nihlo that the series at hand is
transitional, they accepted the scientific concensus, based on openly
published work, that this was the case. This is how science works. If
everyone had to repeat all of the work which preceded their own, nothing
would ever get done.
Further, the argument is not circular. By your own admission, the
authors conclusion is not their assumption. Likewise, our assumption is
not the same as the authors. We can legitimately use their data to
evaluate other conclusions as long as we do not assign any greater
reliability to their data than they do.
[snip]
> Elsberry continues:
> > [End Quote - original text of the challenge presented to
> > Pagano, 1997/07/01]
> >
> > By Pagano's own admission, he had no knowledge of the specific
> > evidence of the G. trilobus to O. universa transition when he
> > made his original universal claim.
>
> Pagano replies:
> My claim that there does not exist a single unambiguous transitional
> fossil creature is conjectural. That I made such a conjecture with
> conviction and bravado did not make it any less conjectural. It is
> always open for refutation. It is exactly because we are infinitely
> ignorant and can NEVER HAVE COMPLETE information that our background
> knowledge is always conjectural. The question is: does the existence of
> the two populations of foram (O. universa and G. trulobus) stand as a
> refutation of my conjecture? I seriously doubt it.
Then defend your conjecture. As I have repeatedly asked:
How does the origin of a new shell chamber in this sequence (spanning
four species of three genera) fail to meet any reasonable definition for
the origin of a 'nascent structure?' Certainly, it fits the published
dictionary definitions of each of the words individually. Is 'nascent
structure' some term of art which I have not yet come across in my study
of paleontology? If so, what is the exact definition?
> As I pointed out in March 2001 Elsberry's challenge rises or falls on
> how broadly he defines change. Elsberry apparently claims that any sort
> of finely graded change qualifies as evidence of the existence of true
> "transitionals." Hence the endless citations for foram observations
> which evolutionists proudly point to because of the finely graded
> transitions. Unfortunately one can hardly argue that because the foram
> shell changed in shape (how ever finely) over time therefore genuinely
> nascent structures arose in prehistory and therefore evolutionary
> transformism is true.
I still fail to see how the origination of an entire new chamber in the
shell fails to meet any definition I can find for a new structure. How
are you defining structure, and where can I find this definition?
> If scientists could not offer a conjecture unless they had "complete"
> knowledge (as Elsberry suggests) then not a single theory could ever be
> advanced. Theories are sometimes advanced after a single observation.
> My conjecture could be refuted at any time by producing the goods.
Unless you can come up with a definition of structure that excludes the
new chamber in the shell, and can justify the use of your definition
rather than the webster definition, I would say your conjecture has been
refuted.
> Darwin knew that such evidence had not been found in 1859 and it still
> has not been found. Producing evidence that one population of foram
> evolved into another population of foram really doesn't rise to the
> occassion.
Given that the two 'populations' involved are observable, extant,
biological species, with differences substantial enough that their
classification in different genera has not been recently questioned, I
would say that it does indeed demonstrate that new species of organism
can evolve from other species. This was the fundamental point of Origin
of Species.
> That such variations show finely graded sequences of change
> of existing structures isn't disputed. The structures in question
> already existed, the variations are minor.
Your definition of variations in existing structures places relatively
few restrictions on evolution. For example, there is no difference among
any of the placental mammals that cannot be described as a variation in
an existing structure. Your definition of minor is similarly broad --
almost to the point of being ludicrously so. If the difference in the
shells is a minor variation, than so is the difference between a
four-fingered hand and a five-fingered hand.
> The search for
> transitionals is the search for REAL HISTORICAL EVIDENCE of how and when
> new structures ORIGINATED.
That might be your definition of a transitional. It is not now, nor has
it ever been, the generally accepted definition used by biologists and
paleontologists. Darwin was concerned with what he perceived to be an
absence of fossils demonstrating changes from species to species. He did
not define transitional as involving exclusively new structures, nor did
he bring up how the structures originated. Darwin's sole concern is the
presense of fossils demonstrating change from species to species.
Darwin himself raised concerns with the absence of transitional fossils,
AS HE DEFINED TRANSITIONAL, in Origin of Species. To argue, as you
appear to here, that we must demonstrate the existance of transitional
fossils, AS YOU DEFINE THE TERM, to satisfy the concern raised by Darwin
is patently absurd.
--Mike Dunford
Adam Marczyk
[snip]
The paragraph following has been recopied from a post I made on July 28.
Tony hasn't attempted to answer it yet.
You're a liar, Tony. You have zero intellectual integrity. You say this over
and over; each time someone offers a list of the nascent structures you
claim don't exist, you vanish, abandon your claims and pop up later in some
other thread making the exact same arguments as if they had never been
answered. You ignore all rebuttals and refuse to address any
counterarguments in any substantive way. Explain why the proto-feathers on
Sinornithosaurus aren't nascent structures, or the vascular networks in the
skulls of whale precursors, or the enlarging braincases of early hominids,
or the incipient jaw hinges and ear bones of therapsid reptiles, or the
diminishing toes of horse ancestors, or the tetrapod legs of Acanthostega,
or the blinking lights that have formed out of the suckers of Stauroteuthis
syrtensis. Explain why these don't count. Do _something_ other than your
usual endless parade of lying and evasion.
--
And I want to conquer the world,
give all the idiots a brand new religion,
put an end to poverty, uncleanliness and toil,
promote equality in all of my decisions...
--Bad Religion, "I Want to Conquer the World"
To send e-mail, change "excite" to "hotmail"
Joe Cummings
It is here, when discussing "transitionals, that Pagano should
say what he means by "transitional."
The absence of this definition shouts out at us.
I've asked Mike Goodrich what he understands to be Tony's
definition (Pulverising Pagano's Pathetic Polemics,14/08/01).
It should be gradually dawning on readers of these threads
that Tony's speciality is unbacked assertions. I think he relies
purely and simply on debating techniques and the "Handy Dandy
Evolution Refuter" or some such Creationist screed for his ideas.
Of course, it shows.
Have fun,
Joe Cummings
ZenIsWhen
You can't open your mouth without bull shit spewing forth .. can you!
He said you responded - and, as anyone who has ever tried to get an honest
answer from you KNOWS ... your responses NEVER address the issue!
A bull shit response is NOT meeting the challenge!
Rodjk
>
> Elsberry continues:
> > One of the significant points raised by the TFEC is the issue
> > of whether the anti-evolutionist making the claim of "no
> > transitional fossils" does so based upon detailed knowledge of
> > the fossil evidence or out of ignorance.
>
>
> Pagano replies:
> I never claimed I was an expert and the notion that I must have a
> detailed working knowledge of ALL the existing evidence in order to
> criticize the claim that so-called "transitional" creatures existed is
> nonsense.
Here Pagano is setting up his strawman. Note the part about "...a
detailed working knowledge of ALL the existing evidence..."
Note that that is a twist on what Elsberry actually said. What he did
was pose a question:
"whether the anti-evolutionist making the claim of "no
transitional fossils" does so based upon detailed knowledge of
the fossil evidence or out of ignorance."
This can be shortened to "Does the anti-evolutionist know what they
are talking about?"
>
> The scientific report which Elsberry offered as evidence of the
> existence of "transitionals" wasn't anything of the sort. The authors
> of that report explicitly presupposed the existence of "transitionals"
> in the first paragraph. I should point out to the elitist academian
> that to suggest that the observations and conclusions drawn by the
> authors represented evidence in favor of that which they assumed to be
> true from the start is called CIRCULAR LOGIC. From philosophy of logic
> 101 circular logic is considered poor reasoning. In fact what was at
> issue in the author's investigation was whether the divergence between
> the two FORAM populations was the result of sympatric or allopatric
> speciation.
Since transitionals have been known since the early 19th century, this
seems to be another Pagano handwave.
Pagano, deal with the evidence; your poor understanding of philosophy
pales before physical evidence.
> *******************************
>
>
> Elsberry continues:
> > [Quote]
> >
> > Please note that unfamiliarity with the reference above is a
> > failure of the claim of absence of transitional sequences --
> > the claim requires *complete* knowledge of fossil sequences,
> > and unfamiliarity with any is prima facie evidence that the
> > claimant doesn't have the basis for the claim.
>
> Pagano replies:
> No such scientific standard exists which requires "complete" knowledge
> before harsh criticism may be offered or theories may be offered.
Knowledge of the fossils in the claim is needed, however.
If you leave out or do not know about several fossils in a sequence,
it fouls up your ability to make an informed decision. Here is the
strawman effect from Pagano beginning to take form.
>All this arbitrary rule does is attempt by fiat rather than
scientific
> argument to stave off casting his challenge in the scrap heap.
All Pagano is doing is handwaving and trying to distract attention
from Elsberry's pointing out that Pagano does not know what he is
talking about.
> ***********************************
>
>
> Elsberry continues:
> > [End Quote - original text of the challenge presented to
> > Pagano, 1997/07/01]
> >
> > By Pagano's own admission, he had no knowledge of the specific
> > evidence of the G. trilobus to O. universa transition when he
> > made his original universal claim.
>
> Pagano replies:
> My claim that there does not exist a single unambiguous transitional
> fossil creature is conjectural. That I made such a conjecture with
> conviction and bravado did not make it any less conjectural. It is
> always open for refutation.
And it has been refuted. Quit handidly by Wesley.
>It is exactly because we are infinitely
> ignorant and can NEVER HAVE COMPLETE information that our background
> knowledge is always conjectural. The question is: does the existence of
> the two populations of foram (O. universa and G. trulobus) stand as a
> refutation of my conjecture? I seriously doubt it.
Yes, it is a refutation, along with all the other evidence you ignore.
>
> As I pointed out in March 2001 Elsberry's challenge rises or falls on
> how broadly he defines change. Elsberry apparently claims that any sort
> of finely graded change qualifies as evidence of the existence of true
> "transitionals." Hence the endless citations for foram observations
> which evolutionists proudly point to because of the finely graded
> transitions. Unfortunately one can hardly argue that because the foram
> shell changed in shape (how ever finely) over time therefore genuinely
> nascent structures arose in prehistory and therefore evolutionary
> transformism is true.
You have run from several threads on "Nascent" structures already.
Ready to run some more?
What is a nascent structure?
Why would "walking catfish" and "mudskippers" not count as having
nascent structures right now? How about "flying fish"? Do their
"wings" count as a nascent form?
Why or why not?
>
> If scientists could not offer a conjecture unless they had "complete"
> knowledge (as Elsberry suggests) then not a single theory could ever be
> advanced.
What he politly said is that you do not know what you are talking
about.
If you ignore the evidence, you will reach a "wrong" conclusion.
With your record here of ignorance and deception, he is right to say
you need to account for all forms.
> Theories are sometimes advanced after a single observation.
> My conjecture could be refuted at any time by producing the goods.
> Darwin knew that such evidence had not been found in 1859 and it still
> has not been found.
?????? Did you ever read "Origin"? He put forth a lot of evidence,
and today we have lots more. Here in Houston the Natural History
Museum has loads of transitionals for you to ignore.
> Producing evidence that one population of foram
> evolved into another population of foram really doesn't rise to the
> occassion. That such variations show finely graded sequences of change
> of existing structures isn't disputed.
Like an arm to a wing?
>The structures in question
> already existed, the variations are minor. The search for
> transitionals is the search for REAL HISTORICAL EVIDENCE of how and when
> new structures ORIGINATED.
(Sigh) The transformation of a structure to a new structure IS
evolution.
That is what we are talking about. And much historical evidence has
been shown.
You will ignore it, but it is there.
Rodjk #613
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
Dave Horn
It's more a continuation of misdirection and obfuscation.
> Elsberry continues:
> > One of the significant points raised by the TFEC is
> > the issue of whether the anti-evolutionist making the
> > claim of "no transitional fossils" does so based upon
> > detailed knowledge of the fossil evidence or out of
> > ignorance.
>
> Pagano replies:
> I never claimed I was an expert...
Pagano makes no direct claims of this sort. This much is true.
But what are we to make of someone who, for example, refused to look at Jim
Acker's links showing evidence of whale evolution and who has said that he
is unteachable and unreachable with respect to these subjects? What are we
to make of one who is so arrogant that he presumes for himself the
responsibility for teaching and guiding the so-called "confused christians"
and undecided lurkers with vague and pompous speechmaking that, to those of
us who are actually knowledgable about the subjects, says nothing?
Pagano certainly and clearly believes he possess *some* degree of expertise.
Would anyone who *truly* thinks he's a "lunkhead" actually presume such
things for himself.
> ...and the notion that I must have a detailed working knowledge
> of ALL the existing evidence in order to criticize the claim that
> so-called "transitional" creatures existed is nonsense.
Here we go again. Something is nonsense because Pagano says so - not
because he can explain *why* it is so.
If someone says that there are no transitional fossils, that certainly
implies that the claimant is at least very familiar with the fossil record
and the evidence contained therein *as* *a* *minimum*. Pagano would just as
soon evade the obvious reasons for that, but I won't insult the intelligence
of the readership and presume to explain it. It's simply another matter of
one presuming to criticize something that he does not understand. Pagano
does that almost every time. At any rate, it's not very far from that to
accepting that a person who makes such a claim has expert or even complete
knowledge of the fossil record. It's perfectly reasonable to expect that of
one who so baldly claims that there are no transitional fossils. After all,
how can one make such a claim when he has no knowledge of the record as it
currently stands? Isn't it *reasonable* to assume that the person making
such a claim has at least a good working knowledge of the fossil record?
And more, if a person states emphatically - as Pagano has done - that there
are *no* transitionals - isn't it reasonable to challenge this on the
grounds that such a statement requires a complete knowledge of the fossil
record?
These are questions that Pagano won't answer. He doesn't show that his
rationale, such as it is, is as reasonable or more reasonable - he just
waves it off without explanation. That's typical Pagano. But the fact is
that it is perfectly reasonable; and we have every right to take these
things into account - *particularly* when it's Pagano making a claim.
[More to come]
Fourier
I haven't been following this thread, I don't want to get into the
crossfire and I wholehartedly know evolution is true. That out of the
way, an extra finger IS really a very small difference. You can add or
extract a few cells to or from an embryonic hand to make more fingers
or less fingers in any specie which evolves fingers or paws. (as has
been demonstrated by experiments on dogs)
For a specimen it will require one point mutation to do this himself.
The reason is that when the hand is formed, the bone structure bows
out in a loop (b/c it evolved from the fin) from the pinkie-side to
the thumb-side. The fingers are formed by bowing the loop out in the
other direction as well. Fingers form in the same way droplets form
from water. The farther the loop bows out, the more fingers you get.
> > The search for
> > transitionals is the search for REAL HISTORICAL EVIDENCE of how and when
> > new structures ORIGINATED.
A hand forming from a fin would be good? Because there are living
'fossils' of fish with semi-hands among us today. You will very rarely
see a new structure evolve from squat if that is what you're looking
for. It is almost always an existing structure evolving into something
else, even changing use (exaptation). By this knowledge we can explain
all the variation we see today. For example why we find legs that can
support mice to elephants, but never legs that have more than two
joints. Making a structure bigger is not that hard for evolution, but
changing the 'core' of bone formation, by adding a joint, is nearly
impossible. Even for evolution.
Fourier
Steven J.
>
> Elsberry continues:
> > One of the significant points raised by the TFEC is the issue
> > of whether the anti-evolutionist making the claim of "no
> > transitional fossils" does so based upon detailed knowledge of
> > the fossil evidence or out of ignorance.
>
>
> Pagano replies:
> I never claimed I was an expert and the notion that I must have a
> detailed working knowledge of ALL the existing evidence in order to
> criticize the claim that so-called "transitional" creatures existed is
> nonsense.
>
the Christian Bible is the only scripture which asserts its own
perfect authority. He has been duly slapped down by several posters
pointing out that the Quran, for example, makes equivalent claims.
But even if no one had been able to locate a counterexample, the claim
implies an exhaustive knowledge of all the claims of all the
scriptures recognized by any faith.
Likewise, if you say there are *no* transitional fossils, you assert
either:
(a) a fossil meeting your definition of "transtional fossil" could
exist, but that in fact no such fossils exist. This is claiming that
to know, in great detail, just what the fossil record *does* contain
(otherwise, "there are no transitionals" merely means "I don't know of
any" -- a very weak claim).
(b) you define "transitional fossil" in such a way that no possible
fossil can ever qualify as one. In this case, there is no point in
examining any evidence offered to you by anyone. This seems, in fact,
to be the effective definition you use.
>
> The scientific report which Elsberry offered as evidence of the
> existence of "transitionals" wasn't anything of the sort. The authors
> of that report explicitly presupposed the existence of "transitionals"
> in the first paragraph. I should point out to the elitist academian
> that to suggest that the observations and conclusions drawn by the
> authors represented evidence in favor of that which they assumed to be
> true from the start is called CIRCULAR LOGIC. From philosophy of logic
> 101 circular logic is considered poor reasoning. In fact what was at
> issue in the author's investigation was whether the divergence between
> the two FORAM populations was the result of sympatric or allopatric
> speciation.
>
The fossils existed. The authors interpret them as the detailed
record of a speciation event accompanied by obvious morphological
change, as did Elsberry. The evidence is given in enough detail that
you could argue for contrary interpretations, if you had one --
although, in point of fact, if you can't see transitional forms in
this sequence, one suspects that you do, indeed, define "transitional
form" as "something the fossil record, by definition, cannot show."
> *******************************
>
>
> Elsberry continues:
> > [Quote]
> >
> > Please note that unfamiliarity with the reference above is a
> > failure of the claim of absence of transitional sequences --
> > the claim requires *complete* knowledge of fossil sequences,
> > and unfamiliarity with any is prima facie evidence that the
> > claimant doesn't have the basis for the claim.
>
> Pagano replies:
> No such scientific standard exists which requires "complete" knowledge
> before harsh criticism may be offered or theories may be offered. All
> this arbitrary rule does is attempt by fiat rather than scientific
> argument to stave off casting his challenge in the scrap heap.
>
Tony, of what value is criticism based on false assumptions? If you
say something doesn't exist, you implicitly claim to have either
examined every claim that it does exist, or to have strong evidence
that it CANNOT exist. You don't even claim to know much about the
fossil record. And you've never shown that transitional fossils, in
the sense meant by most people on this NG, are impossible in
principle. You may mean something by the term that no fossil or
fossil sequence could present (you are, after all, the person who
argues that evidence can never refute the theory in terms of which it
is interpreted), but in that case, why address Elsberry's challenge at
all?
> ***********************************
>
>
> Elsberry continues:
> > [End Quote - original text of the challenge presented to
> > Pagano, 1997/07/01]
> >
> > By Pagano's own admission, he had no knowledge of the specific
> > evidence of the G. trilobus to O. universa transition when he
> > made his original universal claim.
>
> Pagano replies:
> My claim that there does not exist a single unambiguous transitional
> fossil creature is conjectural. That I made such a conjecture with
> conviction and bravado did not make it any less conjectural. It is
> always open for refutation. It is exactly because we are infinitely
> ignorant and can NEVER HAVE COMPLETE information that our background
> knowledge is always conjectural. The question is: does the existence of
> the two populations of foram (O. universa and G. trulobus) stand as a
> refutation of my conjecture? I seriously doubt it.
>
In other words, you were blowing hot air, asserting as fact what you
did not know to be a fact. In other words, you want to tell people
how to do science, and don't even think science is possible (what
other sense can be made of a claim that we are *infinitely* ignorant
-- by most standards, even you aren't *infinitely* ignorant, though
you strive valiantly towards that goal), In other words, you don't
really understand the evidence presented to you, and certainly have no
intention of allowing the evidence to alter your opinions.
>
> As I pointed out in March 2001 Elsberry's challenge rises or falls on
> how broadly he defines change. Elsberry apparently claims that any sort
> of finely graded change qualifies as evidence of the existence of true
> "transitionals." Hence the endless citations for foram observations
> which evolutionists proudly point to because of the finely graded
> transitions. Unfortunately one can hardly argue that because the foram
> shell changed in shape (how ever finely) over time therefore genuinely
> nascent structures arose in prehistory and therefore evolutionary
> transformism is true.
>
Tony, it's been explained to you before: you may have finely graded
transitions showing relatively unimpressive changes, or coarsely
graded transitions showing more impressive changes. This is the whole
point (which you misunderstand) of punctuated equilibrium: the fossil
record doesn't contain finely graded series of large-scale
transitions. We can show you step-by-step transitions between species
(or even, the the instance cited, between genera), or we can show you
species-by-species transitions within a genus or family (the horse
series), or very sketchy and fragmentary transitionals between higher
taxa. The Earth's crust isn't thick enough for what it would take to
satisfy you (well, actually, I'm not sure *anything* could satisfy
you, including a note in God's handwriting saying "Darwin got it
right, dude." If you want "nascent" forms of more spectacular
changes, you've been give several. If you want detailed evidence that
shouts that species have changed into other species, you've been given
that. If you can't connect the dots, that's a problem with you, not
the evidence.
>
> If scientists could not offer a conjecture unless they had "complete"
> knowledge (as Elsberry suggests) then not a single theory could ever be
> advanced. Theories are sometimes advanced after a single observation.
> My conjecture could be refuted at any time by producing the goods.
> Darwin knew that such evidence had not been found in 1859 and it still
> has not been found. Producing evidence that one population of foram
> evolved into another population of foram really doesn't rise to the
> occassion. That such variations show finely graded sequences of change
> of existing structures isn't disputed. The structures in question
> already existed, the variations are minor. The search for
> transitionals is the search for REAL HISTORICAL EVIDENCE of how and when
> new structures ORIGINATED.
>
And such evidence has been cited to you, repeatedly. You refuse to
consider these examples. You refuse to look at the transitional
fossil FAQs -- you have even posted a complaint that URLs listing
evidence aren't real evidence. You are either lazy, or stupid, or
terminally dishonest. Be ashamed.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
-- Steven J.
Steven J.
arguments and evidence against his rantings) wasn't sufficient was in
effect an admission that his response to Elsberry's challenge had be
crushingly refuted. Indeed, he implies that additional fulmigations
and bloviating may be expected (they can hardly be said to be
"necessary").
Pagano's expenditure of time (and, of course, the idiocies he expends
it on) is proof that he has failed to meet Elsberry's challenge.
-- Steven J.
John Segerson
A Pagano wrote:
>
[snip]
> The scientific report which Elsberry offered as evidence of the
> existence of "transitionals" wasn't anything of the sort. The authors
> of that report explicitly presupposed the existence of "transitionals"
> in the first paragraph. I should point out to the elitist academian
> that to suggest that the observations and conclusions drawn by the
> authors represented evidence in favor of that which they assumed to be
> true from the start is called CIRCULAR LOGIC. From philosophy of logic
> 101 circular logic is considered poor reasoning. In fact what was at
> issue in the author's investigation was whether the divergence between
> the two FORAM populations was the result of sympatric or allopatric
> speciation.
> *******************************
The authors are entitled to presuppose, or conjecture, that
transitional fossils exist for two reasons. First, there is a
well developed theory, supported by other evidence, that predicts
their existence. Second, the authors defend and support their
presupposition with substantive, tangible, public evidence. The
evidence is such as to compell acceptance of the presupposition.
[snip]
> Pagano replies:
> My claim that there does not exist a single unambiguous transitional
> fossil creature is conjectural. That I made such a conjecture with
> conviction and bravado did not make it any less conjectural. It is
> always open for refutation. It is exactly because we are infinitely
> ignorant and can NEVER HAVE COMPLETE information that our background
> knowledge is always conjectural. The question is: does the existence of
> the two populations of foram (O. universa and G. trulobus) stand as a
> refutation of my conjecture? I seriously doubt it.
It is irrelevant that Pagano doubts any rhetorical statement he
may pose from the study in question. What is relevant is whether
Pagano can interpret the actual evidence based on an equivant
alternative theory of his own, or can show specific defect in the
evidence or interpretation thereof by the authors.
> As I pointed out in March 2001 Elsberry's challenge rises or falls on
> how broadly he defines change. Elsberry apparently claims that any sort
> of finely graded change qualifies as evidence of the existence of true
> "transitionals." Hence the endless citations for foram observations
> which evolutionists proudly point to because of the finely graded
> transitions. Unfortunately one can hardly argue that because the foram
> shell changed in shape (how ever finely) over time therefore genuinely
> nascent structures arose in prehistory and therefore evolutionary
> transformism is true.
This is a ludicrous word game. Pagano complains about how
"change" is defined, but bases his argument on "nascent
structures," which term is vague, verbose, and defined only in
Pagano's imagination. To reasonable minds, the "change"
exhibited in the data is clearly consistent with repeated
speciation, and shows development of new structures.
> If scientists could not offer a conjecture unless they had "complete"
> knowledge (as Elsberry suggests) then not a single theory could ever be
> advanced. Theories are sometimes advanced after a single observation.
> My conjecture could be refuted at any time by producing the goods.
And the "goods" have been produced. The evidence is clear and
Pagano has shown no defect.
> Darwin knew that such evidence had not been found in 1859 and it still
> has not been found. Producing evidence that one population of foram
> evolved into another population of foram really doesn't rise to the
> occassion. That such variations show finely graded sequences of change
> of existing structures isn't disputed. The structures in question
> already existed, the variations are minor. The search for
> transitionals is the search for REAL HISTORICAL EVIDENCE of how and when
> new structures ORIGINATED.
It's quite convenient to wave off finely graded sequences of
change as being insufficient, as well as larger scale changes as
lacking sufficiently fine-graded sequences. The well known
Head-in-the-Sand defense.
> Regards,
> T Pagano
muju51
>
>The fact that Elsberry's usual nonsubstantive dismissal wasn't
>sufficient was in effect an admission that his challenge had been met.
>In fact he implies above that additional rebuttal may be necessary.
So, his original lack of response was evidence that you were "right," and his
subsequent response is also evidence that you were "right," eh? Damned if he
does and damned if he doesn't.
I've got to admit, you are pretty skilled at the old "spin" game -- no matter
what Elsberry does, you can find a way to make it look like he did the wrong
thing. Ever consider a career in politics?
muju
muju51
<127ccf2e.01081...@posting.google.com>:
>The fact that Pagano's usual nonsubstantive dismissal (of the
>arguments and evidence against his rantings) wasn't sufficient was in
>effect an admission that his response to Elsberry's challenge had be
>crushingly refuted. Indeed, he implies that additional fulmigations
>and bloviating may be expected (they can hardly be said to be
>"necessary").
>
>Pagano's expenditure of time (and, of course, the idiocies he expends
>it on) is proof that he has failed to meet Elsberry's challenge.
Whoa, talk about your two-edged swords! That does pretty much nail this one,
IMHO. Thanks.
muju
Joe Cummings
Actually, what's happening with Pagano is a very typical
response of ideologues to scientific argument - they start a
political argument. As they are unable to answer the science they
resort to politics.
Hence Pagano's gotesqueries and the attempts to legislate on
science teaching by his fellows
Have fun,
Joe Cummings
muju51
deep down, really *wants* to be an honest person. He originally claimed that
Elsberry had admitted that he had met the challenge, and then when Elsberry
documented that this was not really a factual account of the original
exchange, Pagano starts squirming around trying to find *some* sense in which
he might legitimately claim to have obtained, "in effect," some kind of
acknowledgement that he had in some sense "met" the challenge.
Poor Tony. He doesn't really *want* to say things that aren't true, or to
mislead people deliberately. It's not his fault he has to resort to
Clintonesque semantics in order to prove the non-existence of "nascent"
forms. If only God hadn't created so damn many transitional forms!
What's really ironic about all this is that there isn't even any need to
dispute the existence of the transitionals. Transitional forms do nothing to
disprove creationism--it's as easy for God to create a whole spectrum as it
is to create discrete colors. Nor does it say anywhere in Genesis that God
created *fixed* kinds, or created any gaps between kinds. Those ideas are
modern traditions created by men for the sole purpose of disputing
evolutionary science. But from a "sola scriptura" perspective, there's no
reason God couldn't have created mutable kinds, with abundant transitionals.
So why all the fuss?
muju
Andy Groves
> This is a continuation of a reply to Elsberry.
>
> Elsberry continues:
> > One of the significant points raised by the TFEC is the issue
> > of whether the anti-evolutionist making the claim of "no
> > transitional fossils" does so based upon detailed knowledge of
> > the fossil evidence or out of ignorance.
>
>
> Pagano replies:
> I never claimed I was an expert and the notion that I must have a
> detailed working knowledge of ALL the existing evidence in order to
> criticize the claim that so-called "transitional" creatures existed is
> nonsense.
No, actually. The challenge is in response to people who claim that
transitional have not been observed. If one is to make such a claim,
one must either claim ignorance of the documentation of transitional
in the literature, OR show why the label "transitional" is
inappropriate. You have done both - you claim not to be an expert
(fair enough), and you are trying to claim that the transitionals are
actually not truly transitional. Of course, to do that successfully,
you will have to start explaining yourself more clearly, especially
with respect to your concepts of "nascent structures" and "immature"
and "mature" forms. Several people have given you examples, such as
cranial vasculature in whales and the limbs of horses and heir
ancestors. You have yet to say why these are not nascent forms. You
have aso yet to give an example of what *you* think a nascent
structure would look like if it existed.
Andy
David M. Cook
>The fact that Elsberry's usual nonsubstantive dismissal wasn't
>sufficient was in effect an admission that his challenge had been met.
>In fact he implies above that additional rebuttal may be necessary.
ARTHUR: Look, you stupid bastard, you've got no arms left.
BLACK KNIGHT: Yes I have.
ARTHUR: Look!
BLACK KNIGHT: Just a flesh wound.
[Headbutts Arthur in the chest]
ARTHUR: Look, stop that.
BLACK KNIGHT: Chicken! Chicken!
ARTHUR: Look, I'll have your leg. Right! [whop]
BLACK KNIGHT: Right, I'll do you for that!
ARTHUR: You'll what?
BLACK KNIGHT: Come 'ere!
ARTHUR: What are you going to do, bleed on me?
BLACK KNIGHT: I'm invincible!
ARTHUR: You're a loony.
BLACK KNIGHT: The Black Knight always triumphs! Have at you! Come on then.
Joe Cummings
Cummings) wrote:
Hi, Mike,
I'm still waiting for an answer.
Joe Cummings
John Wilkins
We really now have to refer to Pagano as the Black Knight...
Mike Dunford
And add to the T.O jargon file the argument "ad eque nigeri"
--Mike Dunford
John Wilkins
*chortle* - _Argumentum ad Eque Nigeri_ it is...
>
> --Mike Dunford
John R. Owens
>
> John Wilkins wrote:
> >
> > David M. Cook <rh2...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On 14 Aug 2001 00:37:25 -0400, A Pagano <apa...@fast.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > >The fact that Elsberry's usual nonsubstantive dismissal wasn't
> > > >sufficient was in effect an admission that his challenge had been met.
> > > >In fact he implies above that additional rebuttal may be necessary.
> > >
> >
> > We really now have to refer to Pagano as the Black Knight...
>
> And add to the T.O jargon file the argument "ad eque nigeri"
Erk! Tell you what, let's call it "ad equitem nigrum" and we'll call
it a draw. ;)
--
--John R. Owens http://members.core.com/~jowens/
Mike Dunford
I don't know. They're both third declension masculine, and I'm assuming
that ablative of place from which is the correct form.
Not that I actually remember all that much latin, but I did go back and
look at my old textbook before I posted.
--Mike Dunford
Latin is a language
at least it used to be
first it killed the Romans
and now it's killing me
John R. Owens
>
> Mike Dunford <mdun...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > John Wilkins wrote:
> > >
> > > David M. Cook <rh2...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 14 Aug 2001 00:37:25 -0400, A Pagano <apa...@fast.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >The fact that Elsberry's usual nonsubstantive dismissal wasn't
> > > > >sufficient was in effect an admission that his challenge had been met.
> > > > >In fact he implies above that additional rebuttal may be necessary.
> > > >
> > >
> > > We really now have to refer to Pagano as the Black Knight...
> >
> >
> > And add to the T.O jargon file the argument "ad eque nigeri"
>
> *chortle* - _Argumentum ad Eque Nigeri_ it is...
Great... next y'all will be claiming that "Romanes eunt domus" is
proper Latin, too.... grumble, grumble, grrr.
John R. Owens
>
> "John R. Owens" wrote:
> >
> > Mike Dunford wrote:
> > >
> > > John Wilkins wrote:
> > > >
> > > > David M. Cook <rh2...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 14 Aug 2001 00:37:25 -0400, A Pagano <apa...@fast.net> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >The fact that Elsberry's usual nonsubstantive dismissal wasn't
> > > > > >sufficient was in effect an admission that his challenge had been met.
> > > > > >In fact he implies above that additional rebuttal may be necessary.
> > > > >
> > <snip Black Knight dialogue>
> > > >
> > > > We really now have to refer to Pagano as the Black Knight...
> > >
> > > And add to the T.O jargon file the argument "ad eque nigeri"
> >
> > Erk! Tell you what, let's call it "ad equitem nigrum" and we'll call
> > it a draw. ;)
>
> I don't know. They're both third declension masculine, and I'm assuming
> that ablative of place from which is the correct form.
>
> Not that I actually remember all that much latin, but I did go back and
> look at my old textbook before I posted.
Yes, third declension masculine, but the genitive of "eques" is
"equitis", and "ad" always takes the accusative, and "niger" always
loses the 'e' whenever there's any ending on it. You were perhaps
thinking of "ab"; that always takes the ablative.
Or, as some might say, "Ablative? Motion away from? Object of an
action?" (Too bad he doesn't go into the ablative in that bit; it's
barely recognizable when I put it that way.) Now, I want to see it
painted 100 times on the city walls by sunrise. ;)
Mike Dunford
Damn.
I'd feel bad about forgetting all that, but that would imply that I
actually knew it once to begin with. I'm starting to remember that there
really was a good reason for the nearly unbroken string of failures and
unsatisfactories I accumulated in three years of Latin.
--Mike
John R. Owens
On further reflection, considering that this ought to refer to the
argument coming *from* the Black Knight, I see that perhaps you meant to
use "ab", and just tossed in "ad" because that's what most of those
Latin-named fallacies use? In that case, "argumentum ab equite nigro"
would be the correct phrase.
Better paint 'em both on the walls 100 times each, just to be on the
safe side. ;)
Rodjk
Rodjk #613
Derek Stevenson
news:3b7a2f45$0$10963$272e...@news.execpc.com...
> John Wilkins wrote:
> > *chortle* - _Argumentum ad Eque Nigeri_ it is...
>
> Great... next y'all will be claiming that "Romanes eunt domus" is
> proper Latin, too.... grumble, grumble, grrr.
It's proper Latin for "Romanes are going to the house", innit?
Derek Stevenson
news:dbe402.010815...@posting.google.com...
> wil...@wehi.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote in message
news:<1ey6rfe.m7c9cj1vx0jg6N%wil...@wehi.edu.au>...
> > We really now have to refer to Pagano as the Black Knight...
> Will the "White Knight" (PN) ride in to save the Black Knight in distress?
Pagano, like Zoe or the Schlafly Brothers, is one of those Fair Maidens
whose distress is apparently invisible to the White Knight.
That, or there are some people just *too* ridiculous for even him to defend.
(It's a bizarre concept, I know, but there's some evidence for it.)
muju51
<3b79e6d...@news.wanadoo.fr>:
> ...
> Hi, Mike,
>
> I'm still waiting for an answer.
>
> Joe Cummings
>
>
Not holding your breath, I hope? :)
muju
A Pagano
Elsberry previously wrote:
> Please note that unfamiliarity with the reference above is a
> failure of the claim of absence of transitional sequences --
> the claim requires *complete* knowledge of fossil sequences,
> and unfamiliarity with any is prima facie evidence that the
> claimant doesn't have the basis for the claim.
>
> [End Quote - original text of the challenge presented to
> Pagano, 1997/07/01]
>
> By Pagano's own admission, he had no knowledge of the specific
> evidence of the G. trilobus to O. universa transition when he
> made his original universal claim. To my mind, "meeting" the
> TFEC would mean that the anti-evolutionist already had
> knowledge of the relevant evidence at the time that they make
> their universal claim of "no transitional fossils exist".
> Pagano certainly has no hope of representing himself as
> knowledgeable in this way. Pagano made his original claim
> in ignorance, not based upon knowledge, and nothing he says
> now can change that cold, hard fact.
Pagano replies:
In effect Elsberry is arguing that if one is ignorant of one or more
observations that this fact ALONE disqualifies one from offering
criticism of a theory which explains ALL those observations. This
presupposes that some finite collection of observations is both
necessary and sufficient to uniquely determine the true theory. This
presuppostion has been known to be false at least since Hume'S
writings. Let's see why Elsberry's rule has no basis and is purely
arbitrary:
1. Man has NEVER been in possession of the complete set of ALL
POSSIBLE, relevent observations about any problem because this is simply
not possible. So NEVER will any investigator be in possession of
"complete" information. This is indisputable.
2. No finite set of observations, regardless of size, uniquely
determines the objective truth of a particular theory. This
"underdetermination" of theories is well known, indisputable, and
unsolved.
3. There is no probability calculus currently in existence which can
take the finite observations that have been made to determine even the
(objective) probability that a theory is true (or more to the point the
probability that transitional creatures existed in prehistory). This is
indisputable.
What does this mean?
1. Elsberry's finite set of observation reports represented by the
scientific reports he cites----no matter how large----can ever be
"complete." He fails to meet his own arbitrary "completeness" rule.
The history of science has shown repeatedly that theories (and the
criticism of theories) have often been generated after only a few
observations. Furthermore often times it is only AFTER a theory (or
criticism of a theory) is generated that certain observations are
thought to be made. Therefore to suggest that criticism may not be
offered or acceptable until all observations or even some finite
collection of observations are in hand has no basis WHATSOEVER in the
history of science.
2. Elsberry's finite collection of observation reports (contained in
his scientific citations) does not and cannot uniquely determine that
the only explanation for that data is the existence of true
"transitional" creatures. Since his finite collection of observations is
NOT SUFFICIENT then there is no basis upon which to rule criticism
inadmissable which does not take all such observations into immediate
account.
3. Elsberry cannot even take his finite set of observation reports and
produce an objective, quantifiable probability that true transitional
creatures existed.
It should be clear that instead of Elsberry immediately getting to the
substance of my criticism of his first citation he established an
arbitrary rule with no basis in science to save himself.
more to follow
Regards,
T Pagano
A Pagano
Elsberry previously wrote:
> By Pagano's own admission, he had no knowledge of the specific
> evidence of the G. trilobus to O. universa transition when he
> made his original universal claim. To my mind, "meeting" the
> TFEC would mean that the anti-evolutionist already had
> knowledge of the relevant evidence at the time that they make
> their universal claim of "no transitional fossils exist".
> Pagano certainly has no hope of representing himself as
> knowledgeable in this way. Pagano made his original claim
> in ignorance, not based upon knowledge, and nothing he says
> now can change that cold, hard fact.
Pagano replies:
I have admitted my infinite ignorance repeatedly. However, I need not
be omniscient or even as bright as Elsberry believes himself to be in
order to offer the claim that there does not exist a single true,
unambiguous "transitional" fossil creature. There is no logical or
scientific necessity to justify the mere offering of criticism because
such criticism has ALWAYS been conjectural. It is the observations
contained in Elsberry's citations which will determine whether my
conjecture stands or falls. After reviewing Elsberry's first citation
my conjecture still stands.
Regards,
T Pagano
muju51
> Pagano replies:
>In effect Elsberry is arguing that if one is ignorant of one or more
>observations that this fact ALONE disqualifies one from offering
>criticism of a theory which explains ALL those observations.
Not quite correct. Elsberry's point (and a perfectly valid point, too) is
that if someone claims that X does not exist, and is ignorant of a number
of examples where X has, in fact, been observed, then his claim that X does
not exist has been seriously compromised.
>This
>presupposes that some finite collection of observations is both
>necessary and sufficient to uniquely determine the true theory.
No, it presupposes that you can't know something does not exist unless you
know everything that does. Isn't this the classic theistic argument used
to show that atheists cannot prove that there is no god?
>Man has NEVER been in possession of the complete set of ALL
>POSSIBLE, relevent observations about any problem because this is simply
>not possible. So NEVER will any investigator be in possession of
>"complete" information. This is indisputable.
Well, I wish you'd tell that to Kent Hovind. 'Course, I expect he
already knew that, or he'd never have put up that "offer" of $250K ;)
[Irrelevant points snipped, since Elsberry's remarks were specific to the
claim that Pagano or anyone else "knew" that transitionals did not exist,
rather than being specific to some claim that universal knowledge is
required in order to merely critique evolution.]
>What does this mean?
>
>1. Elsberry's finite set of observation reports represented by the
>scientific reports he cites----no matter how large----can ever be
>"complete." He fails to meet his own arbitrary "completeness" rule.
Again, this is merely a failure in reading comprehension on *your* part.
The "completeness rule" only applies to claims that a certain thing (e.g.
"nascent forms") is known not to exist. Elsberry's evidence for
transitional forms is intended to show that something *does* exist, i.e.
the transitional forms documented by the Pearson paper.
>Therefore to suggest that criticism may not be
>offered or acceptable until all observations or even some finite
>collection of observations are in hand has no basis WHATSOEVER in the
>history of science.
I might like to quote this at some point. It's an elegant de-bunking of
the Hovind "Challenge."
>2. Elsberry's finite collection of observation reports (contained in
>his scientific citations) does not and cannot uniquely determine that
>the only explanation for that data is the existence of true
>"transitional" creatures.
Um, the data to be explained *is* a series of true transitional creatures.
The transitional forms are not an explanation *for* the data, they *are*
the data. What more do you want?
>Since his finite collection of observations is
>NOT SUFFICIENT then there is no basis upon which to rule criticism
>inadmissable which does not take all such observations into immediate
>account.
Well, you might try to make that point, but you have to admit, at this
point it would be pretty futile to try and claim that such things can never
be observed, since we already have documented a number of such
observations. Remember, Elsberry is not saying that you cannot make *any*
criticism of evolution, he is only saying that if you don't know about such
observations, and then try and claim that these things don't exist, then
you haven't got a valid criticism. That's only fair and reasonable, right?
>3. Elsberry cannot even take his finite set of observation reports and
>produce an objective, quantifiable probability that true transitional
>creatures existed.
What more would it take? The transitional forms are right there!
>It should be clear that instead of Elsberry immediately getting to the
>substance of my criticism of his first citation he established an
>arbitrary rule with no basis in science to save himself.
What's obvious is that you did not understand what Elsberry wrote, jumped
to a false conclusion, and proceeded to disprove and idea that was not
actually Elsberry's case at all.
Better luck next time.
muju
Mike Dunford
A Pagano wrote:
>
> This is a continuation of reply to Elsberry.
>
> Elsberry previously wrote:
> > Please note that unfamiliarity with the reference above is a
> > failure of the claim of absence of transitional sequences --
> > the claim requires *complete* knowledge of fossil sequences,
> > and unfamiliarity with any is prima facie evidence that the
> > claimant doesn't have the basis for the claim.
> >
> > [End Quote - original text of the challenge presented to
> > Pagano, 1997/07/01]
> >
> > By Pagano's own admission, he had no knowledge of the specific
> > evidence of the G. trilobus to O. universa transition when he
> > made his original universal claim. To my mind, "meeting" the
> > TFEC would mean that the anti-evolutionist already had
> > knowledge of the relevant evidence at the time that they make
> > their universal claim of "no transitional fossils exist".
> > Pagano certainly has no hope of representing himself as
> > knowledgeable in this way. Pagano made his original claim
> > in ignorance, not based upon knowledge, and nothing he says
> > now can change that cold, hard fact.
>
> Pagano replies:
> In effect Elsberry is arguing that if one is ignorant of one or more
> observations that this fact ALONE disqualifies one from offering
> criticism of a theory which explains ALL those observations.
There is a difference between offering criticism about a theory and
making blanket declarations. This is particularly true when you are
unfamiliar with the evidence (in this case, the fossil record) upon
which your universal statement rests.
There is absolutely nothing that can prevent you from offering relevant
criticism of those parts of any theory or evidence which you are
familiar with. That is not what you did. What you did was make a blanket
statement concerning specific evidence: "Of the few fossils which
evolutionists propose to be transitional, none are unambiguous." (A
Pagano, Message-ID <33B86C56...@fast.net>). That statement very
strongly implies that you are familiar with the "few fossils which
evolutionists propose to be transitional." If you are not familiar with
those fossils, then you were doing what is colloquially known as
'talking out of your ass.' That is, you were making blanket statements
about something you had little or no knowledge of.
> This
> presupposes that some finite collection of observations is both
> necessary and sufficient to uniquely determine the true theory.
This does no such thing.
The only presupposition here is the one you established -- that you were
familiar with the collection of observations when you stated that, "Of
the few fossils which evolutionists propose to be transitional, none are
unambiguous." A Pagano, Message-ID <33B86C56...@fast.net> We are
not speaking of the 'truth' of the theory; we are speaking about whether
your personal knowledge was sufficient to support the specific universal
statement which you made.
If you were unfamiliar with the published scientific literature, you
could not state with any certainty that "few fossils" had been proposed
as transitional, and you certainly could not state with any confidence
that none were unambiguous. You clearly stated both of those things as
fact. This presents two possibilities: either you were familiar with the
fossil record, or you really didn't know what you were talking about.
> This
> presuppostion has been known to be false at least since Hume'S
> writings. Let's see why Elsberry's rule has no basis and is purely
> arbitrary:
The rest of this is a strawman, as I have pointed out above. Elsberry
does not presuppose that "some finite collection of observations is both
necessary and sufficient to uniquely determine the true theory."
Elsberry and others presume that if you state that, "of the few fossils
which evolutionists propose to be transitional, none are unambiguous,"
you have a working knowledge of the fossils that have been proposed as
transitional. This assumption is reasonable, given the statement you
made.
> 1. Man has NEVER been in possession of the complete set of ALL
> POSSIBLE, relevent observations about any problem because this is simply
> not possible. So NEVER will any investigator be in possession of
> "complete" information. This is indisputable.
The statement you made is that, "of the few fossils which evolutionists
propose to be transitional, none are unambiguous." It is entirely
possible for you to have had knowledge of all of the fossils that have
been proposed as transitional, since that is a finite body of work. When
you classified the approximate quantity ("few") of fossils proposed as
transitional, you established a strong presumption that you had some
knowledge of the body of work on transitionals. If you did not, you
could not make any definite statement about how many fossils have been
proposed.
> 2. No finite set of observations, regardless of size, uniquely
> determines the objective truth of a particular theory. This
> "underdetermination" of theories is well known, indisputable, and
> unsolved.
It is also not involved in this case.
We are not speaking of the 'objective truth' of a particular theory.
> 3. There is no probability calculus currently in existence which can
> take the finite observations that have been made to determine even the
> (objective) probability that a theory is true (or more to the point the
> probability that transitional creatures existed in prehistory). This is
> indisputable.
>
> What does this mean?
>
> 1. Elsberry's finite set of observation reports represented by the
> scientific reports he cites----no matter how large----can ever be
> "complete." He fails to meet his own arbitrary "completeness" rule.
> The history of science has shown repeatedly that theories (and the
> criticism of theories) have often been generated after only a few
> observations. Furthermore often times it is only AFTER a theory (or
> criticism of a theory) is generated that certain observations are
> thought to be made. Therefore to suggest that criticism may not be
> offered or acceptable until all observations or even some finite
> collection of observations are in hand has no basis WHATSOEVER in the
> history of science.
In this case, we are questioning whether you were in posession of the
finite set of observations implied by your specific statement. You said,
"of the few fossils which evolutionists propose to be transitional, none
are unambiguous." The number of fossils PROPOSED as transitional is
obviously finite. It is therefore just as obvious that it is possible to
have a complete knowledge base. Further, you created the assumption that
you had at least a good knowlede base with your statement.
Nobody is suggesting that you cannot offer criticism of a theory or
specific evidence with which you are familiar. I would suggest that is
unwise to offer blanket statements about finite groups of observation
which you do not have good knowledge of if you expect to be taken
seriously.
> 2. Elsberry's finite collection of observation reports (contained in
> his scientific citations) does not and cannot uniquely determine that
> the only explanation for that data is the existence of true
> "transitional" creatures. Since his finite collection of observations is
> NOT SUFFICIENT then there is no basis upon which to rule criticism
> inadmissable which does not take all such observations into immediate
> account.
There is a good basis to discard blanket statements based on finite
bodies of evidence when the person making the statement is unfamiliar
with the FINITE body of observations he refers to.
> 3. Elsberry cannot even take his finite set of observation reports and
> produce an objective, quantifiable probability that true transitional
> creatures existed.
>
> It should be clear that instead of Elsberry immediately getting to the
> substance of my criticism of his first citation he established an
> arbitrary rule with no basis in science to save himself.
And yet you have still not gotten to the substance of any of the
long-standing criticisms of your definition of a 'nascent structure.' Is
the double-standard intentional or accidental?
--Mike Dunford
A Pagano
Elsberry previously wrote:
> By Pagano's own admission, he had no knowledge of the specific
> evidence of the G. trilobus to O. universa transition when he
> made his original universal claim. To my mind, "meeting" the
> TFEC would mean that the anti-evolutionist already had
> knowledge of the relevant evidence at the time that they make
> their universal claim of "no transitional fossils exist".
> Pagano certainly has no hope of representing himself as
> knowledgeable in this way. Pagano made his original claim
> in ignorance, not based upon knowledge, and nothing he says
> now can change that cold, hard fact.
Pagano replies:
OFFERING OF A CONJECTURE NEED NOT BE JUSTIFIED
The mere offering of a conjecture need not be justified. It is the
observations or the reports of observations offered in Elsberry's
citations which may decide whether my conjecture stands or falls. And
in March 2001 I offered my criticism of Elsberry's first citation and
the observations in that citation hardly caused my conjecture to fall.
My conjecture was that there does not exist a single true unambiguous
transitional fossil creature.
ELSBERRY'S CITATION WAS READ AND CRITIQUED FIVE MONTHS AGO
In March 2001 MacRae mailed me a copy of Elsberry's citation: Pearson,
et al., "Stable isotopic evidence for the sympatric divergence of
Globigerinoides trilobus and Orbulina universa (planktonic
foraminfera)," Journal of the Geological Society, London, Vol. 154,
1997, pp. 295-302. I read this report in March 2001, and critiqued it
in this forum in March 2001. About 21 days later Elsberry provided a
non substantive rebuttal, said he was too busy, and might offer rebuttal
when he had more time. Five months elapsed and Elsberry made his second
reply which started this thread in August 2001. So far there is little
substance.
ELSBERRY'S REPORT ASSUMED EXISTENCE OF TRANSITIONALS
In the report offered by Elsberry the authors explicitly ASSUMED (in the
first paragraph) that transitional creatures existed in prehistory.
They did not set out to prove this assumption or even present evidence
in its defense. They only attempted to answer the question: Did two
foram populations diverge as the result of sympatric speciation or
allopatric speciation? As a result I believe Elsberry has misused this
little bit of research.
ELSBERRY TREATS ANY SEQUENCE OF CHANGE AS TRANSITIONAL
Elsberry undoubtedly offered this report because the foram observations
contained within it were examples of "finely graded" changes between
populations over time. The shape of the foram shell is used, in part,
to distinquish between different populations and the authors offer
photographs of finely graded changes in the shell between FORAM
populations. The "finely-graded" changes between populations of FORAM
can certainly be labeled "transitions" in the broad sense of that word
but this is hardly how such a word is used in the context of the ORIGIN
of structures, ORIGIN of systems, and the ORIGIN of creatures. And
Elsberry is well aware of this. Elsberry implies that any sort of
sequence of change qualifies as a transition. But his evidence in this
case is not a "transition" to something new but the minor variation
within limits.
ELSBERRY'S REPORT SHOWS CHANGES WITHIN LIMITS NOT TRANSITIONS
The changes described in the report (that is, changes in foram shell
shape) were minor variations of an EXISTING structure. But we're
interested in evidence of changes which show us the origin of structures
leading to diversity. Nothing new was created in the report cited.
There is no change which resulted in a nascent structure which didn't
previously exist in the stratigraphic record. To suggest that minor
variations of an EXISTING STRUCTURE stands as evidence that there
existed in prehistory finely graded transitional populations between,
for example, the mesonychid and that of bat and whale is not only a
grossly unjustified extrapolation but ludicrous.
Mike Dunford
A Pagano wrote:
>
> This is a continuation of a reply to Elsberry.
>
> Elsberry previously wrote:
> > By Pagano's own admission, he had no knowledge of the specific
> > evidence of the G. trilobus to O. universa transition when he
> > made his original universal claim. To my mind, "meeting" the
> > TFEC would mean that the anti-evolutionist already had
> > knowledge of the relevant evidence at the time that they make
> > their universal claim of "no transitional fossils exist".
> > Pagano certainly has no hope of representing himself as
> > knowledgeable in this way. Pagano made his original claim
> > in ignorance, not based upon knowledge, and nothing he says
> > now can change that cold, hard fact.
>
> Pagano replies:
> I have admitted my infinite ignorance repeatedly. However, I need not
> be omniscient or even as bright as Elsberry believes himself to be in
> order to offer the claim that there does not exist a single true,
> unambiguous "transitional" fossil creature.
The claim you made was much more specific:
"Of the few fossils which evolutionists propose to be transitional, none
are unambiguous." (A Pagano, Message-ID <33B86C56...@fast.net>)
This statement strongly implies that you are familiar enough with the
fossil record to be able to state both that only a few fossils have been
proposed as transitional, and that none of those is unambiguous. If you
were, as it appears, unfamiliar even with a well-known example such as
the _Globigerinoides_trilobus_ to _Orbulina_universa_ transition, than
it would appear that your statement was made in ignorance.
> There is no logical or
> scientific necessity to justify the mere offering of criticism because
> such criticism has ALWAYS been conjectural.
Further, when taken in context, this statement was made not as a
'conjecture,' but as a statement of fact, supporting a different
conjecture. ("My opinion is this
constitutes (to some degree) refutation of neoDarwinism.")
> It is the observations
> contained in Elsberry's citations which will determine whether my
> conjecture stands or falls. After reviewing Elsberry's first citation
> my conjecture still stands.
That is a bold statement from someone who has repeatedly refused to
address specific criticisms of that conjecture. If you are so confident,
please explain what definition of 'nascent structure' you are using that
excludes a new shell chamber. In addition, please explain why it is
necessary to demonstrate the existance of a transitional to YOUR
definition of transitional rather than Darwin's in order to address
DARWIN'S concerns with the apparent absence of transitionals.
--Mike Dunford
Joe Cummings
>This is a continuation of reply to Elsberry.
>
>Elsberry previously wrote:
>> Please note that unfamiliarity with the reference above is a
>> failure of the claim of absence of transitional sequences --
>> the claim requires *complete* knowledge of fossil sequences,
>> and unfamiliarity with any is prima facie evidence that the
>> claimant doesn't have the basis for the claim.
>>
>> [End Quote - original text of the challenge presented to
>> Pagano, 1997/07/01]
>>
>> By Pagano's own admission, he had no knowledge of the specific
>> evidence of the G. trilobus to O. universa transition when he
>> made his original universal claim. To my mind, "meeting" the
>> TFEC would mean that the anti-evolutionist already had
>> knowledge of the relevant evidence at the time that they make
>> their universal claim of "no transitional fossils exist".
>> Pagano certainly has no hope of representing himself as
>> knowledgeable in this way. Pagano made his original claim
>> in ignorance, not based upon knowledge, and nothing he says
>> now can change that cold, hard fact.
>
>
> Pagano replies:
>In effect Elsberry is arguing that if one is ignorant of one or more
>observations that this fact ALONE disqualifies one from offering
>criticism of a theory which explains ALL those observations.
Are you deliberately and mendaciously misrepresenting
Elsberry here?
If you are not aware of it, what you are doing here is making
a claim about existence, not making any sort of criticism of a theory.
>This presupposes that some finite collection of observations is both
>necessary and sufficient to uniquely determine the true theory. This
>presuppostion has been known to be false at least since Hume'S
>writings.
This is true but totally irrelevant to any of your claims
about existence.
>1. Man has NEVER been in possession of the complete set of ALL
>POSSIBLE, relevent observations about any problem because this is simply
>not possible. So NEVER will any investigator be in possession of
>"complete" information. This is indisputable.
>2. No finite set of observations, regardless of size, uniquely
>determines the objective truth of a particular theory. This
>"underdetermination" of theories is well known, indisputable, and
>unsolved.
>3. There is no probability calculus currently in existence which can
>take the finite observations that have been made to determine even the
>(objective) probability that a theory is true (or more to the point the
>probability that transitional creatures existed in prehistory). This is
>indisputable.
>
>
>What does this mean?
>
>1. Elsberry's finite set of observation reports represented by the
>scientific reports he cites----no matter how large----can ever be
>"complete."
You haven't been criticising Elsberry for his observation
reports, you have been loudly claiming that a class of objects - your
famously undefined "transitional structures - don't exist.
It's lovely tio watch you wriggling, Tony!
> He fails to meet his own arbitrary "completeness" rule.
>The history of science has shown repeatedly that theories (and the
>criticism of theories) have often been generated after only a few
>observations. Furthermore often times it is only AFTER a theory (or
>criticism of a theory) is generated that certain observations are
>thought to be made. Therefore to suggest that criticism may not be
>offered or acceptable until all observations or even some finite
>collection of observations are in hand has no basis WHATSOEVER in the
>history of science.
>
>2. Elsberry's finite collection of observation reports (contained in
>his scientific citations) does not and cannot uniquely determine that
>the only explanation for that data is the existence of true
>"transitional" creatures.
Again, you are changing your ground: no-one is claiming that
there is a unique explanation, but there is a hypothesised
explanation. You are making the claim that there does not exist an
undefined class of objects, the transitional structures.
>Since his finite collection of observations is
>NOT SUFFICIENT then there is no basis upon which to rule criticism
>inadmissable which does not take all such observations into immediate
>account.
>
>3. Elsberry cannot even take his finite set of observation reports and
>produce an objective, quantifiable probability that true transitional
>creatures existed.
It would seem that a finite set of observation statements
asserts that a finite set of observation statements exist. You are
denying this. And, no, you STILL haven't said what you mean by
"transitional" structures. I don't think you have the intellectual
capacity to do so.
>
Joe Cummings
>This is a continuation of a reply to Elsberry.
>
>Elsberry previously wrote:
>> By Pagano's own admission, he had no knowledge of the specific
>> evidence of the G. trilobus to O. universa transition when he
>> made his original universal claim. To my mind, "meeting" the
>> TFEC would mean that the anti-evolutionist already had
>> knowledge of the relevant evidence at the time that they make
>> their universal claim of "no transitional fossils exist".
>> Pagano certainly has no hope of representing himself as
>> knowledgeable in this way. Pagano made his original claim
>> in ignorance, not based upon knowledge, and nothing he says
>> now can change that cold, hard fact.
>
>
> Pagano replies:
>I have admitted my infinite ignorance repeatedly. However, I need not
>be omniscient or even as bright as Elsberry believes himself to be in
>order to offer the claim that there does not exist a single true,
>unambiguous "transitional" fossil creature.
Ah, here Tony's changed tack from his immediately previous
posting; no more Hume, I see! Now it's the "magisterial" claim about
non-existence again.
>There is no logical or
>scientific necessity to justify the mere offering of criticism because
>such criticism has ALWAYS been conjectural.
Criticism of a theory always bears some relation to the data
of the theory.
Under Philp Johnson's definition of "critiquing,", any old
criticsm will do. Tony tarts it up by calling it "harsh" criticism.
This is somehow, and in a mysterious way, believed to induce a
"paradigm shift."
It doesn't.
Have fun,
Joe Cummings
Andy Groves
Could you tell the bewildered among us what the difference is between
a transitional fossil and a "true unambiguous transitional fossil
creature"?
Perhaps if you cared to give an example of what such a creature
*might* look like, we could decide a) whether one has actually been
spotted or b) whether you are trying to define "transitional" out of
existence.
And please, before you get going, don't say that it exhibits "nascent
structures" or babble on about "mature" or "immature" structures,
unless you are a) prepared to define those terms much more carefully
than you have to date, and b) point out why the examples offered up to
you (such as whale cranial vasculature or horse limbs) don't satisfy
your criteria.
Andy
Andy Groves
> This is a continuation of reply to Elsberry.
>
> Elsberry previously wrote:
> > Please note that unfamiliarity with the reference above is a
> > failure of the claim of absence of transitional sequences --
> > the claim requires *complete* knowledge of fossil sequences,
> > and unfamiliarity with any is prima facie evidence that the
> > claimant doesn't have the basis for the claim.
> >
> > [End Quote - original text of the challenge presented to
> > Pagano, 1997/07/01]
> >
> > By Pagano's own admission, he had no knowledge of the specific
> > evidence of the G. trilobus to O. universa transition when he
> > made his original universal claim. To my mind, "meeting" the
> > TFEC would mean that the anti-evolutionist already had
> > knowledge of the relevant evidence at the time that they make
> > their universal claim of "no transitional fossils exist".
> > Pagano certainly has no hope of representing himself as
> > knowledgeable in this way. Pagano made his original claim
> > in ignorance, not based upon knowledge, and nothing he says
> > now can change that cold, hard fact.
>
>
> Pagano replies:
> In effect Elsberry is arguing that if one is ignorant of one or more
> observations that this fact ALONE disqualifies one from offering
> criticism of a theory which explains ALL those observations.
Actually, what he's getting at is that you could have saved yourself
much bother and humiliation if you had just said "to my knowledge,
there are no transitional fossils".
Then people could have replied "Ah - well your knowledge is
incomplete; here are some examples for you".
Instead, you are still banging on about how the examples that have
been pointed out to you are not, in your opinion, "true"
transitionals.
It would make it a lot easier for the rest of us if you actually said
in clear, simple English, (English that even a biologist could
understand) what a "true" transitional fossil would look like in your
opinion. You would have to do that without falling back on ambiguous
and non-biological terms such as "nascent structures". You would also
haev to point out why the examples of transitional fossil are not, in
your opinion, "true" trnasitionals.
Well?
Andy
Edward L. Mincher
Hi,
Actually, Pangano has a point since evolution science isn't really
science like the other sciences. It has no law, no Newton's or
Einstein, and is not setup for proof.
I should add that I like and respect science very much.
Thanks,
Eddy
http://www.geocities.com/edwardlmincher/MyYahooPage.html
The eternity of God is his essence itself, which has nothing mutable
in it. In it there is nothing past, as if it were no longer; nothing
future, as if it where not yet. In it there is only 'is, ' namely, the
present. ......Augustine, Saint A.D. 354-430
John Wilkins
Okay, but will you let the morning shift know about this? I don't want
to get caught in an unseemly chase sequence.
John Wilkins
Which is on-topic, as Romanes was the guy who coined the phrase
"neo-Darwinism". I didn't know he was a multiple personality, though.
[Phew, was *that* a stretch]
Steven J.
if you say "X does not exist," you have an exhaustive knowledge *at
least* of all reports of X. If I, for example, say "there is no such
thing as a white raven," then I had better have checked intensively
for reports of white ravens. Indeed, Elsberry might have gone further
-- there might be white ravens, or transtional fossils, for which no
reports exist (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence) -- and
insisted that you likewise have an exhaustive knowledge of all
unreported facts relevant to the existence of transitional fossils.
An exception would be if you had reason to believe, in advance, that
nothing could qualify as X. I might refuse to call any white bird a
raven, no matter how it resembled a raven in all other respects. You
might define "transitional fossil" in such a way that no logically
conceivable fossil could meet it. But it is not your claim that you
did this (though it might be the truth).
>
> 1. Man has NEVER been in possession of the complete set of ALL
> POSSIBLE, relevent observations about any problem because this is simply
> not possible. So NEVER will any investigator be in possession of
> "complete" information. This is indisputable.
>
Then the prudent thing to do would be to exercise extreme caution in
saying that things do not exist. This is practically a cliche.
>
> 2. No finite set of observations, regardless of size, uniquely
> determines the objective truth of a particular theory. This
> "underdetermination" of theories is well known, indisputable, and
> unsolved.
>
This is true, but largely irrelevant to the problem of claiming that
something does not exist. To be sure, we may feel confident that
something cannot exist because its existence would violate physical
law; obviously, the tentativeness of physical laws should be kept in
mind when making such claims. In any case, I know of no physical law
which prohibits transitional fossils -- and I think, if you did, or
thought you did, you would have mentioned it by now.
>
> 3. There is no probability calculus currently in existence which can
> take the finite observations that have been made to determine even the
> (objective) probability that a theory is true (or more to the point the
> probability that transitional creatures existed in prehistory). This is
> indisputable.
>
And again, Pagano demonstrates his status as every defense lawyer's
ideal juror. If we find the fossils of transitional forms, it's a
pretty safe bet that they existed. If we don't, that *doesn't* prove
they didn't exist. And, if (by your own admission -- nay, insistence)
you can't know the probability that transitionals existed in the past,
was it not overly bold to insist, in the absence of exhaustive
knowledge of reports of such fossils, to deny that they existed?
>
> What does this mean?
>
> 1. Elsberry's finite set of observation reports represented by the
> scientific reports he cites----no matter how large----can ever be
> "complete." He fails to meet his own arbitrary "completeness" rule.
> The history of science has shown repeatedly that theories (and the
> criticism of theories) have often been generated after only a few
> observations. Furthermore often times it is only AFTER a theory (or
> criticism of a theory) is generated that certain observations are
> thought to be made. Therefore to suggest that criticism may not be
> offered or acceptable until all observations or even some finite
> collection of observations are in hand has no basis WHATSOEVER in the
> history of science.
>
I truly believe that you are not as stupid as the above paragraph
makes you look. To say that "X does not exist" one needs to know
every possible instance of X. To say that "X *does* exist," one needs
only one confirmed instance of X (and enough supplementary data to
confirm it), and may be ignorant of all other relevant data. This is
obvious. It is you who, in effect, argue that we may not say that
something (common descent, or an old earth) does exist, if we don't
have *all* the evidence, even if we have no good contrary evidence.
Elsberry disagrees. He holds that limited evidence can justify saying
that something *does* exist, but that exhaustive knowledge (or, I
suppose, strong evidence that the something is impossible) is needed
to show that it does not.
>
> 2. Elsberry's finite collection of observation reports (contained in
> his scientific citations) does not and cannot uniquely determine that
> the only explanation for that data is the existence of true
> "transitional" creatures. Since his finite collection of observations is
> NOT SUFFICIENT then there is no basis upon which to rule criticism
> inadmissable which does not take all such observations into immediate
> account.
>
Again, by the definition of "transitional form" Elsberry (and most
other people) use, this is false. You, as I have surmised, use a
different definition. To you, a "transitional form" is a fossil that
somehow proves, beyond not merely reasonable but all possible doubt,
that it is the remains of a descendant of one "kind" different from
itself, and the ancestor of another. No fossil can possibly meet that
definition. You should simply have stated that you do not believe
that any fossil can conceivably be shown to be transitional, and not
pretended to consider the evidence.
>
> 3. Elsberry cannot even take his finite set of observation reports and
> produce an objective, quantifiable probability that true transitional
> creatures existed.
>
I can't take my finite set of observations, and produce an objective,
quantifiable probability that *you* exist. Certainly I can't possibly
prove that you aren't just some atheist trying to make Catholics and
creationists look like whining obscurantist jerks.
>
> It should be clear that instead of Elsberry immediately getting to the
> substance of my criticism of his first citation he established an
> arbitrary rule with no basis in science to save himself.
>
And yet, somehow it isn't clear at all.
>
> more to follow
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
-- Steven J.
Mike Dunford
A Pagano wrote:
>
> This is a continuation of reply to Elsberry.
>
> Elsberry previously wrote:
> > Please note that unfamiliarity with the reference above is a
> > failure of the claim of absence of transitional sequences --
> > the claim requires *complete* knowledge of fossil sequences,
> > and unfamiliarity with any is prima facie evidence that the
> > claimant doesn't have the basis for the claim.
> >
> > [End Quote - original text of the challenge presented to
> > Pagano, 1997/07/01]
> >
> > By Pagano's own admission, he had no knowledge of the specific
> > evidence of the G. trilobus to O. universa transition when he
> > made his original universal claim. To my mind, "meeting" the
> > TFEC would mean that the anti-evolutionist already had
> > knowledge of the relevant evidence at the time that they make
> > their universal claim of "no transitional fossils exist".
> > Pagano certainly has no hope of representing himself as
> > knowledgeable in this way. Pagano made his original claim
> > in ignorance, not based upon knowledge, and nothing he says
> > now can change that cold, hard fact.
>
> Pagano replies:
> In effect Elsberry is arguing that if one is ignorant of one or more
> observations that this fact ALONE disqualifies one from offering
> criticism of a theory which explains ALL those observations.
There is a difference between offering criticism about a theory and
making blanket declarations. This is particularly true when you are
unfamiliar with the evidence (in this case, the fossil record) upon
which your universal statement rests.
There is absolutely nothing that can prevent you from offering relevant
criticism of those parts of any theory or evidence which you are
familiar with. That is not what you did. What you did was make a blanket
statement concerning specific evidence: "Of the few fossils which
evolutionists propose to be transitional, none are unambiguous." (A
Pagano, Message-ID <33B86C56...@fast.net>). That statement very
strongly implies that you are familiar with the "few fossils which
evolutionists propose to be transitional." If you are not familiar with
those fossils, then you were doing what is colloquially known as
'talking out of your ass.' That is, you were making blanket statements
about something you had little or no knowledge of.
> This
> presupposes that some finite collection of observations is both
> necessary and sufficient to uniquely determine the true theory.
This does no such thing.
The only presupposition here is the one you established -- that you were
familiar with the collection of observations when you stated that, "Of
the few fossils which evolutionists propose to be transitional, none are
unambiguous." A Pagano, Message-ID <33B86C56...@fast.net> We are
not speaking of the 'truth' of the theory; we are speaking about whether
your personal knowledge was sufficient to support the specific universal
statement which you made.
If you were unfamiliar with the published scientific literature, you
could not state with any certainty that "few fossils" had been proposed
as transitional, and you certainly could not state with any confidence
that none were unambiguous. You clearly stated both of those things as
fact. This presents two possibilities: either you were familiar with the
fossil record, or you really didn't know what you were talking about.
> This
> presuppostion has been known to be false at least since Hume'S
> writings. Let's see why Elsberry's rule has no basis and is purely
> arbitrary:
The rest of this is a strawman, as I have pointed out above. Elsberry
does not presuppose that "some finite collection of observations is both
necessary and sufficient to uniquely determine the true theory."
Elsberry and others presume that if you state that, "of the few fossils
which evolutionists propose to be transitional, none are unambiguous,"
you have a working knowledge of the fossils that have been proposed as
transitional. This assumption is reasonable, given the statement you
made.
> 1. Man has NEVER been in possession of the complete set of ALL
> POSSIBLE, relevent observations about any problem because this is simply
> not possible. So NEVER will any investigator be in possession of
> "complete" information. This is indisputable.
The statement you made is that, "of the few fossils which evolutionists
propose to be transitional, none are unambiguous." It is entirely
possible for you to have had knowledge of all of the fossils that have
been proposed as transitional, since that is a finite body of work. When
you classified the approximate quantity ("few") of fossils proposed as
transitional, you established a strong presumption that you had some
knowledge of the body of work on transitionals. If you did not, you
could not make any definite statement about how many fossils have been
proposed.
> 2. No finite set of observations, regardless of size, uniquely
> determines the objective truth of a particular theory. This
> "underdetermination" of theories is well known, indisputable, and
> unsolved.
It is also not involved in this case.
We are not speaking of the 'objective truth' of a particular theory.
> 3. There is no probability calculus currently in existence which can
> take the finite observations that have been made to determine even the
> (objective) probability that a theory is true (or more to the point the
> probability that transitional creatures existed in prehistory). This is
> indisputable.
>
> What does this mean?
>
> 1. Elsberry's finite set of observation reports represented by the
> scientific reports he cites----no matter how large----can ever be
> "complete." He fails to meet his own arbitrary "completeness" rule.
> The history of science has shown repeatedly that theories (and the
> criticism of theories) have often been generated after only a few
> observations. Furthermore often times it is only AFTER a theory (or
> criticism of a theory) is generated that certain observations are
> thought to be made. Therefore to suggest that criticism may not be
> offered or acceptable until all observations or even some finite
> collection of observations are in hand has no basis WHATSOEVER in the
> history of science.
In this case, we are questioning whether you were in posession of the
finite set of observations implied by your specific statement. You said,
"of the few fossils which evolutionists propose to be transitional, none
are unambiguous." The number of fossils PROPOSED as transitional is
obviously finite. It is therefore just as obvious that it is possible to
have a complete knowledge base. Further, you created the assumption that
you had at least a good knowlede base with your statement.
Nobody is suggesting that you cannot offer criticism of a theory or
specific evidence with which you are familiar. I would suggest that is
unwise to offer blanket statements about finite groups of observation
which you do not have good knowledge of if you expect to be taken
seriously.
> 2. Elsberry's finite collection of observation reports (contained in
> his scientific citations) does not and cannot uniquely determine that
> the only explanation for that data is the existence of true
> "transitional" creatures. Since his finite collection of observations is
> NOT SUFFICIENT then there is no basis upon which to rule criticism
> inadmissable which does not take all such observations into immediate
> account.
There is a good basis to discard blanket statements based on finite
bodies of evidence when the person making the statement is unfamiliar
with the FINITE body of observations he refers to.
> 3. Elsberry cannot even take his finite set of observation reports and
> produce an objective, quantifiable probability that true transitional
> creatures existed.
>
> It should be clear that instead of Elsberry immediately getting to the
> substance of my criticism of his first citation he established an
> arbitrary rule with no basis in science to save himself.
And yet you have still not gotten to the substance of any of the
Steven J.
Sweet merciful heavens -- are you reduced to newbie's tactics, that
you are free to advance claims with *NO [expletive deleted] IDEA*
whether or not what you say is true?! There is "no logical or
scientific necessity" that your "harsh criticisms" be anything other
than wild guesses or arbitrary assertions based on ignorance?! Be
ashamed, Tony.
As I have argued in other responses to other posts of yours,
Elsberry's first citation apparently failed to meet your standards,
because your standards are logically impossible to meet. It was
dishonest of you to pretend that some logically possible fossil
sequence might meet your standard, while intending all along to
determine that any possible evidence was inadequate evidence.
-- Steven J.
Adam Marczyk
[snip]
> The changes described in the report (that is, changes in foram shell
> shape) were minor variations of an EXISTING structure. But we're
> interested in evidence of changes which show us the origin of structures
> leading to diversity. Nothing new was created in the report cited.
> There is no change which resulted in a nascent structure which didn't
> previously exist in the stratigraphic record. To suggest that minor
> variations of an EXISTING STRUCTURE stands as evidence that there
> existed in prehistory finely graded transitional populations between,
> for example, the mesonychid and that of bat and whale is not only a
> grossly unjustified extrapolation but ludicrous.
The paragraph following has been recopied from a post I made on July 28.
Tony hasn't attempted to answer it yet.
You're a liar, Tony. You have zero intellectual integrity. You say this over
and over; each time someone offers a list of the nascent structures you
claim don't exist, you vanish, abandon your claims and pop up later in some
other thread making the exact same arguments as if they had never been
answered. You ignore all rebuttals and refuse to address any
counterarguments in any substantive way. Explain why the proto-feathers on
Sinornithosaurus aren't nascent structures, or the vascular networks in the
skulls of whale precursors, or the enlarging braincases of early hominids,
or the incipient jaw hinges and ear bones of therapsid reptiles, or the
diminishing toes of horse ancestors, or the tetrapod legs of Acanthostega,
or the blinking lights that have formed out of the suckers of Stauroteuthis
syrtensis. Explain why these don't count. Do _something_ other than your
usual endless parade of lying and evasion.
--
And I want to conquer the world,
give all the idiots a brand new religion,
put an end to poverty, uncleanliness and toil,
promote equality in all of my decisions...
--Bad Religion, "I Want to Conquer the World"
To send e-mail, change "excite" to "hotmail"
John Segerson
Pagano is correct that Wesley makes too much of
Pagano's admission of unfamiliarity with the G.t -
O. u. study. But Pagano would be wise not to make
too much of it himself. Pagano has claimed that
no transitionals exist, and Wesley has provided an
example. Pagano's options are the same as before
Wesley's comment about Pagano's knowledge of the
literature. Either he can admit that Wesley's
example is legitimate, and the claim that no
transitionals exist is false, or he can provide an
argument that Wesley's example is dismissable and
Pagano need not have known about it. Which will
it be?
> Let's see why Elsberry's rule has no basis and is purely
> arbitrary:
>
> 1. Man has NEVER been in possession of the complete set of ALL
> POSSIBLE, relevent observations about any problem because this is simply
> not possible. So NEVER will any investigator be in possession of
> "complete" information. This is indisputable.
> 2. No finite set of observations, regardless of size, uniquely
> determines the objective truth of a particular theory. This
> "underdetermination" of theories is well known, indisputable, and
> unsolved.
> 3. There is no probability calculus currently in existence which can
> take the finite observations that have been made to determine even the
> (objective) probability that a theory is true (or more to the point the
> probability that transitional creatures existed in prehistory). This is
> indisputable.
It is possible to read item 3 above to say that
there is no calculus based on observations made
that can draw conclusions about the probability
that transitionals existed in prehistory. This is
not only disputable, it is patently, obviously,
trivially false.
H,R.Gruemm
> This is a continuation of a reply to Elsberry.
>
> Elsberry previously wrote:
> > By Pagano's own admission, he had no knowledge of the specific
> > evidence of the G. trilobus to O. universa transition when he
> > made his original universal claim. To my mind, "meeting" the
> > TFEC would mean that the anti-evolutionist already had
> > knowledge of the relevant evidence at the time that they make
> > their universal claim of "no transitional fossils exist".
> > Pagano certainly has no hope of representing himself as
> > knowledgeable in this way. Pagano made his original claim
> > in ignorance, not based upon knowledge, and nothing he says
> > now can change that cold, hard fact.
>
>
> Pagano replies:
> I have admitted my infinite ignorance repeatedly. However, I need not
> be omniscient or even as bright as Elsberry believes himself to be in
> order to offer the claim that there does not exist a single true,
> unambiguous "transitional" fossil creature.
Who is the objective judge on whether a fossil is "unambigously
transitional" ?
> There is no logical or
> scientific necessity to justify the mere offering of criticism because
> such criticism has ALWAYS been conjectural.
So why did Pagano not write "I *believe* zhat there does not exist
...", instead of proclaiming his unsupported belief as if it were a
fact ?
> It is the observations
> contained in Elsberry's citations which will determine whether my
> conjecture stands or falls. After reviewing Elsberry's first citation
> my conjecture still stands.
If I claimed that no Biblical quotes whatever supported the divine
nature of Jesus, and had to confess that I hadn't read the bible, I
would be laughed out of court - and I would deserve it.
HRG.
> Regards,
> T Pagano
Dave Horn
[Snip a lot of evasion and huge shovelfuls of Pagano horse manure]
Okay, let me see if I have this straight.
If we take away all the pompous verbiage, all of the nonsensical ramblings
and arrogant posturings, we are left with Pagano simply claiming that he can
say pretty much what he wants and he is under no obligation to support it?
Well, of course, some of us have known all along that that's what he's been
doing; but it's pretty rare to see such a flagrant admission.
So..."confused christians" (do you know who you are?), what do you think of
that?
Pagano says he can pretty much make any claim he wants and as long as it's a
"conjecture," he doesn't have to support it.
So when he makes incredibly stupid statements about mesonychid evolution
leading to bats and whales, that's all right (according to Pagano). Even
though no one actually has ever made such a statement (except Pagano) or
associated chiropterans (bats) and cetaceans (whales) and presumed that the
two are evolutionarily linked, it's okay for Pagano to make that association
and he calls that "harsh criticism" of the evolutionary paradigm.
Pagano can claim that neodarwinism is inexoriably linked to abiogenesis, can
also claim that abiogenesis has been refuted and that means trouble for
neodarwinism; and he doesn't have to provide a whit of evidence to support
that claim?
Pagano can claim that pictures of "unambiguous" transitional forms do not
appear in biology textbooks and I can prove he's wrong, but that's okay. It
was just a "conjecture" made with "bravado" and therefore it does not have
to be supported or retracted.
I could go on and on through the roughly 1000 postings (not 1400+ as Pagano
claims) that he has entered into this newsgroup and I can cite incredible
claim after incredible claim. I can cite actual episodes of deception,
dishonesty and hypocrisy, and Pagano feels no obligation to own up to any of
it.
And then Pagano has the nerve to try to pretend that he's humble.
Every now and then, we get a taste of true arrogance. We've got it here,
folks. Pagano is "unteachable" and "unreachable." He does not have to look
at references that are used to rebut his assertions and he does not have to
provide references for his claims. He can follow his hit-and-run tactics,
make the same refuted claims over and over again even though they *have*
been refuted - and that's okay as far as Pagano is concerned. We are to
accept Pagano's word and believe Pagano because Pagano has said so.
And then he chastizes others for using "arguments from authority."
Are there any "confused christians" still buying any of this - other than
Mike Goodrich, that is (who has again run from his claims just as Pagano
does)?
I'm just curious.
Rodjk
??? This will come as a surprise to the biologist of the world.
How did you come to this knowledge?
Since evolution and evolution theory have been tested and supported
for over 150 years with nothing but lies and ignorance to oppose it: I
think your claim needs some support.
>
> I should add that I like and respect science very much.
You may like and support it, but you don't seem to know much about it.
As an IT person myself, I wish other IT people would learn more about
biology before they posted. It makes us look bad.
Rodjk #613
>
> Thanks,
> Eddy
> http://www.geocities.com/edwardlmincher/MyYahooPage.html
>
> The eternity of God is his essence itself, which has nothing mutable
> in it. In it there is nothing past, as if it were no longer; nothing
> future, as if it where not yet. In it there is only 'is, ' namely, the
> present. ......Augustine, Saint A.D. 354-430
No past, no future. Good description of god.
Only the imagination now.
muju51
>OFFERING OF A CONJECTURE NEED NOT BE JUSTIFIED
>The mere offering of a conjecture need not be justified.
Sorry, I think I missed something somewhere. Was it in your original claim,
or in some subsequent discussion, that you identified your claim of "no true
transitionals" as being merely unsubstantiated conjecture?
muju
Elmer Bataitis
> Pagano replies:
> The mere offering of a conjecture need not be justified.
Hmmm, my conjecture is that since Tony denies the validity of
naturalism, no evidence in the natural world will ever change his
mind.
Het Tony, when are you going to make a post via non-natural means?
**********************************************************
Elmer Bataitis "Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!"
Planetech Services -Hobbes
716-442-2884
Proudly wearing and displaying, as a badge of honor,
the straight jacket of conventional thought.
**********************************************************
Elmer Bataitis
> Elsberry previously wrote:
> > Please note that unfamiliarity with the reference above is a
> > failure of the claim of absence of transitional sequences --
> > the claim requires *complete* knowledge of fossil sequences,
> > and unfamiliarity with any is prima facie evidence that the
> > claimant doesn't have the basis for the claim.
> Pagano replies:
> In effect Elsberry is arguing that if one is ignorant of one or more
> observations that this fact ALONE disqualifies one from offering
> criticism of a theory which explains ALL those observations.
Tony, try rereading Elsberry again. You claimed there are *NO*
transistional fossils. This is a claim of universal knowledge (i.e.,
there exist none, anywhere). Yet, there are sequences of fossils
claimed to be transistional in the literature. You explicitly
acknowledged your ignorance of these, thus, you lose your original
claim. But since you deny that naturalism true, why would actual
evidence mean anything to you anyway?
Elmer Bataitis
> Pagano replies:
> I have admitted my infinite ignorance repeatedly.
And have demonstrated it repeatedly too.
> However, I need not
> be omniscient or even as bright as Elsberry believes himself to be in
> order to offer the claim that there does not exist a single true,
> unambiguous "transitional" fossil creature.
True, you don't need to be bright to offer that claim, but you *DO*
need *KNOW* each and every fossil sequence for your claim to be
treated as even conjecturally true.
muju51
>In March 2001 MacRae mailed me a copy of Elsberry's citation...
>I read this report in March 2001, and critiqued it
>in this forum in March 2001. About 21 days later Elsberry provided a
>non substantive rebuttal,
Ah, so it *was* a rebuttal? Not an "acknowledgement" that you had "met"
his challenge? Why didn't you say so in the first place?
>said he was too busy, and might offer rebuttal
>when he had more time. Five months elapsed and Elsberry made his second
>reply which started this thread in August 2001. So far there is little
>substance.
Dude, what more do you want? Do you honestly think that if you and
Elsberry walked into a high school science class, and he presented all his
evidence, and all you did was claim that there was no "substance", any of
the students would be convinced by your empty claims? I doubt you'd
convince even one, since the only ones who would agree with you would be
fundamentalists whose minds had already been made up before you guys even
came into the class.
Face it, he crushed you, documentary-evidence-wise.
>ELSBERRY'S REPORT ASSUMED EXISTENCE OF TRANSITIONALS
>In the report offered by Elsberry the authors explicitly ASSUMED (in the
>first paragraph) that transitional creatures existed in prehistory.
You should learn to distinguish between "assuming" and "building on prior
work". Science learned about transitional forms a long time ago. Modern
scientific studies don't keep asking questions to which the answers are
already known, they take the answers and see what new knowledge these
answers lead to. Nevertheless, modern work with transitional forms *does*
involve handling a significant amount of evidence of these forms.
>They did not set out to prove this assumption or even present evidence
>in its defense. They only attempted to answer the question: Did two
>foram populations diverge as the result of sympatric speciation or
>allopatric speciation? As a result I believe Elsberry has misused this
>little bit of research.
Not really. You said no transitional forms exist. Elsberry knew that
modern science routinely deals with evidence of transitional forms while
working on other questions. The primary purpose of the Pearson paper was
something other than trying to reconstruct the proof of transitional forms,
but so what? Science has gone beyond asking whether transitionals exist to
asking what transtionals tell us, but that doesn't change the fact that,
having discovered transitionals, science now routinely works with them.
Your objection is like objecting that modern maps of America are not proof
America exists because they do not re-create the discovery of America by
Columbus (or the Vikings or whoever).
>ELSBERRY TREATS ANY SEQUENCE OF CHANGE AS TRANSITIONAL
And how else would you prove transitionals, other than by sequences of
change?
>The "finely-graded" changes between populations of FORAM
>can certainly be labeled "transitions" in the broad sense of that word
>but this is hardly how such a word is used in the context of the ORIGIN
>of structures, ORIGIN of systems, and the ORIGIN of creatures. And
>Elsberry is well aware of this. Elsberry implies that any sort of
>sequence of change qualifies as a transition. But his evidence in this
>case is not a "transition" to something new but the minor variation
>within limits.
In other words, you have decided a priori to reject any and all fossil
evidence, right? Based on your above argument, there is no possible way
you are ever going to accept any arguments based on the fossil evidence.
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the fully-qualified Pagano claim: "Except
for the fossil evidence, there is no evidence of unambiguous transitional
forms in the fossil record."
By the way, when you say "within limits," what limits are you referring to?
Do you have any scientific evidence of actual biological limits, or is this
just another one of your unsubstantiated conjectures?
>ELSBERRY'S REPORT SHOWS CHANGES WITHIN LIMITS NOT TRANSITIONS
The "within limits" bit is mere conjecture, though, right?
>The changes described in the report (that is, changes in foram shell
>shape) were minor variations of an EXISTING structure.
You have to admit, though, they *were* the exact "minor variations" you
have insisted on as proof of "nascent structures," since you dismiss any
larger changes as being too gross to be "nascent".
>But we're
>interested in evidence of changes which show us the origin of structures
>leading to diversity. Nothing new was created in the report cited.
>There is no change which resulted in a nascent structure which didn't
>previously exist in the stratigraphic record. To suggest that minor
>variations of an EXISTING STRUCTURE stands as evidence that there
>existed in prehistory finely graded transitional populations between,
>for example, the mesonychid and that of bat and whale is not only a
>grossly unjustified extrapolation but ludicrous.
You know, I wish you'd take a stand on one position or the other. You just
got done rejecting the cited paper because it showed transtions that were
"too fine-grained," now you're saying that the fossil record has no fine-
grained transitions. You remind me of Luke 7:31-32
[Jesus said] "To what then shall I compare the men of this generation, and
what are they like? They are like children who sit in the market place and
call to one another, and they say, 'We played the flute for you, and you
did not dance; we sang a dirge, and you did not weep...'"
muju
Steven J.
news:<3B7B12B6...@fast.net>...
> This is a continuation of a reply to Elsberry.
>
repeatedly. Please move on.
>
> Elsberry previously wrote:
> > By Pagano's own admission, he had no knowledge of the specific
> > evidence of the G. trilobus to O. universa transition when he
> > made his original universal claim. To my mind, "meeting" the
> > TFEC would mean that the anti-evolutionist already had
> > knowledge of the relevant evidence at the time that they make
> > their universal claim of "no transitional fossils exist".
> > Pagano certainly has no hope of representing himself as
> > knowledgeable in this way. Pagano made his original claim
> > in ignorance, not based upon knowledge, and nothing he says
> > now can change that cold, hard fact.
>
> Pagano replies:
>
> OFFERING OF A CONJECTURE NEED NOT BE JUSTIFIED
> The mere offering of a conjecture need not be justified. It is the
> observations or the reports of observations offered in Elsberry's
> citations which may decide whether my conjecture stands or falls. And
> in March 2001 I offered my criticism of Elsberry's first citation and
> the observations in that citation hardly caused my conjecture to fall.
> My conjecture was that there does not exist a single true unambiguous
> transitional fossil creature.
>
in claiming you presented it as a conjecture.
>
> ELSBERRY'S CITATION WAS READ AND CRITIQUED FIVE MONTHS AGO
> In March 2001 MacRae mailed me a copy of Elsberry's citation: Pearson,
> et al., "Stable isotopic evidence for the sympatric divergence of
> Globigerinoides trilobus and Orbulina universa (planktonic
> foraminfera)," Journal of the Geological Society, London, Vol. 154,
> 1997, pp. 295-302. I read this report in March 2001, and critiqued it
> in this forum in March 2001. About 21 days later Elsberry provided a
> non substantive rebuttal, said he was too busy, and might offer rebuttal
> when he had more time. Five months elapsed and Elsberry made his second
> reply which started this thread in August 2001. So far there is little
> substance.
>
is working on his dissertation, and does not have the leisure to deal
at length with your rantings. You seek to imply that he cannot deal
with your "harsh criticisms" when the truth, known to you, is that he
has better things to do with his time.
>
> ELSBERRY'S REPORT ASSUMED EXISTENCE OF TRANSITIONALS
> In the report offered by Elsberry the authors explicitly ASSUMED (in the
> first paragraph) that transitional creatures existed in prehistory.
> They did not set out to prove this assumption or even present evidence
> in its defense. They only attempted to answer the question: Did two
> foram populations diverge as the result of sympatric speciation or
> allopatric speciation? As a result I believe Elsberry has misused this
> little bit of research.
>
your great virtues) that the fossil sequence cited shows the record of
descent with modification within one (branching) line of descent?
>
> ELSBERRY TREATS ANY SEQUENCE OF CHANGE AS TRANSITIONAL
> Elsberry undoubtedly offered this report because the foram observations
> contained within it were examples of "finely graded" changes between
> populations over time. The shape of the foram shell is used, in part,
> to distinquish between different populations and the authors offer
> photographs of finely graded changes in the shell between FORAM
> populations. The "finely-graded" changes between populations of FORAM
> can certainly be labeled "transitions" in the broad sense of that word
> but this is hardly how such a word is used in the context of the ORIGIN
> of structures, ORIGIN of systems, and the ORIGIN of creatures. And
> Elsberry is well aware of this. Elsberry implies that any sort of
> sequence of change qualifies as a transition. But his evidence in this
> case is not a "transition" to something new but the minor variation
> within limits.
>
the horse series, or the changes in cranial vasculature of whales,
or.... Elsberry gave you a sequence sufficiently complete that it
cannot be denied, even by you, that it shows descent with modification
-- a transition between one species and another (this is the exact
sort of transition you cite Gould as denying the existence of). If
you want more spectacular transitions, look elsewhere. But I suspect
that you have defined (in a way peculiar to yourself, though you act
as if it were the only reasonable definition) "transitional" to mean
something the fossil record can never be expected to contain.
>
> ELSBERRY'S REPORT SHOWS CHANGES WITHIN LIMITS NOT TRANSITIONS
> The changes described in the report (that is, changes in foram shell
> shape) were minor variations of an EXISTING structure. But we're
> interested in evidence of changes which show us the origin of structures
> leading to diversity. Nothing new was created in the report cited.
> There is no change which resulted in a nascent structure which didn't
> previously exist in the stratigraphic record. To suggest that minor
> variations of an EXISTING STRUCTURE stands as evidence that there
> existed in prehistory finely graded transitional populations between,
> for example, the mesonychid and that of bat and whale is not only a
> grossly unjustified extrapolation but ludicrous.
>
matter, although bats are not commonly regarded as descendants of
mesonychid-like ancestors) *are* only variations within existing
structures.
>
> more to follow
>
You mean, "more of the same lies, equivocations, and goalpost-moving."
Andy Groves
> This is a continuation of a reply to Elsberry.
>
>
> Elsberry previously wrote:
> > By Pagano's own admission, he had no knowledge of the specific
> > evidence of the G. trilobus to O. universa transition when he
> > made his original universal claim. To my mind, "meeting" the
> > TFEC would mean that the anti-evolutionist already had
> > knowledge of the relevant evidence at the time that they make
> > their universal claim of "no transitional fossils exist".
> > Pagano certainly has no hope of representing himself as
> > knowledgeable in this way. Pagano made his original claim
> > in ignorance, not based upon knowledge, and nothing he says
> > now can change that cold, hard fact.
>
> Pagano replies:
>
> OFFERING OF A CONJECTURE NEED NOT BE JUSTIFIED
Indeed. However, people will tend to take you more seriously if it is.
> The mere offering of a conjecture need not be justified. It is the
> observations or the reports of observations offered in Elsberry's
> citations which may decide whether my conjecture stands or falls. And
> in March 2001 I offered my criticism of Elsberry's first citation and
> the observations in that citation hardly caused my conjecture to fall.
> My conjecture was that there does not exist a single true unambiguous
> transitional fossil creature.
Ah. But since you are coyly refusing to tell us what a "true
unambiguous transitional fossil creature" would actually look like,
how are we to assess your claim? And since you stick your neck out and
say that not a "single" such specimen exists, this presupposes your
knowledge of all published examples, right? You should have said "In
my opinion, there does not exist...." and we could have quietly
corrected you and moved on.
>
> ELSBERRY'S CITATION WAS READ AND CRITIQUED FIVE MONTHS AGO
> In March 2001 MacRae mailed me a copy of Elsberry's citation: Pearson,
> et al., "Stable isotopic evidence for the sympatric divergence of
> Globigerinoides trilobus and Orbulina universa (planktonic
> foraminfera)," Journal of the Geological Society, London, Vol. 154,
> 1997, pp. 295-302. I read this report in March 2001, and critiqued it
> in this forum in March 2001. About 21 days later Elsberry provided a
> non substantive rebuttal, said he was too busy, and might offer rebuttal
> when he had more time. Five months elapsed and Elsberry made his second
> reply which started this thread in August 2001. So far there is little
> substance.
It seemed a perfectly good rebuttal to me.
> ELSBERRY'S REPORT ASSUMED EXISTENCE OF TRANSITIONALS
> In the report offered by Elsberry the authors explicitly ASSUMED (in the
> first paragraph) that transitional creatures existed in prehistory.
> They did not set out to prove this assumption or even present evidence
> in its defense. They only attempted to answer the question: Did two
> foram populations diverge as the result of sympatric speciation or
> allopatric speciation? As a result I believe Elsberry has misused this
> little bit of research.
A question. If a population diverges, will there not logically either
be transitional forms, or else a sudden, saltatory leap to the new
form? What other alternatives are there?
> ELSBERRY TREATS ANY SEQUENCE OF CHANGE AS TRANSITIONAL
> Elsberry undoubtedly offered this report because the foram observations
> contained within it were examples of "finely graded" changes between
> populations over time. The shape of the foram shell is used, in part,
> to distinquish between different populations and the authors offer
> photographs of finely graded changes in the shell between FORAM
> populations. The "finely-graded" changes between populations of FORAM
> can certainly be labeled "transitions" in the broad sense of that word
> but this is hardly how such a word is used in the context of the ORIGIN
> of structures, ORIGIN of systems, and the ORIGIN of creatures. And
> Elsberry is well aware of this. Elsberry implies that any sort of
> sequence of change qualifies as a transition. But his evidence in this
> case is not a "transition" to something new but the minor variation
> within limits.
AH. Could you tell us what the difference is between a "transition to
something new" as opposed to a transition to something.... errr... not
new? I figure that one is a transition, and one is not.
Could you also tell us what are the limits to variation while you're
at it?
> ELSBERRY'S REPORT SHOWS CHANGES WITHIN LIMITS NOT TRANSITIONS
> The changes described in the report (that is, changes in foram shell
> shape) were minor variations of an EXISTING structure. But we're
> interested in evidence of changes which show us the origin of structures
> leading to diversity.
The sound you just heard was of a goalpost being moved.
> Nothing new was created in the report cited.
Whoops, there it goes again.
> There is no change which resulted in a nascent structure which didn't
> previously exist in the stratigraphic record.
For a definition of "nascent structure", see the Pagano Dictionary of
Biological terms:
NASCENT STRUCTURE : see "immature form"
IMMATURE FORM : see "nascent structure"
To suggest that minor
> variations of an EXISTING STRUCTURE stands as evidence that there
> existed in prehistory finely graded transitional populations between,
> for example, the mesonychid and that of bat and whale is not only a
> grossly unjustified extrapolation but ludicrous.
Why don't you give us a list of the new structures that appear in the
transition you describe?
Andy
Gen2Rev
>
> This is a continuation of reply to Elsberry.
[Elsberry stuff snipped]
> Pagano replies:
> In effect Elsberry is arguing that if one is ignorant of one or more
> observations that this fact ALONE disqualifies one from offering
> criticism of a theory which explains ALL those observations. This
> presupposes that some finite collection of observations is both
> necessary and sufficient to uniquely determine the true theory. This
> presuppostion has been known to be false at least since Hume'S
> writings. Let's see why Elsberry's rule has no basis and is purely
> arbitrary:
>
> 1. Man has NEVER been in possession of the complete set of ALL
> POSSIBLE, relevent observations about any problem because this is simply
> not possible. So NEVER will any investigator be in possession of
> "complete" information. This is indisputable.
> 2. No finite set of observations, regardless of size, uniquely
> determines the objective truth of a particular theory. This
> "underdetermination" of theories is well known, indisputable, and
> unsolved.
> 3. There is no probability calculus currently in existence which can
> take the finite observations that have been made to determine even the
> (objective) probability that a theory is true (or more to the point the
> probability that transitional creatures existed in prehistory). This is
> indisputable.
Using these points, Tony could also, with equal ease, argue that the
Earth is flat. After all, we'll never be in possession of ALL POSSIBLE,
relevant observations about the problem because this is simply not
possible. So NEVER will we be in possession of "complete" information.
This is indisputable.
No finite set of observations, regardless of size, uniquely determines
the objective truth of a round earth. This problem is well known,
indisputable, and unsolved.
There is no probability calculus currently in existence which can take
the finite observations of the Earth's shape that have been made to
determine even the (objective) probability that the theory of a round
Earth is true. This is indisputable.
So, what does what I have written above mean?
The round Earth's advocates' finite set of observation reports
represented by the scientific reports they cite----no matter how
large----can ever be "complete." They fail to meet their own arbitrary
"completeness" rule. The history of science has shown repeatedly that
theories (and the criticism of theories) have often been generated after
only a few observations. Furthermore often times it is only AFTER a
theory (or criticism of a theory) is generated that certain observations
are thought to be made. Therefore to suggest that criticism may not be
offered or acceptable until all observations or even some finite
collection of observations are in hand has no basis WHATSOEVER in the
history of science.
The round Earth's advocates' finite collection of observation reports
(contained in their scientific citations) does not and cannot uniquely
determine that the only explanation for that data is that the Earth is
round. Since his finite collection of observations is NOT SUFFICIENT
then there is no basis upon which to rule criticism inadmissible which
does not take all such observations into immediate account.
The round Earth's advocates cannot even take their finite set of
observation reports and produce an objective, quantifiable probability
that the Earth is round.
It should be clear that instead the round Earth's advocates immediately
getting to the substance of the criticism of the first citation they
established an arbitrary rule with no basis in science to save
themselves.
Need I say more?
John R. Owens
Well, "unseemly" is just so subjective, isn't it? One man's "unseemly"
is another's "seemly". Who knows, you could get caught up in something
so seemly that one-eyed aliens get involved!
Besides, the morning shift is a bunch of layabouts. Cads, the lot of
them. Probably wouldn't so much as lift a finger to save their own
grandmothers from a jabberwock. I don't talk to their kind.
--
--John R. Owens http://members.core.com/~jowens/
Robt Gotschall
iam...@msn.com says...
> Hi,
>
> Actually, Pangano has a point since evolution science isn't really
> science like the other sciences. It has no law, no Newton's or
> Einstein, and is not setup for proof.
>
> I should add that I like and respect science very much.>
> Thanks,
> Eddy
Excellent. You might want to actually do some reading in geology and
biology sometime, unless of course you don't regard these disciplines as
"science" either. Of course then you'd have to throw out chemistry and
physics also but, no to worry, you will still have your version of the
Bible.
I'm sure that the millions of people who have worked in these fields
worldwide over the last 150 years appreciate your note of appreciation.
rg
Elmer Bataitis
> Using these points, Tony could also, with equal ease, argue that the
> Earth is flat.
Wonderful post, but lost on Tony, I fear ;-)
Gen2Rev
>
> Gen2Rev wrote:
>
> > Using these points, Tony could also, with equal ease, argue that the
> > Earth is flat.
>
> Wonderful post, but lost on Tony, I fear ;-)
Nothing ventured...
A Pagano
Elsberry quoted from Pagano's previous post:
> AP>For the benefit of others Elsberry's transitional fossil
> AP>challenge (which has been around at least since 1996) rises
> AP>and falls with how broadly one uses the label "transition."
> AP>Elsberry apparently uses that label to mean any sort of
> AP>sequence of change. But this is a trivial claim since human
> AP>breeders have been able to produce sequences of
> AP>change----within limits----for 3000(?) years. The sort of
> AP>"transitions" at issue are those which show the
> AP>transformation to nascent structures.
> AP>The "transition" to structures which did not previously
> AP>exist. I believe Elsberry has misused the citation he offered
> AP>in defense of his long standing challenge. The authors of
> AP>that article presupposed the existence of "transitionals" in
> AP>the first paragraph and used this as one of their premises in
> AP>deciding whether the divergence of the two planktonic foram
> AP>populations was the result of allopatric speciation. As a
> AP>result one can hardly use their observations and conclusions
> AP>as proof of the premise they assumed to be true.
>
Elsberry replies:
> The sort of transitions at issue are the ones that Pagano
> *specified* as not existing in 1997. Here's the quote:
>
> [Quote]
>
> AP> Pagano replies: > Ah, the
> AP>never surpassed source of all knowledge, the talk.origin FAQ.
> AP>Evolutionists talk a lot about ***intermediates*** as opposed
> AP>to transitional forms. All sorts of conjectures are made by
> AP>evolutionists that this fossil or that represents an
> AP>intermediate form between others. Evolutionists propose
> AP>numerous ***intermediates,**** but few transitional forms.
>
> AP> Unfortunately the test of the validity
> AP>of the intermediate is in producing the **transitional**
> AP>fossils which corroborate the continuity from predecessor to
> AP>intermediate to descendant. Of the few fossils which
> AP>evolutionists propose to be transitional, none are unambiguous.
> *AP>NeoDarwinism would predict that there should be numerous (I
> *AP>think Darwin said innumerable) **transitional** forms, yet none
> *AP>are to be found. Gould was one of the few evolutionists to
> AP>confront this and describe the actual attribute of the fossil
> AP>record: stasis and sudden appearance. My opinion is this
> AP>constitutes (to some degree) refutation of neoDarwinism. I
> AP>suspect Gould and Eldredge felt the same or they would not have
> AP>proposed punctuated equilibrium.
>
> [End Quote - A Pagano, Message-ID <33B86C56...@fast.net>]
Pagano replies:
This time Elsberry's argument rises or falls on how broadly one may use
the labels "predecessor," "transitional," and "descendent," and still be
discussing the neoDarwinian claim to explain the creation of novelty and
diversity. In the context of the neoDarwinian claim to explain the
CREATION OF NOVELTY AND DIVERSITY "ancestor" populations, "descendent"
populations, and the "transitional" populations connecting them take on
a very specific meaning. However, when Elsberry searched for evidence
of the existence of genuine "transitional" forms he applied a much
broader meaning out of necessity. Otherwise no evidence would exist.
This is why minor variations of a structure which already existed
qualified as a "genuine" transitional. As a result Elsberry's claim
that the divergence of one planktonic foram population into two
planktonic foram populations both of which existed together for the last
15 million years represents a genuine neoDarwinian predecessor,
ancestor, and transitional forms trivial. In other words Elsberry
rescues his transitional challenge at the cost of emptying neoDarwinism
of much of its content.
In the report Elsberry cited predecessor, descendents, and transitions
are ALL planktonic foraminifera and all existed together for the last 15
million years. Is this evidence of the ORIGIN of novelty or the ORIGIN
of diversity? No. Do any of the observations cited in the report
offered by Elsberry represent a "transition" towards novelty---that is,
towards a new structure, new system or new creature? The answer is
unequivocally NO!! Does Elsberry really believe that minor variations
of an existing structure represents overwhelming evidence of the
existence of the numerous transitional forms envisioned by Darwin to
have existed and predicted by neoDarwinism? Apparently so.
Finally, the report cited by Elsberry does not rule out the possibility
that the information coding for these finely graded changes didn't
already exist within the population of foram. According to the report
these finely graded changes occurred throughout the population, at the
same time, without regard to depth. This sounds dangerously like the
changes were non radom. The fact that they existed together for the
last 15 million years sounds dangerously like stasis.
Regards,
T Pagano
>
> There are several things to notice about Pagano's claim above
> with respect to my challenge. There are certain issues that
> Pagano raises above, and others which are not part of his
> claim. I challenged the claim quoted above; the issues that
> Pagano raises in other claims are thus *irrelevant* to
> discussion of whether Pagano can support the above claim in
> light of the evidence of fossils. Some of these irrelevancies
> that Pagano is bringing up now include requirements about
> "nascent structures" or "diversity" which formed no part of
> his original claim.
>
> In other words, Pagano's original claim did not have the set
> of qualifiers that he is pushing now, and thus was much
> broader than what he is discussing here. Pagano's tactic is
> known as "bait and switch". It's yet another Non-Evidentiary
> Response Item (NERI). I'll reproduce my discussion of NERIs
> here, for I think it likely to be useful as a field guide to
> the remainder of Pagano's "discussion".
>
> Evidentiary and Non-Evidentiary Responses to Challenges
>
> There are two main ways in which respondents can deal with the
> Transitional Fossil Existence Challenge. The intellectually
> honest and appropriate way is with specific discussion of the
> fossil evidence as described and discussed in the primary
> literature. This is by far the least common approach taken by
> those who have been given the TFEC, and typically only follows
> after a long period of non-response, the elapsed time
> apparently serving as an index of the claimant's unfamiliarity
> with the specific evidence.
>
> The other category of approach is to ignore, so far as
> possible, any mention or discussion of actual fossil evidence.
> These varied strategies are what I term "non-evidentiary"
> responses, since they are completely independent of empirical
> data. There are many routes to achieving this end. The
> simplest is non-response. The challenged person may decide
> that not saying anything further is the best option, sometimes
> in the hope that there will be no long-term penalty for this
> behavior, and that eventually few, if any, persons will
> remember the abandonment of the original claim. Another
> common non-evidentiary response is digression. Bringing up a
> different topic as if it held some relevance to the TFEC
> allows someone to give a semblance of a reply, even though few
> will be fooled by it. Yet another strategy is to discuss
> theoretical issues as if theory did away with the need to
> actually look at the empirical data. A variant of the theory
> strategy is the quote-mining of those people who expound
> theory. Usually, though, quotes reveal nothing about the
> specific data at hand, and often come from sources whose
> opposition to anti-evolutionary action is otherwise
> well-known. Still another variant upon the theory strategy is
> the definition game. One can construct connotations of
> "transitional" such that no real-world evidence can satisfy
> all the piled-on conditions. It is useful to know when an
> anti-evolutionist simply defines evidence out of existence,
> though. Another possible tactic is to dismiss the taxonomic
> category from which the cited example comes. A respondent can
> claim that they really meant no transitional fossils in some
> other taxonomic hierarchy, but they often seem to forget that
> this means that the "no transitional fossils" claim is then
> self-admittedly false. A particularly brazen non-evidentiary
> response is to play an "even if" game, as in, "Even if this is
> true, it doesn't mean anything." That ignores that if the
> cited sequence does contain transitional fossils, it at least
> means that the claim of no transitional fossils is false.
>
> The following is a short form for response to the TFEC, if
> a challenged person wishes to ignore the evidence and simply
> adopt one of the non-evidentiary tactics for their own. Simply
> indicate which one or more of the following Non-Evidentiary
> Response Items (NERI) fits what would otherwise involve a bunch
> of redundant typing.
>
> Non-Evidentiary Response Items:
>
> A. You have your faith; I have mine.
> B. I meant that no vertebrate transitional fossils exist.
> C. I meant that no transitional fossils above taxonomic rank
> ____________ (fill in the blank) exist.
> D. I have quotes from _______________ (give list of names) that
> say that no transitional fossils exist.
> E. My understanding of ________________ theory (fill in blank)
> is that transitional fossils cannot exist.
> F. My connotation of "transitional fossils" is ____________
> (fill in blank), which means that none can exist.
> G. I have a cool rebuttal of ___________ (fill in blank).
> What were you saying about transitional fossils?
> H. Even if the cited example does show transitional fossils,
> it doesn't mean anything.
> I. I cannot be bothered to support my claim, so I will not be
> giving you a reply.
> J. I promise to support my claim Real Soon Now. I will be in
> touch. My reply will be devastating to you and completely
> and utterly convincing to everyone. Just you wait. It's
> in the mail.
>
> "I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' "Alice said.
>
> Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't -- till I
> tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"
>
> "But `glory' doesn't mean `a nice knock-down argument,'" Alice
> objected.
>
> "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone,
> "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.
>
> It appears that Pagano would like to use NERI "F", but objects
> to filling in the blank. Pagano may, like Humpty-Dumpty, use
> a word to mean whatever he wants it to mean. When Pagano
> decides that he's willing to tell us what meaning he attaches
> to "transitional", he should let us know.
>
> AP>Only replies from Elsberry will be considered.}
>
> Well, I decided to take a break from writing my dissertation
> to make this response. Further responses will have to wait a
> while yet.
>
> >"Wesley R. Elsberry" wrote:
>
> WRE> The Challenge:
>
> WRE> This challenge is to show just how much familiarity the
> WRE> anti-evolutionist making the claim of no transitional fossil
> WRE> sequences has with the actual evidence of the fossil record.
>
> AP>The only transitional creatures whose existence is in dispute
> AP>are those which are clear examples of the creation of novelty
> AP>leading to the biodiversity we can observe now and in the
> AP>prehistoric record.
>
> That's interesting, because it bears so little resemblance to
> Pagano's original text which earned him a place on the TFEC.
> Let's again review the claim that Pagano made and which he is
> supposed to be supporting:
>
> [Quote]
>
> AP> Pagano replies: > Ah, the
> AP>never surpassed source of all knowledge, the talk.origin FAQ.
> AP>Evolutionists talk a lot about ***intermediates*** as opposed
> AP>to transitional forms. All sorts of conjectures are made by
> AP>evolutionists that this fossil or that represents an
> AP>intermediate form between others. Evolutionists propose
> AP>numerous ***intermediates,**** but few transitional forms.
>
> AP> Unfortunately the test of the validity
> AP>of the intermediate is in producing the **transitional**
> AP>fossils which corroborate the continuity from predecessor to
> AP>intermediate to descendant. Of the few fossils which
> AP>evolutionists propose to be transitional, none are unambiguous.
> *AP>NeoDarwinism would predict that there should be numerous (I
> *AP>think Darwin said innumerable) **transitional** forms, yet none
> *AP>are to be found. Gould was one of the few evolutionists to
> AP>confront this and describe the actual attribute of the fossil
> AP>record: stasis and sudden appearance. My opinion is this
> AP>constitutes (to some degree) refutation of neoDarwinism. I
> AP>suspect Gould and Eldredge felt the same or they would not have
> AP>proposed punctuated equilibrium.
>
> [End Quote - A Pagano, Message-ID <33B86C56...@fast.net>]
>
> AP>Elsberry's source (identified below)
> AP>from the "Journal of the Geological Society" does not meet
> AP>that burden.
>
> It meets the burden of a counterexample to Pagano's original
> claim. As far as I can tell, it meets the burden of providing
> a counterexample to Pagano's later variant as well. Enclosing the
> primitive trochospiral shell is a novelty, and we now have two
> species instead of one, which is an increase in diversity.
>
> AP>The real challenge is for neoDarwinians to
> AP>demonstrate with clear, convincing and unambiguous evidence
> AP>that the innumerable transitions which are explained in their
> AP>framework to have existed in prehistory in fact did exist.
>
> Irrelevant. We are discussing Pagano's claim that no
> transitional sequences exist, not whether the proportionality
> or numbers of such sequences exceeds some threshold.
>
> WRE> By making a universal claim concerning transitional fossils,
> WRE> the anti-evolutionist should be prepared to back up the claim
> WRE> with extended technical discussion of the reasons why all
> WRE> sequences that others believe to be transitional in nature
> WRE> really are not transitional.
>
> AP>Like the word "evolution" the word "transition" can be an
> AP>over-arching label and evolutionists frequently take
> AP>advantage of the ambiguities associated with its broad scope.
> AP>I suspect this is what Elsberry is doing here---consciously
> AP>or unconsciously. The challenge apparently rises or falls on
> AP>how broadly we define "transition."
>
> Not really. If the anti-evolutionist defines transitionals
> out of existence, then that indicates that their claim that
> none exist is one of those meaningless noises. Such an
> anti-evolutionist has used the Humpty-Dumpty technique to
> claim something that they can't obtain by consideration of the
> evidence.
>
> The evidence exists. Differences of opinion concerning
> whether a particular label is applied to the evidence does not
> change the evidence. The professional community of discourse
> which examines fossil evidence does not seem to have a problem
> with using the term "transitional" for various and sundry
> indentified sequences. The recalcitrance of
> anti-evolutionists in admitting that the evidence is
> well-described by the term could conceptually be based upon
> analysis of the evidence, but in examining responses to my
> TFEC and other anti-evolutionary writings on the topic it
> appears that actual consideration of the evidence is usually
> quite far from the approach taken. Instead,
> anti-evolutionists use those Non-Evidentiary Response Items by
> preference, and a great fondness for excluding "transitional"
> sequences by definition is apparent. By my experience, none
> of the anti-evolutionists making some form of the claim that
> "no transitional fossils exist" come into the discussion with
> any good grounding in the extent and nature of the evidence
> that they claim must not exist. This has certainly been the
> case with Anthony Pagano, who took over three years to get
> around to obtaining the relevant citation. Pagano has given
> no indication of familiarity with any *other* evidence of
> fossil sequences that might be considered transitional. And
> when Pagano did finally obtain a copy of the relevant
> citation, he mischaracterized it. Pagano's statements about
> the evidence presented by Pearson et alia significantly differ
> in many respects from what was stated by them. Pagano fails
> to distinguish his erroneous restatements of what Pearson et
> alia said from the actual content of the statements of Pearson
> et alia.
>
> AP>Elsberry argues that if he can produce evidence of the
> AP>existence of a sequence of gradual change OF ANY SORT then he
> AP>prevails.
>
> I argue that a transitional fossil sequence of the sort
> excluded by Pagano's 1997 universal claim falsifies his claim.
> So far, Pagano has given no reason to exclude the sequence
> described by Pearson et alia as just that sort of sequence.
>
> AP>Unfortunately such examples are, relatively speaking, minor
> AP>variations of existing structures. The observation of such
> AP>changes provides little insight into how those structures
> AP>came to exist in the first place. And learning how they came
> AP>to be in the first place (purportedly naturalisitically and
> AP>mechanistically) is what the search for "transitionals" is
> AP>all about.
>
> Pagano is blathering here. Notice the lack of discussion of
> the evidence at hand. I notice that Pagano dropped the word
> "anagenesis" from this revision.
>
> Note that Pagano made this statement in his original claim:
>
> AP> Unfortunately the test of the validity
> AP>of the intermediate is in producing the **transitional**
> AP>fossils which corroborate the continuity from predecessor to
> AP>intermediate to descendant.
>
> According to Pagano's own "rules", the validity of a
> transitional sequence has nothing to do with the degree of
> morphological change. Further, the morphological change in
> the sequence examined by Pearson et alia is described by them
> as "profound" (p.301).
>
> AP>The creationist claim can be made a little less than
> AP>universal and a little more objectively: Of all the millions
> AP>of fossil creatures which have been uncovered there does not
> AP>exist among them a single, clear, convincing and unambiguous
> AP>example of a transitional creature.
>
> That's still a universal claim, as I have pointed out
> before. "No X exists" is a universal claim, however X is
> expanded. And what I and others have been asking is what
> excludes the example. So far, Pagano has provided precisely
> zero reasons to exclude it. Pagano has made several
> *assertions* to that effect, but no reasons.
>
> AP>This does not mean they did not exist in prehistory, simply
> AP>that there is no fossil evidence of their existence. By
> AP>"transitional" creationists mean to describe fossil creatures
> AP>which are evidence of the creation of novelty---that is,
> AP>nascent structures---leading to the biodiversity we can
> AP>observe where in prior history such structures and creatures
> AP>did not exist before.
>
> Again, Pagano indulges in his bait-and-switch rhetoric. If
> Pagano wants to explicitly admit, rather than just imply, that
> his original claim was in error, that would suffice as a
> response to the TFEC.
>
> AP>Evidence of anagenesis and cladogenesis simply don't meet
> AP>this burden. But if the neoDarwinian framework is correct
> AP>the fossil record should show some sampling of such
> AP>transitionals. Darwin lamented their complete absence in
> AP>1859, but little has changed in that regard in 2001. When
> AP>paleontologists discovered that stasis was the rule it was
> AP>completely unexpected.
>
> Here's a passage written by one of the first researchers to
> describe what looks like an expectation of stasis:
>
> [Quote]
>
> Many will exclaim that these several causes are amply
> sufficient wholly to stop the action of natural selection. I do
> not believe so. On the other hand, I do believe that natural
> selection will always act very slowly, often only at long
> intervals of time, and generally on only a very few of the
> inhabitants of the same region at the same time. I further
> believe, that this very slow, intermittent action of natural
> selection accords perfectly well with what geology tells us of
> the rate and manner at which the inhabitants of this world
> have changed.
>
> [End Quote - Charles Darwin, OoS, 1859, pp.152-153]
>
> Pagano is invited to explain his peculiar connotation of
> "completely unexpected".
>
> WRE> Because there have been many
> WRE> such sequences put forward by various researchers, this
> WRE> challenge focusses upon one case at a time.
>
> AP>Elsberry is going to have to do much better than this.
>
> Why? A single counterexample sinks Pagano's original claim.
> So far, Pagano has given no reasons to exclude the example
> of Pearson et alia as a valid counterexample to his original
> claim.
>
> AP>And I have a sneaking suspicion that the other 100 citations
> AP>he boasts about are little better than the one offered by him
> AP>below.
>
> That's big talk for someone who hasn't yet given us cause to
> set aside the evidence of the one example, and who is
> apparently completely ignorant of the rest.
>
> AP>Presenting observational reports of the existence of a
> AP>sequence of minor morphological changes in the G trilobus
> AP>shell which existed for over 1 million years before the
> AP>divergence of G trilobus and O universa does not qualify as
> AP>evidence that there existed creatures throughout prehistory
> AP>exhibiting NASCENT structures leading to genuine novelty and
> AP>new creatures.
>
> This discussion by Pagano provides no reason to exclude the
> sequence of the paper as a transitional fossil sequence in
> contravention of Pagano's 1997 claim.
>
> Pagano's paragraph has so many misleading elements in it that it
> is difficult to figure out where to start on replying to it.
>
> The sequence does show a series of morphological changes, each
> one a minor change in itself. In sum, though, the difference
> between the morphology of G. trilobus and the O. universa
> daughter species is major. This is exactly what one would
> like to see in a transitional sequence.
>
> Pagano's reference to the timing strikes me as odd. Figure 2
> on page 298 gives stratigraphic ranges on four categories of
> forams. First is G. trilobus, shown with an extent from the
> Early Miocene to the present. Next is G. bisphericus, noted
> in the text as having a restricted stratigraphic range and
> being used as a biohorizon. Its extent appears to cover about
> 2.6 Ma, from within the Early Miocene to the end of Biozone M6
> at 14.8 Ma. Third is the group of Praeorbulina spp., starting
> at at Middle Miocene (16.4 Ma). Last is O. universa,
> extending from 15.1 Ma to the present. Yes, populations varied
> for a considerable amount of time before specimens meeting the
> dual diagnostic criteria of O. universa show up. How this is
> supposed to represent a difficulty for this sequence as an
> example of a transitional fossil sequence eludes me and is not
> explicated by Pagano. The categories each subsume a lot of
> populational and morphospecies variation, as described in the
> text. It seems to me that this is just what one should expect
> in an evolving lineage.
>
> The G. trilobus to O. universa transitional sequence meets the
> requirements of providing a counterexample to Pagano's
> original claim. It might even meet the requirements of
> Pagano's new bait-and-switch claim, if Pagano ever gets around
> to defining what his Humpty-Dumpty terminology means.
>
> WRE> The first such
> WRE> case is found in:
>
> WRE> Pearson, P.N.; Shackleton, N.J.; and Hall, M.A., 1997. Stable
> WRE> isotopic evidence for the sympatric divergence of
> WRE> _Globigerinoides_trilobus_ and _Orbulina_universa_ (planktonic
> WRE> foraminifera). Journal of the Geological Society, London, v.154,
> WRE> p.295-302.
>
> AP>While the scientific report does show evidence of a
> AP>sequential change (basically a change in the shape of the
> AP>foram shell), the sequential change is not the sort of change
> AP>which qualifies as evidence of the emergence of a nascent
> AP>structure or system leading to novelty and diversity. So one
> AP>could not even legitimately infer the existence of
> AP>naturalistic evolutionary transformations from such minor
> AP>morphological changes of an EXISTING structure.
>
> This discussion by Pagano provides no reason to exclude the
> sequence of the paper as a transitional fossil sequence in
> contravention of Pagano's 1997 claim.
>
> Let's review Pagano's original claim again.
>
> [Quote]
>
> AP> Pagano replies: > Ah, the
> AP>never surpassed source of all knowledge, the talk.origin FAQ.
> AP>Evolutionists talk a lot about ***intermediates*** as opposed
> AP>to transitional forms. All sorts of conjectures are made by
> AP>evolutionists that this fossil or that represents an
> AP>intermediate form between others. Evolutionists propose
> AP>numerous ***intermediates,**** but few transitional forms.
>
> AP> Unfortunately the test of the validity
> AP>of the intermediate is in producing the **transitional**
> AP>fossils which corroborate the continuity from predecessor to
> AP>intermediate to descendant. Of the few fossils which
> AP>evolutionists propose to be transitional, none are unambiguous.
> *AP>NeoDarwinism would predict that there should be numerous (I
> *AP>think Darwin said innumerable) **transitional** forms, yet none
> *AP>are to be found. Gould was one of the few evolutionists to
> AP>confront this and describe the actual attribute of the fossil
> AP>record: stasis and sudden appearance. My opinion is this
> AP>constitutes (to some degree) refutation of neoDarwinism. I
> AP>suspect Gould and Eldredge felt the same or they would not have
> AP>proposed punctuated equilibrium.
>
> [End Quote - A Pagano, Message-ID <33B86C56...@fast.net>]
>
> Pagano's original claim is notable for the absence of any such
> terminology as "nascent structure" or "diversity". Instead,
> Pagano was claiming then that the fossil evidence did not
> address relating ancestors and descendants. The Pearson et
> alia paper addresses precisely this point. It aims to present
> the evidence that the G. trilobus to O. universa transition is
> a sympatric speciation event.
>
> Once Pagano defines "nascent structures" and the rest of his
> bafflegab, we can discuss whether the example fits his criteria
> there as well.
>
> AP>The purpose of the author's research was to test the
> AP>hypothesis that the divergence of Globigeriniodes tribolus
> AP>and Orbulina universa was probably the result of allopatric
> AP>speciation rather than sympatric speciation.
>
> This discussion by Pagano provides no reason to exclude the
> sequence of the paper as a transitional fossil sequence in
> contravention of Pagano's 1997 claim.
>
> The authors found evidence of sympatric divergence. This has
> significance for Pagano's original claim, quoted a couple of
> times previously.
>
> AP>Whether or not
> AP>the minor variations in the foram shell was the result of
> AP>geographic or non geographic speciation events is only of
> AP>mild interest because as far as I know neoDarwinians do not
> AP>assert that diversity is simply the result of a series of
> AP>speciation events (except maybe the punc eq'ers).
>
> This discussion by Pagano provides no reason to exclude the
> sequence of the paper as a transitional fossil sequence in
> contravention of Pagano's 1997 claim.
>
> It's just more bait-and-switch from Pagano. He talks about
> "diversity" here, when that topic was conspicuously absent
> from his original claim. Let's clear up the errors of
> Pagano's original claim before moving on to the newer errors
> that he offers.
>
> The issue of sympatric divergence is of greater interest than
> Pagano will admit. Pagano originally claimed that no
> transitional sequences linked ancestors with descendents. One
> of the objections that an ideologically committed naysayer
> like Pagano can deploy is to look at the fossil record of some
> group and say that because one or more speciation events
> occurred via allopatry we cannot assume any continuity of a
> population. Sympatric divergence vitiates that objection.
>
> On the issue of the degree of morphological change seen,
> Pagano apparently failed to read the paper concerning the
> description of the morphology of O. universa, where the
> authors cite a study pointing out that, "It is in fact a feat
> of organized complexity for Orbulina to construct a
> near-spherical chamber (Spero 1988)." They also said, "It is
> impossible not to be impressed by the profound morphological
> changes which have occurred in the evolution of Orbulina, for
> which there is still no satisfactory explanation." (Pearson
> et alia obviously have not had the privilege of meeting
> Anthony Pagano.) The morphological difference between
> G. trilobus and O. universa is held by the people who have
> studied them to be far from "minor". Pagano simply asserts
> that the morphological differences are "minor", but adduces no
> reasons why anyone else should consider them so, nor does
> Pagano give reasons why the authors' description of those same
> morphological differences as "profound" should be set aside.
>
> Further, Pagano's original claim made no reference to whether
> morphological change was minor, major, or somewhere between.
> The issue Pagano originally addressed was whether ancestors
> could be linked to intermediates and thence to descendents.
> The Pearson et alia paper does an admirable job on this issue.
> Pagano gives no reason on the evidence for why this example
> does not falsify his original claim.
>
> AP>Both of these creatures (G tribolus and O universa) are
> AP>planktonic foraminifera and both have existed together on the
> AP>earth for the last 15.1 million years. That sounds
> AP>dangerously like stasis although the authors deny this in the
> AP>report. The aut
Adam Marczyk
[snip]
The paragraph following has been recopied from a post I made on July 28.
Tony hasn't attempted to answer it yet.
You're a liar, Tony. You have zero intellectual integrity. You say this over
and over; each time someone offers a list of the nascent structures you
claim don't exist, you vanish, abandon your claims and pop up later in some
other thread making the exact same arguments as if they had never been
answered. You ignore all rebuttals and refuse to address any
counterarguments in any substantive way. Explain why the proto-feathers on
Sinornithosaurus aren't nascent structures, or the vascular networks in the
skulls of whale precursors, or the enlarging braincases of early hominids,
or the incipient jaw hinges and ear bones of therapsid reptiles, or the
diminishing toes of horse ancestors, or the tetrapod legs of Acanthostega,
or the blinking lights that have formed out of the suckers of Stauroteuthis
syrtensis. Explain why these don't count. Do _something_ other than your
usual endless parade of lying and evasion.
[snip]
Joe Cummings
Here a normal person would have given his definition of
"transitional." But not the Boy Wonder.
Have fun,
Joe Cummings
Elmer Bataitis
(snip)
> In the report Elsberry cited predecessor, descendents, and transitions
> are ALL planktonic foraminifera and all existed together for the last 15
> million years.
I think you're wrong. Cite the page number or quote the passage where
is says this Tony.
(snip)
> ...finely graded changes occurred throughout the population, at the
> same time, without regard to depth. This sounds dangerously like the
> changes were non radom. The fact that they existed together for the
> last 15 million years sounds dangerously like stasis.
True to form, Tony cannot keep from posting contradictions.
(snip)
Andy Groves
>
>
> Pagano replies:
> This time Elsberry's argument rises or falls on how broadly one may use
> the labels "predecessor," "transitional," and "descendent," and still be
> discussing the neoDarwinian claim to explain the creation of novelty and
> diversity. In the context of the neoDarwinian claim to explain the
> CREATION OF NOVELTY AND DIVERSITY "ancestor" populations, "descendent"
> populations, and the "transitional" populations connecting them take on
> a very specific meaning. However, when Elsberry searched for evidence
> of the existence of genuine "transitional" forms he applied a much
> broader meaning out of necessity. Otherwise no evidence would exist.
> This is why minor variations of a structure which already existed
> qualified as a "genuine" transitional. As a result Elsberry's claim
> that the divergence of one planktonic foram population into two
> planktonic foram populations both of which existed together for the last
> 15 million years represents a genuine neoDarwinian predecessor,
> ancestor, and transitional forms trivial. In other words Elsberry
> rescues his transitional challenge at the cost of emptying neoDarwinism
> of much of its content.
Tony, I hate to be the one to break this to you, but evolution by
natural selection is all about small, incremental, finely graded
changes. It is a prediction of the theory of evolution by natural
selection that one would observe populations of organisms that change
in small incremental amounts. You seem to be sniffing at the example
given by Wesley as no big deal. That being the case, would you like to
clearly explain to us what *you* would expect to see in a "true"
transitional fossil. When you've done that, we can decide whether you
are arguing in good faith (and are just a bit misinformed) or whether
you are deliebrately trying to construct a straw man version of
evolution to ridicule.
> In the report Elsberry cited predecessor, descendents, and transitions
> are ALL planktonic foraminifera and all existed together for the last 15
> million years. Is this evidence of the ORIGIN of novelty or the ORIGIN
> of diversity? No.
HAve the forms diverged from each other? Yes.
> Do any of the observations cited in the report
> offered by Elsberry represent a "transition" towards novelty---that is,
> towards a new structure, new system or new creature?
We will pause for breath here while you define what you mean by
"structures" and "systems".
> The answer is
> unequivocally NO!!
Well, actually, most biologists would say the answer is yes. The
examples given do have new structures, and are new creatures. I'm not
sure what you mean by "new systems".
Andy
Mike Dunford
Due to length, I am splitting my reply into different parts. Here, I
will address only the 'specific' meaning of 'transitional.'
A Pagano wrote:
[snip]
> Pagano replies:
> This time Elsberry's argument rises or falls on how broadly one may use
> the labels "predecessor," "transitional," and "descendent," and still be
> discussing the neoDarwinian claim to explain the creation of novelty and
> diversity. In the context of the neoDarwinian claim to explain the
> CREATION OF NOVELTY AND DIVERSITY "ancestor" populations, "descendent"
> populations, and the "transitional" populations connecting them take on
> a very specific meaning.
I do not see anything that would change the meaning of any of those
terms from the definition usually used by neontologists and
paleontologists. This is especially clear if you have any understanding
of what 'neoDarwinism' actually says on the topic of the origin of
diversity.
To determine what sort of transitional creatures are expected in the
neodarwinian synthesis, it is best to go back to the source, and see
what some of the people who were instrumental in the development of the
theory had to say on the topic of transitional forms, especially with
regard to increases in diversity at various various levels of taxonomic
classification. I will use works by the noted population geneticist
Theodosius Dobzhansky, and by the evolutionary biologists Ernst Mayr and
George Gaylord Simpson, all of whom made major contributions to the
modern synthesis.
"Well-known writers have supposed macroevolutionary changes
to be engendered by some directing forces either inherent
in the organism itself or acting on it by some inscrutable
means from the outside. These guiding forces received a
variety of names, . . . but they escaped precise definition
which would make them subject to experimental test or any
kind of rigorous proof or disproof.
...The words 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution' are
relative terms, and have only descriptive meaning; they imply
no difference in the underlying causal agencies."
Theodosius Dobzhansky, 1951
Genetics and the Origin of Species, third ed, revised
p.16-17
"There is now little argument about two aspects of the origin
of higher taxa: first, that this process is nothing but an
extension of evolution at the species level and, second, that it
is always, so to speak, a response to the availability of a
previously vacant adaptive zone."
Ernst Mayr, 1976
Evolution and the Diversity of Life: selected essays
p. 412
As these first two quotes indicate, there is no expectation in the
neodarwinian synthesis that there is any fundamental difference between
evolution at the species level and the origination of higher taxa.
Therefore, there is nothing that would indicate that there is any
expectation of any different type of transitional form. Mayr makes this
even more clear, when he discusses the origin of evolutionary novelties:
"The emergence of new structures is normally due to the
acquisition of a new function by an existing structure. The
resulting 'new' structure is merely a modification of a
preceding structure."
Ernst Mayr, 1976
Evolution and the Diversity of Life: selected essays
p. 111
This, in particular, indicates that there is no basis in the theory to
demand that a true transitional demonstrate any truely new structure. To
the contrary, the theory suggests that a true transitional will
demonstrate the modification of an existing structure to better serve
some new function.
George Gaylord Simpson explained in more detail the implications of the
fossil record for the origination of higher taxa.
"Our recognition of a higher category is ex post facto,
as is our designation and placing of it in the hierarchy.
The Cricetidae (a family of mouselike rodents) are a
family because they are so extremely varied. If there were
only a few genera or species of Cricetidae they would be
members of the Muridae. . . . A higher category is higher
because it _became_ distinctive, varied, or both to a
higher degree and not directly because of characteristics
it had when it was arising.
In the early and middle Paleocene, differentiation of
placental mammals was just getting under way. All together,
they differed from each other decidedly less than do the
marsupials, extinct and recent, all of which are classified
as forming a single order. If we knew no placentals after
the middle Paleocene we would certainly place them in one
order. _As of then_ their proper comparative categorical
rank was in fact that of an order. They are placed in six
different orders because we recognize in them ancestors
and allies of what _later_ became six orders."
George Gaylord Simpson, 1953
The Major Features of Evolution
p. 342
As this again makes clear, there is no expectation of any difference in
the types of transitional form expected for transitions between higher
levels of taxa than for transitions at the species level. In fact, it is
expected that there be no such difference. This holds true even at the
highest taxonomic levels, as a recent paper points out:
"A strict application of stem- and crown-group concepts
to phyla shows that although the branching points of many
clades may have occurred in the Early Cambrian or before,
the appearance of the modern body plans was in most cases
later: very few bilaterian phyla sensu stricto have
demonstrable representatives in the earliest Cambrian."
Graham E. Budd and Soren Jensen, 2000
A critical reappraisal of the fossil record of the
bilaterian phyla
Biological Reviews vol 75 no 2 p.253-295
In biology, the largest 'natural' taxonomic grouping of organisms is
that of the species. Groupings above the level of species are groupings
of convienience, and are arbitrary to some degree. Further, such
groupings are always ex post facto, as Simpson pointed out. That is,
when we classify organisms -- especially fossil organisms -- we do so
with the full knowledge of modern diversity. As a result, fossils from
the same period which differ from each other to a similar degree may be
placed at different taxonomic levels based on the modern diversity of
the groups they best fit into.
Modern evolutionary theory, whatever name you give it, does not picture
genera evolving from other genera, orders from other orders, et cetera.
Instead, a species will diverge from another species. With the knowledge
of the ultimate levels of diversity, we than assign that species as it
fits best. Sometimes this means that we classify that species in a
different genus, and sometimes we classify that genus in a different
family. However, the evolution always takes place at the species level.
We see, then, that "in the context of the neoDarwinian claim to explain
the CREATION OF NOVELTY AND DIVERSITY," as you put it, there is no
meaning of 'transitional' different in any way from that commonly used
by biologists. In fact, the expectation is that ALL transition occurs
the same way. The example cited by Elsberry, demonstrating the
divergence of one species from another, where the differences are major
enough to place the species in different genera, certainly fits the
definition of transitional envisioned by both Darwin himself and the
later neodarwinian synthesis.
[rest snipped]
--Mike Dunford
Mike Dunford
[snip]
> Pagano replies:
> This time Elsberry's argument rises or falls on how broadly one may use
> the labels "predecessor," "transitional," and "descendent," and still be
> discussing the neoDarwinian claim to explain the creation of novelty and
> diversity. In the context of the neoDarwinian claim to explain the
> CREATION OF NOVELTY AND DIVERSITY "ancestor" populations, "descendent"
> populations, and the "transitional" populations connecting them take on
> a very specific meaning.
I do not see anything that would change the meaning of any of those
Edward L. Mincher
Hi rg,
Evolution is not a scientific discipline in that it is not based on
law. Unlike other disciplines that have little to work with, evolution
works from the future (the walking talking entity) backwards to a set
conclusion, namely something from nothing. That makes it an
anti-science in the sense that even a Newton would not be able to do
basic science. For example, Newton under the tree of life observing
Adam's falling apple (apple of increasing complexity) would find no
place in the science of evolution because it is not a science.
God Bless,
Eddy
And man when he was in honour did not understand; he is compared to
senseless beasts, and is become like to them. They are laid in hell
like sheep: death shall feed upon them. And the just shall have
dominion over them in the morning; and their help shall decay in hell
from their glory. Psalms 48:13 & 15
Jdguil
>resta...@theend.com (Robt Gotschall) wrote in message
>news:<MPG.15e5becf1...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
>> In article <f9fabe24.01081...@posting.google.com>,
>> iam...@msn.com says...
>>
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > Actually, Pangano has a point since evolution science isn't really
>> > science like the other sciences. It has no law, no Newton's or
>> > Einstein, and is not setup for proof.
>> >
>> > I should add that I like and respect science very much.>
>> > Thanks,
>> > Eddy
>>
>>
>> Excellent. You might want to actually do some reading in geology and
>> biology sometime, unless of course you don't regard these disciplines as
>> "science" either. Of course then you'd have to throw out chemistry and
>> physics also but, no to worry, you will still have your version of the
>> Bible.
>>
>> I'm sure that the millions of people who have worked in these fields
>> worldwide over the last 150 years appreciate your note of appreciation.
>>
>> rg
>
>Hi rg,
>
>Evolution is not a scientific discipline in that it is not based on
>law.
Let's see, in geology we have the Law of Superposition, the law of cross
cutting relationships, index fossils. In physics we have all the equations
related to radioactive decay and measuring ages of fossils and rocks. In
astronomy there is hubble's law that explains the expansion of the universe.
I'm not a biologist, but I would think all the laws of genetics, ecological and
habitat relationships. All of these are well established laws that relate
directly to evolution. You are probably confused because there is no single law
called 'the law of evolution'. That is because evolution is supported by laws
from all the sciences.
Unlike other disciplines that have little to work with, evolution
>works from the future (the walking talking entity) backwards to a set
>conclusion, namely something from nothing.
Not really.Evolution is something that is happening today. Evolution does not
depend on where the original matter or life comes from. Evolution tells us how
the universe and life (once they began) change over time. People do like to
speculate where the matter for the big bang came from, or how the very first
life originated, but no certain answer is required to either of those questions
in order for evolution to happen.
That makes it an
>anti-science in the sense that even a Newton would not be able to do
>basic science. For example, Newton under the tree of life observing
>Adam's falling apple (apple of increasing complexity) would find no
>place in the science of evolution because it is not a science.
You really should learn a little more about the science behind evolutionary
theory before you decide what Isaac Newton would have thought. I doubt if
either you or I are smart enough to make such conjectures. ;-)
>
>
>God Bless,
>Eddy
Regards,
Jim
Mike Dunford
[snip]
> Hi rg,
>
> Evolution is not a scientific discipline in that it is not based on
> law.
Your statement demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the way
science works. Law has relatively little to do with anything. In fact,
law is a very misleading term, and one that is no longer used to
describe modern work. A scientific 'law' is the same as a scientific
theory. Einstein's THEORY of relativity has replaced Newton's LAW of
gravitation as the leading model for large-scale physics.
> Unlike other disciplines that have little to work with, evolution
> works from the future (the walking talking entity) backwards to a set
> conclusion, namely something from nothing. That makes it an
> anti-science in the sense that even a Newton would not be able to do
> basic science.
I don't understand what you mean here. Applied science is not
'anti-science' in any way.
> For example, Newton under the tree of life observing
> Adam's falling apple (apple of increasing complexity) would find no
> place in the science of evolution because it is not a science.
I really don't understand what you are saying here. Could you try to be
a bit more clear and specific?
--Mike Dunford
John Wilkins
I nominate this as a wonderful example of why t.o is not anentire waste
of time; oh, and as a Post of the Month (for when it ever gets up).
--
John Wilkins at home
<http://www.users.bigpond.com/thewilkins/darwiniana.html>
A Pagano
Elsberry continues:
> There are several things to notice about Pagano's claim above
> with respect to my challenge. There are certain issues that
> Pagano raises above, and others which are not part of his
> claim.
Pagano replies:
Nonsense. Everything was either stated explicitly or was clearly
implied. The creationist position has been reasonably clear for at
least the last 60 years. What did I claim?
I claimed that an "intermediate" and a "transitional" were not
synonymous adjectives.
I claimed that a genuine "transitional" form if ever found would be
evidence of the continuity between predecessor and descendent.
I claimed that NONE of the fossils characterized as "transitional" by
evolutionists were unambiguous.
I claimed that neoDarwinism conjoined to common descent predicted the
existence of numerous transitional forms.
I claimed that not a single "transitional" form has ever been found in
the fossil record.
I claimed that genuine "transitional" forms are those which exhibit
nascent structures which did not exist in their predecessor forms and
exist in a mature form in the descendent forms.
I claimed that contained within the report cited by Elsberry ALL the
forms are PLANKTONIC FORAMINIFERA.
I claimed that the foram shell which underwent minor variation already
existed in the predecessor, the changes were minor, and the changes did
not represent a transformation to a nascent structure which appeared as
a mature structure in some ancestor form later in the fossil record.
I claimed that genuine "transitional" forms would be evidence of the
origin of diversity if the neoDarwinian process were true.
****************************************
Elsberry continues:
> I challenged the claim quoted above; the issues that
> Pagano raises in other claims are thus *irrelevant* to
> discussion of whether Pagano can support the above claim in
> light of the evidence of fossils. Some of these irrelevancies
> that Pagano is bringing up now include requirements about
> "nascent structures" or "diversity" which formed no part of
> his original claim.
Pagano replies:
Elsberry is simply twisting in the wind here. I'm not making any new
claims. Creationists have always been clear about what "transitionals"
should look like----that is, exactly what Darwin thought they should
look like. I've simply put a label to that---that is, "nascent." The
issue about nascent structures and diversity are clear implications of
the issues raised. Nascent structures are one of the objective ways we
might recognize a genuine transitional fossil form. Not a single
nascent structure has been discovered in the fossil record.
It was clear a couple of years ago that Elsberry decided (in keeping
with his secular indoctrination) that any sequence of change could be
characterized as "transitional." But this so broadens the adjective
"transitional" as to make the existence of "transitional" forms
trivial. If any sequence of change qualifies as "transitional" we did
not even need to look to the fossil record for evidence. Darwin
observed such minor variations of the beak of the finch populations.
Not as finely-graded as the foram shell but close enough to qualify all
the existing finch populations as genuine transitionals.
*****************************************
Elsberry continues:
> In other words, Pagano's original claim did not have the set
> of qualifiers that he is pushing now, and thus was much
> broader than what he is discussing here. Pagano's tactic is
> known as "bait and switch". It's yet another Non-Evidentiary
> Response Item (NERI). I'll reproduce my discussion of NERIs
> here, for I think it likely to be useful as a field guide to
> the remainder of Pagano's "discussion".
Pagano replies:
Elsberry is solving his problem with verbalism. I made a very specific
claim. I read, analyzed, and critiqued the scientific report which
Elsberry offered as evidence of the existence of transitional forms WITH
SPECIFICS. Up to this point in Elsberry's response nothing substantive
has been offered. Again what did I discover in the report cited by
Elsberry:
1. The authors of Elsberry's citation explicitly assumed the existence
of transitional creatures which was exactly what was at issue in
Elsberry's challenge.
2. If the authors used their observations and conclusions to prove that
which they already assumed to be true they would be guilty of circular
reasoning.
3. The authors did not resort to circular reasoning in this fashion, but
Elsberry did (mis)use their observations in this fashion and therefore
"he" is guilty of circular reasoning. I suspect when he offered the
report as evidence he had never read it.
4. The authors attempted to discover "only" whether two planktonic foram
populations diverged as the result of sympatric speciation or allopatric
speciation. Other than Punc Eq'ers (and there aren't many of them) few
evolutionists claim that novelty and diversity are simply the result of
speciation.
5. The authors present finely-graded foram shell variations of
planktonic foram populations which Elsberry apparently offered as
evidence of the existence of "transitional" fossil creatures.
6. The authors ONLY attempted to determine if the divergence of the
populations---both of which were planktonic foraminifera---had a
"geographic" component or not.
7. The foram shell existed in all the foram fossil forms. Nothing new
was created, no nascent structures emerged.
8. The divergent foram populations co-existed together for the last 15
million years. They were always planktonic foram.
9. The authors of this research did not misuse scientific practice, they
had a modest goal, and didn't overstate their case.
10. The foram shell existed in the predecessor form and the transitional
forms. The changes were minor. The scientific report did not rule out
the possibility that the information coding for the changes in the shell
already existed within the genome of the population.
Dave Horn
....a whole lot of nothing.
[Snip]
Pagano once again shows his hypocrisy. When Pagano makes a claim, it is
merely a "conjecture" that he does not have to support.
But Wes and a host of others have refuted and disproven his claims about
everything from transitional forms to whether or not the TFEC was actually
met.
I'm still curious - is there anyone who not only will claim that there is
something to what Pagano says (there's been one to claim that) but will
actually defend that idea?
Anyone?
[Repost]
Okay, let me see if I have this straight.
If we take away all the pompous verbiage, all of the nonsensical ramblings
and arrogant posturings, we are left with Pagano simply claiming that he can
say pretty much what he wants and he is under no obligation to support it?
Well, of course, some of us have known all along that that's what he's been
doing; but it's pretty rare to see such a flagrant admission.
So..."confused christians" (do you know who you are?), what do you think of
that?
Pagano says he can pretty much make any claim he wants and as long as it's a
"conjecture," he doesn't have to support it.
So when he makes incredibly stupid statements about mesonychid evolution
leading to bats and whales, that's all right (according to Pagano). Even
though no one actually has ever made such a statement (except Pagano) or
associated chiropterans (bats) and cetaceans (whales) and presumed that the
two are evolutionarily linked, it's okay for Pagano to make that association
and he calls that "harsh criticism" of the evolutionary paradigm.
Pagano can claim that neodarwinism is inexoriably linked to abiogenesis, can
also claim that abiogenesis has been refuted and that means trouble for
neodarwinism; and he doesn't have to provide a whit of evidence to support
that claim?
Pagano can claim that pictures of "unambiguous" transitional forms do not
appear in biology textbooks and I can prove he's wrong, but that's okay. It
was just a "conjecture" made with "bravado" and therefore it does not have
to be supported or retracted.
I could go on and on through the roughly 1000 postings (not 1400+ as Pagano
claims) that he has entered into this newsgroup and I can cite incredible
claim after incredible claim. I can cite actual episodes of deception,
dishonesty and hypocrisy, and Pagano feels no obligation to own up to any of
it.
And then Pagano has the nerve to try to pretend that he's humble.
Every now and then, we get a taste of true arrogance. We've got it here,
folks. Pagano is "unteachable" and "unreachable." He does not have to look
at references that are used to rebut his assertions and he does not have to
provide references for his claims. He can follow his hit-and-run tactics,
make the same refuted claims over and over again even though they *have*
been refuted - and that's okay as far as Pagano is concerned. We are to
accept Pagano's word and believe Pagano because Pagano has said so.
And then he chastizes others for using "arguments from authority."
Are there any "confused christians" still buying any of this - other than
Mike Goodrich, that is (who has again run from his claims just as Pagano
does)?
I'm just curious.
[End repost]
Adam Marczyk
news:1eycpqc.11hqykx1vsgytvN%thewi...@bigpond.com...
[snip]
> I nominate this as a wonderful example of why t.o is not anentire waste
> of time; oh, and as a Post of the Month (for when it ever gets up).
I'm still waiting to hear from Brett. I could always pester him with more
e-mails, I suppose.
Adam Marczyk
news:f9fabe24.01081...@posting.google.com...
> resta...@theend.com (Robt Gotschall) wrote in message
news:<MPG.15e5becf1...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
> > In article <f9fabe24.01081...@posting.google.com>,
> > iam...@msn.com says...
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Actually, Pangano has a point since evolution science isn't really
> > > science like the other sciences. It has no law, no Newton's or
> > > Einstein, and is not setup for proof.
> > >
> > > I should add that I like and respect science very much.>
> > > Thanks,
> > > Eddy
> >
> >
> > Excellent. You might want to actually do some reading in geology and
> > biology sometime, unless of course you don't regard these disciplines as
> > "science" either. Of course then you'd have to throw out chemistry and
> > physics also but, no to worry, you will still have your version of the
> > Bible.
> >
> > I'm sure that the millions of people who have worked in these fields
> > worldwide over the last 150 years appreciate your note of appreciation.
> >
> > rg
>
> Hi rg,
>
> Evolution is not a scientific discipline in that it is not based on
> law.
Sure it is. Allele frequencies change -- that's a fact and its consequences
can be expressed mathematically.
> Unlike other disciplines that have little to work with, evolution
> works from the future (the walking talking entity)
So you mean the present, then?
> backwards to a set
> conclusion, namely something from nothing.
No it doesn't. I think you're objecting to the silly straw men
characterizations of evolution put forward by creationists. Read up on the
topic.
www.freespeech.org/ebonmusings/whatevoisnt.html
> That makes it an
> anti-science in the sense that even a Newton would not be able to do
> basic science. For example, Newton under the tree of life observing
> Adam's falling apple (apple of increasing complexity) would find no
> place in the science of evolution because it is not a science.
That last line makes my troll sensors tingle...
Joe Cummings
>This is a continuation of a reply to Elsberry.
>
>
>Elsberry continues:
>> There are several things to notice about Pagano's claim above
>> with respect to my challenge. There are certain issues that
>> Pagano raises above, and others which are not part of his
>> claim.
>
> Pagano replies:
>Nonsense. Everything was either stated explicitly or was clearly
>implied. The creationist position has been reasonably clear for at
>least the last 60 years. What did I claim?
>
>I claimed that an "intermediate" and a "transitional" were not
>synonymous adjectives.
>I claimed that a genuine "transitional" form if ever found would be
>evidence of the continuity between predecessor and descendent.
>I claimed that NONE of the fossils characterized as "transitional" by
>evolutionists were unambiguous.
>I claimed that neoDarwinism conjoined to common descent predicted the
>existence of numerous transitional forms.
>I claimed that not a single "transitional" form has ever been found in
>the fossil record.
>I claimed that genuine "transitional" forms are those which exhibit
>nascent structures which did not exist in their predecessor forms and
>exist in a mature form in the descendent forms.
Cor blimey! Is this a definition of "transitional?"
Oh, no. He's just using one of his favoured vague terms -
"nascent" - to define another - "transitional.".
Could anyone recommend a good textbook for the poor lad? It's
glaringly obvious he's a complete stranger to any scientific
discipline.
Using already-discredited creationist books has landed him in
a load of trouble.
Perhaps he could do a course at a local evening institute.
Have fun,
Joe Cummings
Steven J.
> resta...@theend.com (Robt Gotschall) wrote in message news:<MPG.15e5becf1...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
> > In article <f9fabe24.01081...@posting.google.com>,
> > iam...@msn.com says...
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Actually, Pangano has a point since evolution science isn't really
> > > science like the other sciences. It has no law, no Newton's or
> > > Einstein, and is not setup for proof.
>
geometers. Science deals in finding the best inference from the
evidence. Evolution can be supported (or, conceivably, falsified) by
the evidence as much as any of Newton's theories, or Einstein's. If
this were not so, indeed, Pagano would have no point at all. He said
that evolutionary theory predicted one thing -- transitional fossils
between one kind of creature and another (and he was more or less
correct on this point -- technically, the theory itself says nothing
about fossils, but given that fossils exist, there should be
transitional forms), and that the fossil record showed something else
-- no true transitional forms (and he was wrong on this point).
The idea of common descent -- that all life shares a common ancestor,
and that modern species are the result of a branching process of
descent with modification -- has testable implications. It predicts
the "nested hierarchy" of life: the way every species is part of a
single genus, which is part of a single family, and so on in larger
and larger nested groups. You don't see things like bats with
feathers, and aquatic mammals don't have gills, as you might expect if
life forms had been individually designed rather than evolved. This
same pattern is shown in comparisons of genes and proteins, although
that, too, would not be necessary under a creationist model.
The idea of natural selection can be tested -- it can be shown to
occur in the world today, in the field and the laboratory. Darwin
argued that his idea that adaptions originated by natural selection
could be disproved, if any trait in any organism either (a) existed
for the sole benefit of some other species, or (b) could not be formed
by accumulated small changes to some earlier structure. This is a
testable prediction, and the failure to find such structures is, if
not proof, at least an indication that natural selection shaped the
species we see.
>
> > > I should add that I like and respect science very much.>
> > > Thanks,
> > > Eddy
> >
> >
> > Excellent. You might want to actually do some reading in geology and
> > biology sometime, unless of course you don't regard these disciplines as
> > "science" either. Of course then you'd have to throw out chemistry and
> > physics also but, no to worry, you will still have your version of the
> > Bible.
> >
> > I'm sure that the millions of people who have worked in these fields
> > worldwide over the last 150 years appreciate your note of appreciation.
> >
> > rg
>
> Hi rg,
>
> Evolution is not a scientific discipline in that it is not based on
> law. Unlike other disciplines that have little to work with, evolution
> works from the future (the walking talking entity) backwards to a set
> conclusion, namely something from nothing. That makes it an
> anti-science in the sense that even a Newton would not be able to do
> basic science. For example, Newton under the tree of life observing
> Adam's falling apple (apple of increasing complexity) would find no
> place in the science of evolution because it is not a science.
>
Evolution does not deal with "something from nothing," but with
building new things by accumulating small changes in old things. Even
the first living creature is not believed to have come "from nothing,"
but from simpler self-replicating chemical systems (but this --
abiogenesis -- is a different topic from evolution).
You've been told both that evolutionary biology has its own "laws,"
and that there is no important difference between laws and theories
anyway. Both of these are true, but I get the impression you may have
meant something else. Do you think evolution violates some law of
science? It does not violate the 1st law of thermodynamics, since it
does not require anything to come "from nothing," but only from the
rearrangement of previously existing matter and energy. It does not
(whatever you might have heard) violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics,
anymore than does the formation of snowflakes, or the growth of plants
from dropped seeds, or the observed evolution of new abilities in
bacteria in the laboratory.
>
> God Bless,
> Eddy
>
>
> And man when he was in honour did not understand; he is compared to
> senseless beasts, and is become like to them. They are laid in hell
> like sheep: death shall feed upon them. And the just shall have
> dominion over them in the morning; and their help shall decay in hell
> from their glory. Psalms 48:13 & 15
>
-- Steven J.
Mike Dunford
A Pagano wrote:
[snip]
> In the report Elsberry cited predecessor, descendents, and transitions
> are ALL planktonic foraminifera and all existed together for the last 15
> million years.
False. The the ancestor and the descendant are both extant; the
two transitional forms are extinct. The two transitional forms
(_Globigerinoides_bisphericus_ and _Praeorbulina_sp._also have
much more restricted ranges than either the ancestral form
(_Globigerinoides_trilobus_) or the descendent
(_Orbulina_universa_). See the range chart at
http://www.best.com/~dlindsay/creation/orbulina_chart.html for a
graphical view of this.
> Is this evidence of the ORIGIN of novelty or the ORIGIN
> of diversity?
1 (ancestral) species
+ 2 (transitional) species
+ 1 (descendent) species
= 4 total species
- 2 (extinct transitional) species
= 2 extant species.
2>1.
This represents a NET INCREASE in the total number of species. A
net increase in the number of species represents an INCREASE in
diversity.
> No. Do any of the observations cited in the report
> offered by Elsberry represent a "transition" towards novelty---that is,
> towards a new structure, new system or new creature? The answer is
> unequivocally NO!!
False. Or, at least 2/3 false. We do not have a new system. We do
have a new structure (the new shell chamber) and a new organism
(_O._universa is a biologically distinct species).
> Does Elsberry really believe that minor variations
> of an existing structure represents overwhelming evidence of the
> existence of the numerous transitional forms envisioned by Darwin to
> have existed and predicted by neoDarwinism? Apparently so.
He should, as I addressed in detail in a separate post.
> Finally, the report cited by Elsberry does not rule out the possibility
> that the information coding for these finely graded changes didn't
> already exist within the population of foram. According to the report
> these finely graded changes occurred throughout the population, at the
> same time, without regard to depth. This sounds dangerously like the
> changes were non radom. The fact that they existed together for the
> last 15 million years sounds dangerously like stasis.
You are consistantly the only person here who thinks that stasis
is dangerous. In the absense of specific selective pressure,
stasis tends to be normal.
--Mike Dunford
Mike Dunford
think I need to make an exception this time.
There is nothing objective about Pagano's criteria for identifying
transitional fossils. Pagano's definition of transitional rests on his
own definition of the words, 'structure' and 'nascent.' His
definitions for these words are so vague and SUBJECTIVE that he cannot
even clearly and concisely define them.
> Elsberry continues:
> > There are several things to notice about Pagano's claim above
> > with respect to my challenge. There are certain issues that
> > Pagano raises above, and others which are not part of his
> > claim.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Nonsense. Everything was either stated explicitly or was clearly
> implied. The creationist position has been reasonably clear for at
> least the last 60 years. What did I claim?
>
> I claimed that an "intermediate" and a "transitional" were not
> synonymous adjectives.
In that case, would you please define how you are using those words.
AFAIK, they are usually used synonymously by biologists and
paleontologits.
> I claimed that a genuine "transitional" form if ever found would be
> evidence of the continuity between predecessor and descendent.
How does the example given fail to meet that standard?
> I claimed that NONE of the fossils characterized as "transitional" by
> evolutionists were unambiguous.
I would point out again that that is a specific claim based on a
finite body of evidence -- evidence which, by your own admission you
were unfamiliar with when you made the claim. This claim is therefore
obviously nothing more than an unsupported assertion on your part.
> I claimed that neoDarwinism conjoined to common descent predicted the
> existence of numerous transitional forms.
> I claimed that not a single "transitional" form has ever been found in
> the fossil record.
Which is it?
Your statement above that, "NONE of the fossils characterized as
"transitional" by evolutionists were unambiguous," strongly implies
that there are at least some ambiguous transitionals -- fossils which
potentially, but not clearly (in your opinion) demonstrate transition.
This statement implies that no transitional fossil, ambiguous or
otherwise, has been found.
> I claimed that genuine "transitional" forms are those which exhibit
> nascent structures which did not exist in their predecessor forms and
> exist in a mature form in the descendent forms.
As I demonstrated in another post, this claim runs counter to what
transitionals are _actually_ predicted to look like.
"The comparative anatomist and paleontologist,
when comparing related taxa, occasionally find what
appears to be an entirely new structure. ... In the
case of most of these structures, one might argue
whether or not they are 'really' new ... The line
between a quantitative and a qualitative change is
not always sharply defined; indeed,...this border
line is always indistinct." (p.91)
"The emergence of new structures is normally due
to the acquisition of a new function by a preexisting
structure. The resulting 'new' structure is merely a
modification of a preceeding structure." (p.111)
Ernst Mayr, 1976
Evolution and the Diversity of Life: Selected essays
'New' structures in organisms are expected to be variations of other,
preexisting structures.
> I claimed that contained within the report cited by Elsberry ALL the
> forms are PLANKTONIC FORAMINIFERA.
ALL the forms of ape are PRIMATES. ALL the forms of mice are RODENTS.
What's your point? The forams are an incredibly large and diverse
group of organisms, classified into several superfamilies, dozens of
families, and well over 4,000 EXTANT species.
Just because an organism is small does not imply that the systematics
are simple, or that there is a very limited diversity within the
group.
> I claimed that the foram shell which underwent minor variation already
> existed in the predecessor, the changes were minor, and the changes did
> not represent a transformation to a nascent structure which appeared as
> a mature structure in some ancestor form later in the fossil record.
This claim runs counter to that of the authors of the paper, who call
the changes 'profound.' Further, you have yet to explain why the
gradual development of the additional shell chamber through two
transitional species fails to meet any reasonable definition of
'nascent structure.'
> I claimed that genuine "transitional" forms would be evidence of the
> origin of diversity if the neoDarwinian process were true.
> ****************************************
>
> Elsberry continues:
> > I challenged the claim quoted above; the issues that
> > Pagano raises in other claims are thus *irrelevant* to
> > discussion of whether Pagano can support the above claim in
> > light of the evidence of fossils. Some of these irrelevancies
> > that Pagano is bringing up now include requirements about
> > "nascent structures" or "diversity" which formed no part of
> > his original claim.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Elsberry is simply twisting in the wind here. I'm not making any new
> claims. Creationists have always been clear about what "transitionals"
> should look like----that is, exactly what Darwin thought they should
> look like.
As I have demonstrated, your definition of what a transitional should
look like is not the same as the definition used by either Darwin or
by later workers. The claim made by current theory is that most 'new'
structures should be modifications of pre-existing structures. Your
defintion is a strawman.
> I've simply put a label to that---that is, "nascent."
You might have put a label to it, but you haven't DEFINED the label,
nor have you demonstrated that it has any bearing on the way
biologists and paleontologists see the issue,
> The issue about nascent structures and diversity are clear implications of
> the issues raised.
Clear as the Mississippi Delta.
YOU think that transitional forms should demonstrate 'nascent
structures;' the scientists who actually work on the subject think
that most -- if not all -- 'new' structures are variations on
preexisting structures. The issues here are yours, and stem from your
lack of understanding of evolutionary theory, and do not arise from
the theory itself.
> Nascent structures are one of the objective ways we
> might recognize a genuine transitional fossil form.
How can we conceivably recognize OBJECTIVELY something which you
yourself are apparently unable to clearly define? People on this
group, including myself, have asked you for months to define the term
clearly. You have not done so. In fact, you have not even responed to
requests to elaborate on why specific structures fail to meet YOUR
standard for 'nascent structures.' In this context, your claim that
'nascent structures' somehow provide an OBJECTIVE standard of any type
is completely rediculous.
Unless, that is, you are adding 'objective' to the list of words you
are attempting to redefine in this argument.
> Not a single
> nascent structure has been discovered in the fossil record.
How in bloody hell can we evaluate that statement when you will not
define 'nascent structure'????? Or are you DEFINING 'nascent
structure' as 'something that has never been discovered in the fossil
record?'
> It was clear a couple of years ago that Elsberry decided (in keeping
> with his secular indoctrination) that any sequence of change could be
> characterized as "transitional." But this so broadens the adjective
> "transitional" as to make the existence of "transitional" forms
> trivial.
As I have shown in recent posts, the _Orbulina_ transition clearly
meets all of the expectations of transitional expected by the modern
(neodarwinian) synthesis. Elsberry did not widen the definition; you
are attempting to narrow it.
> If any sequence of change qualifies as "transitional" we did
> not even need to look to the fossil record for evidence. Darwin
> observed such minor variations of the beak of the finch populations.
> Not as finely-graded as the foram shell but close enough to qualify all
> the existing finch populations as genuine transitionals.
The _Orbulina_ series demonstrates temporal change in morphology.
Living finches, obviously, do not.
>
> Elsberry continues:
> > In other words, Pagano's original claim did not have the set
> > of qualifiers that he is pushing now, and thus was much
> > broader than what he is discussing here. Pagano's tactic is
> > known as "bait and switch". It's yet another Non-Evidentiary
> > Response Item (NERI). I'll reproduce my discussion of NERIs
> > here, for I think it likely to be useful as a field guide to
> > the remainder of Pagano's "discussion".
>
>
> Pagano replies:
> Elsberry is solving his problem with verbalism. I made a very specific
> claim. I read, analyzed, and critiqued the scientific report which
> Elsberry offered as evidence of the existence of transitional forms WITH
> SPECIFICS.
No, you have not. You have 'critiqued' the paper with ASSERTIONS and
VAGUE GENERALIZATIONS. You have consistantly refused to provide
specifics -- especially definitions and examples -- when asked.
> Up to this point in Elsberry's response nothing substantive
> has been offered. Again what did I discover in the report cited by
> Elsberry:
>
> 1. The authors of Elsberry's citation explicitly assumed the existence
> of transitional creatures which was exactly what was at issue in
> Elsberry's challenge.
> 2. If the authors used their observations and conclusions to prove that
> which they already assumed to be true they would be guilty of circular
> reasoning.
> 3. The authors did not resort to circular reasoning in this fashion, but
> Elsberry did (mis)use their observations in this fashion and therefore
> "he" is guilty of circular reasoning. I suspect when he offered the
> report as evidence he had never read it.
Although Elsberry used the OBSERVATIONS from the paper, he is not
bound to automatically make the same ASSUMPTIONS. Unless you can
demonstrate that the assumption was key to the collection of the data,
the observations can be used to evaluate the 'assumption' of the
authors as well as their conclusion.
Further, the authors did not assume ex nihlo that the series was
transitional. They CITED well-estalished, previously published work
that had demonstrated that in the past. They also provided in their
paper all of their own observations which could potentially falsify
that claim. In essense, what they said was, "X and Y, in 19xx,
published a paper proposing this as a transitional sequence. We agree
with them. We found nothing in our own work that would contradict
them. But if you want to check for yourself, here's our observations,
and here's the reference for their paper. Don't take our word for it,
see for yourself."
> 4. The authors attempted to discover "only" whether two planktonic foram
> populations diverged as the result of sympatric speciation or allopatric
> speciation. Other than Punc Eq'ers (and there aren't many of them) few
> evolutionists claim that novelty and diversity are simply the result of
> speciation.
That is nonsense. In ANY evolutionary theory, the ONLY way diversity
can increase is through speciation. There is no other mechanism in ANY
evolutionary theory for increasing the number of species.
> 5. The authors present finely-graded foram shell variations of
> planktonic foram populations which Elsberry apparently offered as
> evidence of the existence of "transitional" fossil creatures.
1: The variations are anything but finely-graded, as the authors point
out. We are not talking about changes in surface ornamentation. We are
discussing a change in the number of chambers in the shell. Calling
that a 'finely-graded' variation is like calling a four-fingered hand
a 'finely-graded' variation on the five-fingered hand.
2: The variations themselves were not the only evidence presented. The
key evidence was the stratigraphic information demonstrating the
temporal relationships involved.
> 6. The authors ONLY attempted to determine if the divergence of the
> populations---both of which were planktonic foraminifera---had a
> "geographic" component or not.
> 7. The foram shell existed in all the foram fossil forms. Nothing new
> was created, no nascent structures emerged.
Nonsense. That's like saying that the five-fingered hand existed in
all primates, so nothing new was created, no 'nascent structures'
emerged, with the development of the opposable thumb.
> 8. The divergent foram populations co-existed together for the last 15
> million years. They were always planktonic foram.
Again, planktonic foram is a broad category spanning thousands of
species in numerous higher-level categories. That's like saying that
mice and rats were always rodents.
> 9. The authors of this research did not misuse scientific practice, they
> had a modest goal, and didn't overstate their case.
> 10. The foram shell existed in the predecessor form and the transitional
> forms. The changes were minor. The scientific report did not rule out
> the possibility that the information coding for the changes in the shell
> already existed within the genome of the population.
The number of chambers in the foram shell varied. This is not
considered to be a minor change by anyone who actually studies forams.
--Mike Dunford
A Pagano
who actually make substantive rebuttals. Perhaps Dunford has done the
work which Elsberry should be doing. If Dunford's work is POTM material
(which it is according to our resident and credentialed philosopher of
science) then I can reasonably assume that it is one of the best
possible replies that evolutionists have to offer. Jolly good.
I have not read Dunford's post yet, but based solely on Wilkins's claim
of its quality and substantive nature I will happily read and offer
rebuttal (to the extent that I am able). This will be a happy diversion
before I continue rebutting one of the worst posts ever made by
Elsberry.
However, if Dunford merely argues more eloquently for the qualifications
of a genuine "transitional" form then he has duplicated Elsberry's
verbalism. Again (and ad nauseum), if any sort of sequence of change
qualifies as a "transitional" fossil form (which is, in effect, the
claim made by Elsberry) then the evolutionist claim that transitional
forms exist is TRIVIAL. If so, the beaks of finch populations qualify
as "transitional" forms and sequences of changes in the cichlid
populations qualify. Heck even slight increases in height from
generation to generation in my own family tree would qualify as examples
of the existence of "transitionals." This is NOT evidence of the
continuity between predecessor populations and ancestor populations in
the supposed common lineage of all living things.
Evolutionists are certainly entitled to use the label "transitional" any
way they wish. However, this usage is not the usage of creationists nor
was it the usage of Darwin. And the observations labeled by Elsberry as
"transitional" (that is, the foram populations with their finely-graded
shell variations) cannot even be used to infer the origin of the foram
or its shell let alone that mesonychid populations transformed into
populations of bat and whale. And this is the hole point of origins
research: what is the origin of novelty and diversity and what evidence
shows the continuity of diversification. The foram shell variations
hardly do any of this. Perhaps Dunford will surprise me with a more
novel defense. We shall see. Stay tuned.
Regards,
T Pagano
mel turner
>Dunford, Steven J, MacRae make up a very small class of evolutionists
>who actually make substantive rebuttals.
And how would you know? AFAICT, here's been nothing very substantive
to any of your own claims.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9ki4l3%24629%241%40news.duke.edu
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9ki4l9%24629%242%40news.duke.edu
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9ktfq2%24i65%241%40news.duke.edu
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9ktfr5%24i65%243%40news.duke.edu
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9ktfrf%24i65%244%40news.duke.edu
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9ktfqq%24i65%242%40news.duke.edu
[snip]
>However, if Dunford merely argues more eloquently for the qualifications
>of a genuine "transitional" form then he has duplicated Elsberry's
>verbalism. Again (and ad nauseum),
Complaints about "verbalism" ad nauseum? Seems somewhat ironic.
>if any sort of sequence of change
>qualifies as a "transitional" fossil form (which is, in effect, the
>claim made by Elsberry)
No, it wasn't. He cited a very complete species-level transition.
Ancestral species giving rise to different descendant species.
>then the evolutionist claim that transitional
>forms exist is TRIVIAL.
And the frequent creationist claims that none exist are
trivially false. Hence the challenge.
>If so, the beaks of finch populations qualify
>as "transitional" forms and sequences of changes in the cichlid
>populations qualify.
And of course they do. As does Archeopteryx, Acanthostega,
Ardipithecus, and the fossils from the early radiation of
the Equidae, and the transitional early whales...
>Heck even slight increases in height from
>generation to generation in my own family tree would qualify as examples
>of the existence of "transitionals."
Are you a different species from your predecessors in your own
family tree? The other transitions are species-level or higher.
>This is NOT evidence of the
>continuity between predecessor populations and ancestor populations
Presumably you'd like to change one of those modifiers of
"populations" to "descendant".
>in
>the supposed common lineage of all living things.
Of course it is.
>Evolutionists are certainly entitled to use the label "transitional" any
>way they wish.
That's nice. Especially since there's nothing wrong with its
usage here.
>However, this usage is not the usage of creationists nor
>was it the usage of Darwin.
Empty assertions. Do you speak for all creationists? Can you
document Darwin using it in any very different sense than
Ellsberry or:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html
does?
>And the observations labeled by Elsberry as
>"transitional" (that is, the foram populations with their finely-graded
>shell variations)
Not just "variations", but species-level changes over time,
without gaps.
>cannot even be used to infer the origin of the foram
>or its shell
Moving goalposts, much? They documented the origin of these
descendant types of forams from these ancestral forams. Now you
pretend the question should have been about the early origins
of forams in general? That's a separate question.
>let alone that mesonychid populations transformed into
>populations of bat and whale.
This looks like evidence of a stubborn inability to learn. I'm
pretty sure you've repeatedly been informed here that no one
anywhere has ever proposed any close relationship [let alone an
ancestor/descendant relationship] between mesonychids and bats.
Where did you get the false impression that mesonychids were
supposed to be ancestral to bats as well as to whales? They're
related as placental mammals, but that's all.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=7eeqd0%2414k%241%40news.duke.edu
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=ZRxO6.7480%24CD5.2789363%40news2.rdc2.tx.home.com
>And this is the hole point of origins
"The hole point"? Then I guess awl's well that augers well...
;-)
>research: what is the origin of novelty and diversity
Evolutionary change. Mutation and selection and drift and
speciation and extinction.
>and what evidence
>shows the continuity of diversification.
The evidence from all of comparative biology.
>The foram shell variations
Evolutionary changes, not just "variations".
>hardly do any of this.
Of course they do.
[snip]
cheers
A Pagano
Mike Dunford wrote:
>
> posted and emailed
>
> Due to length, I am splitting my reply into different parts. Here, I
> will address only the 'specific' meaning of 'transitional.'
Pagano replies:
This is what I figured. This is verbalism---an extended discussion of
the "meaning" of "transitional." This is quite irrelevent since
creationists have demanded empirical evidence of a very specific kind of
transitional. Furthermore we "may" use words very differently as long
as we're clear about how we use them. We shall see if Dunford explains
how the minor variations of the foram shell has the slightest thing to
do with the transitional forms which purported lead to the emergence of
the foram and its shell in the first place (or any other creature for
that matter).
Let's be clear about the claims of Evolutionism and what is at issue:
1. NeoDarwinism explains that all life in its tremendous diversity
began from common ancestors----that is, all life is the result of
continuous transformations of populations.
2. Both Darwinism and neoDarwinism predicted that novelty would emerge
(via random mutations guided by natural selection) very gradually and
that this emergence was the cause of diversity.
3. The science of genetics excludes single step macromutations (and
evolutionists eschew them). That is, the emergence of new structures is
explained to be geological-time long.
4. If premises 1, 2, and 3 are true then we would expect that
prehistory would be filled with transitional forms. As Gould points out
all that we see in the fossil record are the "end nodes" of the bush of
life. We see no transitional forms.
5. Where are all the transitional forms which should have been at least
as prevalent in prehistory as the "end nodes." The fossil record shows
no such thing.
We shall see if Dunford addresses any of these issues in his explanation
of the meaning of the word "transition."
A Pagano
Pagano previously wrote:
> > This time Elsberry's argument rises or falls on how broadly one may use
> > the labels "predecessor," "transitional," and "descendent," and still be
> > discussing the neoDarwinian claim to explain the creation of novelty and
> > diversity. In the context of the neoDarwinian claim to explain the
> > CREATION OF NOVELTY AND DIVERSITY "ancestor" populations, "descendent"
> > populations, and the "transitional" populations connecting them take on
> > a very specific meaning.
Dunford replies:
> I do not see anything that would change the meaning of any of those
> terms from the definition usually used by neontologists and
> paleontologists. This is especially clear if you have any understanding
> of what 'neoDarwinism' actually says on the topic of the origin of
> diversity.
Pagano replies:
I am certainly ignorant of a great deal; I'm just an amateur. However,
I didn't say that Elsberry had "changed" the meanings, but was using
them in their broadest sense. Please read more carefully. In this broad
sense the lineage of my family tree for the last 300 years contains a
series of predecessors and descendents and perhaps the steady increase
in height of the progeny at successive generations would be evidence of
transitional forms. The gradual variation in the planktonic foram shell
to a more spherical shape is roughly analogous to the gradual change in
height.
There is nothing unseemly or even wrong about about this usage.
However, this usage focuses ONLY on a narrow portion of the set of all
"transitional" forms that are predicted by neoDarwinism to have
existed. It focuses ONLY on minor changes of existing structures.
Evidence of minor variations of EXISTING STRUCTURES is NOT evidence that
novelty emerged in prehistory. It is the emergence of novelty leading
to diversity which is at issue. Another portion of the set of
transitional forms should be those which exhibit emerging nascent
structures. These are the transitional forms which are at issue. The
fossil record has not yielded a single one of those transitional forms.
Doesn't that bother you? Isn't that an indicator that something is
wrong with neoDarwinism?
In other words Elsberry's usage and evidence does NOT focus on the
subset of the set of transitionals which Darwin lamented the absence of
in 1859 and it does not focus on the portion of the set of transitionals
which creationists claim have not been found since then. That is, if
the mesonychid was the common ancestor of the bat and whale there should
be numerous transitional forms in between. And that many of these forms
should have exhibited emerging nascent structures. We see none of these
in the fossil record. If there is no evidence in the voluminous fossil
record of their existence, did they exist at all? So far other than
Gould and Eldridge no other secualar seems troubled by this absence.
mel turner
In article <3B800E0A...@fast.net>, apa...@fast.net [A Pagano] wrote...
>Mike Dunford wrote:
[snip]
>> Due to length, I am splitting my reply into different parts. Here, I
>> will address only the 'specific' meaning of 'transitional.'
>
> Pagano replies:
>This is what I figured. This is verbalism---an extended discussion of
>the "meaning" of "transitional."
It might seem a bit ironic to see you complaining about
"verbalism".
This is quite irrelevent since
>creationists have demanded empirical evidence of a very specific kind of
>transitional.
Which creationists have demanded what evidence of what specific
kind of transitional? Citations? Do you presume to speak for
them all? Creationists frequently make unsupported blanket
claims of "no transitional fossils". One has recently been
making similarly unsupported blanket claims of "no fossils of
nascent structures", whatever _they_ may be.
>Furthermore we "may" use words very differently as long
>as we're clear about how we use them.
So, when do you plan to start being clear about that? If you say
that different uses of the words are involved, why is it "verbalism"
to try to clarify just what those different uses may be?
>We shall see if Dunford explains
>how the minor variations
Not "minor variations". Species-level evolutionary changes.
Transitions.
>of the foram shell has the slightest thing to
>do with the transitional forms which purported lead to the emergence of
>the foram and its shell in the first place (or any other creature for
>that matter).
Nice attempt to change the subject from a clearly documented
within-group species-level transition to one about the origin
of the entire higher group. Nobody said anything about this particular
example showing anything about the origin of the first shelled
foraminifera. Nobody has defined "transitional" so as to restrict
it to origins of higher groups. [Anyway, it's species-to-species
transitions that have been considered rare in the fossil record;
intermediates at higher taxonomic levels are more well-known]
>Let's be clear about the claims of Evolutionism and what is at issue:
>1. NeoDarwinism explains that all life in its tremendous diversity
>began from common ancestors----that is, all life is the result of
>continuous transformations of populations.
Not actually any requirement of "NeoDarwinism" or of "Evolutionism"
[evolutionary biology is more of an -ology, not an -ism], but it
happens to be the case. However, nobody says the transformations
of populations must be smoothly continuous and gradual.
>2. Both Darwinism and neoDarwinism
Is there a point to your making this distinction here?
>predicted that novelty would emerge
>(via random mutations guided by natural selection) very gradually and
>that this emergence was the cause of diversity.
No, not always "very gradually". Certainly not always "very gradually"
on a geological timescale. You also left off genetic drift, but
nevermind...
>3. The science of genetics excludes single step macromutations (and
>evolutionists eschew them). That is, the emergence of new structures is
>explained to be geological-time long.
What is a "single step macromutation"? Does allopolyploidy count?
Neoteny? If so, such "macromutations" do occur.
>4. If premises 1, 2, and 3 are true then we would expect that
>prehistory would be filled with transitional forms.
Speak for yourself. No, we in fact wouldn't expect the fossil record
to be any more full of transitional forms than it in fact is [there
are plenty, but arguably it's far from "full"] For your #4 to be a
valid claim you need to add some other premises:
3a. Most individuals of most organisms that ever lived will have
been preserved as more or less complete fossils, and
3b. most such fossils will have been found and studied by
researchers by this time.
If those two claims were accurate then we would indeed expect
there to be a very complete fossil record that will show lots of
well-documented species-level transitions. As it is, they
clearly aren't at all correct, and there's no reason to expect there
to be a greater abundance of cases of finely-graded fossil
transtions than there in fact is.
>As Gould points out
>all that we see in the fossil record are the "end nodes" of the bush of
>life.
No, he points out no such thing. Or does he? Citation?
["End nodes" looks like an oxymoron, BTW; I rather doubt you'll
find many scientists using such an odd expression. But nevermind]
>We see no transitional forms.
Of course we do. Lots of them. This now should probably be
where you get "verbalistic" and explain how your own definition
of "transitional" differs from ours so that your above empty
assertion is somehow a correct claim...
>5. Where are all the transitional forms which should have been at least
>as prevalent in prehistory as the "end nodes."
What's an end node? Where does anyone argue that fossils of
transitional forms should be as common as fossils of "end
nodes", whatever _they_ are? [You do understand about the
conventions of cladogram diagrams that will display even likely
direct ancestors as being terminal on side branches of the tree?]
>The fossil record shows no such thing.
Somehow I can't believe you really know much about what
the fossil record actually shows or doesn't show.
>We shall see if Dunford addresses any of these issues in his explanation
>of the meaning of the word "transition."
What "issues"? I seem to have seen only "verbalism", above, not
valid biological issues....
>more to follow
Oh, goody.
cheers
Mike Dunford
A Pagano wrote:
>
> Mike Dunford wrote:
>
>>posted and emailed
>>
>>Due to length, I am splitting my reply into different parts. Here, I
>>will address only the 'specific' meaning of 'transitional.'
>>
>
> Pagano replies:
> This is what I figured. This is verbalism---an extended discussion of
> the "meaning" of "transitional." This is quite irrelevent since
> creationists have demanded empirical evidence of a very specific kind of
> transitional.
I disagree. The discussion of the definition of transitional is
of critical importance here, because the definition of
transitional establishes what qualifies as such. In addition, you
have claimed repeatedly in recent posts that there is no
difference in expectations.
My post on transitionals was in response to a specific claim that
you made: "In the context of the neoDarwinian claim to
explain the CREATION OF NOVELTY AND DIVERSITY "ancestor"
populations, "descendent" populations, and the "transitional"
populations connecting them take on a very specific meaning." (A
Pagano, 8/16/01, news:3B7C54C7...@fast.net)
Your claim that the term 'transitional' takes on a vey specific
meaning **"in the context of the neoDarwinian claim"** certainly
invites a discussion of what the actual neoDarwinian definition
of transitional is.
> Furthermore we "may" use words very differently as long
> as we're clear about how we use them.
1: To date, you have not been clear about how you use
transitional. Clarity would require, at a minimum, that you
provide a definition of 'nascent structure' which would allow
people other than yourself to determine whether a particular
example qualifies.
2: You can use words any way you want, but that doesn't make them
relevant. If you are using the word transitional to mean
something different, you then have the burden of demonstrating
BOTH that the conventional definition of transitional is
incorrect AND that your definition describes something that is
definitely predicted by theory.
As it stands now, your claim is structurally identical to the
following example:
Jim claims that cats exist. A cat is purple and has wings. The
example of a cat that Jim has presented is black and has no
wings. Jim has failed to demonstrate that cats exist.
> We shall see if Dunford explains
> how the minor variations of the foram shell has the slightest thing to
> do with the transitional forms which purported lead to the emergence of
> the foram and its shell in the first place (or any other creature for
> that matter).
This is a blatant change in topic.
Let's be clear here from the start. I did not claim that the
example cited had anything to do with the origination of the
ORDER Foraminifera. Elsberry did not claim that the example cited
had anything to do with the origination of the ORDER
Foraminifera. The authors of the cited paper did not claim that
the transition given had anything to do with the origination of
the ORDER Foraminifera. The example cited discussed the gradual
development of the additional test chamber that categorizes the
GENUS _Orbulina_. Anyone who has been following the discussion
understands that.
Your insistance that a real transitional demonstrate the
origination of the order confuses me. Why doesn't the origination
of a genus or family qualify to demonstrate transition? You seem
to imply here that you have no problem with any model that has
the 4,000+ extant species of foram and the 30,000+ extinct
species evolving from a common foram ancestor. Is that the case?
Oh, and one final question, before I move on. Which type of foram
test -- agglutinated, chitinous, siliceous, or calcareous --
would a transitional(Pagano) need to address the origin of?
> Let's be clear about the claims of Evolutionism and what is at issue:
> 1. NeoDarwinism explains that all life in its tremendous diversity
> began from common ancestors----that is, all life is the result of
> continuous transformations of populations.
This claim does not imply any need for a new structure in a
transitional species, as most extant species do not posess unique
structures.
> 2. Both Darwinism and neoDarwinism predicted that novelty would emerge
> (via random mutations guided by natural selection) very gradually and
> that this emergence was the cause of diversity.
This claim does not imply any need for a narrower definition of
transitional than the one in general usage. It certainly does not
exclude the cited example.
> 3. The science of genetics excludes single step macromutations (and
> evolutionists eschew them). That is, the emergence of new structures is
> explained to be geological-time long.
This is not the case. The emergence of new structures can be long
in terms of the number of generations required, while still being
short in terms of geological time. A mouse, for example, can
produce a new generation every 60 days. 100,000 mouse generations
can take place in a little under 17,000 years. 17,000 years is
virtually imperceptable in geological terms. Other organisms have
even shorter generation times.
> 4. If premises 1, 2, and 3 are true then we would expect that
> prehistory would be filled with transitional forms. As Gould points out
> all that we see in the fossil record are the "end nodes" of the bush of
> life. We see no transitional forms.
Premise three is not true. In fact, that was one of the points
Gould specifically made.
> 5. Where are all the transitional forms which should have been at least
> as prevalent in prehistory as the "end nodes." The fossil record shows
> no such thing.
This also depends on premises 1, 2, and 3 all being true. 3 is false.
--Mike Dunford
mel turner
>This is a continuation of a reply to Dunford.
>Pagano previously wrote:
>> > This time Elsberry's argument rises or falls on how broadly one may use
>> > the labels "predecessor," "transitional," and "descendent," and still be
>> > discussing the neoDarwinian claim to explain the creation of novelty and
>> > diversity. In the context of the neoDarwinian claim to explain the
>> > CREATION OF NOVELTY AND DIVERSITY "ancestor" populations, "descendent"
>> > populations, and the "transitional" populations connecting them take on
>> > a very specific meaning.
And what is that very specific meaning? How does it relate to the
frequent creationist claims of "no transitional fossils", which are
what is challenged by the examples in question.
>Dunford replies:
>> I do not see anything that would change the meaning of any of those
>> terms from the definition usually used by neontologists and
>> paleontologists. This is especially clear if you have any understanding
>> of what 'neoDarwinism' actually says on the topic of the origin of
>> diversity.
>
> Pagano replies:
>I am certainly ignorant of a great deal; I'm just an amateur. However,
>I didn't say that Elsberry had "changed" the meanings, but was using
>them in their broadest sense.
No, actually he's using it in one of the very _narrowest_ senses.
This is a smooth species to species level transition. Many
"transitional fossils" are clearly intermediates between higher
groups [as Archaeopteryx is an intermediate between "birds" and
"reptiles"], but they aren't fossils showing the gradual
transformation of evolving populations in a lineage. These
species-level examples [and various others ] do show this.
>Please read more carefully. In this broad
>sense the lineage of my family tree for the last 300 years contains a
>series of predecessors and descendents and perhaps the steady increase
>in height of the progeny at successive generations would be evidence of
>transitional forms.
It's a phenotypic change, but probably it's nutritional/environmental,
not genetic. Again, your example is narrower still than even the
narrow foram example. Nobody claims to have fossils documenting
changes on any such fine scale as that [lineages of individuals
within a population].
The gradual variation in the planktonic foram shell
>to a more spherical shape is roughly analogous to the gradual change in
>height.
They are morphological changes. The foram changes are only very
"roughly analogous", since they are evolutionary changes in
populations and species.
>There is nothing unseemly or even wrong about about this usage.
>However, this usage focuses ONLY on a narrow portion of the set of all
>"transitional" forms that are predicted by neoDarwinism to have
>existed.
So? It's the strictest, rarest type of case. There are plenty of other
types of "transitional intermediates", where we have fossil
intermediates that clearly connect two major groups in more general
ways without necessarily being from any directly ancestral population.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html
>It focuses ONLY on minor changes of existing structures.
As do all or nearly all of your "novelties" or "nascent structures".
They too will be "minor changes of existing structures". Can you
think of any examples of evolutionary changes that wouldn't involve
such?
>Evidence of minor variations of EXISTING STRUCTURES is NOT evidence that
>novelty emerged in prehistory.
Why not? What else is required? What "new, novel, nascent", structures
aren't just modifications of existing structures? Did the origin of
humans and other apes from their last common ancestor involve any
changes that weren't "minor variations of EXISTING STRUCTURES"? How
about the evolutionary radiation of the order Primates? The
evolutionary radiation of the Eutheria? Mammalia? Vertebrata? Were
there any "novelties" they required that weren't just modifications
of existing structures?
>It is the emergence of novelty leading
>to diversity which is at issue.
No, it's not, but you can of course change the subject. The issue
here was the frequent creationist claims of "there are no transitional
fossils!". Such transitions could involve "emergence of novelty
leading to diversity", but that's not any part of the definition. So,
are there novelties that don't lead to diversity? How can we tell if
a change is a novelty or not? Why isn't any new trait of any sort a
"novelty"?
Another portion of the set of
>transitional forms should be those which exhibit emerging nascent
>structures.
As opposed to what? What would an "emerging nascent structure"
look like? What evolutionary transformations should have required
such, as opposed to "minor variations of existing structures"?
Or, why wouldn't "minor variations of existing structures" _be_
exactly what "emerging nascent structure" would be expected to look
like? That sure seems to be the case for any examples I might think
of. How about you? Got any good examples of features that wouldn't
have arisen as 'minor variations of existing structures'?
>These are the transitional forms which are at issue.
No, they aren't. The issue was a counterexample to a blanket statement
of no transitional fossils of any kind. If you want to change it to
be about "transitional forms that show "emergence of novelty leading
to diversity" with "emerging nascent structures" that aren't "minor
variations of EXISTING STRUCTURES", you can try. You'll have to define
all your terms, show that it's not just a personal strawman version of
evolution that makes you think they should exist, and explain how we
can tell whether a particular species or feature qualifies.
>The
>fossil record has not yielded a single one of those transitional forms.
And you'd know this how? Sure it has, to whatever extent your concept
of "transitional forms" has meaning. There are well-documented species
level transitions [the rarest, strictest transitions, like this foram
example], and plenty of others that do show intermediate stages of
larger transitions [as that from 'typical reptiles' to 'typical birds'].
>Doesn't that bother you? Isn't that an indicator that something is
>wrong with neoDarwinism?
No, it's an indicator that you misunderstand "neoDarwinism" and what
it really requires. Lots of "minor variations of EXISTING STRUCTURES",
very little or no "emerging nascent structures" that aren't in some
way modifications of existing structures.
>In other words Elsberry's usage and evidence does NOT focus on the
>subset of the set of transitionals which Darwin lamented the absence of
>in 1859
Page numbers? Quotes? We've learned an enormous amount about fossils
since 1859.
>and it does not focus on the portion of the set of transitionals
>which creationists claim have not been found since then.
Yes, of course it does. That's the point of the challenge. Isn't that
why you keep trying to change the subject?
>That is, if
>the mesonychid was the common ancestor of the bat and whale there should
>be numerous transitional forms in between.
There you go again. Nobody but you ever said "the mesonychid"
[actually a moderately diverse group of fossil mammals] was the
common ancestor of "the bat" [a much larger, much more diverse group
of mammals] and whales. Where'd you get that completely erroneous
idea from? And no, even if mesonychids or another fossil group
included the immediate common ancestors of Chiroptera and Cetacea,
there'd be no reason to expect the intermediate stages would be well
represented if at all in the fossil record.
And that many of these forms
>should have exhibited emerging nascent structures.
Oh, really. What features of bats and whales would have emerged as
"nascent structures" since their common origin? Bat wings? Whale
flippers? Nope, just modified existing structures. Bat nose-flaps and
whale dorsal fins? Those too are modifications of existing structures
[noses and backs], but arguably they're "new" as outgrowths. But then
they're soft tissues that won't ever be preserved in the fossil record.
Okay, so what new skeletal structures do bats and whales possess that
aren't at all modifications of existing precursors? I can't think of a
single one. Can you?
>We see none of these in the fossil record.
How would you know what we do or don't see in the fossil record?
>If there is no evidence in the voluminous fossil
>record of their existence, did they exist at all?
Did what exist at all? Those unnamed "nascent structures?" Or other
things that we can infer from the available data? We don't directly
see that the empty eyesockets of those fossil skulls contained eyeballs,
but that's hardly evidence that they didn't exist.
>So far other than
>Gould and Eldridge no other secualar seems troubled by this absence.
You probably misrepresent Gould and Eldredge views of
evolutionary transitions. [What's "secualar"?]
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html
cheers