Burkhard's Post-of-th-Month nomination shows a jaded and mistaken view of the philosophy of science
T Pagano
work.]
From: Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 13:47:36 +0000
>On 09/02/2011 05:21, Nathan Levesque wrote:
>> In all seriousness I would like to have an example of something
>> biological, just one something that could only exist as it is if
>>creationism were true.
The fossil record is a perfect example of evidence consistent with
creationism and contradictory to evolutionism. The fossil record
shows ALL populations appearing suddenly in completely "mature" form
and remaining for millions of years without appreciable change until
they disappear.
Darwin's gradualism explains that predecessor species blend seemlessly
and gradualistically into descendent species. We should see a
significant sampling of structures and species in various stages of
development. We see none of this.
>> I mean evolution is clearly a more comprehensive, explanatory, and
>> useful model.
This is the mantra but it is nonsense. Gould-Eldredge and his camp
of naturalists have vigorously disagreed with Darwin's claim of
gradualistic development of biolgical novelty to maturity since the
1970s----the fossil record contradicted the neoDarwinian claim.
Lenski's 20+ year and 40,000+ generations of E coli experiment show
not one example of novelty emerging and coherently and progressively
developing to maturity. The decades of fruitfly experiments don't
show it either. In fact there is no observational evidence that
biological novelty emerges and develops to maturity via neoDarwinian
means.
>> This isn't an exercise in false dichotomies, one isn't
>> validated if the other is falsified.
In the case of the fossil record "sudden appearance" and "stasis"
corroborate the creationist model and contradict the neoDarwinian one.
>> And hearing about the
>> characteristics or appearance of 'design' as evident in biology which
>> is both not denied by either side, nor unexplained--is an exercise in
>> futility: 'which one looks more likely?...to the uneducated laymen of
>> course' I just want an actual small straight forward attempt to
>> propose something that could validate creationism. For shits and
>> giggles of course.
The appearance of design is unmistakeable. It cries out for
explanation and when Dembski and Behe offer attempts at testing for
and explaining it they are vilified. Vilification is not a scientific
practice.
Behe's Irreducible Complexity is a falsifier that Darwin included in
his Opus, "On the Origin of Species." Darwin didn't use that term but
it is a match with IC. So when Behe produces two IC biological
structures that falsify neoDarwinism and points to an intelligent
designer he is vilified. Vilification is not a scientific practice.
>> Or if it's alright for this Usenet group, an example of anything that
>> could only exist as it is if creationism were true.
IC systems falsify neoDarwinism as the universal engine of biological
diversity and point to an intelligent designer.
>I don't subscribe to naive falsificationism - once a theory is as well
>supported, as productive in solving upcoming problems, and as
>interconnected with other theories as the ToE, it is unlikely that a
>single find will force us to give up the theory.
The fact of the matter is that modern secularists don't subscribe to
falsificationism at all; they are verificationists. A point which
Burkhard makes clear here.
Almost all theories throughout the history of science have been
well-supported yet most of them were nonetheless abandoned as wrong
and false. How is this possible? ALL THEORIES that aren't trivial or
tautologous---both true and false theories----have some (or many) true
consequences. So even false theories can garner corroborative
evidence and become well-supported; they are nonetheless false.
Finally since 1739 with Hume's insight we have known that
corroborative support doesn't even make a theory probably true.
Increasing levels of corroborative evidence do not increase the
probability that a theory is true. Yet this is exactly how Burkhard
and secular atheists in general treat corroborative evidence.
>Conversely, while one can think of several finds that would cause a
>problem for the ToE, it is by no means certain that they would
>necessarily support creationism.
It is interesting that corroborative evidence is impotent to show that
a theory is true, close to the truth, or even probably true. On the
other hand contradictory evidence is capable of telling us that the
theory is wrong or in some cases false. Yet Burkhard is more
concerned that this potentially damaging evidence to evolutionism
doesn't help creationism.
This isn't the musing of a scientist but the position of a voodoo
priest defending a religion.
>The two issues are related -- you typically evaluate theories against
>each other, and you need two sufficiently explicit ones that make
>specific predictions. For most forms of creationism, that is not the case.
neoDarwinism explicit? You must be kidding. NeoDarwinism doesn't
predict anything about the future development of biological novelty
and it has proved completely ineffective in reconstructing the
millions of transitional forms completely absent from the fossil
record.
Rarely, if ever, are competing theories completely commeasurable and
it is always possible (and quite likely) that both are false. Recall
that all non trivial theories (including false ones) have true
consequences. If find the true theory is the goal comparing theories
is no better at finding the true theory than verificationism is at
showing a single theory is true.
>So on the first leg, if we start to find consistently "out of place"
>fossils, rabbits in the Cambrian, Humans in the Stenian etc, that would
> weaken considerably the ToE.
Out-of-position fossils are NOT unusual and the atheist explanations
are wholly ad hoc. And there are out of sequence stratigraphic layers
too large to be explained by overthrusts. It is these anamolies that
are capable of contradicting and falsifying a theory. While all the
corroborations in the world don't tell us the theory is true.
>If we find new animals with totally
>different "DNA like" codes, that would shoot down at least common
>descent. And if new species that we find persistently fail to match the
>nested hierarchies (looks like a fish, has DNA of a mushroom, protein
>sequence data of a mammal)would be bad too. Finding two being with
>identical DNA, but totally different morphology woudl obviously be a
>problem for genetics, and by implication for the ToE as now understood
What we find is not merely "nested" hierarchies but ISOLATED nested
hierarchies with NOTHING connecting the isolated groupings. Purely
naturalistic processes prohibit these discontinuities. These
discontinuities falsify neoDarwinism.
>But as I said, none of this is really evidence for creationism.
>So on the second leg, it depends with version you have,and if you
>include ID
None of the evidence which contradicts evolutionism or the formation
of the stratigraphic layers causes any problems for the creationist
models. Yet I find it interesting that Burkhard is completely
unconcerned with disconfirming and contradictory evidence for his pet
theories.
>Nykos type ID for instance could be proven by such finds as:
>- an alien looking laboratory on Mars, inside a schematic drawing of
>a human, with an arrow sign saying: "use CF-IOG equipment to insert
>DNA here. For customer service support, phone our service centre at
>Betelgeuse (premium rates apply) Safety advice: feeding specimen
>apples voids all warranties"
>- a spaceship lands, blue thingies in white labcoats get out, measure
>us, and mutter under their breath :damn, another attempt to create
>intelligence life failed.
Panspermia doesn't really illuminate or explain the origin or
existence of biological diversity it merely directs us to look
elsewhere for the problem. But even that isn't of much help unless he
could tell us where to look. Since he can't it is a completely
fruitless avenue.
>For the religious version, more difficult, mostly they'd coincide with a
>real good proof for that specific religion, e.g.
>- Dakwins smitten/smoted/smited with lightning while giving a lecture,
>booming vice from the sky: "ha, gotcha" and he is resurected after 3
>days, just to really p... him off.
We hardly need lightning to strike when we have some very embarassing
facts for Dawkins: The fossil record is in complete accord with the
creationist model and contradicts neoDarwinism (A fact which Gould
bashed over Dawkins's head for 30 years). Fixity of the species (dogs
never become anything but dogs) is in accord with creationism and
contradicts neoDarwinism. Isolated nested hierarchical
classifications is consistent with creationism and contradicts purely
naturalistic processes.
>- Ray type creation (once he understands the difference between
>inference and observation): people consistently find totally new animals
>in places where none where before.
I rather doubt that Ray has ever asserted that God has recently
created new species. However, Special Creation at the Beginning
suffers from none of the contradictions which have continuously
plagued darwinism since 1859.
>You wake up one morning, and
>your living room is full of crocoducks e.g. Still an inference, but one
>close to observation, seeing them actually materialise out of nowhere
>would be a direct observation if not of design, then creation.
Regard,
T Pagano
I can only hope that Ernest Major jumps in to save his buddy Burkhard.
Bill
> [Note: This is a repost of Burkhard's nominated post-of-the-month
> work.]
>
> From: Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk>
> Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 13:47:36 +0000
>
> >On 09/02/2011 05:21, Nathan Levesque wrote:
> >> In all seriousness I would like to have an example of something
> >> biological, just one something that could only exist as it is if
> >>creationism were true.
/.
>
> The fossil record is a perfect example of evidence consistent with
> creationism and contradictory to evolutionism. The fossil record
> shows ALL populations appearing suddenly in completely "mature" form
> and remaining for millions of years without appreciable change until
> they disappear.
But so what, Tony? Who cares if there is evidence "consistent with
creationism,"? Such evidence doesn't tell you anything about whether
creationism is likely to be true or truthlike. Even enormous piles of
evidence consistent with creationism wouldn't tell you anything about
whether creationism is true, because even false theories have plenty
of confirmatory evidence, and there are an infinite number of theories
consistent with the evidence to which you refer.
<snip>
>
> In the case of the fossil record "sudden appearance" and "stasis"
> corroborate the creationist model and contradict the neoDarwinian one.
But, Tony, don't you pay attention to your own insights. You've
demonstrated again and again that "corroborative" evidence tells us
absolutely nothing about whether a theory is likely to be true.
Absolutely nothing. You've made that point over and over. So why on
earth would it be important that any evidence "corroborate the
creationist model"?
Just read what you yourself wrote further down in this very post, and
apply it to evidence that "corroborates the creationist model.
Randy C
> The fossil record is in complete accord with the
Hardly.
Here's what the fossil record should look like if Biblical creationism
were true.
1. In the very lowest strata we should see no fossils at
all. This is because, according to the Bible, all life
originally existed in the Garden of Eden and nothing
died there.
2. In the next levels of strata, we should see a fairly
constant rate of fossils or a gradually growing rate
of fossils. This would reflect the time after the Fall
as life progressed all over the Earth. These strata
should have fossils of all types of organisms, both
bacteria and larger more complex organisms because
all of them coexisted. We should see more mobile
species such as horses at the bottom of the fossil
record throughout most of the world because those
species would be able to migrate to places far
away from the Garden of Eden more quickly than
less mobile species. In fact we should be able to
use this layer of strata to help discover the location
of the Garden of Eden. The closer that any particular
rocks are to the original location of the Garden of
Eden, the earlier fossils should appear. (It should
take species longer to get far away from the Garden
and die than it should be for species to die close to
the Garden.)
3. At some point as we move up through the strata
we should see a sudden massive intrusion of fossils.
This would represent the 40 days and 40 nights of the
flood. This layer should also include archaeological
artifacts such as tools because humans existed and
would not have escaped with their tools. This should
be present because of the large number of organisms
(nearly every living creature on Earth) that died suddenly
under conditions ideal for fossilization. (A flood is the
very best environment for preserving fossils.) We should
be able to show that all of these fossils are in the same
strata all over the world.
4. Immediately above this sudden intrusion of fossils,
we should see a thin layer of marine fossils. This would
represent the year when, according to the Bible, the Earth
was covered with water. This layer of fossils should be
present everywhere since the flood was global in nature.
5. As we move up beyond this point in the strata, we
should see a fossil gap; the size of the gap should vary
depending on the geographical distance that a particular
rock formation is from Mount Ararat - the final resting
place of the Ark according to the Bible. As was the case
immediately after the Fall, it would take some time for slow
moving organisms to get very far away from where the Ark
came to rest.
6. This pattern should exist all over the World.
In fact, of course, it exists nowhere on Earth.
Creationism --> totally falsified by the fossil record.
Friar Broccoli
http://dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/creationism/message/19288
http://dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/creation_evolution_debate/message/155331
but I like it so much I would like to see it in the archive.
Nathan Levesque
When will people tire of lying about the fossil record? We see
exactly what we would expect to see if evolution is true, which it is.
Charles Brenner
> On Mar 7, 7:11 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
> > [Note: This is a repost of Burkhard's nominated post-of-the-month
> > work.]
>
> > From: Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk>
> > Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 13:47:36 +0000
>
> > >On 09/02/2011 05:21, Nathan Levesque wrote:
> > >> In all seriousness I would like to have an example of something
> > >> biological, just one something that could only exist as it is if
> > >>creationism were true.
>
> /.
>
>
>
> > The fossil record is a perfect example of evidence consistent with
> > creationism and contradictory to evolutionism. The fossil record
> > shows ALL populations appearing suddenly in completely "mature" form
> > and remaining for millions of years without appreciable change until
> > they disappear.
>
> But so what, Tony? Who cares if there is evidence "consistent with
> creationism,"? Such evidence doesn't tell you anything about whether
> creationism is likely to be true or truthlike. Even enormous piles of
> evidence consistent with creationism wouldn't tell you anything about
> whether creationism is true, because even false theories have plenty
> of confirmatory evidence, and there are an infinite number of theories
> consistent with the evidence to which you refer.
To be fair to Tony, he did add "and contradictory to evolutionism(?
word?)", so at least in form his answer seems to be responsive to the
spirit of Burkhard's challenge. I say "spirit" since Burkhard's
challenge to demonstrate "something that could only exist ... if
creationism were true" seems literally an impossible challenge unless
we assume the implicit continuation "as opposed to evolution."
Nashton
>> I can only hope that Ernest Major jumps in to save his buddy Burkhard.
>
> When will people tire of lying about the fossil record? We see
> exactly what we would expect to see if evolution is true, which it is.
>
So his interpretation doesn't bode well with yours and that makes him a
liar?
Let me guess, you're 12 years old, right?
T Pagano
snip
>
>> Regard,
>> T Pagano
>>
>> I can only hope that Ernest Major jumps in to save his buddy Burkhard.
>
>When will people tire of lying about the fossil record? We see
>exactly what we would expect to see if evolution is true, which it is.
The late Stephen J Gould and his camp of naturalists have honestly
admitted since the 1970s that two of the undeniable characteristics of
the fossil record is "sudden appearance" and "stasis." Stasis
contradicts darwin's gradualistic explanation for the creation of
biological diversity. Gould was not alone in recognizing that stasis
could not be ignored if darwinism was to be considered science rather
than a protected religion. This resulted in the famous Gould-Eldredge
paper proposing Punc-Eq published in the 70s.
This battle between the Gouldian Naturalists and the Dawkinsian
Gradualists has gone on unabated behind the scenes for 40 years
specifically because of (but hardly limited to) stasis of the fossil
record which contradicts darwin's gradualistic process.
Because most of the atheists in the forum haven't bothered to read
Darwin's opus they are unaware that Darwin was well aware of "stasis"
in 1859 and he knew that it was a death blow to his theory. In 1859
Darwin attributed "stasis" to be an artifact resulting from the
poverty of fossil record. However, since the late 1900s the fossil
record is voluminous and "stasis" still stands as one of the
unexplained contradictions to neoDarwinism.
The solution for atheists has been to ignore contradictory evidence.
So much so that Levesque was apparently unaware of it. Talk about
sticking one's head in the sand. . .
Regards,
T Pagano
T Pagano
wrote:
>On Mar 7, 7:11 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>> [Note: This is a repost of Burkhard's nominated post-of-the-month
>> work.]
>>
>> From: Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk>
>> Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 13:47:36 +0000
>>
>> >On 09/02/2011 05:21, Nathan Levesque wrote:
>> >> In all seriousness I would like to have an example of something
>> >> biological, just one something that could only exist as it is if
>> >>creationism were true.
>
>/.
>>
>> The fossil record is a perfect example of evidence consistent with
>> creationism and contradictory to evolutionism. The fossil record
>> shows ALL populations appearing suddenly in completely "mature" form
>> and remaining for millions of years without appreciable change until
>> they disappear.
>
>But so what, Tony? Who cares if there is evidence "consistent with
>creationism,"? Such evidence doesn't tell you anything about whether
>creationism is likely to be true or truthlike. Even enormous piles of
>evidence consistent with creationism wouldn't tell you anything about
>whether creationism is true, because even false theories have plenty
>of confirmatory evidence, and there are an infinite number of theories
>consistent with the evidence to which you refer.
True enough my vanquished enemy but stasis does contradict
neoDarwinism which logically tells us that it is false. Darwin knew
this as well and honestly said so in his opus. In 1859 Darwin could
honestly claim that "stasis" was an artifact attributable to the
poverty of the fossil record that would be wiped away with increasing
fossil finds.
But sadly for poor Rogers the fossil record today is voluminous and
"stasis" remains as both corroborative of Special Creation and a
contradiction of the religion of neoDarwinism. The contradiction
logically tells us that neoDarwinism is false.
snip
Rogers is so punch drunk that he doesn't know which end is up.
Regards,
T Pagano
jillery
You argument here is disingenuous in three ways. First, Gould-
Eldredge focuses on large morphological changes preserved in the
fossil record. Each of these changes necessarily involved dozens to
thousands of genetic mutations. The fossil record's resolution isn't
fine enough to preserve the mutations genetic experiments
demonstrate. You're comparing apples to atoms.
Second, your description is unclear if you mean to deny genetic
novelty. In the case of Lenski's E. coli, their ability to digest
citrate is unambiguously novel, as that ability is distinctively
lacking for all other known E.coli populations. To say this
difference isn't novel is to suggest there can be no genetic novely
simply by definition.
Third, genetic mutation is the granular level of random variation.
There is no smaller genetic change than a single nucleotide. These
kinds of mutations are documented to happen between generations.
Whether by themselves or in combination, these mutations may or may
not have obvious consequences to the organism. Whether any of the
obvious consequences are beneficial, detrimental, or neutral, depends
on the particular environment the organisms live in, which itself may
over time. So there is no reason to suppose that genetic experiments
should show mutations "emerging and coherently and progressively
developing to maturity" as you say. That's the creationist's
argument.
<snip to avoid overflow>
Burkhard
> [Note: This is a repost of Burkhard's nominated post-of-the-month
> work.]
>
> From: Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk>
> Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 13:47:36 +0000
>
> >On 09/02/2011 05:21, Nathan Levesque wrote:
> >> In all seriousness I would like to have an example of something
> >> biological, just one something that could only exist as it is if
> >>creationism were true.
>
> The fossil record is a perfect example of evidence consistent with
> creationism and contradictory to evolutionism.
Even if this were true (it isn't of course, on neither count) it
would not be an adequate response to the challenge to which my post
was a reply, i.e. something that "could only exists of creationism
were true" - mere "consistent with" obviously doesn't cut it.
>, The fossil record
> shows ALL populations appearing suddenly in completely "mature" form
> and remaining for millions of years without appreciable change until
> they disappear.
Leaving apart the issue that the term "mature" in this context is
scientifically meaningless (one of the reasons why your claim that the
fossil record contradicts evolution is wrong fails) this woudl still
only be consistent with some very unorthodox forms of creationism, and
most certainly not the Genesis-inspired Christian one.
As I said below, a problem of the challenge is that it depends
entirely what creation account you subscribe to, and typically they
are not explicit enough to make that sort of judgement.The pattern you
mentioned (while ignoring amongst other things the results of
taphonomy etc) may well be consistent with one of the cyclical
cosmologies (e.g. of the Maya) where different gods at different
points in time create very different beings, but not the Christian
one.
>
> Darwin's gradualism explains that predecessor species blend seemlessly
> and gradualistically into descendent species. We should see a
> significant sampling of structures and species in various stages of
> development. We see none of this.
>
We see what we should expect to see given the sampling process. In the
same way which sampling frames from a film will only ever give us
individual entities that do not move, or "blend into each other" .
> >> I mean evolution is clearly a more comprehensive, explanatory, and
> >> useful model.
>
> This is the mantra but it is nonsense. Gould-Eldredge and his camp
> of naturalists have vigorously disagreed with Darwin's claim of
> gradualistic development of biolgical novelty to maturity since the
> 1970s---
And they were wrong, so what?
>-the fossil record contradicted the neoDarwinian claim.
>
> Lenski's 20+ year and 40,000+ generations of E coli experiment show
> not one example of novelty emerging and coherently and progressively
> developing to maturity. The decades of fruitfly experiments don't
> show it either. In fact there is no observational evidence that
> biological novelty emerges and develops to maturity via neoDarwinian
> means.
>
> >> This isn't an exercise in false dichotomies, one isn't
> >> validated if the other is falsified.
>
> In the case of the fossil record "sudden appearance" and "stasis"
> corroborate the creationist model and contradict the neoDarwinian one.
It may corroborate some creationists models,which then on the basis of
the fossil record alone could not be distinguished from the Darwinian
one, which is also consistent with the fossil record. You then need
other evidence to distinguish these hypothesis - of which of course
there is quite a lot.
>
> >> And hearing about the
> >> characteristics or appearance of 'design' as evident in biology which
> >> is both not denied by either side, nor unexplained--is an exercise in
> >> futility: 'which one looks more likely?...to the uneducated laymen of
> >> course' I just want an actual small straight forward attempt to
> >> propose something that could validate creationism. For shits and
> >> giggles of course.
>
> The appearance of design is unmistakeable. It cries out for
> explanation and when Dembski and Behe offer attempts at testing for
> and explaining it they are vilified. Vilification is not a scientific
> practice.
>
> Behe's Irreducible Complexity is a falsifier that Darwin included in
> his Opus, "On the Origin of Species." Darwin didn't use that term but
> it is a match with IC. So when Behe produces two IC biological
> structures that falsify neoDarwinism and points to an intelligent
> designer he is vilified. Vilification is not a scientific practice.
Since there are possible evolutionary pathways for the structures Behe
identified, they do not falsify the ToE in whatever formulation. Being
told you are wrong when you made a mistake is not "vilification"
>
> >> Or if it's alright for this Usenet group, an example of anything that
> >> could only exist as it is if creationism were true.
>
> IC systems falsify neoDarwinism as the universal engine of biological
> diversity and point to an intelligent designer.
No, they don;t since there are evolutionary pathways to IC systems.
They only falsify a theory that has as a constraint that evolution
only ever works by adding new parts.
>
> >I don't subscribe to naive falsificationism - once a theory is as well
> >supported, as productive in solving upcoming problems, and as
> >interconnected with other theories as the ToE, it is unlikely that a
> >single find will force us to give up the theory.
>
> The fact of the matter is that modern secularists don't subscribe to
> falsificationism at all; they are verificationists. A point which
> Burkhard makes clear here.
Only for someone whose world view consists of simplistic, and
typically wrong, dichotomies.
I don't indeed buy into Popperian "naive falsificationism", very few
epistemologists do on account is having been falsified by his own
students, in particular Imre Lakatos and also Thomas Kuhn.
>
> Almost all theories throughout the history of science have been
> well-supported yet most of them were nonetheless abandoned as wrong
> and false. How is this possible? ALL THEORIES that aren't trivial or
> tautologous---both true and false theories----have some (or many) true
> consequences. So even false theories can garner corroborative
> evidence and become well-supported; they are nonetheless false.
>
> Finally since 1739 with Hume's insight we have known that
> corroborative support doesn't even make a theory probably true.
> Increasing levels of corroborative evidence do not increase the
> probability that a theory is true. Yet this is exactly how Burkhard
> and secular atheists in general treat corroborative evidence.
>
As I said, clinging desperately to simplistic dichotomies and
clinging to falsified epistemologies really don't help your cause
much. things have moved on since the 1950s, and there are lost of
approaches to the theory of science around taht preserve those ideas
of Popper which stood the test of time while abandoning all those
aspects that didn't.
The specific approach I outlined briefly in my post goes back to
Lakatos, and was developed further by my teachers, Stemueller and
Moulines (who also happen, by coincidence, to be/have been staunch
Catholics.)
And those approaches to epistemology that possibly are closest to what
you label verificationist go of course back to the Rev. Thomas
Bayes, a Presbyterian minister (see e.g. p. Maher, Betting on
Theories)
> >Conversely, while one can think of several finds that would cause a
> >problem for the ToE, it is by no means certain that they would
> >necessarily support creationism.
>
> It is interesting that corroborative evidence is impotent to show that
> a theory is true, close to the truth, or even probably true.
For a given value of true, possibly. Just shows how sterile this
approach is to understand science and scientific practice.
> On the
> other hand contradictory evidence is capable of telling us that the
> theory is wrong or in some cases false.
And what is the difference between "wong" and "false"?
>Yet Burkhard is more
> concerned that this potentially damaging evidence to evolutionism
> doesn't help creationism.
Burkhard is concerned with answering the OP, who asked a very specific
question. your inability to follow a conversation or to read for
understanding is yours alone.
>
> This isn't the musing of a scientist but the position of a voodoo
> priest defending a religion.
>
> >The two issues are related -- you typically evaluate theories against
> >each other, and you need two sufficiently explicit ones that make
> >specific predictions. For most forms of creationism, that is not the case.
>
> neoDarwinism explicit? You must be kidding.
Sure, as your own post proves If it were not sufficiently explicit,
your attempt to use the fossil record as counter evidence would fail
from the word go. As it is, the theory is sufficiently explicit, and
hence it fails a bit later, by your inability to interpret the record
correctly.
NeoDarwinism doesn't
> predict anything about the future development of biological novelty
> and it has proved completely ineffective in reconstructing the
> millions of transitional forms completely absent from the fossil
> record.
>
> Rarely, if ever, are competing theories completely commeasurable and
> it is always possible (and quite likely) that both are false. Recall
> that all non trivial theories (including false ones) have true
> consequences. If find the true theory is the goal comparing theories
> is no better at finding the true theory than verificationism is at
> showing a single theory is true.
>
> >So on the first leg, if we start to find consistently "out of place"
> >fossils, rabbits in the Cambrian, Humans in the Stenian etc, that would
> > weaken considerably the ToE.
>
> Out-of-position fossils are NOT unusual and the atheist explanations
> are wholly ad hoc. And there are out of sequence stratigraphic layers
> too large to be explained by overthrusts. It is these anamolies that
> are capable of contradicting and falsifying a theory.
If this were true, the theory woudl indeed be falsified. However, it
isn't, and the theories developed to explain superficial differences
between the record and the theory are not only in turn well
established and linked to sound data and theoretical concepts, they in
turn opened up new interesting research questions and were successful
is solving the ensuing puzzles. What Lakatos calls a progressive
research project, or Larry Laudan called a scientific tradition with
a high problem-solving effectiveness. Both approaches to the
evaluation of theories that do not fit your simplistic notion of
verification vs falsification.
> While all the
> corroborations in the world don't tell us the theory is true.
>
> >If we find new animals with totally
> >different "DNA like" codes, that would shoot down at least common
> >descent. And if new species that we find persistently fail to match the
> >nested hierarchies (looks like a fish, has DNA of a mushroom, protein
> >sequence data of a mammal)would be bad too. Finding two being with
> >identical DNA, but totally different morphology woudl obviously be a
> >problem for genetics, and by implication for the ToE as now understood
>
> What we find is not merely "nested" hierarchies but ISOLATED nested
> hierarchies with NOTHING connecting the isolated groupings. Purely
> naturalistic processes prohibit these discontinuities. These
> discontinuities falsify neoDarwinism.
No they don't - DNA data connects them pretty well. But my example
really would.
>
> >But as I said, none of this is really evidence for creationism.
> >So on the second leg, it depends with version you have,and if you
> >include ID
>
> None of the evidence which contradicts evolutionism or the formation
> of the stratigraphic layers causes any problems for the creationist
> models. Yet I find it interesting that Burkhard is completely
> unconcerned with disconfirming and contradictory evidence for his pet
> theories.
The OP asked a very specific question, I answer it. That you try to
violently squeeze everything into your simplistic conceptual schemata,
and then wonder why an answer to another post doesn't address your
personal pet concerns, says really more about you than about the ToE
>
> >Nykos type ID for instance could be proven by such finds as:
> >- an alien looking laboratory on Mars, inside a schematic drawing of
> >a human, with an arrow sign saying: "use CF-IOG equipment to insert
> >DNA here. For customer service support, phone our service centre at
> >Betelgeuse (premium rates apply) Safety advice: feeding specimen
> >apples voids all warranties"
> >- a spaceship lands, blue thingies in white labcoats get out, measure
> >us, and mutter under their breath :damn, another attempt to create
> >intelligence life failed.
>
> Panspermia doesn't really illuminate or explain the origin or
> existence of biological diversity it merely directs us to look
> elsewhere for the problem. But even that isn't of much help unless he
> could tell us where to look. Since he can't it is a completely
> fruitless avenue.
Which is pretty much irrelevant for my point (which in turn addressed
the OP's question) , which is that a discovery of this type woudl
falsify evolution as we understand it.
> >For the religious version, more difficult, mostly they'd coincide with a
> >real good proof for that specific religion, e.g.
> >- Dakwins smitten/smoted/smited with lightning while giving a lecture,
> >booming vice from the sky: "ha, gotcha" and he is resurected after 3
> >days, just to really p... him off.
>
> We hardly need lightning to strike when we have some very embarassing
> facts for Dawkins: The fossil record is in complete accord with the
> creationist model and contradicts neoDarwinism (A fact which Gould
> bashed over Dawkins's head for 30 years). Fixity of the species (dogs
> never become anything but dogs) is in accord with creationism and
> contradicts neoDarwinism.
Dogs changing in a very short period of time into animals that can't
any longer naturally interbreed, and which we would have classified
as totally different species of animals where we to find them in the
wild and did not have the ToE as explanatory framework, really do
nothing to help creationism.
> Isolated nested hierarchical
> classifications is consistent with creationism and contradicts purely
> naturalistic processes.
>
> >- Ray type creation (once he understands the difference between
> >inference and observation): people consistently find totally new animals
> >in places where none where before.
>
> I rather doubt that Ray has ever asserted that God has recently
> created new species.
Oh sure, and Satan apparently too. That is behind the posts where he
chides you for accepting microevolution.
Bill
> On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 16:45:41 -0800 (PST), Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com>
.
>
> Rogers is so punch drunk that he doesn't know which end is up.
>
Indeed, Tony, this is very impressive, you've defeated and scattered
all the atheist minions like so many leaves before the wind. You
victory over neo-Darwinianism is complete. No doubt you'll be moving
on to other fields shortly - think of all the confused Christians, and
theistic evolutionists who desperately need to be set straight, the
cafeteria Catholics to bring back to the fold, and you can't ignore
that there's a whole Reformation to counter. Plus you have to point
out your magnificent victories to those who fail to recognize them
just by reading your posts,
So I know you'll be very busy. But before you go, one last question.
At your urging I did read a bit of Dembski, specifically the bits of
NFL where he defines specified complexity. I get the complexity part,
more or less. It's something like the inverse of the probability of
occurence, so all you need to do to figure out the complexity of the
mammalian eye is figure out the probability of its occurrence. A minor
technical issue. OK
But the "specified" bit confuses me. I could not tell from the various
places where Dembski discusses it whether he means the specification
to be objective or subjective. So I'm stuck. Since you DO know what he
means, maybe you can answer that one question that keeps bugging
me......
Given an unfamiliar, but indubitably complex, object, how would I
falsify the claim that its complexity was "specified"? Or is it the
case that the claim that something has specified complexity is not
falsifiable, in principle.
> Regards,
> T Pagano- Sembunyikan teks kutipan -
>
> - Perlihatkan teks kutipan -
John S. Wilkins
> The specific approach I outlined briefly in my post goes back to
> Lakatos, and was developed further by my teachers, Stemueller and
> Moulines (who also happen, by coincidence, to be/have been staunch
> Catholics.)
Wolfgang Stegmueller? I read him as an undergrad. Still have his book.
--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
RAM
> On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 16:45:41 -0800 (PST), Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com>
The immediately above from the fool who wrote: "I said that technology
does not
rely on induction which is a foundation of sand." Poseur Pagano at
his best.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
RAM
that technology does not
rely on induction which is a foundation of sand."
Such a fundamental misunderstanding pervades almost all of Pags
assertions.
> Regards,
> T Pagano
jillery
First, Gould and Eldredge publicly and repeatedly stated that
punctuated equilibrium assumes common descent and natural selection,
and is the antithesis of creationism and ID. Second, Tony agrees the
fossil record exists. His argument here is based on an interpretation
of that fossil record. Third, the fossil record illustrates a
progression of new forms, varying over time, geography, and
morphology. Fourth, the only way for creationism and fixity to be
consistent with the fossil record, species would have to be created
and fixed just as if they varied over time, geography and morphology.
Such evolutionary progressions are entirely inconsistent with biblical
creationism at least. Fifth, these points have been made many times
by many authors in publicly available literature and in replies to
Tony in this newsgroup.
Perhaps "deliberate misrepresentation" would satisfy your undeveloped
sensitivities.
John Harshman
> On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 19:05:38 -0800 (PST), Nathan Levesque
> <nathanm...@gmail.com> wrote:
Spoiler alert: it's not only possible, it's certain.
>> When will people tire of lying about the fossil record? We see
>> exactly what we would expect to see if evolution is true, which it is.
>
> The late Stephen J Gould and his camp of naturalists have honestly
> admitted since the 1970s that two of the undeniable characteristics of
> the fossil record is "sudden appearance" and "stasis." Stasis
> contradicts darwin's gradualistic explanation for the creation of
> biological diversity. Gould was not alone in recognizing that stasis
> could not be ignored if darwinism was to be considered science rather
> than a protected religion. This resulted in the famous Gould-Eldredge
> paper proposing Punc-Eq published in the 70s.
....which I strongly suspect Tony has never read. If Tony understood
stasis at all he would realize that it offers him no support. Supposing
that stasis is a widespread phenomenon (and I for one don't think the
published evidence is adequate), what does it mean? First, it doesn't
contradict gradualism, at least not Darwin's version; to imagine so is
to confuse time scales. Even under PE, change happens through ordinary
mutation and natural selection, over many generations. It's merely that
the episodes of change, lasting perhaps 10,000-100,000 years each, are
brief compared to the lifetime of a species, lasting perhaps several
million years.
Second, it offers no support for creationism. Stasis is a phenomenon
occuring with species, and punctuation (what Tony calls "sudden
appearance") occurs between closely related species. If that records
creation, then species are created one at a time over many millions of
years, generally geographically close to a quite similar prior species.
If this is creation, then kinds can be identified with species, and
there are many millions of kinds. Which would result in a very crowded
ark. Also, since new species have appeared through natural processes in
historical times, these processes must be assumed not to have operated
in the past.
Third, of course all this requires that the fossil record be interpreted
outside the context of a global flood. To Tony, there can be no such
pattern as sudden appearance or stasis in the fossil record, because
it's all the result of a single event. This entire discussion, to him,
must be meaningless.
Fourth, as has been pointed out already, Tony rejects all methods that
enable us to learn anything about the past. So this discussion must be
doubly meaningless.
> This battle between the Gouldian Naturalists and the Dawkinsian
> Gradualists has gone on unabated behind the scenes for 40 years
> specifically because of (but hardly limited to) stasis of the fossil
> record which contradicts darwin's gradualistic process.
None of that has anything to do with the argument between Gould and
Dawkins, which is really about the proper units of selection.
> Because most of the atheists in the forum haven't bothered to read
> Darwin's opus they are unaware that Darwin was well aware of "stasis"
> in 1859 and he knew that it was a death blow to his theory. In 1859
> Darwin attributed "stasis" to be an artifact resulting from the
> poverty of fossil record.
As usual, Tony is misreading the relevant parts of the Origin. The bit
he's misremembering actually discusses the absence of fossils preceding
the Cambrian (which he calls the Silurian). Of course we now have a
great many Precambrian fossils, so this was actually a successful
prediction of Darwin's.
Pro forma, I will also note that Tony's equation of evolution with
atheism is still going strong.
> However, since the late 1900s the fossil
> record is voluminous and "stasis" still stands as one of the
> unexplained contradictions to neoDarwinism.
Oddly enough, among those voluminous discoveries has been a great number
of transitional fossils.
> The solution for atheists has been to ignore contradictory evidence.
> So much so that Levesque was apparently unaware of it. Talk about
> sticking one's head in the sand. . .
I would be happy to discuss the "contradictory" evidence if you ever
decide to stop preening and engage in serious discussion of anything.
Friar Broccoli
Just for the record, I'm with Nashton on this question. Tony is
insane, he is not *deliberately* misrepresenting anything. Keep in
mind that for several years Tony has been arguing with a straight face
that the sun orbits the earth. He certainly cannot be lying
(intentionally misrepresenting the truth) about that.
jillery
His description of Gould and Eldredge's punctuated equilibrium
certainly falls into the category of deliberate misrepresentation.
IMO as do the other points I mentioned. YMMV
> Keep in
> mind that for several years Tony has been arguing with a straight face
> that the sun orbits the earth. He certainly cannot be lying
> (intentionally misrepresenting the truth) about that.
I would agree with you if Tony limited his discussion to his beliefs.
The case here is similar if he said Einstein's SRT proves the sun
orbits the earth.
Friar Broccoli
.
It is pretty clear to me that Tony is completely unable to distinguish
between what he knows and what he believes. I don't remember how it
was established, but I believe it is accepted among psychologists that
the sense of knowing is completely detached from any validating
mechanism. So most of us can "know" things without having any idea
how we know them. Tony is just a rather extreme case of a common
problem.
> The case here is similar if he said Einstein's SRT proves the sun
> orbits the earth.
Actually Tony has invoke Relativity to prove that the sun orbits the
earth, while later in the same post claiming that other parts of
Relativity are wrong. (I don't remember if Tony distinguishes between
General and Special relativity - not that it matters).
TomS
<bf330412-f59f-42be...@j35g2000prb.googlegroups.com>, Friar
Broccoli stated..."
[...snip...]
>Actually Tony has invoke Relativity to prove that the sun orbits the
>earth, while later in the same post claiming that other parts of
>Relativity are wrong. (I don't remember if Tony distinguishes between
>General and Special relativity - not that it matters).
>
I don't follow Tony close enough to know about this.
It interests me, the argument that invokes the General Theory of
Relativity to support geocentrism.
As far as I know, all geocentrists openly rely upon Biblical
support. I don't think that there are any who make any "big tent"
claims like the advocates of Intelligent Design. The Bible says that
the sun is in daily motion around the fixed earth and that is what
the geocentrists accept.
But the strongest claim about the GTR that one could make is that it
says all motion is relative: Not that geocentrism is true, but that
heliocentrism is not true; And thus that Biblical geocentrism is
meaningless.
--
---Tom S.
"... the heavy people know some magic that can make things move and even fly,
but they're not very bright, because they can't survive without their magic
contrivances"
Xixo, in "The Gods Must Be Crazy II"
Ernest Major
<6fd8d0f6-d3d6-4a8d...@d26g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> writes
You could try studied ignorance and stubborn misunderstanding.
>
>
>> Keep in
>> mind that for several years Tony has been arguing with a straight face
>> that the sun orbits the earth. He certainly cannot be lying
>> (intentionally misrepresenting the truth) about that.
>
>
>I would agree with you if Tony limited his discussion to his beliefs.
>The case here is similar if he said Einstein's SRT proves the sun
>orbits the earth.
>
--
alias Ernest Major
John Harshman
> "On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 09:35:55 -0800 (PST), in article
> <bf330412-f59f-42be...@j35g2000prb.googlegroups.com>, Friar
> Broccoli stated..."
> [...snip...]
>> Actually Tony has invoke Relativity to prove that the sun orbits the
>> earth, while later in the same post claiming that other parts of
>> Relativity are wrong. (I don't remember if Tony distinguishes between
>> General and Special relativity - not that it matters).
>>
>
> I don't follow Tony close enough to know about this.
>
> It interests me, the argument that invokes the General Theory of
> Relativity to support geocentrism.
>
> As far as I know, all geocentrists openly rely upon Biblical
> support. I don't think that there are any who make any "big tent"
> claims like the advocates of Intelligent Design. The Bible says that
> the sun is in daily motion around the fixed earth and that is what
> the geocentrists accept.
Tony never openly relies on biblical support for anything.
> But the strongest claim about the GTR that one could make is that it
> says all motion is relative: Not that geocentrism is true, but that
> heliocentrism is not true; And thus that Biblical geocentrism is
> meaningless.
Nevertheless, Tony does appeal to relativity in order to show that
geocentrism is not only a possible reference frame, but the preferred
reference frame.
There's nothing wrong with your reasoning. It's just that reasoning is a
poor tool when applied to Tony.
Burkhard
> Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > The specific approach I outlined briefly in my post goes back to
> > Lakatos, and was developed further by my teachers, Stemueller and
> > Moulines (who also happen, by coincidence, to be/have been staunch
> > Catholics.)
>
> Wolfgang Stegmueller? I read him as an undergrad. Still have his book.
Yep, that would be him - it's where I picked up my structuralist
leanings.
jillery
> In message
> <6fd8d0f6-d3d6-4a8d-8a86-16636bea9...@d26g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
> jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> writes
Do you think it would make a difference?
> >> Keep in
> >> mind that for several years Tony has been arguing with a straight face
> >> that the sun orbits the earth. He certainly cannot be lying
> >> (intentionally misrepresenting the truth) about that.
>
> >I would agree with you if Tony limited his discussion to his beliefs.
> >The case here is similar if he said Einstein's SRT proves the sun
> >orbits the earth.
>
> --
> alias Ernest Major- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ernest Major
Pagano <not....@address.net> writes
I presume that you haven't read Mayr (one of the founders of
neodarwinism aka the modern synthesis) on coadapted gene pools,
peripheral isolates, founder effect, and genetic revolutions.
What stasis contradicts is Paganist evolution, but you'd be hard put to
find anyone who accepts Paganist evolution.
> Darwin knew
>this as well and honestly said so in his opus.
You also seem to misremember Darwin's writings. He wrote "Although each
species must have passed through numerous transitional stages, it is
probable that the periods, during which each underwent modifications,
though many and long as measured by years, have been short in comparison
with the periods which each remained in an unchanged condition."
Where Darwin was wrong was in thinking that mass extinctions were an
artefact of an imperfect fossil record.
>In 1859 Darwin could
>honestly claim that "stasis" was an artifact attributable to the
>poverty of the fossil record that would be wiped away with increasing
>fossil finds.
>
>But sadly for poor Rogers the fossil record today is voluminous and
>"stasis" remains as both corroborative of Special Creation and a
>contradiction of the religion of neoDarwinism. The contradiction
>logically tells us that neoDarwinism is false.
>
>snip
Show you work. Demonstrate the contradiction by mathematically analysing
the fossil record.
>
>
>Rogers is so punch drunk that he doesn't know which end is up.
>
>
>Regards,
>T Pagano
>
>
>
--
alias Ernest Major
Randy C
> admitted since the 1970s that two of the undeniable characteristics of
> the fossil record is "sudden appearance" and "stasis." Stasis
> contradicts darwin's gradualistic explanation for the creation of
> biological diversity.
Disingenuous comment noted.
Here's what Gould said about creationists who misinterpret "Punctuated
Equilibrium" as you are doing:
"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is
infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether
through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the
fossil record includes no transitional forms. The punctuations occur
at the level of species; directional trends (on the staircase model)
are rife at the higher level of transitions within major
groups." [Stephen Jay Gould, Evolution as Fact and Theory Science and
Creationism, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1984), p. 124.]
Transitions are "rife" at higher levels.
jillery
>
> It is pretty clear to me that Tony is completely unable to distinguish
> between what he knows and what he believes. I don't remember how it
> was established, but I believe it is accepted among psychologists that
> the sense of knowing is completely detached from any validating
> mechanism. So most of us can "know" things without having any idea
> how we know them. Tony is just a rather extreme case of a common
> problem.
>
> > The case here is similar if he said Einstein's SRT proves the sun
> > orbits the earth.
>
> Actually Tony has invoke Relativity to prove that the sun orbits the
> earth, while later in the same post claiming that other parts of
> Relativity are wrong. (I don't remember if Tony distinguishes between
> General and Special relativity - not that it matters).
If Tony doesn't distinguish between beliefs and knowledge, how does he
distinguish between "you're wrong" and "you're lying"?
John Thompson
No, his constant lies make him a liar.
James Beck
> In message <apagano-ltn9n6tol25goccppesagjktrns9btc...@4ax.com>, T
> Pagano <not.va...@address.net> writes
>
>
>
> >On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 16:45:41 -0800 (PST), Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com>
What is paganist evolution?
John Harshman
jillery
> "On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 09:35:55 -0800 (PST), in article
> Broccoli stated..."
> [...snip...]
>
> >Actually Tony has invoke Relativity to prove that the sun orbits the
> >earth, while later in the same post claiming that other parts of
> >Relativity are wrong. (I don't remember if Tony distinguishes between
> >General and Special relativity - not that it matters).
>
> I don't follow Tony close enough to know about this.
>
> It interests me, the argument that invokes the General Theory of
> Relativity to support geocentrism.
>
> As far as I know, all geocentrists openly rely upon Biblical
> support. I don't think that there are any who make any "big tent"
> claims like the advocates of Intelligent Design. The Bible says that
> the sun is in daily motion around the fixed earth and that is what
> the geocentrists accept.
>
> But the strongest claim about the GTR that one could make is that it
> says all motion is relative: Not that geocentrism is true, but that
> heliocentrism is not true; And thus that Biblical geocentrism is
> meaningless.
If relative motion is all geocentrists want, they should forget
Einstein, and stick with Galileo, who discovered it. Or Newton, who
applied it to the cosmos. Because Einstein's theories, both special
and general, apply serious limitations to the Universe if Earth is
assumed to be the only unmoving object in it. But another way of
saying "all motiion is relative" is to say "all objects are in
motion", and that includes the Earth. Geocentrism is just another
case of people cherry-picking what they want to hear and ignoring the
rest.
Friar Broccoli
.
It is my impression that a significant fraction of the population make
this distinction based on how strongly they disagree with the
statement made by another person, and perhaps also on how much they
(dis)like the other person. Perhaps Tony uses the same metric, not
really sure.
Ernest Major
<b354a516-b408-4c1f...@17g2000prr.googlegroups.com>,
James Beck <jdbec...@gmail.com> writes
--
alias Ernest Major
raven1
<jdbec...@gmail.com> wrote:
>What is paganist evolution?
Thegodsdiddit.
Nathan Levesque
> On 3/6/11 11:05 PM, Nathan Levesque wrote:
>
> >> I can only hope that Ernest Major jumps in to save his buddy Burkhard.
>
> > When will people tire of lying about the fossil record? We see
> > exactly what we would expect to see if evolution is true, which it is.
>
> So his interpretation doesn't bode well with yours and that makes him a
> liar?
>
> Let me guess, you're 12 years old, right?
Did you read what he wrote? He posted patent lies.
Nathan Levesque
> On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 19:05:38 -0800 (PST), Nathan Levesque
>
>
>
> >On Mar 6, 6:11 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> >> [Note: This is a repost of Burkhard's nominated post-of-the-month
> >> work.]
>
> >> From: Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk>
> >> Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 13:47:36 +0000
>
> >> >On 09/02/2011 05:21, Nathan Levesque wrote:
> >> >> In all seriousness I would like to have an example of something
> >> >> biological, just one something that could only exist as it is if
> >> >>creationism were true.
>
> >> creationism and contradictory to evolutionism. The fossil record
> >> shows ALL populations appearing suddenly in completely "mature" form
> >> and remaining for millions of years without appreciable change until
> >> they disappear.
>
> >> and gradualistically into descendent species. We should see a
> >> significant sampling of structures and species in various stages of
> >> development. We see none of this.
>
> >> >> I mean evolution is clearly a more comprehensive, explanatory, and
> >> >> useful model.
>
> >> This is the mantra but it is nonsense. Gould-Eldredge and his camp
> >> of naturalists have vigorously disagreed with Darwin's claim of
> >> gradualistic development of biolgical novelty to maturity since the
> >> 1970s----the fossil record contradicted the neoDarwinian claim.
>
> >> Lenski's 20+ year and 40,000+ generations of E coli experiment show
> >> not one example of novelty emerging and coherently and progressively
> >> developing to maturity. The decades of fruitfly experiments don't
> >> show it either. In fact there is no observational evidence that
> >> biological novelty emerges and develops to maturity via neoDarwinian
> >> means.
>
> >> >> This isn't an exercise in false dichotomies, one isn't
> >> >> validated if the other is falsified.
>
> >> In the case of the fossil record "sudden appearance" and "stasis"
> >> corroborate the creationist model and contradict the neoDarwinian one.
>
> snip
>
>
>
> >> Regard,
> >> T Pagano
>
>
> >When will people tire of lying about the fossil record? We see
> >exactly what we would expect to see if evolution is true, which it is.
>
> admitted since the 1970s that two of the undeniable characteristics of
> the fossil record is "sudden appearance" and "stasis." Stasis
> contradicts darwin's gradualistic explanation for the creation of
> could not be ignored if darwinism was to be considered science rather
> than a protected religion. This resulted in the famous Gould-Eldredge
> paper proposing Punc-Eq published in the 70s.
>
> Gradualists has gone on unabated behind the scenes for 40 years
> specifically because of (but hardly limited to) stasis of the fossil
> record which contradicts darwin's gradualistic process.
>
> Darwin's opus they are unaware that Darwin was well aware of "stasis"
> in 1859 and he knew that it was a death blow to his theory. In 1859
> Darwin attributed "stasis" to be an artifact resulting from the
> record is voluminous and "stasis" still stands as one of the
> unexplained contradictions to neoDarwinism.
>
> So much so that Levesque was apparently unaware of it. Talk about
> sticking one's head in the sand. . .
I'm fully aware of both phyletic gradualism and punctuated
equilibrium. Which are in fact compatible with each other, there is
no war raging on which threatens to crush evolution. Nor would
creationism ever be vindicated by such an event.
"But I must here remark that I do not suppose that the process ever
goes on so regularly as presented in the diagram, though in itself
made somewhat irregular, nor that it goes on continuously; it is far
more probably that each form remains for long periods unaltered, and
then again undergoes modification. Nor do I suppose that the most
divergent varieties are invariably preserved: a medium form may often
long endure, and may or may not produce more than one modified
descendant" Darwin 'On the Origin of Species Ch.IV
Have you read Darwin's opus, or do you just read creationist websites
and get quote mines from Gould misinterpreting them to be a dissent
from evolution?
Paul Ciszek
In article <73f076e1-4098-434d...@w7g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>If relative motion is all geocentrists want, they should forget
>Einstein, and stick with Galileo, who discovered it. Or Newton, who
>applied it to the cosmos.
In Newton's physics, one inertial reference frame is as good as another,
but an object will only follow a curved path if a force is applied to it.
In the geocentric model, everything in the universe except the Earth goes
whipping around in a circle every 24 hours; this requires either immense
forces that increase with distance away from Earth, or that one abandon
the idea that the geocentric reference frame is inertial.
>Because Einstein's theories, both special
>and general, apply serious limitations to the Universe if Earth is
>assumed to be the only unmoving object in it. But another way of
>saying "all motiion is relative" is to say "all objects are in
>motion", and that includes the Earth. Geocentrism is just another
>case of people cherry-picking what they want to hear and ignoring the
>rest.
General relativity complicates the concept of an "inertial reference
frame" by stating that gravity and acceleration are equivalent, but that
doesn't get you off the hook. In order to go around the Earth every 24
hours, Alpha Centauri would have to be travelling at nearly 10,000 times
the speed of light relative to Earth, and I don't think general relativity
allows that any more than special relativity does. And on top of that,
everything in the geocentric universe moves around in an ellipse 2AU across
every year superimposed on that blindingly fast motion--a less extreme
motion, but just as much in violation of Newtonian OR Relativistic physics.
--
Please reply to: | "Evolution is a theory that accounts
pciszek at panix dot com | for variety, not superiority."
Autoreply has been disabled | -- Joan Pontius
Ernest Major
<20249b57-f237-4ecd...@f31g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
Nathan Levesque <nathanm...@gmail.com> writes
falsehoods, rather than lies.
--
alias Ernest Major
chris thompson
> I presume you copied this text from your existing original as per:http://dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/creationism/message/19288http://dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/creation_evolution_debate/message/1...
>
> but I like it so much I would like to see it in the archive.
I would also.
Seconded.
Chris
PS: Another PotM contender would surely be an explanation of the depth
at which we find fossils and a critique of the radiometric dating
systems used to determine their ages. Yet a third PotM contender would
be why non-radiometric dating systems like ice cores and
dendrochronology agree with the mainstream scientific view, rather
than the creationist view. Get cracking, Randy!
>
> On Mar 6, 8:25 pm, Randy C <randyec...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > T Pagano :
> > > The fossil record is in complete accord with the
> > > creationist model...
>
> > Hardly.
>
> > Here's what the fossil record should look like if Biblical creationism
> > were true.
>
> > 1. In the very lowest strata we should see no fossils at
> > all. This is because, according to the Bible, all life
> > originally existed in the Garden of Eden and nothing
> > died there.
>
> > 2. In the next levels of strata, we should see a fairly
> > constant rate of fossils or a gradually growing rate
> > of fossils. This would reflect the time after the Fall
> > as life progressed all over the Earth. These strata
> > should have fossils of all types of organisms, both
> > bacteria and larger more complex organisms because
> > all of them coexisted. We should see more mobile
> > species such as horses at the bottom of the fossil
> > record throughout most of the world because those
> > species would be able to migrate to places far
> > away from the Garden of Eden more quickly than
> > less mobile species. In fact we should be able to
> > use this layer of strata to help discover the location
> > of the Garden of Eden. The closer that any particular
> > rocks are to the original location of the Garden of
> > Eden, the earlier fossils should appear. (It should
> > take species longer to get far away from the Garden
> > and die than it should be for species to die close to
> > the Garden.)
>
> > 3. At some point as we move up through the strata
> > we should see a sudden massive intrusion of fossils.
> > This would represent the 40 days and 40 nights of the
> > flood. This layer should also include archaeological
> > artifacts such as tools because humans existed and
> > would not have escaped with their tools. This should
> > be present because of the large number of organisms
> > (nearly every living creature on Earth) that died suddenly
> > under conditions ideal for fossilization. (A flood is the
> > very best environment for preserving fossils.) We should
> > be able to show that all of these fossils are in the same
> > strata all over the world.
>
> > 4. Immediately above this sudden intrusion of fossils,
> > we should see a thin layer of marine fossils. This would
> > represent the year when, according to the Bible, the Earth
> > was covered with water. This layer of fossils should be
> > present everywhere since the flood was global in nature.
>
> > 5. As we move up beyond this point in the strata, we
> > should see a fossil gap; the size of the gap should vary
> > depending on the geographical distance that a particular
> > rock formation is from Mount Ararat - the final resting
> > place of the Ark according to the Bible. As was the case
> > immediately after the Fall, it would take some time for slow
> > moving organisms to get very far away from where the Ark
> > came to rest.
>
> > 6. This pattern should exist all over the World.
>
> > In fact, of course, it exists nowhere on Earth.
>
> > Creationism --> totally falsified by the fossil record.
chris thompson
You used the word "insane". That word carries some serious baggage.
There are a lot of people out there who are not clinically insane but
who have issues dealing with some aspect of reality. I am not trying
to pick a fight, but as someone battling not only my own mental
illness but that of a loved one or two, I suggest you take extreme
caution in labeling anyone as "insane".
Chris
Friar Broccoli
.
I'm not really sure how I should describe Tony then. He's clearly not
stupid, and "extremely weird" falls well short of the mark he has set.
Friar Broccoli
> I don't remember how it
> was established, but I believe it is accepted among psychologists that
> the sense of knowing is completely detached from any validating
> mechanism.
After thinking about it I am fairly certain the above statement by me
is false.
My reference was a case of brain damage where an otherwise sane
appearing individual was convinced he knew everything (including for
example other people's thoughts), even when faced with unambiguous
evidence that he did not. Since most people don't act like that, this
story is evidence that for most people "knowing" is subject to some
kind of validation process.
T Pagano
The short version is this: Harshman fails to explain stasis in the
fossil record and doesn't produce one shred of unambigous evidence of
progressive, transformational biological change ANYTIME or ANYWHERE
during the Earth's existence.
On Mon, 07 Mar 2011 08:30:58 -0800, John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>T Pagano wrote:
>> On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 19:05:38 -0800 (PST), Nathan Levesque
>> <nathanm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Spoiler alert: it's not only possible, it's certain.
>
>>> When will people tire of lying about the fossil record? We see
>>> exactly what we would expect to see if evolution is true, which it is.
>>
>> The late Stephen J Gould and his camp of naturalists have honestly
>> admitted since the 1970s that two of the undeniable characteristics of
>> the fossil record is "sudden appearance" and "stasis." Stasis
>> contradicts darwin's gradualistic explanation for the creation of
>> biological diversity. Gould was not alone in recognizing that stasis
>> could not be ignored if darwinism was to be considered science rather
>> than a protected religion. This resulted in the famous Gould-Eldredge
>> paper proposing Punc-Eq published in the 70s.
>
>....which I strongly suspect Tony has never read.
Read secondary sources quoting it.
> If Tony understood
>stasis at all he would realize that it offers him no support.
Stasis is corroborative of Special Creation and contradicts the Ultra
gradualism espoused by both Darwin and his modern age priest Dawkins.
I'd say that's pretty good support for Special Creation.
> Supposing
>that stasis is a widespread phenomenon (and I for one don't think the
>published evidence is adequate), what does it mean?
Darwin claimed poverty of the fossil record in 1859 but Gould didn't
claim it in 1970. In Niles Eldredge's 1995 "Reinventing Darwin" he
restates the dispute with Darwin's gradualism (defended by Dawkins)
sparked by the "rule of stasis.". In Eldredge's 2000, "The Triumph of
Evolution and The Failure of Creationism" he still did not shy away
from the claim that stasis was taken to be a fundamental pattern in
the fossil record. In fact some paleontologists state explicitly that
the fossil record is more than adequate for anwering questions in
geology and biology.
Stasis is certainly consistent with what we know about the living
world. Natural selection, Haldane's Dilemma, genetic error correction
mechanisms and the redundancy of the code all conserve what exists and
highly attenuate change. These are observable properties which would
predict "Stasis" and not the ubiquitious transformism predicted by
Darwin.
>First, it doesn't
>contradict gradualism, at least not Darwin's version; to imagine so is
>to confuse time scales.
Nonsense. Darwin saw one species blending gradualistically into the
next as biological novelty emerged and developed to maturity. He saw
what was required of naturalistic processes----continuity-----and as
such saw no importance in the concept of species which was merely a
point along an unbroken continuum.
The lengthy time scales required to transform a dinosaur arm into an
avian wing gradualistically makes the probability of capturing novel
developing structures more likely not less likely. Yet all that is
found in the record is the sudden appearance of fully formed, mature
structures which remain substantially the same for millions of years.
> Even under PE, change happens through ordinary
>mutation and natural selection, over many generations. It's merely that
>the episodes of change, lasting perhaps 10,000-100,000 years each, are
>brief compared to the lifetime of a species, lasting perhaps several
>million years.
The problem is that----somehow----each and every spurt of
transformational change, explaining all of biological diversity, was
always perfectly coordinated to avoid capture in the fossil record.
Does a dinosaur forearm transform into an avian wing in 10,000 years?
Not likely.
Elsberry's best evidence of transformational change from his now
defunct Transitional Challenge was the change of a foram shell from
less spherical to more spherical. It took 15 million years. Nothing
new was created; it was the minor change of an EXISTING structure. Yet
it was captured. Yet none of the much more significant structural
changes that should have taken at least this long or longer were NEVER
captured.
To believe in gradualistic transformations in the face of stasis is
religion not science.
>
>Second, it offers no support for creationism. Stasis is a phenomenon
>occuring with species,
I agreee. Species is the only classification level referring to
actual populations of real creatures. We know that the fixity of
species is a fact; a fact without exception in the living world. It
is consistent with stasis because species never become some other kind
of creature with different structures, systems and organs. Now I
don't doubt that populations (like Cichlids) split into separated
breeding populations however there is no evidence that this results in
progressive transformational change.
Yet the fixity of species and stasis is completely INCONSISTENT with
Darwin's conception: that is, from the beginning of life the creation
of biological diveristy is explained by predecessors blending
seemlessly and gradualistically with its descendants along a linear
path. There may be many paths but each path is a linear and
continuous one. Continuity is an unbreachable requirement of
naturalistic processes.
>and punctuation (what Tony calls "sudden
>appearance") occurs between closely related species.
Let's get the terms correctly. Gould used the term "sudden
appearance" to refer to a specific diagnostic characteristic of
fossils as found in the stratigraphic layers: that is, fossil species
do not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors;
it appears all at once and "fully formed."
Gould used the term "punctuated" to refer to the conjectured rate at
which some conjectured founder population would undergo some
conjectured transformational change. A whole lote of conjecturin'
goin' on and not much empirical science.
> If that records
>creation, then species are created one at a time over many millions of
>years, generally geographically close to a quite similar prior species.
Problem is that this describes a series discrete entities with no
intervening connection between them required of any naturalistic
process. Naturalistic process are by necessity continuous processes.
And all Linnaeus-like classification schemes show this isolated
nesting with no connection between the discrete groupings.
Hopeful monsters are ruled out by the genetic mechanisms and the ultra
gradualism espoused by Darwin and Dawkins is required. The fossil
record disconfirms this gradualism. Even if we argue with Gould and
Eldredge that transformational change occurred via "punctuated"
episodes in between lengthy periods of stasis this does not explain
the fossil record NEVER capturing any genuinely transformational
change.
Then time becomes the enemy. If transformational change ONLY occurs
in punctuated fits separated by long periods of stasis how did every
structure, system, organ and creature arise in only 1 billion years?
If the periods of stasis take up, say, 50 percent of the time
available this leaves only 500 million years to create every species
that ever existed. If it took 15 million years for Elsberry's foram
shells to become more spherical from less spherical ones Punc Eq isn't
much of an improvement.
>If this is creation, then kinds can be identified with species, and
>there are many millions of kinds. Which would result in a very crowded
>ark.
First speciation is not synonymous with transformational change. Punc
Eq hypothesized that speciation in a small founder population was an
initial condition which might lead to relatively rapid
transformational change. Lenski's experiment creates numerous founder
populations of E coli and cross breeds them with no evidence of
transformational change. NEVER.
It is doubtful that "kinds" is equivalent to species. And looking
only at dog breeders work over 6000 years we have an inkling of the
tremendous variability programmed into the "kind." As such the Ark
was crowded but not as crowded as Harshman hopes.
>Also, since new species have appeared through natural processes in
>historical times, these processes must be assumed not to have operated
>in the past.
Notwithstanding the guess made by Punc Eq, there is no observational
evidence whatsoever that speciation results in or even leads to
transformational change.
>Third, of course all this requires that the fossil record be interpreted
>outside the context of a global flood. To Tony, there can be no such
>pattern as sudden appearance or stasis in the fossil record, because
>it's all the result of a single event. This entire discussion, to him,
>must be meaningless.
Let's remember that atheist stratigraphic dating and fossil dating are
hopelessly circular and a self fulling prophecy. Atheists date so
called "index" fossils by fiat. The "index fossils" date the
stratigraphic layers and then once the layers are dated all the other
"non index" fossils are dated by the layers within which they are
contained. Problems enter in when fossils and the stratigraphic
layers themselves are found out of sequence. And these problems ane
not rare. There are numerous anomolies which are left unexplained by
their uniformitarian presumptions.
A well known fact which is reproducible in the laboratory is that
horizontal sedimentary layers form rapidly and simultaneously in the
direction of the flow of sediment laden waters. Creationism proposes
that kinds were created fully formed in the Beginning and the Noahic
Flood could cause the rapid formation of numerous horizontal layers in
the direction of sediment laden flow throughout the world. How all
the fully formed creatures end up in the rapidly formed layers is a
function of fluid dynamics and not eons of time. All of the
contradictions and anomolies which plague the atheist model cause
virtually no problems for the creationist models or the Noahic Flood
Model.
>Fourth, as has been pointed out already, Tony rejects all methods that
>enable us to learn anything about the past. So this discussion must be
>doubly meaningless.
The only method that modern secularists have to penetrate the
unobservable prehistorical events is verificationism which Hume showed
to be impotent to make theories more probable. Yet this is precisely
how atheists use corroborative evidence. And the atheist presumption
of uniformitariansim used to penetrate the unobservable past has been
wrong so often and resulted in so many contradictions in so many
disciplines as to defy psychological explanation for its continued use
by atheists.
>
>> This battle between the Gouldian Naturalists and the Dawkinsian
>> Gradualists has gone on unabated behind the scenes for 40 years
>> specifically because of (but hardly limited to) stasis of the fossil
>> record which contradicts darwin's gradualistic process.
>
>None of that has anything to do with the argument between Gould and
>Dawkins, which is really about the proper units of selection.
Eldredge says otherwise in his 2000, "Reinventing Dawin."
>
>> Because most of the atheists in the forum haven't bothered to read
>> Darwin's opus they are unaware that Darwin was well aware of "stasis"
>> in 1859 and he knew that it was a death blow to his theory. In 1859
>> Darwin attributed "stasis" to be an artifact resulting from the
>> poverty of fossil record.
>
>As usual, Tony is misreading the relevant parts of the Origin. The bit
>he's misremembering actually discusses the absence of fossils preceding
>the Cambrian (which he calls the Silurian). Of course we now have a
>great many Precambrian fossils, so this was actually a successful
>prediction of Darwin's.
I direct Harshman's attention to Darwin's, "The Origin of Species,"
Chapter VI, Section- "On the Absence or Rarity of Transitional
Varieties."
[BEGIN DARWIN QOTOE]
"But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have
exited, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the
crust of the earth? It will be more convenient to discuss this
question in the chapter on the Imperfection of the Geological Record;
and I will here only state that I believe the answer mainly lies in
the record being incomparably less perfect than is generally
supposed."
>Pro forma, I will also note that Tony's equation of evolution with
>atheism is still going strong.
If you watch Dawkins's and Provine's interviews in Ben Stein's
"Expelled" both make the connection vigorously, explicitly and
unreservedly.
So far Harshman has been unwilling to offer his religious leanings. We
have discovered in this forum over the last several years that
virtually every evolutionist here is either an outright atheist (like
snex and liar Flank) or a closet atheist clothed in christian
accoutrements like Okimoto. The fact that Harshman won't reveal his
leanings speaks for itself.
>> However, since the late 1900s the fossil
>> record is voluminous and "stasis" still stands as one of the
>> unexplained contradictions to neoDarwinism.
>
>Oddly enough, among those voluminous discoveries has been a great number
>of transitional fossils.
To atheists all fossils are "transitional." However, they are only
transitional in the sense that they can be "conceived" to be in some
lineal connection with others not that they are in any unmistakeable
state of actual transition. In other words, by transitional it is
not meant that some inidividual is found with structures in some state
of development.
>
>> The solution for atheists has been to ignore contradictory evidence.
>> So much so that Levesque was apparently unaware of it. Talk about
>> sticking one's head in the sand. . .
>
>I would be happy to discuss the "contradictory" evidence if you ever
>decide to stop preening and engage in serious discussion of anything.
But you've done nothing but explain it away throughout this whole
post.
Regards,
T Pagano
Bruce Stephens
[...]
> To atheists all fossils are "transitional." However, they are only
> transitional in the sense that they can be "conceived" to be in some
> lineal connection with others not that they are in any unmistakeable
> state of actual transition. In other words, by transitional it is
> not meant that some inidividual is found with structures in some state
> of development.
Is that what you mean by transitional? "An individual is found with
structures in some state of development"?
[...]
John S. Wilkins
Much is explained :-)
--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
John S. Wilkins
Michael Siemon
jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> raven1 <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 11:49:34 -0800 (PST), James Beck
> > <jdbec...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >What is paganist evolution?
> >
> > Thegodsdiddit.
>
> Ruralgodsdidit, technically.
I rather thought that the etymology in this case referred back to
Pagano, not pagans in general...
jillery
> > distinguish between "you're wrong" and "you're lying"?
>
> It is my impression that a significant fraction of the population make
> this distinction based on how strongly they disagree with the
> statement made by another person, and perhaps also on how much they
> (dis)like the other person. Perhaps Tony uses the same metric, not
> really sure.
I keep asking about Tony, and you keep referring to a population. Do
you believe most of the posters to TO are insane? Keep in mind this
includes you :)
John Harshman
> FOR THOSE THAT WISH TO SAVE TIME READING THIS LENGTHY POST:
> The short version is this: Harshman fails to explain stasis in the
> fossil record and doesn't produce one shred of unambigous evidence of
> progressive, transformational biological change ANYTIME or ANYWHERE
> during the Earth's existence.
Can't, since you won't define the term, and you won't accept evidence as
evidence. Now, if you suppose that progressive, transformational change
would be required to produce a human from something rather like a chimp,
I have presented very good evidence that this transformation did in fact
happen, since humans and chimps are unambiguously descended from a
common ancestor. If you recall, I gave you evidence of that fact, whic
you ignored.
> On Mon, 07 Mar 2011 08:30:58 -0800, John Harshman
> <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> T Pagano wrote:
>>> On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 19:05:38 -0800 (PST), Nathan Levesque
>>> <nathanm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Spoiler alert: it's not only possible, it's certain.
>>
>>>> When will people tire of lying about the fossil record? We see
>>>> exactly what we would expect to see if evolution is true, which it is.
>>> The late Stephen J Gould and his camp of naturalists have honestly
>>> admitted since the 1970s that two of the undeniable characteristics of
>>> the fossil record is "sudden appearance" and "stasis." Stasis
>>> contradicts darwin's gradualistic explanation for the creation of
>>> biological diversity. Gould was not alone in recognizing that stasis
>>> could not be ignored if darwinism was to be considered science rather
>>> than a protected religion. This resulted in the famous Gould-Eldredge
>>> paper proposing Punc-Eq published in the 70s.
>> ....which I strongly suspect Tony has never read.
>
> Read secondary sources quoting it.
My supposition is confirmed.
>> If Tony understood
>> stasis at all he would realize that it offers him no support.
>
> Stasis is corroborative of Special Creation and contradicts the Ultra
> gradualism espoused by both Darwin and his modern age priest Dawkins.
> I'd say that's pretty good support for Special Creation.
So you're a verificationist now? How odd. Again, you know nothing.
>> Supposing
>> that stasis is a widespread phenomenon (and I for one don't think the
>> published evidence is adequate), what does it mean?
>
> Darwin claimed poverty of the fossil record in 1859 but Gould didn't
> claim it in 1970.
It was 1972, but I wouldn't expect anyone who hasn't read the paper to
know that. It's available on the web, you know.
http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/classictexts/eldredge.asp
> In Niles Eldredge's 1995 "Reinventing Darwin" he
> restates the dispute with Darwin's gradualism (defended by Dawkins)
> sparked by the "rule of stasis.". In Eldredge's 2000, "The Triumph of
> Evolution and The Failure of Creationism" he still did not shy away
> from the claim that stasis was taken to be a fundamental pattern in
> the fossil record.
None of which is relevant to your claim.
> In fact some paleontologists state explicitly that
> the fossil record is more than adequate for anwering questions in
> geology and biology.
You didn't even bother to cite the reference you were quote-mining that
time, but I'm pretty sure I know what it is. You probably haven't read
that one either, but you are certainly misunderstanding it.
> Stasis is certainly consistent with what we know about the living
> world. Natural selection, Haldane's Dilemma, genetic error correction
> mechanisms and the redundancy of the code all conserve what exists and
> highly attenuate change. These are observable properties which would
> predict "Stasis" and not the ubiquitious transformism predicted by
> Darwin.
These are subjects you know nothing about. Have you ever read anything
beyond a few creationist web sites?
>> First, it doesn't
>> contradict gradualism, at least not Darwin's version; to imagine so is
>> to confuse time scales.
>
> Nonsense. Darwin saw one species blending gradualistically into the
> next as biological novelty emerged and developed to maturity. He saw
> what was required of naturalistic processes----continuity-----and as
> such saw no importance in the concept of species which was merely a
> point along an unbroken continuum.
>
> The lengthy time scales required to transform a dinosaur arm into an
> avian wing gradualistically makes the probability of capturing novel
> developing structures more likely not less likely. Yet all that is
> found in the record is the sudden appearance of fully formed, mature
> structures which remain substantially the same for millions of years.
Not actually true. In fact we have an excellent record of intermediates
between primitive dinosaurs and modern birds. Nor does stasis have
anything to do with such long-term evolution, as you might know if you
had ever read Eldredge and Gould 1972, or even anything written by
either author.
>> Even under PE, change happens through ordinary
>> mutation and natural selection, over many generations. It's merely that
>> the episodes of change, lasting perhaps 10,000-100,000 years each, are
>> brief compared to the lifetime of a species, lasting perhaps several
>> million years.
>
> The problem is that----somehow----each and every spurt of
> transformational change, explaining all of biological diversity, was
> always perfectly coordinated to avoid capture in the fossil record.
> Does a dinosaur forearm transform into an avian wing in 10,000 years?
> Not likely.
No, not likely at all. That's why we see a great many intermediates.
Archaeopteryx is a fine example, nearly smack dab in the middle. It has
flight feathers, which is the only way we can tell it's a wing.
Otherwise, it's a typical (though unusually long) theropod forelimb,
lacking all the specialized features of birds.
> Elsberry's best evidence of transformational change from his now
> defunct Transitional Challenge was the change of a foram shell from
> less spherical to more spherical. It took 15 million years. Nothing
> new was created; it was the minor change of an EXISTING structure. Yet
> it was captured. Yet none of the much more significant structural
> changes that should have taken at least this long or longer were NEVER
> captured.
I think you confused yourself in that last sentence. You're wrong even
with the double negatives. Some changes were captured, but others
weren't. Now what is seldom captured is a fine-scaled, complete series
of intermediates. The fossil record really isn't good enough for that
except in rare cases. Stasis is much easier to demonstrate than gradual
change. And note that gradual change taking up to 100,000 years,
absurdly slow in evolutionary terms, would generally show up as
instantaneous in the fossil record.
> To believe in gradualistic transformations in the face of stasis is
> religion not science.
How would you know? You have no idea what stasis means.
>> Second, it offers no support for creationism. Stasis is a phenomenon
>> occuring with species,
>
> I agreee. Species is the only classification level referring to
> actual populations of real creatures. We know that the fixity of
> species is a fact; a fact without exception in the living world.
Except, of course, for the many exceptions. We have seen speciation
within historical times. And we can reliably infer millions more based
on the overwhelming evidence for common descent.
> It
> is consistent with stasis because species never become some other kind
> of creature with different structures, systems and organs. Now I
> don't doubt that populations (like Cichlids) split into separated
> breeding populations however there is no evidence that this results in
> progressive transformational change.
Those are species, you know. So species aren't fixed. You seem ignorant
even of your own claims.
> Yet the fixity of species and stasis is completely INCONSISTENT with
> Darwin's conception: that is, from the beginning of life the creation
> of biological diveristy is explained by predecessors blending
> seemlessly and gradualistically with its descendants along a linear
> path. There may be many paths but each path is a linear and
> continuous one. Continuity is an unbreachable requirement of
> naturalistic processes.
Stasis isn't a claim about the fixity of species. It's a claim that
major change is episodic, which Darwin himself understood. Continuity
isn't really a requirement of all naturalistic processes -- easy enough
to see at the quantum level -- but that's not very relevant to biology.
What's relevant is that for natural selection to exert major influence
on evolution, individual steps must be fairly small. But of course Gould
didn't dispute that, and evolution under PE is not saltatory; it
involves ordinary natural selection and small steps. If you had read any
of Gould you would know that.
>> and punctuation (what Tony calls "sudden
>> appearance") occurs between closely related species.
>
> Let's get the terms correctly. Gould used the term "sudden
> appearance" to refer to a specific diagnostic characteristic of
> fossils as found in the stratigraphic layers: that is, fossil species
> do not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors;
> it appears all at once and "fully formed."
I don't recall Gould using the term at all.
> Gould used the term "punctuated" to refer to the conjectured rate at
> which some conjectured founder population would undergo some
> conjectured transformational change. A whole lote of conjecturin'
> goin' on and not much empirical science.
The use of "conjectured" is all yours. You can't attack Gould for it.
>> If that records
>> creation, then species are created one at a time over many millions of
>> years, generally geographically close to a quite similar prior species.
>
> Problem is that this describes a series discrete entities with no
> intervening connection between them required of any naturalistic
> process. Naturalistic process are by necessity continuous processes.
> And all Linnaeus-like classification schemes show this isolated
> nesting with no connection between the discrete groupings.
I see you don't try to address the central point about millions of years
and one at a time. Discontinuities (which are by no means universal
between closely related species) are the product of the extinction of
intermediates and the divergence of living, reproductively isolated
populations. It's exactly what we expect from evolution, and exactly
what Darwin expected. The continuity is temporal and shouldn't be
expected in the present. There are in fact many fossils that are
difficult to assign to groups because they are so intermediate.
> Hopeful monsters are ruled out by the genetic mechanisms and the ultra
> gradualism espoused by Darwin and Dawkins is required. The fossil
> record disconfirms this gradualism. Even if we argue with Gould and
> Eldredge that transformational change occurred via "punctuated"
> episodes in between lengthy periods of stasis this does not explain
> the fossil record NEVER capturing any genuinely transformational
> change.
You really have no understanding of what Eldredge and Gould claimed or
of the nature of the fossil record. Periods as short as 10-100,000 years
are seldom detectable. There's plenty of time for ordinary, small-step
selection. The fossil record has holes at many scales, both of time and
space. And of course the record captures transformation change, i.e.
intermediate fossils. What we can't expect is some kind of continuous
movie of any major evolutionary steps. We expect what we see, occasional
snapshots of the process. And that's good enough to show you're wrong,
even if we had no other evidence. (And we do.)
> Then time becomes the enemy. If transformational change ONLY occurs
> in punctuated fits separated by long periods of stasis how did every
> structure, system, organ and creature arise in only 1 billion years?
> If the periods of stasis take up, say, 50 percent of the time
> available this leaves only 500 million years to create every species
> that ever existed. If it took 15 million years for Elsberry's foram
> shells to become more spherical from less spherical ones Punc Eq isn't
> much of an improvement.
Actually, the evolutionary rates you can infer from the fossil record
are orders of magnitude slower than the rates you can observe in living
species. I suspect that may be because there are many periods of stasis
that are unnoticed in even the most fine-grained transitions.
>> If this is creation, then kinds can be identified with species, and
>> there are many millions of kinds. Which would result in a very crowded
>> ark.
>
> First speciation is not synonymous with transformational change.
Then your whole idea of the fixity of species, and species as kinds is
bankrupt.
> Punc
> Eq hypothesized that speciation in a small founder population was an
> initial condition which might lead to relatively rapid
> transformational change. Lenski's experiment creates numerous founder
> populations of E coli and cross breeds them with no evidence of
> transformational change. NEVER.
All caps is not a guarantor of truth. Hard to say whether Lenski
observed transformational change until you tell us how to recognize it.
Apparently new enzymes don't count.
> It is doubtful that "kinds" is equivalent to species. And looking
> only at dog breeders work over 6000 years we have an inkling of the
> tremendous variability programmed into the "kind." As such the Ark
> was crowded but not as crowded as Harshman hopes.
Ah, so species aren't fixed after all. Stasis, then, being a phenomenon
about species, has no relevance to transformation in the sense you are
speaking of. The punctuation Gould and Eldredge were talking about is
completely below your radar. Their chief example (which you would know
if you had read their paper) is the addition of an extra row of ocelli
in the compound eyes of Phacops trilobites. Not the sort of thing you're
interested in at all.
If you were capable of understanding any of this, you would be mightily
embarrassed right now.
>> Also, since new species have appeared through natural processes in
>> historical times, these processes must be assumed not to have operated
>> in the past.
>
> Notwithstanding the guess made by Punc Eq, there is no observational
> evidence whatsoever that speciation results in or even leads to
> transformational change.
Nobody ever claimed it did, in the sense you seem to mean it. Though
that's hard to tell, because your ideas of what "transformational" means
are hopelessly confused.
>> Third, of course all this requires that the fossil record be interpreted
>> outside the context of a global flood. To Tony, there can be no such
>> pattern as sudden appearance or stasis in the fossil record, because
>> it's all the result of a single event. This entire discussion, to him,
>> must be meaningless.
>
> Let's remember that atheist stratigraphic dating and fossil dating are
> hopelessly circular and a self fulling prophecy. Atheists date so
> called "index" fossils by fiat. The "index fossils" date the
> stratigraphic layers and then once the layers are dated all the other
> "non index" fossils are dated by the layers within which they are
> contained. Problems enter in when fossils and the stratigraphic
> layers themselves are found out of sequence. And these problems ane
> not rare. There are numerous anomolies which are left unexplained by
> their uniformitarian presumptions.
All you're doing here is telling me that I'm right. The whole idea of
sudden appearance and stasis rests on our ability to apply relative
dates to strata. If we can't, it's all illusion. Your creationist
reflexes serve you ill.
But of course none of this is circular. Rocks are dated by index fossils
only because prior stratigraphic work has established, by other means,
that the said fossils fall within a narrow stratigraphic range. This is
not the time for a course on stratigraphy, but you should at least look
the word up. And now days we can put absolute dates into the record
using radiometric methods.
> A well known fact which is reproducible in the laboratory is that
> horizontal sedimentary layers form rapidly and simultaneously in the
> direction of the flow of sediment laden waters.
Creationist bafflegab, I'm afraid.
> Creationism proposes
> that kinds were created fully formed in the Beginning and the Noahic
> Flood could cause the rapid formation of numerous horizontal layers in
> the direction of sediment laden flow throughout the world.
Yes. If you knew any sedimentology, you would know this is nonsense.
> How all
> the fully formed creatures end up in the rapidly formed layers is a
> function of fluid dynamics and not eons of time.
Completely absurd. There are Cambrian and modern organisms with similar
shapes and sizes, but the Cambrian ones are found in Cambrian deposits,
while the modern ones are found in Recent deposits. Fossils are not
sorted by size and shape.
> All of the
> contradictions and anomolies which plague the atheist model cause
> virtually no problems for the creationist models or the Noahic Flood
> Model.
That's because you're very good at ignoring contradictions and waving
your hands dramatically at a couple of buzzwords.
>> Fourth, as has been pointed out already, Tony rejects all methods that
>> enable us to learn anything about the past. So this discussion must be
>> doubly meaningless.
>
> The only method that modern secularists have to penetrate the
> unobservable prehistorical events is verificationism which Hume showed
> to be impotent to make theories more probable. Yet this is precisely
> how atheists use corroborative evidence. And the atheist presumption
> of uniformitariansim used to penetrate the unobservable past has been
> wrong so often and resulted in so many contradictions in so many
> disciplines as to defy psychological explanation for its continued use
> by atheists.
Like I said: Tony rejects all methods that enable us to learn anything
about the past.
>>> This battle between the Gouldian Naturalists and the Dawkinsian
>>> Gradualists has gone on unabated behind the scenes for 40 years
>>> specifically because of (but hardly limited to) stasis of the fossil
>>> record which contradicts darwin's gradualistic process.
>> None of that has anything to do with the argument between Gould and
>> Dawkins, which is really about the proper units of selection.
>
> Eldredge says otherwise in his 2000, "Reinventing Dawin."
Quote.
>>> Because most of the atheists in the forum haven't bothered to read
>>> Darwin's opus they are unaware that Darwin was well aware of "stasis"
>>> in 1859 and he knew that it was a death blow to his theory. In 1859
>>> Darwin attributed "stasis" to be an artifact resulting from the
>>> poverty of fossil record.
>> As usual, Tony is misreading the relevant parts of the Origin. The bit
>> he's misremembering actually discusses the absence of fossils preceding
>> the Cambrian (which he calls the Silurian). Of course we now have a
>> great many Precambrian fossils, so this was actually a successful
>> prediction of Darwin's.
>
> I direct Harshman's attention to Darwin's, "The Origin of Species,"
> Chapter VI, Section- "On the Absence or Rarity of Transitional
> Varieties."
>
> [BEGIN DARWIN QOTOE]
> "But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have
> exited, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the
> crust of the earth? It will be more convenient to discuss this
> question in the chapter on the Imperfection of the Geological Record;
> and I will here only state that I believe the answer mainly lies in
> the record being incomparably less perfect than is generally
> supposed."
All true. Note that he doesn't say this will eventually be repaired. And
it hasn't been, as should be expected.
>> Pro forma, I will also note that Tony's equation of evolution with
>> atheism is still going strong.
>
> If you watch Dawkins's and Provine's interviews in Ben Stein's
> "Expelled" both make the connection vigorously, explicitly and
> unreservedly.
Thankfully, I have never watched Expelled. The fact that many
evolutionary biologists are atheists doesn't allow you to equate the
two, since many other evolutionary biologists are not.
> So far Harshman has been unwilling to offer his religious leanings.
Nonsense. I have freely offered them on many occasions. I have none.
> We
> have discovered in this forum over the last several years that
> virtually every evolutionist here is either an outright atheist (like
> snex and liar Flank) or a closet atheist clothed in christian
> accoutrements like Okimoto. The fact that Harshman won't reveal his
> leanings speaks for itself.
That fact that Tony hallucinates even this speaks for itself. Anyway,
you seem to have an unusual description of "atheist" as "anyone who
disagrees with you". If anyone who disagrees with you claims not to be
an atheist, well, they must be lying. There's a conclusion that's
impervious to evidence.
>>> However, since the late 1900s the fossil
>>> record is voluminous and "stasis" still stands as one of the
>>> unexplained contradictions to neoDarwinism.
>> Oddly enough, among those voluminous discoveries has been a great number
>> of transitional fossils.
>
> To atheists all fossils are "transitional." However, they are only
> transitional in the sense that they can be "conceived" to be in some
> lineal connection with others not that they are in any unmistakeable
> state of actual transition. In other words, by transitional it is
> not meant that some inidividual is found with structures in some state
> of development.
What does "transitional" mean? Archaeopteryx has many structures
(including the wings you like to talk about) that are in an intermediate
state of development.
>>> The solution for atheists has been to ignore contradictory evidence.
>>> So much so that Levesque was apparently unaware of it. Talk about
>>> sticking one's head in the sand. . .
>> I would be happy to discuss the "contradictory" evidence if you ever
>> decide to stop preening and engage in serious discussion of anything.
>
> But you've done nothing but explain it away throughout this whole
> post.
Explain what away? You have presented no evidence. And you haven't
addressed your double denial of any conceivable evidence. Layer one: the
history of life as recorded in the fossil record isn't a history at all,
just a single flood lasting a few hundred days. Layer two: we have no
means of learning anything about the past. Without peeling away those
layers, how can we discuss anything at all?
John Harshman
I'm guessing even Tony means more than that. I think he left out a word,
perhaps "intermediate" between "some" and "state".
John S. Wilkins
jillery
> In article <73f076e1-4098-434d-9d76-c6e74c9b7...@w7g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
>
> jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >If relative motion is all geocentrists want, they should forget
> >Einstein, and stick with Galileo, who discovered it. Or Newton, who
> >applied it to the cosmos.
>
> In Newton's physics, one inertial reference frame is as good as another,
> but an object will only follow a curved path if a force is applied to it.
Galileo described an experiment using a smoothly moving ship moving
perpendicular and in front of an observer on the shore. A sailor is
on the top of the mast, and drops a heavy object onto the deck. From
the sailor's POV the heavy objects drops almost straight down. From
the POV of the observer on the shore, the heavy object drops on a
curved path (the sum of constant forward motion and accelerating
downward motion).
> In the geocentric model, everything in the universe except the Earth goes
> whipping around in a circle every 24 hours; this requires either immense
> forces that increase with distance away from Earth, or that one abandon
> the idea that the geocentric reference frame is inertial.
>
> >Because Einstein's theories, both special
> >and general, apply serious limitations to the Universe if Earth is
> >assumed to be the only unmoving object in it. But another way of
> >saying "all motiion is relative" is to say "all objects are in
> >motion", and that includes the Earth. Geocentrism is just another
> >case of people cherry-picking what they want to hear and ignoring the
> >rest.
>
> General relativity complicates the concept of an "inertial reference
> frame" by stating that gravity and acceleration are equivalent, but that
> doesn't get you off the hook. In order to go around the Earth every 24
> hours, Alpha Centauri would have to be travelling at nearly 10,000 times
> the speed of light relative to Earth, and I don't think general relativity
> allows that any more than special relativity does. And on top of that,
> everything in the geocentric universe moves around in an ellipse 2AU across
> every year superimposed on that blindingly fast motion--a less extreme
> motion, but just as much in violation of Newtonian OR Relativistic physics.
IIUC Newton assumed certain forces spread instantaneously, and time
and space were independent and infinite in both directions. Einstein
tied space to time together and gave the Universe a speed limit.
Geocentrism would have much less problems with Newton and Galileo than
with Einstein.
jillery
Then if it's a distinction without a difference, why bother to make a
point of it?
jillery
I'm not sure how it's any better to think he's insane than to think
he's a liar. Perhaps we both need to come up with some politically
correct euphemisms :)
TomS
<il3kr5$9lq$1...@reader1.panix.com>, Paul Ciszek stated..."
Neptune is at about the right distance. Depending on its position, its
daily path around a stationary earth is a little more or less than one
light-day in length.
--
TomS
<il3kr5$9lq$1...@reader1.panix.com>, Paul Ciszek stated..."
>
>
Neptune is at about the right distance. Depending on its position, its
daily path around a stationary earth is a little more or less than one
light-day in length.
--
Nashton
> On Mar 7, 3:10 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>> Burkhard<b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>> The specific approach I outlined briefly in my post goes back to
>>> Lakatos, and was developed further by my teachers, Stemueller and
>>> Moulines (who also happen, by coincidence, to be/have been staunch
>>> Catholics.)
I am fully aware of the type of "catholics" you're referring to. The
type that profess deep devotion to God and then support abortion to
garner some votes.
>>
>> Wolfgang Stegmueller? I read him as an undergrad. Still have his book.
>
>
> Yep, that would be him - it's where I picked up my structuralist
> leanings.
The cult of personality emerges again. replace one true God, with
another that maybe, holds the answers to the secrets of nature.
>
>
>
>
Burkhard
> On 3/7/11 3:15 PM, Burkhard wrote:
>> On Mar 7, 3:10 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>>> Burkhard<b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>> The specific approach I outlined briefly in my post goes back to
>>>> Lakatos, and was developed further by my teachers, Stemueller and
>>>> Moulines (who also happen, by coincidence, to be/have been staunch
>>>> Catholics.)
>
> I am fully aware of the type of "catholics" you're referring to. The
> type that profess deep devotion to God and then support abortion to
> garner some votes.
Amazing power of mind reading you have there - and the usual written
exemption from the 9th commandment, I gather? Otherwise, feel free to
point out where in his writings on say, oh, set theoretical
reconstruction of Newtonian physics and their transition to relativity,
the analysis of t-theoretical terms or his papers on multi-modal logic,
anything that would conflict with religious precepts, and support for
abortion in principle, is expressed.
Friar Broccoli
.
In my view it is better because Tony is clearly not lying. Lying has
a clear meaning: *intentionally* making a statement you know (or
believe) to be false. Insane, does not have such a clear meaning, so
cannot be clearly misapplied.
Friar Broccoli
I said Tony may be using the same metric used by many people in the
population. I don't believe most posters on TO use this metric
although some of the sloppy thinkers here clearly do. Using an
inappropriate metric does not render one insane, even if it is one
used by some insane people.
Nashton
> On 08/03/2011 11:35, Nashton wrote:
>> On 3/7/11 3:15 PM, Burkhard wrote:
>>> On Mar 7, 3:10 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>>>> Burkhard<b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>>> The specific approach I outlined briefly in my post goes back to
>>>>> Lakatos, and was developed further by my teachers, Stemueller and
>>>>> Moulines (who also happen, by coincidence, to be/have been staunch
>>>>> Catholics.)
>>
>> I am fully aware of the type of "catholics" you're referring to. The
>> type that profess deep devotion to God and then support abortion to
>> garner some votes.
>
> Amazing power of mind reading you have there - and the usual written
> exemption from the 9th commandment,
Is this the only commandment you are aware of as you seem to repeat it
ad nauseam?
Christians that accept evolution as compatible with Christian doctrine
and theology are the types that interpret the Bible in their own
special, liberal and contemporary way.
I gather? Otherwise, feel free to
> point out where in his writings on say, oh, set theoretical
> reconstruction of Newtonian physics and their transition to relativity,
I'm really impressed. Good attempt at showing off your copying and
pasting skills.
> the analysis of t-theoretical terms or his papers on multi-modal logic,
Multi-modal logic, eh? Now that sounds impressive!
> anything that would conflict with religious precepts, and support for
> abortion in principle, is expressed.
Whatever you say. Perhaps a few days away from this ng?
>
>
>>>>
>>>> Wolfgang Stegmueller? I read him as an undergrad. Still have his book.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yep, that would be him - it's where I picked up my structuralist
>>> leanings.
>>
>> The cult of personality emerges again. replace one true God, with
>> another that maybe, holds the answers to the secrets of nature.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
--
Friar Broccoli
.
Going back first to your root point:
What do you think is the relationship between being able to
distinguish ones own "beliefs" from what one "knows", on the one hand
and being able to distinguish between error and lying, on the other?
Assuming you can demonstrate such a relationship; How would the
failure of that one relationship to vary its output (detection of
lying) in response to a change of input (distinguishing or not between
knowledge and belief) show that the inability to distinguish knowledge
and belief had no other effects?
Burkhard
> On 3/8/11 8:01 AM, Burkhard wrote:
>
> > On 08/03/2011 11:35, Nashton wrote:
> >> On 3/7/11 3:15 PM, Burkhard wrote:
> >>> On Mar 7, 3:10 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> >>>> Burkhard<b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> >>>>> The specific approach I outlined briefly in my post goes back to
> >>>>> Lakatos, and was developed further by my teachers, Stemueller and
> >>>>> Moulines (who also happen, by coincidence, to be/have been staunch
> >>>>> Catholics.)
>
> >> I am fully aware of the type of "catholics" you're referring to. The
> >> type that profess deep devotion to God and then support abortion to
> >> garner some votes.
>
> > Amazing power of mind reading you have there - and the usual written
> > exemption from the 9th commandment,
>
> Is this the only commandment you are aware of as you seem to repeat it
> ad nauseam?
> Christians that accept evolution as compatible with Christian doctrine
> and theology are the types that interpret the Bible in their own
> special, liberal and contemporary way.
The authors I cited are theorist of science, not theologians, and
they have written about the formal structure of empirical theories.
You made a claim about them - back it up or apologies.
chris thompson
I think "delusional" does the job nicely.
Chris
Friar Broccoli
.
OK, I checked the definition, and it exactly describes Tony, so
although I vastly prefer insane, I will try to remember to stick to
delusional for this case.
Nashton
> On Mar 7, 4:22 am, Nashton<n...@na.ca> wrote:
>> On 3/6/11 11:05 PM, Nathan Levesque wrote:
>>
>>>> I can only hope that Ernest Major jumps in to save his buddy Burkhard.
>>
>>> When will people tire of lying about the fossil record? We see
>>> exactly what we would expect to see if evolution is true, which it is.
>>
>> So his interpretation doesn't bode well with yours and that makes him a
>> liar?
>>
>> Let me guess, you're 12 years old, right?
>
>
Calling someone a liar because he's not on the same side of the debate
as you isn't a very fruitful strategy to help bring your point across.
If anything, it's a low blow and is telling about your character more
than anything.
Jack Dominey
> Out-of-position fossils are NOT unusual and the atheist explanations are
> wholly ad hoc.
Really? What about the paleontologist or taphonomist explanations?
> And there are out of sequence stratigraphic layers too
> large to be explained by overthrusts.
Really? You wouldn't happen to be able to name any, would you? Or
explain why geologists have got it wrong?
<snip>
> What we find is not merely "nested" hierarchies but ISOLATED nested
> hierarchies with NOTHING connecting the isolated groupings. Purely
> naturalistic processes prohibit these discontinuities. These
> discontinuities falsify neoDarwinism.
Really? I'm anxious to hear what these disconnected groups are. I've
been under the obviously naive and uneducated impression that most
everything uses the same DNA-to-protein mapping with a couple of
exceptions sufficient only to demonstrate that the mapping is somewhat
arbitrary. I'm sure you must have resources that can correct my
misunderstanding and will gladly point me in the right direction
Or you can decide I'm being disingenuous and dismiss me, leaving any
readers to wonder if you are actually capable of supporting your claims.
Take your pick.
Paul Ciszek
In article <5e4ad31e-bf3d-4c68...@u14g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>,
jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Mar 7, 5:05 pm, nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
>> In article <73f076e1-4098-434d-9d76-c6e74c9b7...@w7g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >If relative motion is all geocentrists want, they should forget
>> >Einstein, and stick with Galileo, who discovered it. Or Newton, who
>> >applied it to the cosmos.
>>
>> In Newton's physics, one inertial reference frame is as good as another,
>> but an object will only follow a curved path if a force is applied to it.
>
>Galileo described an experiment using a smoothly moving ship moving
>perpendicular and in front of an observer on the shore. A sailor is
>on the top of the mast, and drops a heavy object onto the deck. From
>the sailor's POV the heavy objects drops almost straight down. From
>the POV of the observer on the shore, the heavy object drops on a
>curved path (the sum of constant forward motion and accelerating
>downward motion).
And, in Newtonian physics, it does so because a force--gravity--is
causing the object to accelerate downwards. If you ignore the fact
that the Earth is round, which high school physics classes often do
for small-scale situations, the moving ship is an inertial reference
frame. In other words, Newton and Galileo are in agreement as to
*what* is happening, but Newton went further into the *how*. I don't
know if Galileo ever dabbled in the concept of "force", but I wouldn't
be surprised.
In General relativity, the weight follows a curved path because space is
curved or something like that. General relativity is a real pain.
Whoa, I just had an insight: Special relativity is to General relativity
as Galileo is to Newton.
--
Please reply to: | "Evolution is a theory that accounts
pciszek at panix dot com | for variety, not superiority."
Autoreply has been disabled | -- Joan Pontius
Paul Ciszek
In article <309583468.000...@drn.newsguy.com>,
TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>"On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 22:05:25 +0000 (UTC), in article
><il3kr5$9lq$1...@reader1.panix.com>, Paul Ciszek stated..."
>>
>>frame" by stating that gravity and acceleration are equivalent, but that
>>doesn't get you off the hook. In order to go around the Earth every 24
>>hours, Alpha Centauri would have to be travelling at nearly 10,000 times
>>the speed of light relative to Earth, and I don't think general relativity
>>allows that any more than special relativity does. And on top of that,
>>everything in the geocentric universe moves around in an ellipse 2AU across
>>every year superimposed on that blindingly fast motion--a less extreme
>>motion, but just as much in violation of Newtonian OR Relativistic physics.
>
>Neptune is at about the right distance. Depending on its position, its
>daily path around a stationary earth is a little more or less than one
>light-day in length.
Since geocentrists are trying to bring back the ptolemaic model anyway,
the might just as well argue that only the classical seven planets (Sun,
Moon, Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Venus, and Saturn) are real, and the rest,
along with the "fixed stars" are projected on the firmament somewhere just
beyond the orbit of Saturn. That way nothing has to move faster than the
speed of light.
TomS
<il5or1$iok$1...@reader1.panix.com>, Paul Ciszek stated..."
>
>
>In article <309583468.000...@drn.newsguy.com>,
>TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>"On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 22:05:25 +0000 (UTC), in article
>><il3kr5$9lq$1...@reader1.panix.com>, Paul Ciszek stated..."
>>>
>>>General relativity complicates the concept of an "inertial reference
>>>frame" by stating that gravity and acceleration are equivalent, but that
>>>doesn't get you off the hook. In order to go around the Earth every 24
>>>hours, Alpha Centauri would have to be travelling at nearly 10,000 times
>>>the speed of light relative to Earth, and I don't think general relativity
>>>allows that any more than special relativity does. And on top of that,
>>>everything in the geocentric universe moves around in an ellipse 2AU across
>>>every year superimposed on that blindingly fast motion--a less extreme
>>>motion, but just as much in violation of Newtonian OR Relativistic physics.
>>
>>Neptune is at about the right distance. Depending on its position, its
>>daily path around a stationary earth is a little more or less than one
>>light-day in length.
>
>Since geocentrists are trying to bring back the ptolemaic model anyway,
>the might just as well argue that only the classical seven planets (Sun,
>Moon, Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Venus, and Saturn) are real, and the rest,
>along with the "fixed stars" are projected on the firmament somewhere just
>beyond the orbit of Saturn. That way nothing has to move faster than the
>speed of light.
>
Good point.
But Ptolemy's model is pagan. How many of the wandering stars are
mentioned in the Bible? Sun and Moon, of course, and the morning
star (Venus) - but my guess is none of the others.
And some of our contemporary geocentrists follow Tycho's model:
Sun and Moon revolve around the earth, and all of the rest of the
heavens revolves around Sun.
jillery
The moral basis for your complaint above is undermined by your own
naked assertion of other people's motives.
jillery
> In article <309583468.000031ac.096.0...@drn.newsguy.com>,> ><il3kr5$9l...@reader1.panix.com>, Paul Ciszek stated..."
>
> >>General relativity complicates the concept of an "inertial reference
> >>frame" by stating that gravity and acceleration are equivalent, but that
> >>doesn't get you off the hook. In order to go around the Earth every 24
> >>hours, Alpha Centauri would have to be travelling at nearly 10,000 times
> >>the speed of light relative to Earth, and I don't think general relativity
> >>allows that any more than special relativity does. And on top of that,
> >>everything in the geocentric universe moves around in an ellipse 2AU across
> >>every year superimposed on that blindingly fast motion--a less extreme
> >>motion, but just as much in violation of Newtonian OR Relativistic physics.
>
> >Neptune is at about the right distance. Depending on its position, its
> >daily path around a stationary earth is a little more or less than one
> >light-day in length.
>
> Since geocentrists are trying to bring back the ptolemaic model anyway,
> the might just as well argue that only the classical seven planets (Sun,
> Moon, Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Venus, and Saturn) are real, and the rest,
> along with the "fixed stars" are projected on the firmament somewhere just
> beyond the orbit of Saturn. That way nothing has to move faster than the
> speed of light.
Good one! It's amazing how easy it is to prove anything when you just
ignore whatever is inconvenient.
John Harshman
When can you call someone a liar? It seems to me you can only when he
has provided evidence that he knows what he's saying isn't true. I don't
know that Tony has ever done this. A lesser standard would be that he
has provided evidence that a reasonable person would know that what he's
saying isn't true. Since we have good evidence that Tony is not at all
reasonable, that standard can't be applied. Not even self-contradiction
is sufficient to establish a lie. So I really don't know how anyone can
say that Tony is lying.
John Harshman
> On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 19:11:09 -0500, T Pagano wrote:
>
>> Out-of-position fossils are NOT unusual and the atheist explanations are
>> wholly ad hoc.
>
> Really? What about the paleontologist or taphonomist explanations?
>
>> And there are out of sequence stratigraphic layers too
>> large to be explained by overthrusts.
>
> Really? You wouldn't happen to be able to name any, would you? Or
> explain why geologists have got it wrong?
>
> <snip>
>
>> What we find is not merely "nested" hierarchies but ISOLATED nested
>> hierarchies with NOTHING connecting the isolated groupings. Purely
>> naturalistic processes prohibit these discontinuities. These
>> discontinuities falsify neoDarwinism.
>
> Really? I'm anxious to hear what these disconnected groups are. I've
> been under the obviously naive and uneducated impression that most
> everything uses the same DNA-to-protein mapping with a couple of
> exceptions sufficient only to demonstrate that the mapping is somewhat
> arbitrary. I'm sure you must have resources that can correct my
> misunderstanding and will gladly point me in the right direction
I believe your misunderstanding is about just what Tony means by
"disconnected". He means that groups are not connected by a smooth
series of infinitesimally different, living intermediates. And this is
for the most part true.
jillery
Since you didn't specify which fraction of the population, it is
reasonable to consider that you meant the members of this newsgroup.
I'm glad I asked.
jillery
You say it's clear to you, but it's not clear to me.
> Lying has
> a clear meaning: *intentionally* making a statement you know (or
> believe) to be false. Insane, does not have such a clear meaning, so
> cannot be clearly misapplied.
What does "cannot be clearly misapplied" mean.
jillery
Rather than get into a scrap over what is my root point, it would be
more productive to frame the discussion another way. Correct me if
I'm wrong, but we seem to be in agreement that Tony's assertions are
substantially factually false, to the point of being contradicted by
evidence. If so, we are in disagreement only as to the reason behind
their nature. It appears Nashton agrees with at least some of Tony's
assertions, and so I interpret your initial point as hyperbole
appropriate to usenet.
In a clinical form, my opinion is that Tony's assertions are
consistent with someone who is lying, that is knowingly and
deliberately stating false information with intent to deceive.
Equivalently, I understand your position to be that Tony's assertions
are consistent with someone who can't separate fact from belief. You
originally used, and expressed a preference for, "insane", but after
some confusion you settled on "delusional".
IIUC your main point is that Tony is "clearly not lying" because he is
delusional, thus dismissing my point and assertion yours in one stroke
by fiat. But you provide no evidence for such a conclusion, nor do
you provide any authority for making it. Since I already enumerated
my arguments, I hope you will follow suit soon. Once you establish
the veracity of your alternate explanation, it may be unnecessary to
discuss the relative merits of "lying" vs "delusional".
Nashton
> On Mar 8, 1:12 pm, Nashton<n...@na.ca> wrote:
>> On 3/8/11 8:01 AM, Burkhard wrote:
>>
>>> On 08/03/2011 11:35, Nashton wrote:
>>>> On 3/7/11 3:15 PM, Burkhard wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 7, 3:10 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>>>>>> Burkhard<b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> The specific approach I outlined briefly in my post goes back to
>>>>>>> Lakatos, and was developed further by my teachers, Stemueller and
>>>>>>> Moulines (who also happen, by coincidence, to be/have been staunch
>>>>>>> Catholics.)
>>
>>>> I am fully aware of the type of "catholics" you're referring to. The
>>>> type that profess deep devotion to God and then support abortion to
>>>> garner some votes.
>>
>>> Amazing power of mind reading you have there - and the usual written
>>> exemption from the 9th commandment,
>>
>> Is this the only commandment you are aware of as you seem to repeat it
>> ad nauseam?
>> Christians that accept evolution as compatible with Christian doctrine
>> and theology are the types that interpret the Bible in their own
>> special, liberal and contemporary way.
>
> The authors I cited are theorist of science, not theologians, and
> they have written about the formal structure of empirical theories.
>
> You made a claim about them - back it up or apologies.
The claim that I made holds true.
Evolution is not in accordance with Christian doctrine and whoever tries
to reconcile random creation>evolution of life and simultaneously claims
to be a devout Christian, is nuts.
I will apologize to nobody but I will give you a chance to comment on
this. Please don't mention the Catholic Church or the Pope, as I
subscribe to Sola Scriptura as Apostolic Succession means nothing to me.
Nashton
The role of DNA is but partially known but the knowledge that should
completely fill the gap created by a myriad of unknowns is not ours, yet.
If you think this to be true, good. If not, please present evidence of
the knowledge we possess that places, for example, a freckle 2.5mm south
of the left eye (just an example), or what exactly is involved in the
morphogenesis of something as simple as a nose or the size of an earlobe.
Under the light of the fact that some are so arrogant as to proclaim
that we know all that there is to know (I know enough about science to
scoff at this) and to have an army of goons ready to post the same
drivel day in, day out in defense of something that ought not need a
defense *if the science behind it was unshakable*, come back and explain
ti me and other why and how this is not a religious/ideological forum
and attempt to counter the argument that the raison d'existence of this
board has nothing to do with science or biology.
Thanks
Burkhard
Your "claim" was about people you obviously never head about, and you
have very obviously no ideawho they are and what their work is. In a
discussion with Pagano, I listed some theorists of science who offer
an alternative between verificationism and (naive, Popperian)
falsificationism. None of this was directly about the ToE, and to the
best of my knowledge neither of them has written about it. They did
write however extensively about the topics I listed. But you jumped
in and accused them of everything from being faux Christians to
support of abortion. So, where is your evidence, or does lying about
people come so casually to you that you don't even bother to make an
attempt, however feeble?
> Evolution is not in accordance with Christian doctrine and whoever tries
> to reconcile random creation>evolution of life and simultaneously claims
> to be a devout Christian, is nuts.
Well, we already know that you are the only true Christian (TM), and
that the mainstream Catholic Church including the Pope, the Church of
England including Archbishop Rowan Williams , the Church of Scotland
and its last 20 or so moderators, the united Protestant Churches of
Germany etc etc are heretics and nuts. Third parties may perceive
this as fascinating mixture of hubris and insanity, but it was really
not the topic this time.
John Harshman
Is there anyone here who makes any such claim?
> and to have an army of goons ready to post the same
> drivel day in, day out in defense of something that ought not need a
> defense *if the science behind it was unshakable*, come back and explain
> ti me and other why and how this is not a religious/ideological forum
> and attempt to counter the argument that the raison d'existence of this
> board has nothing to do with science or biology.
Of course. It has to do with creationism, which is neither. It's
religion and politics. Sometimes, though, scientific arguments can be
useful in discussing religion and politics. I will admit that they are
seldom useful in convincing the religious and political.
John Stockwell
> [Note: This is a repost of Burkhard's nominated post-of-the-month
> work.]
>
> From: Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk>
> Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 13:47:36 +0000
>
> >On 09/02/2011 05:21, Nathan Levesque wrote:
> >> In all seriousness I would like to have an example of something
> >> biological, just one something that could only exist as it is if
> >>creationism were true.
>
> The fossil record is a perfect example of evidence consistent with
> creationism and contradictory to evolutionism. The fossil record
> shows ALL populations appearing suddenly in completely "mature" form
> and remaining for millions of years without appreciable change until
> they disappear.
>
> Darwin's gradualism explains that predecessor species blend seemlessly
> and gradualistically into descendent species. We should see a
> significant sampling of structures and species in various stages of
> development. We see none of this.
Unfortunately, there is no scientific theory of creationism.
Creationism is merely
an ad hoc pseudoscience that is intended to get people to turn off
their brains
and turn on the Biblical literalism.
No doubt you can make up a form of creationism
that is consistent with anything. The fossil record is 100%
inconsistent with the
notion of a worldwide flood. The order we see in the fossil record in
terms of the
nested hierarchical structure of biology is consistent with common
descent.
No
doubt you can make up a creationism that also gives a nested
hierarchical structure
too, but you can't have the fossil record also be deposited by a
wordlwide flood.
That's just silliness.
As far as persistence of forms in the fossil record, that is not
persistence of species.
It is persistence of forms in the class, order, family, and genus
level. There are no
example of *species* persisting over any great length of time.
>
> >> I mean evolution is clearly a more comprehensive, explanatory, and
> >> useful model.
>
> This is the mantra but it is nonsense. Gould-Eldredge and his camp
> of naturalists have vigorously disagreed with Darwin's claim of
> gradualistic development of biolgical novelty to maturity since the
> 1970s----the fossil record contradicted the neoDarwinian claim.
Punctuated Equilibrium is exactly what is says, the fossil record
shows periods of
stability punctuated by periods of rapid evolution.
>
> Lenski's 20+ year and 40,000+ generations of E coli experiment show
> not one example of novelty emerging and coherently and progressively
> developing to maturity. The decades of fruitfly experiments don't
> show it either. In fact there is no observational evidence that
> biological novelty emerges and develops to maturity via neoDarwinian
> means.
Evolution does not really produce novelty. It takes old structures and
modifies
them. There really is very little novelty out there.
>
> >> This isn't an exercise in false dichotomies, one isn't
> >> validated if the other is falsified.
>
> In the case of the fossil record "sudden appearance" and "stasis"
> corroborate the creationist model and contradict the neoDarwinian one.
There is no "creationist model". There are creationists lying about
science.
That is about it.
>
> >> And hearing about the
> >> characteristics or appearance of 'design' as evident in biology which
> >> is both not denied by either side, nor unexplained--is an exercise in
> >> futility: 'which one looks more likely?...to the uneducated laymen of
> >> course' I just want an actual small straight forward attempt to
> >> propose something that could validate creationism. For shits and
> >> giggles of course.
>
> The appearance of design is unmistakeable. It cries out for
> explanation and when Dembski and Behe offer attempts at testing for
> and explaining it they are vilified. Vilification is not a scientific
> practice.
Sorry, but we don't recognize design by "appearance'. We model the
processes
of origin. There is no non-evolution based process of origin so far as
we know,
so any appearance of design is a form of cloud gazing.
>
> Behe's Irreducible Complexity is a falsifier that Darwin included in
> his Opus, "On the Origin of Species." Darwin didn't use that term but
> it is a match with IC. So when Behe produces two IC biological
> structures that falsify neoDarwinism and points to an intelligent
> designer he is vilified. Vilification is not a scientific practice.
There is no such thing as IC in biology. Behe failed to make his case.
>
> >> Or if it's alright for this Usenet group, an example of anything that
> >> could only exist as it is if creationism were true.
>
> IC systems falsify neoDarwinism as the universal engine of biological
> diversity and point to an intelligent designer.
There are no IC systems in biology.
>
> >I don't subscribe to naive falsificationism - once a theory is as well
> >supported, as productive in solving upcoming problems, and as
> >interconnected with other theories as the ToE, it is unlikely that a
> >single find will force us to give up the theory.
>
> The fact of the matter is that modern secularists don't subscribe to
> falsificationism at all; they are verificationists. A point which
> Burkhard makes clear here.
So, when faced with overwhelming odds, the pseudoscience attempts to
attack
the philosophical underpinnings of the subject.
>
> Almost all theories throughout the history of science have been
> well-supported yet most of them were nonetheless abandoned as wrong
> and false. How is this possible? ALL THEORIES that aren't trivial or
> tautologous---both true and false theories----have some (or many) true
> consequences. So even false theories can garner corroborative
> evidence and become well-supported; they are nonetheless false.
Weak pleading.
>
> Finally since 1739 with Hume's insight we have known that
> corroborative support doesn't even make a theory probably true.
> Increasing levels of corroborative evidence do not increase the
> probability that a theory is true. Yet this is exactly how Burkhard
> and secular atheists in general treat corroborative evidence.
Theories are structures that we use to organise observations. They
are either consistent or inconsistent with known information, and
continue to
either be consistent or inconsistent with new data. There is issue of
"truth"
or "falsity", only the notion of whether or not the organization is
better or worse
as measured in terms of the command over observations that the theory
gives
us.
>
> >Conversely, while one can think of several finds that would cause a
> >problem for the ToE, it is by no means certain that they would
> >necessarily support creationism.
>
> It is interesting that corroborative evidence is impotent to show that
> a theory is true, close to the truth, or even probably true. On the
> other hand contradictory evidence is capable of telling us that the
> theory is wrong or in some cases false. Yet Burkhard is more
> concerned that this potentially damaging evidence to evolutionism
> doesn't help creationism.
Creationism fails as being a useful structure of anything, except as a
way of supporting
Bible-ism through a dishonest portrayal of science.
>
> This isn't the musing of a scientist but the position of a voodoo
> priest defending a religion.
>
> >The two issues are related -- you typically evaluate theories against
> >each other, and you need two sufficiently explicit ones that make
> >specific predictions. For most forms of creationism, that is not the case.
>
> neoDarwinism explicit? You must be kidding. NeoDarwinism doesn't
> predict anything about the future development of biological novelty
> and it has proved completely ineffective in reconstructing the
> millions of transitional forms completely absent from the fossil
> record.
Yeah it does. Basically it gives us a reason to expect that faunal
succession
will never have a counter example shown to exist, that all structures
in biology
are old structures that are reused, that common descent will hold up
forever.
So far all of those notions are true. There is nothing from
creationism that has
any use whatsoever.
>
> Rarely, if ever, are competing theories completely commeasurable and
> it is always possible (and quite likely) that both are false. Recall
> that all non trivial theories (including false ones) have true
> consequences. If find the true theory is the goal comparing theories
> is no better at finding the true theory than verificationism is at
> showing a single theory is true.
Creationism is not a theory, so it doesn't compete with evolution.
>
> >So on the first leg, if we start to find consistently "out of place"
> >fossils, rabbits in the Cambrian, Humans in the Stenian etc, that would
> > weaken considerably the ToE.
>
> Out-of-position fossils are NOT unusual and the atheist explanations
> are wholly ad hoc. And there are out of sequence stratigraphic layers
> too large to be explained by overthrusts. It is these anamolies that
> are capable of contradicting and falsifying a theory. While all the
> corroborations in the world don't tell us the theory is true.
There are no out of position fossils that cannot be understood in
terms of
known processes. Actually, the Ruby and Hubbert (mid 1950s) model of
overthrusting holds up to this day.
>
> >If we find new animals with totally
> >different "DNA like" codes, that would shoot down at least common
> >descent. And if new species that we find persistently fail to match the
> >nested hierarchies (looks like a fish, has DNA of a mushroom, protein
> >sequence data of a mammal)would be bad too. Finding two being with
> >identical DNA, but totally different morphology woudl obviously be a
> >problem for genetics, and by implication for the ToE as now understood
>
> What we find is not merely "nested" hierarchies but ISOLATED nested
> hierarchies with NOTHING connecting the isolated groupings. Purely
> naturalistic processes prohibit these discontinuities. These
> discontinuities falsify neoDarwinism.
No they don't.
>
> >But as I said, none of this is really evidence for creationism.
> >So on the second leg, it depends with version you have,and if you
> >include ID
>
> None of the evidence which contradicts evolutionism or the formation
> of the stratigraphic layers causes any problems for the creationist
> models. Yet I find it interesting that Burkhard is completely
> unconcerned with disconfirming and contradictory evidence for his pet
> theories.
There would be no stratigraphic layers if floodism where true. All
fossils would
be out of place. Again, you don't have anything but ignorance.
>
> >Nykos type ID for instance could be proven by such finds as:
> >- an alien looking laboratory on Mars, inside a schematic drawing of
> >a human, with an arrow sign saying: "use CF-IOG equipment to insert
> >DNA here. For customer service support, phone our service centre at
> >Betelgeuse (premium rates apply) Safety advice: feeding specimen
> >apples voids all warranties"
> >- a spaceship lands, blue thingies in white labcoats get out, measure
> >us, and mutter under their breath :damn, another attempt to create
> >intelligence life failed.
>
> Panspermia doesn't really illuminate or explain the origin or
> existence of biological diversity it merely directs us to look
> elsewhere for the problem. But even that isn't of much help unless he
> could tell us where to look. Since he can't it is a completely
> fruitless avenue.
Nyikos is merely creating a reductio ad absurdum. If he can get people
to buy into
"directed panspermy" then he will apply a limiting process to show
that the
aliens would have to be, for all intents and purposes "God". Then he
would have
a God that he could believe in.
>
> >For the religious version, more difficult, mostly they'd coincide with a
> >real good proof for that specific religion, e.g.
> >- Dakwins smitten/smoted/smited with lightning while giving a lecture,
> >booming vice from the sky: "ha, gotcha" and he is resurected after 3
> >days, just to really p... him off.
>
> We hardly need lightning to strike when we have some very embarassing
> facts for Dawkins: The fossil record is in complete accord with the
> creationist model and contradicts neoDarwinism (A fact which Gould
> bashed over Dawkins's head for 30 years). Fixity of the species (dogs
> never become anything but dogs) is in accord with creationism and
> contradicts neoDarwinism. Isolated nested hierarchical
> classifications is consistent with creationism and contradicts purely
> naturalistic processes.
Sorry, but species are not fixed. Dogs are already for all intents and
purposes
different species, or a ring species.
>
> >- Ray type creation (once he understands the difference between
> >inference and observation): people consistently find totally new animals
> >in places where none where before.
>
> I rather doubt that Ray has ever asserted that God has recently
> created new species. However, Special Creation at the Beginning
> suffers from none of the contradictions which have continuously
> plagued darwinism since 1859.
Ray is an idiot and so are you.
>
> >You wake up one morning, and
> >your living room is full of crocoducks e.g. Still an inference, but one
> >close to observation, seeing them actually materialise out of nowhere
> >would be a direct observation if not of design, then creation.
>
> Regard,
> T Pagano
>
> I can only hope that Ernest Major jumps in to save his buddy Burkhard.
-John
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S.
Wilkins):
>Michael Siemon <mlsi...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> In article <1jxt6bo.1iejtk7118g37fN%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,
>> jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>>
>> > raven1 <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 11:49:34 -0800 (PST), James Beck
>> > > <jdbec...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >What is paganist evolution?
>> > >
>> > > Thegodsdiddit.
>> >
>> > Ruralgodsdidit, technically.
>>
>> I rather thought that the etymology in this case referred back to
>> Pagano, not pagans in general...
>
>I'll bet his ancestors came from the countryside...
One hardly ever sees weasels in cities.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Mike Lyle
Wilkins) wrote:
>Michael Siemon <mlsi...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> In article <1jxt6bo.1iejtk7118g37fN%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,
>> jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>>
>> > raven1 <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 11:49:34 -0800 (PST), James Beck
>> > > <jdbec...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >What is paganist evolution?
>> > >
>> > > Thegodsdiddit.
>> >
>> > Ruralgodsdidit, technically.
>>
>> I rather thought that the etymology in this case referred back to
>> Pagano, not pagans in general...
>
>I'll bet his ancestors came from the countryside...
Even from some blasted heath.
--
Mike.
Burkhard
> On Tue, 8 Mar 2011 12:25:50 +1100, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S.
>
>
>
> Wilkins) wrote:
> >Michael Siemon <mlsie...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
> >> In article <1jxt6bo.1iejtk7118g37fN%j...@wilkins.id.au>,
> >> �j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>
> >> > raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 11:49:34 -0800 (PST), James Beck
> >> > > <jdbeck11...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > >What is paganist evolution?
>
> >> > > Thegodsdiddit.
>
> >> > Ruralgodsdidit, technically.
>
> >> I rather thought that the etymology in this case referred back to
> >> Pagano, not pagans in general...
>
> >I'll bet his ancestors came from the countryside...
>
> Even from some blasted heath.
>
Greetings! I admire your strange intelligence
paleobarbie
> shows ALL populations appearing suddenly in completely "mature" form
> and remaining for millions of years without appreciable change until
> they disappear."
There are many, many places where this isn't true, but what you need
for this is a portion of the geological column where you have a
finescale record, which isn't that common (although I'm sure there
must be plenty of examples of this in the Pleistocene, to say nothing
of foraminifera in deep ocean cores).
One classic example is the work of Phil Gingerich with the primitive
ungulate Hyopsodus in the Eocene of the Bighorn Basin in Wyoming,
which shows size increases and decreases of this animal with changes
in paleotemperature, including splitting in different directions into
several distinct species (as determined both by size and anatomy).
Many more examples from Pleistocene strata, but one from the
Cretaceous includes some of Jack Horner's dinosaur work with gradual
change in populations over time into different species.
PB
John Harshman
Don't worry. Tony has an out. That isn't transformational change. Since
he refuses to define it, there no way to refute him.
paleobarbie
"\Hopeful monsters are ruled out by the genetic mechanisms and the
ultra
gradualism espoused by Darwin and Dawkins is required."
Can someone more qualified than I bring in something from current
evodevo please? This is showing us that one would actually predict
rather large changes rather than small, apparently gradual ones in
many cases
PB
James Beck
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>James Beck wrote:
>> On Mar 7, 2:28 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <apagano-ltn9n6tol25goccppesagjktrns9btc...@4ax.com>, T
>>> Pagano <not.va...@address.net> writes
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 16:45:41 -0800 (PST), Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 7, 7:11 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>>>>>> [Note: This is a repost of Burkhard's nominated post-of-the-month
>>>>>> work.]
>>>>>> From: Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk>
>>>>>> Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 13:47:36 +0000
>>>>>>> On 09/02/2011 05:21, Nathan Levesque wrote:
>>>>>>>> In all seriousness I would like to have an example of something
>>>>>>>> biological, just one something that could only exist as it is if
>>>>>>>> creationism were true.
>>>>> /.
>>>>>> The fossil record is a perfect example of evidence consistent with
>>>>>> creationism and contradictory to evolutionism. The fossil record
>>>>>> shows ALL populations appearing suddenly in completely "mature" form
>>>>>> and remaining for millions of years without appreciable change until
>>>>>> they disappear.
>>>>> But so what, Tony? Who cares if there is evidence "consistent with
>>>>> creationism,"? Such evidence doesn't tell you anything about whether
>>>>> creationism is likely to be true or truthlike. Even enormous piles of
>>>>> evidence consistent with creationism wouldn't tell you anything about
>>>>> whether creationism is true, because even false theories have plenty
>>>>> of confirmatory evidence, and there are an infinite number of theories
>>>>> consistent with the evidence to which you refer.
>>>> True enough my vanquished enemy but stasis does contradict
>>>> neoDarwinism which logically tells us that it is false.
>>> I presume that you haven't read Mayr (one of the founders of
>>> neodarwinism aka the modern synthesis) on coadapted gene pools,
>>> peripheral isolates, founder effect, and genetic revolutions.
>>>
>>> What stasis contradicts is Paganist evolution, but you'd be hard put to
>>> find anyone who accepts Paganist evolution.
>>>
>>>> Darwin knew
>>>> this as well and honestly said so in his opus.
>>> You also seem to misremember Darwin's writings. He wrote "Although each
>>> species must have passed through numerous transitional stages, it is
>>> probable that the periods, during which each underwent modifications,
>>> though many and long as measured by years, have been short in comparison
>>> with the periods which each remained in an unchanged condition."
>>>
>>> Where Darwin was wrong was in thinking that mass extinctions were an
>>> artefact of an imperfect fossil record.
>>>
>>>> In 1859 Darwin could
>>>> honestly claim that "stasis" was an artifact attributable to the
>>>> poverty of the fossil record that would be wiped away with increasing
>>>> fossil finds.
>>>> But sadly for poor Rogers the fossil record today is voluminous and
>>>> "stasis" remains as both corroborative of Special Creation and a
>>>> contradiction of the religion of neoDarwinism. The contradiction
>>>> logically tells us that neoDarwinism is false.
>>>> snip
>>> Show you work. Demonstrate the contradiction by mathematically analysing
>>> the fossil record.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Rogers is so punch drunk that he doesn't know which end is up.
>>>> Regards,
>>>> T Pagano
>>> --
>>> alias Ernest Major
>>
>> What is paganist evolution?
>>
>Tony Pagano's theory of evolution, which nobody, including Tony, believes.
Ah. Thank you. Nothing important, then.
Mark Isaak
> [huge snip]
> Do you believe most of the posters to TO are insane?
By at least one metric (continuing to post here and expecting different
results), most of us are. Myself certainly included.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
John Vreeland
<bruce+...@cenderis.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>T Pagano <not....@address.net> writes:
>
>[...]
>
>> To atheists all fossils are "transitional." However, they are only
>> transitional in the sense that they can be "conceived" to be in some
>> lineal connection with others not that they are in any unmistakeable
>> state of actual transition. In other words, by transitional it is
>> not meant that some inidividual is found with structures in some state
>> of development.
>
>Is that what you mean by transitional? "An individual is found with
>structures in some state of development"?
>
>[...]
I suspect that for Tony "transitional" forms do not exist by sheer
definition. This is why he cannot see any.
--
My years on the mudpit that is Usnenet have taught me one important thing: three Creation Scientists can have a serious conversation, if two of them are sock puppets.
Mark Isaak
> The claim that I made holds true.
> Evolution is not in accordance with Christian doctrine and whoever
> tries to reconcile random creation>evolution of life and simultaneously
> claims to be a devout Christian, is nuts.
Nashton,
Earlier you said that, if evolution were true, there should be many
examples of fine transitional sequences in the fossil record. I asked if
you would accept evolution if there were only ten such examples. I am
still awaiting your answer.
John Harshman
I don't think one would actually predict such changes, in general.
Evodevo presents many opportunities for small, progressive changes. But
axolotls would perhaps be an example of a large-effect mutation.
jillery
ISTM it depends on what you think are the core principles of Christian
doctrine. IIUC the Bible says Jesus said there are but two, upon
which all others are built; to love God, and to love your neighbor as
yourself. It's quite a stretch to interpret these to be contradictory
to random creation and natural evolution. I understand you consider
yourself to be the final arbiter of what is Christian doctrine and
what is not. Please beg my pardon, but nobody else considers you so
assigned.
> I will apologize to nobody but I will give you a chance to comment on
> this. Please don't mention the Catholic Church or the Pope, as I
> subscribe to Sola Scriptura as Apostolic Succession means nothing to me.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> I gather? Otherwise, feel free to
>
> >>> point out where in his writings on say, oh, set theoretical
> >>> reconstruction of Newtonian physics and their transition to relativity,
>
> >> I'm really impressed. Good attempt at showing off your copying and
> >> pasting skills.
>
> >>> the analysis of t-theoretical terms or his papers on multi-modal logic,
>
> >> Multi-modal logic, eh? Now that sounds impressive!
>
> >>> anything that would conflict with religious precepts, and support for
> >>> abortion in principle, is expressed.
>
> >> Whatever you say. Perhaps a few days away from this ng?
>
> >>>>>> Wolfgang Stegmueller? I read him as an undergrad. Still have his book.
>
> >>>>> Yep, that would be him - it's where I picked up my structuralist
> >>>>> leanings.
>
> >>>> The cult of personality emerges again. replace one true God, with
> >>>> another that maybe, holds the answers to the secrets of nature.
>
> >> --- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
jillery
This is the false dichotomomy of the anti-evolutionist; to demand such
exquisite detail from science that his own belief is incapable of
providing.
> or what exactly is involved in the
> morphogenesis of something as simple as a nose or the size of an earlobe.
> Under the light of the fact that some are so arrogant as to proclaim
> that we know all that there is to know (I know enough about science to
> scoff at this) and to have an army of goons ready to post the same
> drivel day in, day out in defense of something that ought not need a
> defense *if the science behind it was unshakable*, come back and explain
> ti me and other why and how this is not a religious/ideological forum
> and attempt to counter the argument that the raison d'existence of this
> board has nothing to do with science or biology.
>
> Thanks- Hide quoted text -
Friar Broccoli
[snipping older discussion]
> Rather than get into a scrap over what is my root point, it would be
> more productive to frame the discussion another way. Correct me if
> I'm wrong, but we seem to be in agreement that Tony's assertions are
> substantially factually false, to the point of being contradicted by
> evidence. If so, we are in disagreement only as to the reason behind
> their nature. It appears Nashton agrees with at least some of Tony's
> assertions, and so I interpret your initial point as hyperbole
> appropriate to usenet.
.
> In a clinical form, my opinion is that Tony's assertions are
> consistent with someone who is lying, that is knowingly and
> deliberately stating false information with intent to deceive.
I take "intent to deceive" to mean that Tony is trying to convince me
of the truth of something he knows or believes to be false. Can you
tell me what that something is? For example:
Tony knows:
- that the Christian God does not exist but wants me to believe He
does.
- that God is not responsible for the Bible, but wants me to believe
He is.
- that the Bible contains errors, but wants me to believe there are
none.
- that God is not responsible for life on Earth, but wants me to
believe He is.
- that the earth goes round the sun, but wants me to believe the
opposite.
Maybe the thing(s) Tony is intentionally trying to deceive us about
are not on the list above. If not, what is Tony trying to deceive us
about?
> Equivalently, I understand your position to be that Tony's assertions
> are consistent with someone who can't separate fact from belief. You
> originally used, and expressed a preference for, "insane", but after
> some confusion you settled on "delusional".
.
> IIUC your main point is that Tony is "clearly not lying" because he is
> delusional, thus dismissing my point and assertion yours in one stroke
> by fiat. But you provide no evidence for such a conclusion, nor do
> you provide any authority for making it.
Tony shows a consistent pattern of belief that is shared by roughly
100 million other people in North America. I personally know a small
sample of those people and know none of them are lying, although each
of them uses different methods to paper over the glaring
inconsistencies in their beliefs.
If I am to accept that Tony is lying, I must be able to find evidence
that Tony is somehow substantially different from all these other
people who I know are not lying. What difference would you suggest,
or do you believe all fundamentalist Christians are intentionally
trying to deceive others about their beliefs?
I find Tony's argument that the sun orbits the earth particularly
strong evidence that he is not knowingly attempting to deceive. This
argument is simply absurd and easily defeated by the simplest of
arguments. So who, apart from himself, could Tony possibly be trying
to deceive? This argument is so ridiculous that any rational liar
would not make it for fear of causing people to doubt his other lies.
In summary, the evidence that Tony is delusional is simply that he is
following a well known pattern of belief seen widely throughout the
society. One can only conclude that Tony is lying if everyone who
believes the same is also lying. The fact that his more extreme
claims are absurd, is direct evidence that he is irrational/
delusional.
> Since I already enumerated my arguments,
I don't remember ever seeing any arguments from you in support of
your contention that Tony is lying. All this post contains is the
claim that "Tony's assertions are consistent with someone who is
lying" surrounded by some filler text.
jillery
> On Mar 8, 2:22 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [snipping older discussion]
>
> > Rather than get into a scrap over what is my root point, it would be
> > more productive to frame the discussion another way. Correct me if
> > I'm wrong, but we seem to be in agreement that Tony's assertions are
> > substantially factually false, to the point of being contradicted by
> > evidence. If so, we are in disagreement only as to the reason behind
> > their nature. It appears Nashton agrees with at least some of Tony's
> > assertions, and so I interpret your initial point as hyperbole
> > appropriate to usenet.
>
> > consistent with someone who is lying, that is knowingly and
> > deliberately stating false information with intent to deceive.
>
> I take "intent to deceive" to mean that Tony is trying to convince me
> of the truth of something he knows or believes to be false. Can you
> tell me what that something is? For example:
>
> Tony knows:
>
> - that the Christian God does not exist but wants me to believe He
> does.
>
> - that God is not responsible for the Bible, but wants me to believe
> He is.
>
> - that the Bible contains errors, but wants me to believe there are
> none.
>
> - that God is not responsible for life on Earth, but wants me to
> believe He is.
>
> - that the earth goes round the sun, but wants me to believe the
> opposite.
>
> Maybe the thing(s) Tony is intentionally trying to deceive us about
> are not on the list above. If not, what is Tony trying to deceive us
> about?
Not relevant to the discussion until you provide evidence for Tony's
delusion and your authority for making that conclusion.
> > Equivalently, I understand your position to be that Tony's assertions
> > are consistent with someone who can't separate fact from belief. You
> > originally used, and expressed a preference for, "insane", but after
> > some confusion you settled on "delusional".
>
I make a clear distinction between Tony's beliefs and Tony's facts.
Here you mix them together again. It seems you have that in common
with Tony.
Further, you argue above that Tony is delusional based in part on your
assertion that he is not lying, and your basis for saying he is not
lying is because you say he is delusional. A rather curious bit of
circularity there.
Finally, you continue to reference some undefined segment of the
population. If Tony's delusion is as common as you imply above, then
there's no point in singling him out here for it, and your entire
argument is meaningless.
> > Since I already enumerated my arguments,
>
> I don't remember ever seeing any arguments from you in support of
> your contention that Tony is lying. All this post contains is the
> claim that "Tony's assertions are consistent with someone who is
> lying" surrounded by some filler text.
Have you forgotten so soon my post to which you originally replied?
The one where you replied "I'm with Nashton on this question"? Or are
you now saying you never read my post? If so, then how do you know
which question you are "with" Nashton? Or have you forgotten the
question? Curiouser and curiouser.
Since you show yourself capable of reading past posts sufficient to
discern my "root point", such capability is suffcient to reread your
own past posts. Which in turn is sufficient to "restore" your
memory. Whether you do or not is entirely up to you.
> > I hope you will follow suit soon. Once you establish
> > the veracity of your alternate explanation, it may be unnecessary to
> > discuss the relative merits of "lying" vs "delusional".
I asked in good faith for evidence and authority of your assertion
that Tony is delusional. All you offer above is disingenuous dodges.
I should have known better. I'm not going to waste any more time on
this thread. Feel free to play with yourself.
Friar Broccoli
Your argument here:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/f5c138c428614247
is not an argument that supports the contention that Tony is lying.
It is an argument showing that Tony is not acting rationally. The
point of my argument about Tony's belief in geocentricism is that Tony
is clearly not rational. Since Tony is not rational no conclusion
about lying follows. However a conclusion of delusional follows
directly.
Nathan Levesque
> On 3/7/11 3:40 PM, John Thompson wrote:
>
> > On Mar 7, 4:22 am, Nashton<n...@na.ca> wrote:
> >> On 3/6/11 11:05 PM, Nathan Levesque wrote:
>
>
> >>> exactly what we would expect to see if evolution is true, which it is.
>
> >> So his interpretation doesn't bode well with yours and that makes him a
> >> liar?
>
> >> Let me guess, you're 12 years old, right?
>
>
> Calling someone a liar because he's not on the same side of the debate
> as you isn't a very fruitful strategy to help bring your point across.
> If anything, it's a low blow and is telling about your character more
> than anything.
It would be a low blow if it weren't completely accurate.