evolution: can someone please correct (or confirm???) my understanding
max maypo
hoping someone here will help...on another forum, I'm engaged in the
exchange reproduced below. his position appears to be that evolution
only occurs when new species are produced, that a transition to some
state of 'higher complexity' is required, and that the effects of
natural selection within a species do not qualify as evolution.
I say humbug to all of the above. it's my (perhaps misguided?)
understanding that
(a) new species are definitely not required for evolution to occur
(but if I'm right, I'd sure like to be able to point to a kick-ass
example!)
(b) 'evolution' and 'higher complexity' don't have anything to do with
one another
(c) the change in general species characteristics over time *IS*
evolution (although I have problems with the concept of species
...for sexually reproducing organisms, I'm under the impression
that the line between one species and another is whether or not
organisms from the two classes can mate and produce fertile
offspring...if not, then it's two species; if yes, then only one.
and again, if I'm even close to right on this stuff, I'd very much
like to be able to point to yet another (or even the same) kick-ass
example!)
comments, corrections, and (if at all possible) confirmation would
be most appreciated. thanks...
Max
the Other Guy wrote
>
> Max Maypo wrote:
>
>> the Other Guy wrote
>>
>> >
>> > In the case of the Peppered Moth, you're primarily seeing natural
>> > selection, not evolution. There's no new higher complexity and no
>> > new species.
>> >
>>
>> I believe you're a bit confused about some of the concepts
>> being discussed in this thread. there's an accessible
>> tutorial on evolution here: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
>> with reference to your comments above, you might also
>> want to take note of this page:
>> http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIENaturalSelection.shtml
>
>
> I didn't have a lot of time to look at the links, but nothing I read
> contradicts anything I've said. They talk a lot about theory, but not
> a lot about actual evidence of biological advancement other than simple
> natural selection within a species. Which obviously does occur. The
> biological variety they often point to is present within the gene pool
> from the beginning so no advancements are actually made, just
> "selected."
>
> I would humbly suggest that you read the links more carefully.
>
> Regards,
> Don
>
>
(just in case: fnord)
--
max
Ernest Major
<max....@notinsane.net> writes
>
>hoping someone here will help...on another forum, I'm engaged in the
>exchange reproduced below. his position appears to be that evolution
>only occurs when new species are produced, that a transition to some
>state of 'higher complexity' is required, and that the effects of
>natural selection within a species do not qualify as evolution.
>
>I say humbug to all of the above. it's my (perhaps misguided?)
>understanding that
>
>(a) new species are definitely not required for evolution to occur
> (but if I'm right, I'd sure like to be able to point to a kick-ass
> example!)
Correct. Peppered moths happen to be a good example of evolution - the
change of allele frequencies within a population. In this particular
case an assertion that the melanistic gene was present in the population
beforehand is not supported by the evidence. Your problem isn't with the
lack of an example, but with the other chap using a non-standard
definition.
When you've got the terminology sorted out, and you find that the other
chap is not disputing evolution, but something else, if the something
else is speciation, then you can note that speciation has been observed
in the wild, under domestication and in the laboratory - it's almost
routine in agronomy.
>
>(b) 'evolution' and 'higher complexity' don't have anything to do with
> one another
Correct. For example, secondary simplification is common among life on
Earth, especially among parasites.
>
>(c) the change in general species characteristics over time *IS*
> evolution (although I have problems with the concept of species
> ...for sexually reproducing organisms, I'm under the impression
> that the line between one species and another is whether or not
> organisms from the two classes can mate and produce fertile
> offspring...if not, then it's two species; if yes, then only one.
> and again, if I'm even close to right on this stuff, I'd very much
> like to be able to point to yet another (or even the same) kick-ass
> example!)
It's not as bad as we often see - at least you mentioned the fertility
of the offspring - but your definition of species is oversimplified. A
better, but still simplified, definition is that members of two species
do not normally interbreed in the wild.
Nowadays common practice is reserve the term speciation for cladogenesis
- the formation of new lineages - and exclude anagenesis - change within
a lineage - from the scope of the term. The amount of change accumulated
in anagenesis can be larger than the typical difference between species
- for examples see (domestic) dogs, brassicas and (domestric) pigeons.
--
Alias Ernest Major
Rupert Morrish
> hoping someone here will help...on another forum, I'm engaged in the
> exchange reproduced below. his position appears to be that evolution
> only occurs when new species are produced, that a transition to some
> state of 'higher complexity' is required, and that the effects of
> natural selection within a species do not qualify as evolution.
>
> I say humbug to all of the above. it's my (perhaps misguided?)
> understanding that
>
> (a) new species are definitely not required for evolution to occur
> (but if I'm right, I'd sure like to be able to point to a kick-ass
> example!)
Evolution can be described, as you say, as "change in general species
characteristics over time". More usually it's defined in change in
allele frequencies in populations over time.
Sometimes the qualifiers micro- and macro- are applied to refer to
evolution below the species level and at or above the species level
respectively. Most contemporary creationists accept micro-evolution, and
even accept a little macro-evolution, though they call it
micro-evolution and claim that the boundary should be at the baramin, or
kind level, though no-one has rigorously defined either term.
>
> (b) 'evolution' and 'higher complexity' don't have anything to do with
> one another
Correct. Parasites often lose through evolution the ability to
independently perform many functions now provided by the host. Much of
the early history of live on earth shows a steady increase in
complexity, but this is because organisms were so simple that there were
many more opportunities to increase complexity than to decrease it.
Complexity (and the related term, information) have numerous
definitions, and some creationists like to slide from one to another to
bolster a false argument. Make sure your interlocutor states which
definition he is using when he uses one of these terms.
>
> (c) the change in general species characteristics over time *IS*
> evolution (although I have problems with the concept of species
> ...for sexually reproducing organisms, I'm under the impression
> that the line between one species and another is whether or not
> organisms from the two classes can mate and produce fertile
> offspring...if not, then it's two species; if yes, then only one.
> and again, if I'm even close to right on this stuff, I'd very much
> like to be able to point to yet another (or even the same) kick-ass
> example!)
It's not a line. Some pairs of species can be crossed, albeit with
reduced fertility in the offspring. That's why evolution is now defined
as happening in populations, which are groups of interbreeding
individuals (i.e. not "can they interbreed?" but "do they interbreed?").
>
> comments, corrections, and (if at all possible) confirmation would
> be most appreciated. thanks...
Hope that helped.
>
> Max
>
>
> the Other Guy wrote
>> Max Maypo wrote:
>>
>>> the Other Guy wrote
>>>
>>>> In the case of the Peppered Moth, you're primarily seeing natural
>>>> selection, not evolution. There's no new higher complexity and no
>>>> new species.
>>>>
>>> I believe you're a bit confused about some of the concepts
>>> being discussed in this thread. there's an accessible
>>> tutorial on evolution here: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
>>> with reference to your comments above, you might also
>>> want to take note of this page:
>>> http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIENaturalSelection.shtml
>>
>> I didn't have a lot of time to look at the links, but nothing I read
>> contradicts anything I've said. They talk a lot about theory, but not
>> a lot about actual evidence of biological advancement other than simple
>> natural selection within a species. Which obviously does occur. The
>> biological variety they often point to is present within the gene pool
>> from the beginning so no advancements are actually made, just
>> "selected."
>>
>> I would humbly suggest that you read the links more carefully.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Don
>>
>>
>
> (just in case: fnord)
>
-----------------
www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com - *Completion*Retention*Speed*
Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road
-----------------
uray
news:tbJcuPae...@meden.invalid...
>> one another
>
> Correct. For example, secondary simplification is common among life on
> Earth, especially among parasites.
I'd have to give a "yes and no" to the statement. Overall the level of
genetic complexity does seem to increase even though the expressed traits
may decrease. I'm looking at the overall biosphere in this. I believe some
of the most complex DNA ever is to be found in living creatures today. The
system can develop almost Ruth Goldberg qualities at times ;-)
John Harshman
> hoping someone here will help...on another forum, I'm engaged in the
> exchange reproduced below. his position appears to be that evolution
> only occurs when new species are produced, that a transition to some
> state of 'higher complexity' is required, and that the effects of
> natural selection within a species do not qualify as evolution.
>
> I say humbug to all of the above. it's my (perhaps misguided?)
> understanding that
>
> (a) new species are definitely not required for evolution to occur
> (but if I'm right, I'd sure like to be able to point to a kick-ass
> example!)
You are right. The peppered moth remains a good example, regardless of
creationist attempts to dispose of it. Or pick up any issue of the
journal Evolution for a dozen examples.
> (b) 'evolution' and 'higher complexity' don't have anything to do with
> one another
You are right, except that evolution may result in higher complexity. Or
lower complexity. Or no change in complexity.
> (c) the change in general species characteristics over time *IS*
> evolution (although I have problems with the concept of species
> ...for sexually reproducing organisms, I'm under the impression
> that the line between one species and another is whether or not
> organisms from the two classes can mate and produce fertile
> offspring...if not, then it's two species; if yes, then only one.
> and again, if I'm even close to right on this stuff, I'd very much
> like to be able to point to yet another (or even the same) kick-ass
> example!)
The change in species characteristics is one definition of evolution;
more rigorously, the change in allele frequency in populations. But I
would consider this an incomplete definition. Your definition of species
is faulty, however. Many species can mate and produce fertile offspring
with many other species. But if the populations can coexist without
merging, we still consider them separate species.
John Harshman
How can you possibly know this? What do you know about the DNA of past
species?
Mike Dworetsky
news:480fd556$0$15078$ed36...@nr2.newsreader.com...
Is she Rube Goldberg's mother?
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
alwaysaskingquestions
"John Harshman" <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:RfRPj.9688$GE1....@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
Is it not fair to say that species are the *result* of evolution rather than
a *requirement* for evolution? My undertsanding is that a species is the
culmination of small changes over many generations; some of these changes
may be due to mutations in genes being adopted due to advantages in coping
with the environment in which the species lives, others may be due to
different genes being expressed or unexpressed due to similar advantages?
alwaysaskingquestions
"alwaysaskingquestions" <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:67ardlF...@mid.individual.net...
> Is it not fair to say that species are the *result* of evolution
Before the pedants jump in, I should probably change that to "a" result of
evolution rather than "the" result.
Iain
> hoping someone here will help...on another forum, I'm engaged in the
> exchange reproduced below. his position appears to be that evolution
> only occurs when new species are produced, that a transition to some
> state of 'higher complexity' is required, and that the effects of
> natural selection within a species do not qualify as evolution.
>
> I say humbug to all of the above. it's my (perhaps misguided?)
> understanding that
>
> (a) new species are definitely not required for evolution to occur
> (but if I'm right, I'd sure like to be able to point to a kick-ass
> example!)
An example of evolution without speciation?
Well, the motor of evolution is always running. Each individual is a
miscopy of its parents. The resulting variation is then filtered non-
randomly by the environment. Other people on this thread have given
you the examples you seek, but bear in mind that non-evolution is
"harder" than evolution, so in a sense examples are easier to find
than non-examples.
> (b) 'evolution' and 'higher complexity' don't have anything to do with
> one another
Organisms are needlessly complex precisely *because* evolution lacks
forward planning.
If there is a single guiding principle to the course of evolution,
it's that species adapt to become more *reproducable* under the
envionment of the moment, by way of tiny degrees of variation.
This might mean them becoming taller or shorter.
This might mean them becoming darker or lighter.
This might mean them becoming simpler or more complex.
> (c) the change in general species characteristics over time *IS*
> evolution
Yes. Sometimes, when Creationists admit this, they then try to draw a
distinciton between "macro-evolution" and "micro-evolution".
This "macro\micro" idea is attractive to Creationists, because at
first glance it appears like a nice dividing line that allows them to
accept the obvious(short-term evolution), whilst denying the less
obvious (evolution over millions of years).
It thereby gives an appearence of solidity to their arguments.
Of course, the argument fails, because "macroevolution" normally
refers to speciation, which is unmistakably observed.
They were hoping that it referred to something more mystical, that can
never be observed, so once again they are left without a nice dividing
line.
Thereafter, in order to keep their dividing line, they begin to assign
their own meanings to either "macroevolution" or "speciation" -- never
anything terribly clear.
But it all seems to make a false practical distinction, as between
weather and climate.
~Iain
alwaysaskingquestions
"Iain" <iain_i...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3c8fc05b-1792-436b...@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 23, 11:56 pm, max maypo <max.ma...@notinsane.net> wrote:
[...]
> This "macro\micro" idea is attractive to Creationists, because at
> first glance it appears like a nice dividing line that allows them to
> accept the obvious(short-term evolution), whilst denying the less
> obvious (evolution over millions of years).
>
> It thereby gives an appearence of solidity to their arguments.
>
> Of course, the argument fails, because "macroevolution" normally
> refers to speciation, which is unmistakably observed.
>
> They were hoping that it referred to something more mystical, that can
> never be observed, so once again they are left without a nice dividing
> line.
>
> Thereafter, in order to keep their dividing line, they begin to assign
> their own meanings to either "macroevolution" or "speciation" -- never
> anything terribly clear.
>
> But it all seems to make a false practical distinction, as between
> weather and climate.
The fascinating thing I find is that they define macroevolution as something
like a monkey giving birth to a human and argue that the absence of such
macroevolution is proof that evolution is wrong; they completely miss the
point that it would be the very occurence of that form of macroevolution
that would totally destroy ToE.
Robert Carnegie
> max maypo wrote:
> > hoping someone here will help...on another forum, I'm engaged in the
> > exchange reproduced below. his position appears to be that evolution
> > only occurs when new species are produced, that a transition to some
> > state of 'higher complexity' is required, and that the effects of
> > natural selection within a species do not qualify as evolution.
>
> > I say humbug to all of the above. it's my (perhaps misguided?)
> > understanding that
>
> > (a) new species are definitely not required for evolution to occur
> > (but if I'm right, I'd sure like to be able to point to a kick-ass
> > example!)
>
> Evolution can be described, as you say, as "change in general species
> characteristics over time". More usually it's defined in change in
> allele frequencies in populations over time.
I'd use "evolution" for any cumulative change, development, whether
"upwards" on "down" for instance in complexity. This is to be kept
distinct from The Theory Of Evolution, in respect of which, however,
you should ask "Whose?" Lamarck's idea was promising but pretty much
wrong, Darwin's thoughts are different from modern ideas in details,
there are the punctuated-equilibrium-ists. And in other details of
the evolution of species, investigation can lead to revision of
theory.
It's possible to lose a faculty by evolution; look at flightless
birds, particularly penguins which are so popular in talk.origins.
They're very good at what they do, but what they do isn't what I'm
presuming their ancestors did, which is fly. Do penguins have
vestigial flight organs? (Uh, wings, but more specifically...)
"Complexity" of genes and of biological function is difficult to
measure, although a measurement system really is just a matter of
choice. Distrust creationists who talk about "information theory",
but they are kind of working in the right area. I would expect that a
hypothetical useful measurement of "complexity" of a species's genes -
let's say "useful" genes - could go up or down; for us, down when we
lost the function of the genes to make vitamin C (we have the useless,
broken wreckage of the genes). I also would expect almost all
individual mutations to be "down", counterbalanced by natural
selection repeatedly choosing the same useful genes and casting out
the "down" mutations. After the first billion years of life, I would
expect "up" changes to be mostly small changes in the complexity
measure. A little accidental added useful genetic complexity
introduced to an organism or species that is already full of many,
many complex useful genes. But since I don't have a measure formula,
you might even need some kind of cosmic insight to award measure
scores to subjects, I know I am being very speculative.
Species' genes also drift, which a complexity measure should ignore,
and the simple way to get two species for one is to separate two
populations of the same species of sexually reproducing critter, and
wait for drift and other changes to make them genetically too
different to reproduce properly. This isn't an absolute, since you
can mate horses and donkeys or lions and tigers although their
offspring are usually infertile, and I think there are combinations of
human genes that don't work together so that certain people can't
mate... but I'm not sure about that, don't quote me without checking
it. It'd make sense, though?
Of course, one species is also different to its distant ancestors in
time - but typically it isn't possible to try to mate them. I suppose
you could try out frozen mammoth sperm with elephants, perhaps.
(Although elephants aren't descended from frozen mammoths, I think.)
John Harshman
Well, they're *a* result of evolution.
> My undertsanding is that a species is the
> culmination of small changes over many generations; some of these changes
> may be due to mutations in genes being adopted due to advantages in coping
> with the environment in which the species lives, others may be due to
> different genes being expressed or unexpressed due to similar advantages?
That, and drift. But species only result when there are at least two
populations, at least one of which changes in a way that causes
reproductive isolation between the populations. Without the splitting of
populations you can have advantageous mutations until you're blue in the
face and there will be no new species.
John Harshman
Ken Denny
>
> Thereafter, in order to keep their dividing line, they begin to assign
> their own meanings to either "macroevolution" or "speciation" -- never
> anything terribly clear.
Actually the line is pretty clear, although they won't admit it. Any
evolution that has been observed is automatically microevolution. The
dividing line is whether it has been observed or not.
John Harshman
[snip]
> It's possible to lose a faculty by evolution; look at flightless
> birds, particularly penguins which are so popular in talk.origins.
> They're very good at what they do, but what they do isn't what I'm
> presuming their ancestors did, which is fly. Do penguins have
> vestigial flight organs? (Uh, wings, but more specifically...)
Sure. They have the usual suite of flight adaptations. All manner of
fused bones, a pygostyle, a single ovary, etc. in addition to wings.
[snip]
John Harshman
"that they're willing to believe". For one thing, this gets you out of
having to argue about what "observed" means, or why being "observed" is
important.
Friar Broccoli
> hoping someone here will help...on another forum, I'm engaged in the
> exchange reproduced below. his position appears to be that evolution
> only occurs when new species are produced, that a transition to some
> state of 'higher complexity' is required, and that the effects of
> natural selection within a species do not qualify as evolution.
>
> I say humbug to all of the above. it's my (perhaps misguided?)
> understanding that
>
> (a) new species are definitely not required for evolution to occur
> (but if I'm right, I'd sure like to be able to point to a kick-ass
> example!)
An excellent (maybe TOO excellent) example of this
is now being discussed here:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e668e8945af6ad0c
complete with links.
alwaysaskingquestions
Ah, I hadn't thought about that.
Iain
> On Apr 24, 8:18 am, Iain <iain_inks...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Thereafter, in order to keep their dividing line, they begin to assign
> > their own meanings to either "macroevolution" or "speciation" -- never
> > anything terribly clear.
>
> Actually the line is pretty clear, although they won't admit it.
Yes but I mean the meanings they assign to these words are never very
clear.
Often, when the macro\micro distinction lets them down, they invent
their own whacky jargon, for example, "upward evolution", etc, etc.
~Iain
Ray Martinez
wrote:
> max maypo wrote:
> > hoping someone here will help...on another forum, I'm engaged in the
> > exchange reproduced below. his position appears to be that evolution
> > only occurs when new species are produced, that a transition to some
> > state of 'higher complexity' is required, and that the effects of
> > natural selection within a species do not qualify as evolution.
>
> > I say humbug to all of the above. it's my (perhaps misguided?)
> > understanding that
>
> > (a) new species are definitely not required for evolution to occur
> > (but if I'm right, I'd sure like to be able to point to a kick-ass
> > example!)
>
> You are right. The peppered moth remains a good example, regardless of
> creationist attempts to dispose of it. Or pick up any issue of the
> journal Evolution for a dozen examples.
>
"....peppered moths in the wild don't even rest on tree trunks. The
textbook photographs, it turns out, have been staged."
--Jonathan Wells, "Icons of Evolution" 2002:140.
These moths have been thoroughly debunked, John. Time to obtain a new
gimmick.
> > (b) 'evolution' and 'higher complexity' don't have anything to do with
> > one another
>
> You are right, except that evolution may result in higher complexity. Or
> lower complexity. Or no change in complexity.
>
> > (c) the change in general species characteristics over time *IS*
> > evolution (although I have problems with the concept of species
> > ...for sexually reproducing organisms, I'm under the impression
> > that the line between one species and another is whether or not
> > organisms from the two classes can mate and produce fertile
> > offspring...if not, then it's two species; if yes, then only one.
> > and again, if I'm even close to right on this stuff, I'd very much
> > like to be able to point to yet another (or even the same) kick-ass
> > example!)
>
> The change in species characteristics is one definition of evolution;
> more rigorously, the change in allele frequency in populations. But I
> would consider this an incomplete definition.
Dana Tweedy and Steven J - are you listening?
> Your definition of species
> is faulty, however. Many species can mate and produce fertile offspring
> with many other species. SNIP....
What?
I have fallen out of my chair!
Species only mate with members of their own species, John. When they
get close to other species they kill them or run away.
Ray
> > (just in case: fnord)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Caranx latus
> On Apr 23, 6:20 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
<snip>
> > Your definition of species
> > is faulty, however. Many species can mate and produce fertile offspring
> > with many other species. SNIP....
>
> What?
>
> I have fallen out of my chair!
>
> Species only mate with members of their own species, John. When they
> get close to other species they kill them or run away.
You live in a black-and-white world, Ray. Unfortunately, the real
world tends to consist of shades of grey with very little actual black
or white.
Dana Tweedy
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8fb9374e-ee13-4e2f...@n1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...snip
>>
>> You are right. The peppered moth remains a good example, regardless of
>> creationist attempts to dispose of it. Or pick up any issue of the
>> journal Evolution for a dozen examples.
>>
>
> "....peppered moths in the wild don't even rest on tree trunks. The
> textbook photographs, it turns out, have been staged."
>
> --Jonathan Wells, "Icons of Evolution" 2002:140.
Peppered moths do spend some of their time of tree trunks, and the photo was
to illustrate the camoflage, not to suggest they spent all their time on
tree trunks.
>
> These moths have been thoroughly debunked, John. Time to obtain a new
> gimmick.
No, the fact that the coloring of the moth population changed over time, due
to natural selection has not been "debunked". Depite Wells and other
creationist complaints, the peppered moths are still a good example of
natural selection.
snip
>>
>> The change in species characteristics is one definition of evolution;
>> more rigorously, the change in allele frequency in populations. But I
>> would consider this an incomplete definition.
>
> Dana Tweedy and Steven J - are you listening?
Yes, and I agree. It shows that you are wrong. John is not saying that
change in allele frequency is not evolution. Your cliam that
microevolution is defined as change due to natural selection is wrong.
>
>> Your definition of species
>> is faulty, however. Many species can mate and produce fertile offspring
>> with many other species. SNIP....
>
> What?
>
> I have fallen out of my chair!
Why? He's right.
>
> Species only mate with members of their own species, John.
No, Ray, they don't. In the wild, hybridization is farily common, among
closely related species.
> When they
> get close to other species they kill them or run away.
Where do you get that idea, Ray? Are you being deliberately obtuse, or
are you just that ignorant of biology?
DJT
Dana Tweedy
Shane
> On Apr 23, 6:20 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>> max maypo wrote:
>>> hoping someone here will help...on another forum, I'm engaged in the
>>> exchange reproduced below. his position appears to be that evolution
>>> only occurs when new species are produced, that a transition to some
>>> state of 'higher complexity' is required, and that the effects of
>>> natural selection within a species do not qualify as evolution.
>>
>>> I say humbug to all of the above. it's my (perhaps misguided?)
>>> understanding that
>>
>>> (a) new species are definitely not required for evolution to occur
>>> (but if I'm right, I'd sure like to be able to point to a kick-ass
>>> example!)
>>
>> You are right. The peppered moth remains a good example, regardless of
>> creationist attempts to dispose of it. Or pick up any issue of the
>> journal Evolution for a dozen examples.
>>
>
> "....peppered moths in the wild don't even rest on tree trunks.
Sadly for both Ray and Wells, actual research does not support this.
From wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moths
"During an experiment in Cambridge over the seven years 2001-2007
Majerus noted the natural resting positions of peppered moths, and of
the 135 moths examined over half were on tree branches, mostly on the
lower half of the branch, 37% were on tree trunks, mostly on the north
side, and only 12.6% were resting on or under twigs.[1][2]"
1 Michael E. N. Majerus (August 2007). The Peppered Moth: The Proof of
Darwinian Evolution. Retrieved on 2007-09-09.
2 Steve Connor, Science Editor (25 August 2007). Moth study backs
classic 'test case' for Darwin's theory - Independent Online Edition >
Sci_Tech. The Independent. Retrieved on 2007-09-09.
This is one a classic example of why science is superior to
fundamentalism when studying the natural world. Science will not persist
in what it knows to be erroneous. Sadly Ray will persist is his
erroneous beliefs about peppered moths and it is unlikely that Wells'
family will ever offere a retraction for the erroneous statement in his
book.
> The
> textbook photographs, it turns out, have been staged."
As are many photo's in many publications. I have been photographed for
news papers and watched a TV news team film a news segment with a fire
crew I was in charge of. All staged, yet still accurate in its
illustration of the activity of the time.
>
> --Jonathan Wells, "Icons of Evolution" 2002:140.
> These moths have been thoroughly debunked, John. Time to obtain a new
> gimmick.
Ray mat have had reasons for thinking that once, albeit not particularly
good reasons, but that is no excuse for his ignorance now, when the
debunking has been thoroughly debunked--se links in Wiki article
referenced above.
>>> (b) 'evolution' and 'higher complexity' don't have anything to do with
>>> one another
>>
>> You are right, except that evolution may result in higher complexity. Or
>> lower complexity. Or no change in complexity.
>>
>>> (c) the change in general species characteristics over time *IS*
>>> evolution (although I have problems with the concept of species
>>> ...for sexually reproducing organisms, I'm under the impression
>>> that the line between one species and another is whether or not
>>> organisms from the two classes can mate and produce fertile
>>> offspring...if not, then it's two species; if yes, then only one.
>>> and again, if I'm even close to right on this stuff, I'd very much
>>> like to be able to point to yet another (or even the same) kick-ass
>>> example!)
>>
>> The change in species characteristics is one definition of evolution;
>> more rigorously, the change in allele frequency in populations. But I
>> would consider this an incomplete definition.
>
> Dana Tweedy and Steven J - are you listening?
>
>> Your definition of species
>> is faulty, however. Many species can mate and produce fertile offspring
>> with many other species. SNIP....
>
> What?
>
> I have fallen out of my chair!
>
> Species only mate with members of their own species, John. When they
> get close to other species they kill them or run away.
Poor Ray, if there ever was any doubt about his ignorance on biological
matters, this should remove any last vestige of it.
To name perhaps the two most famous types:
Tigons and Ligers.
Mules and Hinnies
but Wikipedia has many more
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_%28biology%29
[...]
VoiceOfReason
Unless they're smokin' hotties. "Hey filly, come here often?"
Ray Martinez
> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:8fb9374e-ee13-4e2f...@n1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...> On Apr 23, 6:20 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> > wrote:
>
> snip
>
>
>
> >> You are right. The peppered moth remains a good example, regardless of
> >> creationist attempts to dispose of it. Or pick up any issue of the
> >> journal Evolution for a dozen examples.
>
> > "....peppered moths in the wild don't even rest on tree trunks. The
> > textbook photographs, it turns out, have been staged."
>
> > --Jonathan Wells, "Icons of Evolution" 2002:140.
>
> Peppered moths do spend some of their time of tree trunks, and the photo was
> to illustrate the camoflage, not to suggest they spent all their time on
> tree trunks.
>
Wells wrote an entire chapter debunking this crap. He has a Ph.D. in
biology. The fact that evolutionists plough ahead and ignore plain
facts is shown right here.
>
>
> > These moths have been thoroughly debunked, John. Time to obtain a new
> > gimmick.
>
> No, the fact that the coloring of the moth population changed over time, due
> to natural selection has not been "debunked". Depite Wells and other
> creationist complaints, the peppered moths are still a good example of
> natural selection.
>
> snip
>
>
>
> >> The change in species characteristics is one definition of evolution;
> >> more rigorously, the change in allele frequency in populations. But I
> >> would consider this an incomplete definition.
>
> > Dana Tweedy and Steven J - are you listening?
>
> Yes, and I agree. It shows that you are wrong. John is not saying that
> change in allele frequency is not evolution [No one said or implied that he did - blatant
> misrepresentation]. Your claim that microevolution is defined as change due to natural selection is
> wrong [I said material causation, and I am right. But I accept the CLAIM that natural selection
> causes microevolution, as does Harshman and every evolutionist. It is "the main but not the exclusive
> means of modification."]
>
[Please note comments in brackets.]
Since 1859 evolution of any increment or rate has never been suggested
except within the confines of a proposed causation mechanism to
accomplish the alleged change; hence "On The Origin Of Species By
Means Of Natural Selection" (= material causation). The reason
evolution has never been hypothesized outside of causation mechanism
is because evolutionary theorists do not want anyone to think that God
causes evolution. Evolutionary theorists should be commended for this.
Harshman implied that there was more than one valid definition of
'evolution.'
"The change in species characteristics is one definition of
evolution...."
Then he says "change in allele frequency in populations" is an
"incomplete definition." You have argued that a change in gene
frequencies is the definition evolution. You have argued that an
incomplete definition of evolution is a complete and the only
definition of evolution. You have also argued, very recently, that
simple inheritance is evolution. If inheritance is evolution then you
are saying reproduction is evolution. Offspring must have the genes of
its progenitor. No one denies this self-evident and simple truism. The
same is not evolution. A change in gene frequency is not evolution.
You might as well say that fecundity or aging is evolution. Your
"definition" renders organic evolution meaningless.
I have argued that there is more than one valid definition of
evolution. My points here are simple and you will undoubtedly distort
them because you are found wanting and have never had the ability to
admit to any error of any size.
>
>
> >> Your definition of species
> >> is faulty, however. Many species can mate and produce fertile offspring
> >> with many other species. SNIP....
>
> > What?
>
> > I have fallen out of my chair!
>
> Why? He's right.
>
Ridiculous.
He must have made a genuine error.
>
>
> > Species only mate with members of their own species, John.
>
> No, Ray, they don't. In the wild, hybridization is farily common, among
> closely related species.
>
> > When they
> > get close to other species they kill them or run away.
>
> Where do you get that idea, Ray? Are you being deliberately obtuse, or
> are you just that ignorant of biology?
>
> DJT
Comment does require some anti-legalistic comprehension, Dana.
Ray
Dana Tweedy
snip
>> Peppered moths do spend some of their time of tree trunks, and the photo
>> was
>> to illustrate the camoflage, not to suggest they spent all their time on
>> tree trunks.
>>
>
> Wells wrote an entire chapter debunking this crap. He has a Ph.D. in
> biology. The fact that evolutionists plough ahead and ignore plain
> facts is shown right here.
It's irrelevant what degree Wells has. He's still wrong. The 'plain fact'
is that the peppered moth studies are a good example of natural selection on
a population. You seem to have not bothered to take Well's
anti-evolutionary agenda into account.
snip
>> >> The change in species characteristics is one definition of evolution;
>> >> more rigorously, the change in allele frequency in populations. But I
>> >> would consider this an incomplete definition.
>>
>> > Dana Tweedy and Steven J - are you listening?
>>
>> Yes, and I agree. It shows that you are wrong. John is not saying that
>> change in allele frequency is not evolution [No one said or implied that
>> he did - blatant
>> misrepresentation].
Ray, I've pointed out before that trying to interject your comments into my
statements in this way is dishonest. Furthermore, you *have * claimed
that evolution is not change in allele frequency, which is the only way your
comment about "Dana Tweedy and Steven J- are you listenting" makes any kind
of sense. I did not misrepresent you at all, and you know it.
Your claim that microevolution is defined as change due to natural selection
is
>> wrong [I said material causation, and I am right. But I accept the CLAIM
>> that natural selection
>> causes microevolution, as does Harshman and every evolutionist. It is
>> "the main but not the exclusive
>> means of modification."]
Ray, Natural selection is part of the mechanism of adaptive evolution, but
evolution can occur without selection, natural or otherwise. "Every
evolutionist" including Dr. Harshman is aware of that. Natural selection
does not cause "modification" in individuals, but is part of the mechanism
that produces genetic change in populations.
>>
>
> [Please note comments in brackets.]
The comments in brackets are not mine, and as I've pointed out before,
adding your own comments into my statements to change their meaning is
dishonest.
>
> Since 1859 evolution of any increment or rate has never been suggested
> except within the confines of a proposed causation mechanism to
> accomplish the alleged change;
That is not true, before or after 1859. It had been known before Darwin
that populations did show change over generations, even when the mechanism
was not known.
> hence "On The Origin Of Species By
> Means Of Natural Selection" (= material causation).
Ray, "Natural Selection" as used by Darwin was not a synonym for "material
causation". As a scientist, Darwin was aware that all causation that
science can study is "material". Natural Selection was Darwin's term for
the process by which organisms in a population reproduce differentially.
Darwin's discovery was that nature acted as the "agent" that determined
which variations in a population would be selected for propigation.
>The reason
> evolution has never been hypothesized outside of causation mechanism
> is because evolutionary theorists do not want anyone to think that God
> causes evolution. Evolutionary theorists should be commended for this.
Your claim does not make any kind of sense. Evolution was "hypothesized"
before the mechanism was discovered by Darwin and Wallace. All scientists
before, or after Darwin know that any scientific theory explaining the fact
of evolution would have to have a naturalistic mechanism. The idea that
God causes evolution is a religious, not a scientific concept.
>
> Harshman implied that there was more than one valid definition of
> 'evolution.'
What he said was that he felt the standard definition was incomplete. He
did not say that your definition was valid.
>
> "The change in species characteristics is one definition of
> evolution...."
Yes, and he doesn't say that the definition you claimed was valid.
>
> Then he says "change in allele frequency in populations" is an
> "incomplete definition." You have argued that a change in gene
> frequencies is the definition evolution.
It is the one used by biologists. John apparently believes this definition
can be improved.
>You have argued that an
> incomplete definition of evolution is a complete and the only
> definition of evolution.
Did I ever state that I felt that the definition was "complete"? What I
stated is that it's the one used by biologists.
> You have also argued, very recently, that
> simple inheritance is evolution.
Where did I "argue" that?
> If inheritance is evolution then you
> are saying reproduction is evolution.
Ray, I did not claim that "simple inheritance" is evolution. You seem to
have either badly misunderstood me, or are deliberately "bending" the truth.
> Offspring must have the genes of
> its progenitor. No one denies this self-evident and simple truism.
In sexually reproducing organisms, the offspring will have half the genes of
each of it's parents, plus any new mutations.
> The
> same is not evolution. A change in gene frequency is not evolution.
Ray, inheritance is not evolution, but change in gene frequency in a
population over time, is evolution.
> You might as well say that fecundity or aging is evolution. Your
> "definition" renders organic evolution meaningless.
You seem to have imagined something that didn't happen I did not claim
that inheritance is the same as evolution. Where are you getting this
idea?
>
> I have argued that there is more than one valid definition of
> evolution.
As for biologists, there isn't. The word itself can be defined a number
of different ways, however if you aren't talking about biological evolution,
you need to make it clear what you are talking about.
> My points here are simple and you will undoubtedly distort
> them because you are found wanting and have never had the ability to
> admit to any error of any size.
Ray, I freely admit any errors I make. I don't admit to mistakes you make,
or misconceptions you have about me, or science in general. I do not
"distort" anything, and you know it. On what I've been "found wanting",
you have not been able to establish.
snip
>> >> Your definition of species
>> >> is faulty, however. Many species can mate and produce fertile
>> >> offspring
>> >> with many other species. SNIP....
>>
>> > What?
>>
>> > I have fallen out of my chair!
>>
>> Why? He's right.
>>
>
> Ridiculous.
>
> He must have made a genuine error.
No, he's quite correct. Many members of closely related species do mate,
and produce fertile offspring. See:
http://www.fieldtripearth.org/article.xml?id=685
http://crop.scijournals.org/cgi/content/full/46/2/512
http://www.plantsciences.ucdavis.edu/gepts/Papa&Gepts%20EPCS%20Gene%20flow.2004.pdf
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1853087
>
>>
>>
>> > Species only mate with members of their own species, John.
>>
>> No, Ray, they don't. In the wild, hybridization is farily common, among
>> closely related species.
>>
>> > When they
>> > get close to other species they kill them or run away.
>>
>> Where do you get that idea, Ray? Are you being deliberately obtuse, or
>> are you just that ignorant of biology?
>>
>> DJT
>
> Comment does require some anti-legalistic comprehension, Dana.
Your comment is wrong, and demonstrates a basic ignorance of biology, Ray.
DJT
John Wilkins
Seconded, from the ligers and tiglons and red wolves, oh my, department.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
John Wilkins
And not a necessary one. Moreover, no biological theory requires species
to exist (when the term "species" is used in theories, it always means
something else, like trophic node, or population, or gene pool (species
and gene pools are not coterminous entities). So species are not "units"
of evolution, any more than mountains are "units" of geology.
>
> > My undertsanding is that a species is the
> > culmination of small changes over many generations; some of these changes
> > may be due to mutations in genes being adopted due to advantages in coping
> > with the environment in which the species lives, others may be due to
> > different genes being expressed or unexpressed due to similar advantages?
>
> That, and drift. But species only result when there are at least two
> populations, at least one of which changes in a way that causes
> reproductive isolation between the populations. Without the splitting of
> populations you can have advantageous mutations until you're blue in the
> face and there will be no new species.
Except in the case of asexual organisms which form species solely, so
far as I can work out, in terms of tracking adaptive niches.
Dana Tweedy
"Dana Tweedy" <redd...@bresnan.net> wrote in message
news:p8OdnTiBVoyRgIzV...@bresnan.com...
snip
> No, he's quite correct. Many members of closely related species do mate,
> and produce fertile offspring. See:
>
> http://www.fieldtripearth.org/article.xml?id=685
> http://crop.scijournals.org/cgi/content/full/46/2/512
> http://www.plantsciences.ucdavis.edu/gepts/Papa&Gepts%20EPCS%20Gene%20flow.2004.pdf
> http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1853087
>
That last link was the wrong link, and refers to DNA hybridization, not
hybridzation in the wild. This is the link I meant:
http://www.allenpress.com/pdf/mamm-87-04-24_643..662.pdf
DJT
John Harshman
Asexual organisms have the advantage that each and every reproductive
event involves the splitting of populations into separate gene pools. So
that's no exception at all. In this case "speciation" happens when one
clone starts tracking a different niche from another clone.
John Harshman
> On Apr 23, 6:20 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>> max maypo wrote:
>>> hoping someone here will help...on another forum, I'm engaged in the
>>> exchange reproduced below. his position appears to be that evolution
>>> only occurs when new species are produced, that a transition to some
>>> state of 'higher complexity' is required, and that the effects of
>>> natural selection within a species do not qualify as evolution.
>>> I say humbug to all of the above. it's my (perhaps misguided?)
>>> understanding that
>>> (a) new species are definitely not required for evolution to occur
>>> (but if I'm right, I'd sure like to be able to point to a kick-ass
>>> example!)
>> You are right. The peppered moth remains a good example, regardless of
>> creationist attempts to dispose of it. Or pick up any issue of the
>> journal Evolution for a dozen examples.
>>
>
> "....peppered moths in the wild don't even rest on tree trunks. The
> textbook photographs, it turns out, have been staged."
>
> --Jonathan Wells, "Icons of Evolution" 2002:140.
>
> These moths have been thoroughly debunked, John. Time to obtain a new
> gimmick.
It's not wise to use Jonathan Wells as a source. He's wrong about almost
everything, this included. Count wells among "creationist attempts to
dispose of it". And yes, the moths do rest on tree trunks, as well as
other parts of trees.
>>> (b) 'evolution' and 'higher complexity' don't have anything to do with
>>> one another
>> You are right, except that evolution may result in higher complexity. Or
>> lower complexity. Or no change in complexity.
>>
>>> (c) the change in general species characteristics over time *IS*
>>> evolution (although I have problems with the concept of species
>>> ...for sexually reproducing organisms, I'm under the impression
>>> that the line between one species and another is whether or not
>>> organisms from the two classes can mate and produce fertile
>>> offspring...if not, then it's two species; if yes, then only one.
>>> and again, if I'm even close to right on this stuff, I'd very much
>>> like to be able to point to yet another (or even the same) kick-ass
>>> example!)
>> The change in species characteristics is one definition of evolution;
>> more rigorously, the change in allele frequency in populations. But I
>> would consider this an incomplete definition.
>
> Dana Tweedy and Steven J - are you listening?
They may be, in which case they probably understand what I meant much
better than you did.
>> Your definition of species
>> is faulty, however. Many species can mate and produce fertile offspring
>> with many other species. SNIP....
>
> What?
>
> I have fallen out of my chair!
>
> Species only mate with members of their own species, John. When they
> get close to other species they kill them or run away.
You are instructing me on biology? At this point I am forcibly reminded
that Ray is technically insane. I really shouldn't respond to him. For
any lurkers, Ray is comically wrong about this as about almost
everything he says. And for this he should probably be a recipient of
sympathy rather than ridicule. There are literally millions (billions)
of known examples of hybrids between species, mules being the ones that
come to mind most immediately to most people. To me, of course, it would
be hybrids among duck species.
John Harshman
> On Apr 24, 2:49 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:8fb9374e-ee13-4e2f...@n1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...> On Apr 23, 6:20 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
>>> wrote:
>> snip
>>
>>
>>
>>>> You are right. The peppered moth remains a good example, regardless of
>>>> creationist attempts to dispose of it. Or pick up any issue of the
>>>> journal Evolution for a dozen examples.
>>> "....peppered moths in the wild don't even rest on tree trunks. The
>>> textbook photographs, it turns out, have been staged."
>>> --Jonathan Wells, "Icons of Evolution" 2002:140.
>> Peppered moths do spend some of their time of tree trunks, and the photo was
>> to illustrate the camoflage, not to suggest they spent all their time on
>> tree trunks.
>>
>
> Wells wrote an entire chapter debunking this crap. He has a Ph.D. in
> biology. The fact that evolutionists plough ahead and ignore plain
> facts is shown right here.
It's your claim that a person with a PhD in biology must be right about
everything he says? If so, what happens when I say Wells is wrong? I
must be right because I have a PhD in biology. But Wells must be right
because he has one too. But I must be right, so Wells must be wrong. But
Wells must be right so I must be wrong. (continue until head explodes)
[snip more than usually incoherent text]
>>>> Your definition of species
>>>> is faulty, however. Many species can mate and produce fertile offspring
>>>> with many other species. SNIP....
>>> What?
>>> I have fallen out of my chair!
>> Why? He's right.
>>
>
> Ridiculous.
>
> He must have made a genuine error.
I can't have made an error. I have a PhD in Biology.
Ray Martinez
> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:34c98469-c92d-4645...@f24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> snip
>
> >> Peppered moths do spend some of their time of tree trunks, and the photo
> >> was
> >> to illustrate the camoflage, not to suggest they spent all their time on
> >> tree trunks.
>
> > Wells wrote an entire chapter debunking this crap. He has a Ph.D. in
> > biology. The fact that evolutionists plough ahead and ignore plain
> > facts is shown right here.
>
> It's irrelevant what degree Wells has. He's still wrong. The 'plain fact'
> is that the peppered moth studies are a good example of natural selection on
> a population. You seem to have not bothered to take Well's
> anti-evolutionary agenda into account.
>
Everyone knows that Wells is an antievolutionist. The book cited
dismantles evolution is spectacular fashion. The chapter on peppered
moths was written to show how egregious fraud is in evolutionary
theory. Moths do not rest on tree trunks. The photographs were staged.
This means willful fraud was engaged in. These reasons are why Wells
and over half of all adults in the U.S. are not evolutionists.
Its hard to believe that John Harshman does not have the integrity to
admit the fraud here. The evidence is plain and irrefutable. It is not
hard to believe that a lay evolutionist like yourself refuses to give
up this particular bunk.
I urge everyone to read Jonathan Wells, "Icons of Evolution" 2002.
> snip
>
> >> >> The change in species characteristics is one definition of evolution;
> >> >> more rigorously, the change in allele frequency in populations. But I
> >> >> would consider this an incomplete definition.
>
> >> > Dana Tweedy and Steven J - are you listening?
>
> >> Yes, and I agree. It shows that you are wrong. John is not saying that
> >> change in allele frequency is not evolution [No one said or implied that
> >> he did - blatant
> >> misrepresentation].
>
> Ray, I've pointed out before that trying to interject your comments into my
> statements in this way is dishonest.
Every writer and author uses brackets to do what I did. That is what
they mean. That is their purpose. There is no dishonesty whatsoever.
Saying the use of brackets is dishonest is a willful lie since you
very well know that brackets is the tool for writers to inject text
that is theirs and not the person who is being quoted.
Your paranoia is fringe hysterics. I can sense it in your tone. The
only dishonest person is you and the Group of evolutionists here who
read your bullshit and remain quiet. The Group here has no integrity,
including John Harshman, who is supposed to be a scholar.
> Furthermore, you *have * claimed
> that evolution is not change in allele frequency, which is the only way your
> comment about "Dana Tweedy and Steven J- are you listenting" makes any kind
> of sense. I did not misrepresent you at all, and you know it.
>
Yes you did. You made it appear that I said Harshman was denying a
gene frequency definition of evolution. You straight out lied since I
never said it and since I know Harshman accepts a change in gene
frequency to be at least part of a definition of evolution.
Again, the real point here is the Group and their dishonesty as they
ignore your bullshit and remain quiet. Your deliberate distortions are
plain and self-evident.
> Your claim that microevolution is defined as change due to natural selection
> is
>
> >> wrong [I said material causation, and I am right. But I accept the CLAIM
> >> that natural selection
> >> causes microevolution, as does Harshman and every evolutionist. It is
> >> "the main but not the exclusive
> >> means of modification."]
>
> Ray, Natural selection is part of the mechanism of adaptive evolution, but
> evolution can occur without selection, natural or otherwise. "Every
> evolutionist" including Dr. Harshman is aware of that. Natural selection
> does not cause "modification" in individuals, but is part of the mechanism
> that produces genetic change in populations.
>
You are a completely ignorant lay evolutionist.
>
>
> > [Please note comments in brackets.]
>
> The comments in brackets are not mine, and as I've pointed out before,
> adding your own comments into my statements to change their meaning is
> dishonest.
>
Who would think brackets are yours?
>
>
> > Since 1859 evolution of any increment or rate has never been suggested
> > except within the confines of a proposed causation mechanism to
> > accomplish the alleged change;
>
> That is not true, before or after 1859. It had been known before Darwin
> that populations did show change over generations, even when the mechanism
> was not known.
>
> > hence "On The Origin Of Species By
> > Means Of Natural Selection" (= material causation).
>
> Ray, "Natural Selection" as used by Darwin was not a synonym for "material
> causation". As a scientist, Darwin was aware that all causation that
> science can study is "material". Natural Selection was Darwin's term for
> the process by which organisms in a population reproduce differentially.
> Darwin's discovery was that nature acted as the "agent" that determined
> which variations in a population would be selected for propigation.
>
Self evident contradictory nonsense of a lay evolutionist.
I am through, here.
Ray
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> > Species only mate with members of their own species, John.
>
> >> No, Ray, they don't. In the wild, hybridization is farily common, among
> >> closely related species.
>
> >> > When they
> >> > get close to other species they kill them or run away.
>
> >> Where do you get that idea, Ray? Are you being deliberately obtuse, or
> >> are you just that ignorant of biology?
>
> >> DJT
>
> > Comment does require some anti-legalistic comprehension, Dana.
>
> Your comment is wrong, and demonstrates a basic ignorance of biology, Ray.
>
> DJT- Hide quoted text -
Ray Martinez
wrote:
> Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Apr 24, 2:49 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
> >> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:8fb9374e-ee13-4e2f...@n1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...> On Apr 23, 6:20 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> >>> wrote:
> >> snip
>
> >>>> You are right. The peppered moth remains a good example, regardless of
> >>>> creationist attempts to dispose of it. Or pick up any issue of the
> >>>> journal Evolution for a dozen examples.
> >>> "....peppered moths in the wild don't even rest on tree trunks. The
> >>> textbook photographs, it turns out, have been staged."
> >>> --Jonathan Wells, "Icons of Evolution" 2002:140.
> >> Peppered moths do spend some of their time of tree trunks, and the photo was
> >> to illustrate the camoflage, not to suggest they spent all their time on
> >> tree trunks.
>
> > Wells wrote an entire chapter debunking this crap. He has a Ph.D. in
> > biology. The fact that evolutionists plough ahead and ignore plain
> > facts is shown right here.
>
> It's your claim that a person with a PhD in biology must be right about
> everything he says?
Of course not. The mentioning of Wells's credentials was to remind
that he is speaking as an authority and not a lay commentator.
> If so, what happens when I say Wells is wrong? I
> must be right because I have a PhD in biology. But Wells must be right
> because he has one too. But I must be right, so Wells must be wrong. But
> Wells must be right so I must be wrong. (continue until head explodes)
>
> [snip more than usually incoherent text]
>
> >>>> Your definition of species
> >>>> is faulty, however. Many species can mate and produce fertile offspring
> >>>> with many other species. SNIP....
> >>> What?
> >>> I have fallen out of my chair!
> >> Why? He's right.
>
> > Ridiculous.
>
> > He must have made a genuine error.
>
> I can't have made an error. I have a PhD in Biology.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
You surely know the photographs of moths resting on tree trunks was
staged. I think you should recognize this fact in the interest of
truth. Make any other point that you wish but Wells has shown that the
photos were staged.
Ray
John Harshman
I'm sorry to say that a PhD doesn't guarantee that you know anything
about anything other than a single, narrow subject, which in Wells' case
is a small facet of (if I remember) molecular developmental biology. He
clearly knows almost nothing about evolution, since he made a hash out
of it in his book.
I, on the other hand, have a PhD in Evolutionary Biology, which at least
puts me in the ball park. Though in fact I'm not guaranteed to know
about anything other than duck phylogeny, I do happen to know quite a
bit about evolutionary biology in general, much more than Wells does. So
if Wells is an authority, how much more of an authority must I be?
>> If so, what happens when I say Wells is wrong? I
>> must be right because I have a PhD in biology. But Wells must be right
>> because he has one too. But I must be right, so Wells must be wrong. But
>> Wells must be right so I must be wrong. (continue until head explodes)
>>
>> [snip more than usually incoherent text]
>>
>>>>>> Your definition of species
>>>>>> is faulty, however. Many species can mate and produce fertile offspring
>>>>>> with many other species. SNIP....
>>>>> What?
>>>>> I have fallen out of my chair!
>>>> Why? He's right.
>>> Ridiculous.
>>> He must have made a genuine error.
>> I can't have made an error. I have a PhD in Biology.
> You surely know the photographs of moths resting on tree trunks was
> staged. I think you should recognize this fact in the interest of
> truth. Make any other point that you wish but Wells has shown that the
> photos were staged.
Wells has shown no such thing. But I do understand that some of those
photos were staged, i.e. that the moths were placed on the trunks before
photographing them. But so what? The photos were merely to show what
moths look like against tree trunks, not to document that they do rest
on tree trunks. Other data, however, have shown that to be true. Moths
do rest on tree trunks.
And you have to believe me, because I'm an authority, a much better
authority than Jonathan Wells.
Ray Martinez
Up until this moment, John, your TEist lap dog emphatically said that
a change in gene frequencies is the only valid definition of
evolution. Your comment above refutes his belief and corroborates my
claim/fact that evolution has more than one valid definition.
Dana is obviously flabbergasted over your remark. My research into
evolutionary theory has shown more than one valid definition of
evolution. Darwin's definition is still valid. In fact the biological
synthesis said that Darwin was correct. That is why they affirmed
natural selection at the genetic level even though many big name
evolutionists, during the synthesis, rejected a gene centric
definition, including Huxley.
> >> Your definition of species
> >> is faulty, however. Many species can mate and produce fertile offspring
> >> with many other species. SNIP....
>
> > What?
>
> > I have fallen out of my chair!
>
> > Species only mate with members of their own species, John. When they
> > get close to other species they kill them or run away.
>
> You are instructing me on biology?
In the wild, species mate with their own kind and never any other
species. No one was talking about hybridity. You attempted to make it
look like that it is normal and common for species to mate with other
species in the wild. This is completely false.
We know different animals graze along side of each other but for the
most part they are hostile and competing for limited resources. They
do not mate with other species. This is impossible. Your doctorate is
worthless here.
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
It is disappointing to see you play the "agree with me or you are
insane" card. You have made an egregious error and now you will do
everything but admit it. I am fond of pointing out that anytime an
evolutionist says a creationist is insane then that is a compliment.
The approval of persons who say apes morphed into men and that species
mate outside of their species is the best evidence that we are exactly
opposite of what you say. Glad to get your disapproval.
Ray
Free Lunch
>On Apr 24, 6:18 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
>wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>> > On Apr 24, 2:49 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>> >> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:8fb9374e-ee13-4e2f...@n1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...> On Apr 23, 6:20 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >> snip
>>
>> >>>> You are right. The peppered moth remains a good example, regardless of
>> >>>> creationist attempts to dispose of it. Or pick up any issue of the
>> >>>> journal Evolution for a dozen examples.
>> >>> "....peppered moths in the wild don't even rest on tree trunks. The
>> >>> textbook photographs, it turns out, have been staged."
>> >>> --Jonathan Wells, "Icons of Evolution" 2002:140.
>> >> Peppered moths do spend some of their time of tree trunks, and the photo was
>> >> to illustrate the camoflage, not to suggest they spent all their time on
>> >> tree trunks.
>>
>> > Wells wrote an entire chapter debunking this crap. He has a Ph.D. in
>> > biology. The fact that evolutionists plough ahead and ignore plain
>> > facts is shown right here.
>>
>> It's your claim that a person with a PhD in biology must be right about
>> everything he says?
>
>Of course not. The mentioning of Wells's credentials was to remind
>that he is speaking as an authority and not a lay commentator.
You do realize that Wells has managed to undermine any credibility he
might have once had with some of his unsubstantiated claims.
Dana Tweedy
>>
>> It's irrelevant what degree Wells has. He's still wrong. The 'plain fact'
>> is that the peppered moth studies are a good example of natural selection
>> on
>> a population. You seem to have not bothered to take Well's
>> anti-evolutionary agenda into account.
>>
>
> Everyone knows that Wells is an antievolutionist.
Do you know *Why* Wells is an antievolutionist? It has nothing to do with
scientific reasons. Wells is a member of Moon's Unification Church
(Moonies) This is his own statement of why he opposes evolution.
"Father's [Moon's] words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I
should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow
Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When
Father chose me to enter a PhD program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity
to prepare myself for battle."
http://www.tparents.org/Library/Unification/Talks/Wells/0-Toc.htm
Also see:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jonathan_Wells
Now, if it was only that Wells was anti evolution, that would be one thing.
The fact is that his claims are false.
> The book cited
> dismantles evolution is spectacular fashion.
Actually, it doesn't, and it's not even it's stated intent. Wells talks
about "Icons" of evolution, and why he feels they aren't really evidence for
evolution. Wells' statements, however are grossly misleading, and often
false. Here's Euginie Scott's review of the book:
http://www.scienceormyth.org/icons%20of%20evolution.html
Jerry Coyne's:
http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/Coyne-IconsReview.htm
> The chapter on peppered
> moths was written to show how egregious fraud is in evolutionary
> theory. Moths do not rest on tree trunks.
Which, even if were true, is irrelevant. The fact is that they moths do
rest on the trees, and the color morphs of the populations did change due to
increased predation.
> The photographs were staged.
The photographs were meant to illustrate the camoflage the color patterns
gave to the moths. They were not meant to show where the moths normally
rested. See:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB601_1.html
> This means willful fraud was engaged in. These reasons are why Wells
> and over half of all adults in the U.S. are not evolutionists.
There was no fraud involved. Wells opposes evolution due to his religious
beliefs, and did so even before he went to school. The population of the US
is largely ignorant of the facts, and their failure to accept the science of
evolution has more to do with that ignorance, and their religious beliefs.
>
> Its hard to believe that John Harshman does not have the integrity to
> admit the fraud here.
He has the "integrity" to admit a fraud, but no reason to. There was no
fraud to admit.
> The evidence is plain and irrefutable.
Then why has it been refuted?
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB601.html
> It is not
> hard to believe that a lay evolutionist like yourself refuses to give
> up this particular bunk.
This "particular bunk" is Wells' falsehoods, and distortions.
>
> I urge everyone to read Jonathan Wells, "Icons of Evolution" 2002.
And see how dishonest it really is?
>
>
>> snip
>>
>> >> >> The change in species characteristics is one definition of
>> >> >> evolution;
>> >> >> more rigorously, the change in allele frequency in populations. But
>> >> >> I
>> >> >> would consider this an incomplete definition.
>>
>> >> > Dana Tweedy and Steven J - are you listening?
>>
>> >> Yes, and I agree. It shows that you are wrong. John is not saying that
>> >> change in allele frequency is not evolution [No one said or implied
>> >> that
>> >> he did - blatant
>> >> misrepresentation].
>>
>> Ray, I've pointed out before that trying to interject your comments into
>> my
>> statements in this way is dishonest.
>
> Every writer and author uses brackets to do what I did.
Not to add words and change the meaning. What you did was dishonest. You
know this.
>That is what
> they mean. That is their purpose. There is no dishonesty whatsoever.
> Saying the use of brackets is dishonest is a willful lie since you
> very well know that brackets is the tool for writers to inject text
> that is theirs and not the person who is being quoted.
The fact is that "injecting" text to change the meaning is dishonest.
It's not a tool that honest authors use at all.
>
> Your paranoia is fringe hysterics.
No paranoia, not hysterics. I'm just pointing out that your adding words to
my statements is dishonest.
> I can sense it in your tone.
Ray, you always get it wrong when you try to "sense" anything in my, or
other's writing. You keep referring to how much "rage" someone shows,
when it's clear they are very calm.
> The
> only dishonest person is you and the Group of evolutionists here who
> read your bullshit and remain quiet. The Group here has no integrity,
> including John Harshman, who is supposed to be a scholar.
Ray, you know that what you did was dishonest. Trying to shift the blame
onto me is not only irrational, but only confirms your own dishonesty.
>
>> Furthermore, you *have * claimed
>> that evolution is not change in allele frequency, which is the only way
>> your
>> comment about "Dana Tweedy and Steven J- are you listenting" makes any
>> kind
>> of sense. I did not misrepresent you at all, and you know it.
>>
>
> Yes you did. You made it appear that I said Harshman was denying a
> gene frequency definition of evolution.
Ray, once again, that's not a distortion, but a plain reading of what you
said.
> You straight out lied since I
> never said it and since I know Harshman accepts a change in gene
> frequency to be at least part of a definition of evolution.
Then what you wrote about me and Steven paying attention makes absolutely no
sense. It's possible you are just being irrational, but I (silly me)
assumed you were attempting to make some kind of sense.
>
> Again, the real point here is the Group and their dishonesty as they
> ignore your bullshit and remain quiet. Your deliberate distortions are
> plain and self-evident.
Then why does no one but yourself seem to see them as "distortions"?
It's not my fault if you can't write clearly, or say what you mean. No
one supports your claims, because they don't see any truth to them.
>
>
>> Your claim that microevolution is defined as change due to natural
>> selection
>> is
>>
>> >> wrong [I said material causation, and I am right. But I accept the
>> >> CLAIM
>> >> that natural selection
>> >> causes microevolution, as does Harshman and every evolutionist. It is
>> >> "the main but not the exclusive
>> >> means of modification."]
>>
>> Ray, Natural selection is part of the mechanism of adaptive evolution,
>> but
>> evolution can occur without selection, natural or otherwise. "Every
>> evolutionist" including Dr. Harshman is aware of that. Natural selection
>> does not cause "modification" in individuals, but is part of the
>> mechanism
>> that produces genetic change in populations.
>>
>
> You are a completely ignorant lay evolutionist.
Other than name calling, you don't actually address my point. I'll take
that as an admission you concede that natural selection does not cause
modifications in individuals.
>
>>
>>
>> > [Please note comments in brackets.]
>>
>> The comments in brackets are not mine, and as I've pointed out before,
>> adding your own comments into my statements to change their meaning is
>> dishonest.
>>
>
> Who would think brackets are yours?
The point is that you are adding "brackets" to change the meaning of my
words. You are quite aware that is dishonest.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> > Since 1859 evolution of any increment or rate has never been suggested
>> > except within the confines of a proposed causation mechanism to
>> > accomplish the alleged change;
>>
>> That is not true, before or after 1859. It had been known before Darwin
>> that populations did show change over generations, even when the
>> mechanism
>> was not known.
>>
>> > hence "On The Origin Of Species By
>> > Means Of Natural Selection" (= material causation).
>>
>> Ray, "Natural Selection" as used by Darwin was not a synonym for
>> "material
>> causation". As a scientist, Darwin was aware that all causation that
>> science can study is "material". Natural Selection was Darwin's term for
>> the process by which organisms in a population reproduce differentially.
>> Darwin's discovery was that nature acted as the "agent" that determined
>> which variations in a population would be selected for propigation.
>>
>
> Self evident contradictory nonsense of a lay evolutionist.
Again, you don't address my point, or provide any counter point. I'll take
it as you are conceding the point.
>
> I am through, here.
Ray's on the run once more.....
snipping what Ray is unable to address
DJT
Dana Tweedy
>> > Wells wrote an entire chapter debunking this crap. He has a Ph.D. in
>> > biology. The fact that evolutionists plough ahead and ignore plain
>> > facts is shown right here.
>>
>> It's your claim that a person with a PhD in biology must be right about
>> everything he says?
>
> Of course not. The mentioning of Wells's credentials was to remind
> that he is speaking as an authority and not a lay commentator.
However Wells was speaking, he was wrong. A person who is wrong, with a
Ph. D. is still wrong.
snip
>> > He must have made a genuine error.
>>
>> I can't have made an error. I have a PhD in Biology.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> You surely know the photographs of moths resting on tree trunks was
> staged.
They weren't "staged" they show what they were meant to show. In anycase,
"error" you claimed in the above, was not about the peppered moth studies.
> I think you should recognize this fact in the interest of
> truth.
Why? It's not the truth, why should he "recognize" a lie as being the
truth?
> Make any other point that you wish but Wells has shown that the
> photos were staged.
No, what he showed was that the photos demonstrated what they were meant to
demonstrate. Wells falsely claims they were meant to demonstrate
something other than what they were for.
DJT
John Wilkins
> John Wilkins wrote:
...
> >> That, and drift. But species only result when there are at least two
> >> populations, at least one of which changes in a way that causes
> >> reproductive isolation between the populations. Without the splitting of
> >> populations you can have advantageous mutations until you're blue in the
> >> face and there will be no new species.
> >
> > Except in the case of asexual organisms which form species solely, so
> > far as I can work out, in terms of tracking adaptive niches.
>
> Asexual organisms have the advantage that each and every reproductive
> event involves the splitting of populations into separate gene pools. So
> that's no exception at all. In this case "speciation" happens when one
> clone starts tracking a different niche from another clone.
Here I disagree. It is not the case that each and every new strain forms
a new species because there is a differential survival of strains that
track closely a given niche, while those that deviate from the niche
(which may be, for instance, a host that the strain infects, or it may
be an abiotic resource like a sulphur-rich spring) tend to die out and
undercompete. This means the "species" is a location in genome space
around which they asexual strains cluster.
Many of these supposedly asexual organisms also swap and share genetic
resources via conjugation and genetic reuptake in a medium, and the
rates of sharing correlate roughly with genetic relatedness. This is the
"core genome" hypothesis, under which the usefulness of shared genes
depends on whether the new host has the requisite housekeeping or
metabolic genes that make the introduced gene work the right way.
John Wilkins
And there is *film* footage of the moths not only flying of their own
accord to rest on the trucks, and on larger branches that were also
sooty, but of birds predating upon the lighter morph there, and missing
the dark morph. I have watched it. It was shown on the BBC back when it
was first done.
What was staged was a *single* photograph to show what was happening in
the wild; that the darker morphs were camouflaged. The moths wouldn't
cooperate and stay still for the illustrative photos.
The *whole* Peppered Moth campaign by Wells and the others is total
lies.
...
Dana Tweedy
>>
>> > These moths have been thoroughly debunked, John. Time to obtain a new
>> > gimmick.
>>
>> It's not wise to use Jonathan Wells as a source. He's wrong about almost
>> everything, this included. Count wells among "creationist attempts to
>> dispose of it". And yes, the moths do rest on tree trunks, as well as
>> other parts of trees.
No response, Ray?
snip
>> > Dana Tweedy and Steven J - are you listening?
>>
>> They may be, in which case they probably understand what I meant much
>> better than you did.
>>
>
> Up until this moment, John, your TEist lap dog emphatically said that
> a change in gene frequencies is the only valid definition of
> evolution.
What I said is that it's the definition that biologists use. Also, what I
said is that the definition is allele frequency change in a population over
time. I did not say it's the only "valid" definition, but that it's the one
that biologists actually use. Finally, I'm not John's "lap dog".
>Your comment above refutes his belief and corroborates my
> claim/fact that evolution has more than one valid definition.
The statement does not "refute" my statements, nor do I claim what you say I
claim.
>
> Dana is obviously flabbergasted over your remark.
How so? I am not "flabbergasted", or even mildly discomfited.
>My research into
> evolutionary theory has shown more than one valid definition of
> evolution.
Ray, reading Jack Chick comics is hardly "research". In any case, the
definition you claimed was from "biologists" is obviously wrong.
> Darwin's definition is still valid.
Darwin's definition of evolution was morphological change in a population
over time. I don't disagree with that, but Darwin didn't know about genes.
> In fact the biological
> synthesis said that Darwin was correct.
Darwin was correct, except that he didn't know about genes. The problem is
that YOU are not correct, and have misunderstood Darwin.
> That is why they affirmed
> natural selection at the genetic level even though many big name
> evolutionists, during the synthesis, rejected a gene centric
> definition, including Huxley.
Once again, Ray, you are ignoring the facts. Evolution is defined, by
biologists, as allele frequency change in a population over time. Natural
selection explains adaptive change, and is part of the mechanism of that
change, but it's not the **cause** of the change. Evolution can happen
without natural selection, or without selection at all.
>
>> >> Your definition of species
>> >> is faulty, however. Many species can mate and produce fertile
>> >> offspring
>> >> with many other species. SNIP....
>>
>> > What?
>>
>> > I have fallen out of my chair!
>>
>> > Species only mate with members of their own species, John. When they
>> > get close to other species they kill them or run away.
>>
>> You are instructing me on biology?
>
> In the wild, species mate with their own kind and never any other
> species.
As John has correctly stated, that's not true. Hybridization happens quite
often in the wild.
> No one was talking about hybridity.
Ray, "hybridity" is what happens when one species mates with another.
That's why it's relevant.
>You attempted to make it
> look like that it is normal and common for species to mate with other
> species in the wild. This is completely false.
Again, Ray, you are wrong. John knows what he's talking about here. You
don't.
>
> We know different animals graze along side of each other but for the
> most part they are hostile and competing for limited resources.
If you "know" that, you are wrong. Species are rarely "hostile" toward
one another. Closely related species interbreed fairly commonly.
> They
> do not mate with other species. This is impossible. Your doctorate is
> worthless here.
Ray, do you know what a mule is? Do you know what a liger, or a Tigon is?
You are making statements that are at best foolish, and at most, completely
deranged.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/05/2/l_052_02.html
Are you going to talk about the fictional "scent mechanism" again? How
about your claims that non human apes have "raped" human females?
>
>> At this point I am forcibly reminded
>> that Ray is technically insane. I really shouldn't respond to him. For
>> any lurkers, Ray is comically wrong about this as about almost
>> everything he says. And for this he should probably be a recipient of
>> sympathy rather than ridicule. There are literally millions (billions)
>> of known examples of hybrids between species, mules being the ones that
>> come to mind most immediately to most people. To me, of course, it would
>> be hybrids among duck species.
Are you going to deny that these observed examples of hybrids don't exist?
snip
> It is disappointing to see you play the "agree with me or you are
> insane" card.
Not nearly as disappointing to see you play the "what's been observed in
nature is impossible" card.
>You have made an egregious error and now you will do
> everything but admit it.
Again, Ray, John didn't make the error. You did. He has the facts to back
up his statements. What do you have?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/03/070314-hybrids.html
> I am fond of pointing out that anytime an
> evolutionist says a creationist is insane then that is a compliment.
In this case, it's not, it's an observation.
> The approval of persons who say apes morphed into men and that species
> mate outside of their species is the best evidence that we are exactly
> opposite of what you say. Glad to get your disapproval.
Ray, why are you denying observed facts? here are some examples:
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1528852
"There are many examples of two species of animals that have/can/do produce
offspring. A well known example of this is the mule. While not terribly
creative, these new hybrid animals are usually named by combining the common
names of the parents. When the male and female of both species can each be
combined to form the hybrid, it is the name of the male that is used first.
For clarification of this, see the examples below:
a.. liger = male lion + female tiger
b.. tigon or tiglon = male tiger + female lion
c.. mule = male donkey + female horse
d.. hinny = male horse + female donkey (jenny)
e.. zorse = zebra + horse
f.. zonkey or zebrass = zebra + donkey (ass)
g.. cama = camel + llama
h.. catalo or beefalo = buffalo + cattle
i.. yakalo = yak + buffalo
j.. wholphin = whale + dolphin (specifically a false killer whale and a
bottlenose dolphin)
k.. Toast of Botswana = goat + sheep
Obviously this deserves some clarification. While a sheep can be
impregnated by a goat, the kid/lamb is always stillborn... except in one
case in the early 1990s. This animal was nicknamed the Toast of Botswana.
Since it was the only one ever known to have lived, no other name has been
given to a goat/sheep combination.
l.. several species of cats can be bred including: lion/leopard,
lion/jaguar, puma/leopard, bobcat/lynx, caracal/serval
m.. several species of canines including domestic dog/wolf, coyote/wolf,
domestic dog/coyote
n.. several species of monkeys and apes can interbreed
o.. several species of deer and antelope can be interbred
p.. several species of snakes can be crossbred
q.. wild and domestic pigs can crossbreed
r.. African elephant and Asian elephants are known to have bred once in
the past"
DJT
Steven J.
> On Apr 23, 6:20 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
> > max maypo wrote:
> > > hoping someone here will help...on another forum, I'm engaged in the
> > > exchange reproduced below. his position appears to be that evolution
> > > only occurs when new species are produced, that a transition to some
> > > state of 'higher complexity' is required, and that the effects of
> > > natural selection within a species do not qualify as evolution.
>
> > > I say humbug to all of the above. it's my (perhaps misguided?)
> > > understanding that
>
> > > (a) new species are definitely not required for evolution to occur
> > > (but if I'm right, I'd sure like to be able to point to a kick-ass
> > > example!)
>
> > You are right. The peppered moth remains a good example, regardless of
> > creationist attempts to dispose of it. Or pick up any issue of the
> > journal Evolution for a dozen examples.
>
> "....peppered moths in the wild don't even rest on tree trunks. The
> textbook photographs, it turns out, have been staged."
>
> --Jonathan Wells, "Icons of Evolution" 2002:140.
>
> These moths have been thoroughly debunked, John. Time to obtain a new
> gimmick.
>
more commonly rest on branches rather than on trunks, they rest on
trunks up to 25% of the time they're actually resting. In any case,
the posing of moths on tree trunks was merely done in order to show
how the two color morphs blended in with (or stood out from) lichen-
covered bark vs. soot-covered bark. Since branches of trees also had
lichens or soot on them, and since birds are perfectly capable of
preying on moths in the branches, the illustrations still show
relevant facts about the moths: how well the two morphs are camoflaged
in different circumstances.
>
>
>
> > > (b) 'evolution' and 'higher complexity' don't have anything to do with
> > > one another
>
> > You are right, except that evolution may result in higher complexity. Or
> > lower complexity. Or no change in complexity.
>
> > > (c) the change in general species characteristics over time *IS*
> > > evolution (although I have problems with the concept of species
> > > ...for sexually reproducing organisms, I'm under the impression
> > > that the line between one species and another is whether or not
> > > organisms from the two classes can mate and produce fertile
> > > offspring...if not, then it's two species; if yes, then only one.
> > > and again, if I'm even close to right on this stuff, I'd very much
> > > like to be able to point to yet another (or even the same) kick-ass
> > > example!)
>
> > The change in species characteristics is one definition of evolution;
> > more rigorously, the change in allele frequency in populations. But I
> > would consider this an incomplete definition.
>
> Dana Tweedy and Steven J - are you listening?
>
makes no mention of branching descent and common ancestry. Nor does
it mention adaption, to say nothing of large-scale modification of
form and function of organs and other structures. But that is not
quite the point: change in allele frequencies in a population is not
all of evolution, but it is evolution. If you accept allele frequency
changes in populations, then by definition you accept
"microevolution."
>
> > Your definition of species
> > is faulty, however. Many species can mate and produce fertile offspring
> > with many other species. SNIP....
>
> What?
>
> I have fallen out of my chair!
>
> Species only mate with members of their own species, John. When they
> get close to other species they kill them or run away.
>
for sexual relations with beasts, he was somewhat dubious that humans,
at least, mate only with members of their own species. And obviously,
there would be no hybrids such as mules, if species could not be
induced to mate only with members of their own species.
Note that on rare occasions, mules have turned up that are
interfertile with either horses or donkeys (look up the mule "Blue
Moon"). Intersterility is not an all-or-nothing thing, and there are
degrees of interfertility between pairs of species. In many cases,
offspring cannot be produced at all; in others, offspring can be
produced, perhaps with difficulty, but are sterile, and in a few
cases, fertile offspring can be produced.
Species have separate (more or less) gene pools and do not normally
exchange genes with one another. This is what makes them separate
species, regardless of whether the failure to mingle gene pools arises
from an inability to interbreed or simply from an unwillingness to do
so. There is one famous case of a pair of cichlid fish species (one
red, one blue) that do not interbreed in nature and maintain separate
gene pools, but their color (and their preference for mating only with
partners of their own color) are their only distinguishing features,
and when they are unable to detect potential mates' colors (e.g. when
raised under yellow lights), they mate successfully without regard to
species.
Note that there are many cases in nature of commensural symbiotic
relationships, in which animals of different species cooperate with
one another. And, of course, around water holes one may often find
many different herbivore species standing around together and not
fighting one another or doing much to avoid one another. Isn't there
something "Social Darwinist" (for some meaning or other of "social
Darwinist") about your insistence that the natural thing to do is to
attempt to kill or flee from anything that isn't "your kind?"
>
> Ray
>
-- [snip]
>
-- Steven J.
Ernest Major
<cf031a6f-9d7d-4e33...@y18g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Ray
Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes
So you concede that Wells could have been wrong here? If so you ought to
prevent actual evidence of a fraud, rather than just citing Wells.
>
>> If so, what happens when I say Wells is wrong? I
>> must be right because I have a PhD in biology. But Wells must be right
>> because he has one too. But I must be right, so Wells must be wrong. But
>> Wells must be right so I must be wrong. (continue until head explodes)
>>
>> [snip more than usually incoherent text]
>>
>> >>>> Your definition of species
>> >>>> is faulty, however. Many species can mate and produce fertile offspring
>> >>>> with many other species. SNIP....
>> >>> What?
>> >>> I have fallen out of my chair!
>> >> Why? He's right.
>>
>> > Ridiculous.
>>
>> > He must have made a genuine error.
>>
>> I can't have made an error. I have a PhD in Biology.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>You surely know the photographs of moths resting on tree trunks was
>staged. I think you should recognize this fact in the interest of
>truth. Make any other point that you wish but Wells has shown that the
>photos were staged.
Even if Wells had shown that the photos were staged (wasn't that common
knowledge beforehand?) that would be irrelevant to the status of
industrial melanism as an exemplar of evolution by mutation and natural
selection.
>
>Ray
>
--
alias Ernest Major
Rodjk #613
> On Apr 24, 4:51 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:34c98469-c92d-4645...@f24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> > snip
>
> > >> Peppered moths do spend some of their time of tree trunks, and the photo
> > >> was
> > >> to illustrate the camoflage, not to suggest they spent all their time on
> > >> tree trunks.
>
> > > Wells wrote an entire chapter debunking this crap. He has a Ph.D. in
> > > biology. The fact that evolutionists plough ahead and ignore plain
> > > facts is shown right here.
>
> > It's irrelevant what degree Wells has. He's still wrong. The 'plain fact'
> > is that the peppered moth studies are a good example of natural selection on
> > a population. You seem to have not bothered to take Well's
> > anti-evolutionary agenda into account.
>
> Everyone knows that Wells is an antievolutionist. The book cited
> dismantles evolution is spectacular fashion. The chapter on peppered
> moths was written to show how egregious fraud is in evolutionary
> theory. Moths do not rest on tree trunks. The photographs were staged.
> This means willful fraud was engaged in. These reasons are why Wells
> and over half of all adults in the U.S. are not evolutionists.
Wells is a liar. The book is full of nonsense and demonstratively
false claims.
>
> Its hard to believe that John Harshman does not have the integrity to
> admit the fraud here. The evidence is plain and irrefutable. It is not
> hard to believe that a lay evolutionist like yourself refuses to give
> up this particular bunk.
The fraud is on the part of Wells.
> I urge everyone to read Jonathan Wells, "Icons of Evolution" 2002.
I have read it, and checked sources. Wells is a fraud.
Rodjk #613
<SNIP>
John Harshman
> John Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> John Wilkins wrote:
> ...
>>>> That, and drift. But species only result when there are at least two
>>>> populations, at least one of which changes in a way that causes
>>>> reproductive isolation between the populations. Without the splitting of
>>>> populations you can have advantageous mutations until you're blue in the
>>>> face and there will be no new species.
>>> Except in the case of asexual organisms which form species solely, so
>>> far as I can work out, in terms of tracking adaptive niches.
>> Asexual organisms have the advantage that each and every reproductive
>> event involves the splitting of populations into separate gene pools. So
>> that's no exception at all. In this case "speciation" happens when one
>> clone starts tracking a different niche from another clone.
>
> Here I disagree.
Are you sure?
> It is not the case that each and every new strain forms
> a new species
Never said it was.
> because there is a differential survival of strains that
> track closely a given niche, while those that deviate from the niche
> (which may be, for instance, a host that the strain infects, or it may
> be an abiotic resource like a sulphur-rich spring) tend to die out and
> undercompete. This means the "species" is a location in genome space
> around which they asexual strains cluster.
We have no disagreement here.
> Many of these supposedly asexual organisms also swap and share genetic
> resources via conjugation and genetic reuptake in a medium, and the
> rates of sharing correlate roughly with genetic relatedness. This is the
> "core genome" hypothesis, under which the usefulness of shared genes
> depends on whether the new host has the requisite housekeeping or
> metabolic genes that make the introduced gene work the right way.
Or there.
Dick C
> On Apr 24, 6:18 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
>> > He must have made a genuine error.
>>
>> I can't have made an error. I have a PhD in Biology.- Hide quoted text
>
> You surely know the photographs of moths resting on tree trunks was
> staged. I think you should recognize this fact in the interest of
> truth. Make any other point that you wish but Wells has shown that the
> photos were staged.
Do you ever read the responses to your posts? It has been explained to you
that the photos were made to show how well the moths blended with their
environment. Not to illustrate their normal habits. Since the moths fly
around too much to photograph, it was neccessary to pin them to the the
trunks to illustrate the point being made.
It was not dishonest, it was needed for the explanation. That Wells spent
an entire chapter on that very minor issues speaks poorly for his arguments
If he had a an actual argument against evolution he would have used that
instead of wasting that much time arguing about a picture.
--
Dick #1349
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~Benjamin Franklin
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: dic...@gmail.net
Bob T.
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
We all chortle in our joy.
- Bob T.
Ray Martinez
In your case this could not be anymore true, John. This is the first
objective thing that I can remember you ever uttering (other than
admitting that Darwin was an Atheist late in life). Since you are an
Atheist-evolutionist and Wells is a Theist-designist your "opinion" of
him is entirely predictable, having no objective value whatsoever. In
fact, your rants against Wells is a relief. If you - an Atheist - had
approved of him this would prove his wrongness.
> which in Wells' case
> is a small facet of (if I remember) molecular developmental biology. He
> clearly knows almost nothing about evolution, since he made a hash out
> of it in his book.
>
Wells has two Ph.Ds and based on your input in this forum we have no
reason to believe that you hold any degree - much less a doctorate -
John. The simple fact that you spend all of your time here instead of
publishing - like Wellls - also supports this observation. (The simple
fact that you attempted to say that nature is a reproductive free-for-
all consisting of species mating freely with other species also
supports said observation. This ridiculous assertion betrays a
psychological belief that knows species do not evolve; that is why you
made this absurd remark.) Wells has used his degrees to publish
evidence and influence society. He is a big time scholar who has made
a name for himself. You, on the other hand, can make no such boast.
You are evidently incompetent having been relegated to playing king
amongst a pack of uneducated howlers who have no idea as to what their
own published scholars have written.
> I, on the other hand, have a PhD in Evolutionary Biology, which at least
> puts me in the ball park. Though in fact I'm not guaranteed to know
> about anything other than duck phylogeny, I do happen to know quite a
> bit about evolutionary biology in general, much more than Wells does. So
> if Wells is an authority, how much more of an authority must I be?
>
Based on things just pointed out I can add that if you have a degree
it was awarded as an obligation for passing classes as opposed to
making an original contribution to knowledge. Again, this is supported
by the fact that you allow blatant lies to be told in your presence by
lay evolutionists like Dana Tweedy. You have not the nerve, courage or
integrity to correct him. You have sacrificed your degree, which is
why I doubt that you even have one; and if you do it is like I said:
an obligation degree for passing classes. I am impressed with Dana's
ability to make you his lap dog. If a Creationist had lied in my
presence as Dana has done in this thread I would not hesitate to rack
this person up. Your behavior proves that you have no degree. Dana
Tweedy has proven it because the meaning of "scholar" is "guardian of
truth."
(Recently, I have implied the DI and David Berlinski to be liars
concerning certain things.]
> authority than Jonathan Wells.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
"I do understand that some of those photos were staged" --John
Harshman.
When forced, Harshman comes through.
Those who took the photos (evolutionists) and published them
(evolutionists) and preached their veracity (evolutionists) for how
many years never told anyone until they were caught and confronted.
Evolutionists allowed fraud and if you read Harshman's full comment
above they are still making excuses and justifying it.
What more does any real Agnostic need? Evolutionists are admitted
liars. Wells's book shows the world the endless lies that they tell.
This proves the degree that invisible Designer is hated - the God of
the Bible. Evolution must be a punishment from God for denying Him
credit as Creator/Designer; there is simply no other explanation as to
how lies flourish as truth.
Ray Martinez, Protestant Evangelical Creationist-Designist.
Ray Martinez
Attempted whitewashing of premeditated fraud, but it nonetheless
admits to the fraud when the intelligence insulting excuses are
ignored.
I think that this is about as "objective" as we can expect from
evolutionists.
Ray
noshellswill
<clip>
> In any case,
> the posing of moths on tree trunks was merely done in order to show
> how the two color morphs blended in with (or stood out from) lichen-
> covered bark vs. soot-covered bark. Since branches of trees also had
> lichens or soot on them, and since birds are perfectly capable of
> preying on moths in the branches, the illustrations still show
> relevant facts about the moths: how well the two morphs are camoflaged
> in different circumstances.
<clip>
Hummm ... in REAL science this sort of atypical "posing" would be
considered fraud. The investigator-in-question would be forced to RECALL
the paper, his GRANT might well be revoked, and possibly he would lose his
(tenure-track) position.
His post-docs would SPIT on him. That's REAL science. Biology evidently
has different academic standards.
nss
****
Dana Tweedy
>> I'm sorry to say that a PhD doesn't guarantee that you know anything
>> about anything other than a single, narrow subject,....
>
> In your case this could not be anymore true, John.
So, why do you keep depending on your "arguement from authority"?
> This is the first
> objective thing that I can remember you ever uttering (other than
> admitting that Darwin was an Atheist late in life). Since you are an
> Atheist-evolutionist and Wells is a Theist-designist your "opinion" of
> him is entirely predictable, having no objective value whatsoever.
The thing is, that Wells is wrong, no matter what his, and John's respective
position regarding science may be.
> In
> fact, your rants against Wells is a relief. If you - an Atheist - had
> approved of him this would prove his wrongness.
See, Ray, this is where your "logic" tends to run off the rails. John
being an atheist has nothing to do with the factuality of his statements,
and nothing to do with Wells being right or wrong. Wells is wrong because
he makes false statements, not because John doesn't believe there is a God.
If John were devoutly religious, Wells would still be wrong.
>
>> which in Wells' case
>> is a small facet of (if I remember) molecular developmental biology. He
>> clearly knows almost nothing about evolution, since he made a hash out
>> of it in his book.
>>
>
> Wells has two Ph.Ds and based on your input in this forum we have no
> reason to believe that you hold any degree - much less a doctorate -
Why, Ray? John has been correct in his statements of fact, and has shown a
expert's knowledege of the subject. That you are mistaken about matters of
fact does not mean that John's credentials are of any less worth.
> John. The simple fact that you spend all of your time here instead of
> publishing - like Wellls - also supports this observation.
Can you show any scientific papers that Wells has published, in any
legitamate scientific journal, regarding his creationist beliefs?
> (The simple
> fact that you attempted to say that nature is a reproductive free-for-
> all consisting of species mating freely with other species also
> supports said observation.
Ray, John did not claim that nature is a "reproductive free-for-all". He
stated, quite correctly, that species do interbreed with other closely
related species. Your claim, that different species cannot possibly
interbreed was wrong. Your mistake was in assuming that John was talking
about all species, not closely related ones. John was not saying that,
for example, cats can freely breed with dogs, or that lions breed with
antelopes. He was pointing out that closely related species can, and do
interbreed in the wild. =
> This ridiculous assertion betrays a
> psychological belief that knows species do not evolve; that is why you
> made this absurd remark.)
His remark was correct, and not absurd at all. What you said was absurd,
and totally false.
> Wells has used his degrees to publish
> evidence and influence society.
Yet if he were a scientist, he'd be "publsihing evidence" to support his
position, not writing attacks on evolutionary theory. That Wells' attacks
are based on faslehoods, and that he misrepresents, and falsifies his claims
due to a religious bias against evolution, does not mean he's a scientist.
> He is a big time scholar who has made
> a name for himself.
Wells is not a "big time scholar". He's a religious apologist.
> You, on the other hand, can make no such boast.
John is, however a scientist, with a record of publishing good science.
> You are evidently incompetent having been relegated to playing king
> amongst a pack of uneducated howlers who have no idea as to what their
> own published scholars have written.
Ray, your own ignorance of the subject is well evidenced. Claiming John is
ignorant, when it's you who is wrong is the height of hubris.
>
>> I, on the other hand, have a PhD in Evolutionary Biology, which at least
>> puts me in the ball park. Though in fact I'm not guaranteed to know
>> about anything other than duck phylogeny, I do happen to know quite a
>> bit about evolutionary biology in general, much more than Wells does. So
>> if Wells is an authority, how much more of an authority must I be?
>>
>
> Based on things just pointed out I can add that if you have a degree
> it was awarded as an obligation for passing classes as opposed to
> making an original contribution to knowledge.
Ray, a Ph. D. is granted on the condition of making a contribution to
knowledge. Your own ignorance of biology does not mean that John is less
acomplished in his field.
>Again, this is supported
> by the fact that you allow blatant lies to be told in your presence by
> lay evolutionists like Dana Tweedy.
Ray, as you are quite aware, I don't lie. If I make a mistake in a matter
of science, John is quick to correct me.
>You have not the nerve, courage or
> integrity to correct him.
Or perhaps, you are mistaken, and I'm not the one needing correction. In
the times that I've made statements that were incorrect, John has corrected
me, and I'm willing to take such correction, as John obviously knows more
about the subject that I do.
> You have sacrificed your degree, which is
> why I doubt that you even have one; and if you do it is like I said:
> an obligation degree for passing classes. I am impressed with Dana's
> ability to make you his lap dog.
Earlier you were claiming that I was John's "lap dog". Now you are saying
that he's mine. Neither is correct. John and I have never met, and
he's under no obligation to agree with me, and I'm under no obligation to
agree with him. I tend to trust his scientific opinion, and he's been
quick to shoot me down if I make a mistake.
> If a Creationist had lied in my
> presence as Dana has done in this thread I would not hesitate to rack
> this person up.
Which is a lie. I've not lied at all, and you have failed to "rack up"
Harun Yahya for his obvious lies.
> Your behavior proves that you have no degree. Dana
> Tweedy has proven it because the meaning of "scholar" is "guardian of
> truth."
The meaning of "scholar" has nothing to do with "guardian of truth", not
that you would know anything about "truth" in this matter.
>
> (Recently, I have implied the DI and David Berlinski to be liars
> concerning certain things.]
But you have not "implied" that they are lying about what they are actually
lying about.
Out of context quote, Ray. That's quite dishonest of you.
>
> When forced, Harshman comes through.
>
> Those who took the photos (evolutionists) and published them
> (evolutionists) and preached their veracity (evolutionists) for how
> many years never told anyone until they were caught and confronted.
Ray, the photos were taken to demonstrate the camoflage the different color
morphs provided. They were not meant to indicate that moth's always sat
on the tree trunks.
> Evolutionists allowed fraud and if you read Harshman's full comment
> above they are still making excuses and justifying it.
There was no fraud involved. The pictures show the camoflage provided by
the different color morphs, which is what the pictures were meant to show.
Also, the moths do sit on the tree trunks, at least part of the time.
>
> What more does any real Agnostic need? Evolutionists are admitted
> liars.
No one has "admitted" to being a liar. You are the one who is lying here,
and you won't admit your own lies.
> Wells's book shows the world the endless lies that they tell.
Actually, what Wells book shows is that creationists need to lie to make any
kind of a case.
> This proves the degree that invisible Designer is hated - the God of
> the Bible.
Non sequitur. There's no evidence that anyone hates an "invisible
designer", something that you assume on faulty logic.l
> Evolution must be a punishment from God for denying Him
> credit as Creator/Designer; there is simply no other explanation as to
> how lies flourish as truth.
How about the explanation that you are wrong, and the "lies" you claim are
actually the truth? You never seem to be able to accept that
explanation. Why is that? Why can't you admit that you are wrong about
Wells, and that you are wrong about species interbreeding, and you are wrong
about your claims about Dr. Harshman?
DJT
Dana Tweedy
Ray, there was no fraud. You know this. Dick doesn't "admit" to what
does not exist. The pictures of the moths do not need "excuses". Wells
charges were false, and demonstratably so. It's amazing that, when shown
Wells' deception, you choose to ignore the evidence, and continue to repeat
Wells' falsehoods.
>
> I think that this is about as "objective" as we can expect from
> evolutionists.
You know nothing of objectivity, and have no regard for the truth. Wells
is the one who lied to you, and you are attacking those who are telling you
the truth.
DJT
John Harshman
But Ray, this *is* my single, narrow subject.
>> which in Wells' case
>> is a small facet of (if I remember) molecular developmental biology. He
>> clearly knows almost nothing about evolution, since he made a hash out
>> of it in his book.
>
> Wells has two Ph.Ds and based on your input in this forum we have no
> reason to believe that you hold any degree - much less a doctorate -
> John. The simple fact that you spend all of your time here instead of
> publishing - like Wellls - also supports this observation. (The simple
> fact that you attempted to say that nature is a reproductive free-for-
> all consisting of species mating freely with other species also
> supports said observation. This ridiculous assertion betrays a
> psychological belief that knows species do not evolve; that is why you
> made this absurd remark.) Wells has used his degrees to publish
> evidence and influence society. He is a big time scholar who has made
> a name for himself. You, on the other hand, can make no such boast.
> You are evidently incompetent having been relegated to playing king
> amongst a pack of uneducated howlers who have no idea as to what their
> own published scholars have written.
Ooh, that's harsh. I am properly chastened.
>> I, on the other hand, have a PhD in Evolutionary Biology, which at least
>> puts me in the ball park. Though in fact I'm not guaranteed to know
>> about anything other than duck phylogeny, I do happen to know quite a
>> bit about evolutionary biology in general, much more than Wells does. So
>> if Wells is an authority, how much more of an authority must I be?
>
> Based on things just pointed out I can add that if you have a degree
> it was awarded as an obligation for passing classes as opposed to
> making an original contribution to knowledge. Again, this is supported
> by the fact that you allow blatant lies to be told in your presence by
> lay evolutionists like Dana Tweedy. You have not the nerve, courage or
> integrity to correct him. You have sacrificed your degree, which is
> why I doubt that you even have one; and if you do it is like I said:
> an obligation degree for passing classes. I am impressed with Dana's
> ability to make you his lap dog.
Hey, I thought Dana was my lap dog! Another example of creationist
goalpost-moving.
> If a Creationist had lied in my
> presence as Dana has done in this thread I would not hesitate to rack
> this person up. Your behavior proves that you have no degree. Dana
> Tweedy has proven it because the meaning of "scholar" is "guardian of
> truth."
>
> (Recently, I have implied the DI and David Berlinski to be liars
> concerning certain things.]
[snip various rants]
> "I do understand that some of those photos were staged" --John
> Harshman.
>
> When forced, Harshman comes through.
Quote-mining is a sin. Shame on you.
[snip further rants]
Speaking of sins, I really do feel bad for baiting Ray like this. I
suppose I'm not doing him much harm, unless I'm keeping him from seeking
treatment. But I don't think Ray is going to seek treatment anyway.
Still, making fun of the insane is in poor taste. I'm a bit sorry, and
I'll try to stop.
John Harshman
Do you have anything other than unsupported assertions? If so, now is
the time to go for it. And as Steven noted and you snipped, it wasn't
atypical posing.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "Bob T."
<b...@synapse-cs.com>:
Let me get this straight...you actually believe him?
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
John Wilkins
> John Wilkins wrote:
> > John Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >
> >> John Wilkins wrote:
> > ...
> >>>> That, and drift. But species only result when there are at least two
> >>>> populations, at least one of which changes in a way that causes
> >>>> reproductive isolation between the populations. Without the splitting of
> >>>> populations you can have advantageous mutations until you're blue in the
> >>>> face and there will be no new species.
> >>> Except in the case of asexual organisms which form species solely, so
> >>> far as I can work out, in terms of tracking adaptive niches.
> >> Asexual organisms have the advantage that each and every reproductive
> >> event involves the splitting of populations into separate gene pools. So
> >> that's no exception at all. In this case "speciation" happens when one
> >> clone starts tracking a different niche from another clone.
> >
> > Here I disagree.
>
> Are you sure?
Well I might have read what I thought you said rather than what you
thought you said. Maybe.
>
> > It is not the case that each and every new strain forms
> > a new species
>
> Never said it was.
>
> > because there is a differential survival of strains that
> > track closely a given niche, while those that deviate from the niche
> > (which may be, for instance, a host that the strain infects, or it may
> > be an abiotic resource like a sulphur-rich spring) tend to die out and
> > undercompete. This means the "species" is a location in genome space
> > around which they asexual strains cluster.
>
> We have no disagreement here.
>
> > Many of these supposedly asexual organisms also swap and share genetic
> > resources via conjugation and genetic reuptake in a medium, and the
> > rates of sharing correlate roughly with genetic relatedness. This is the
> > "core genome" hypothesis, under which the usefulness of shared genes
> > depends on whether the new host has the requisite housekeeping or
> > metabolic genes that make the introduced gene work the right way.
>
> Or there.
Bugger.
Steven J.
> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 00:05:13 -0700, Steven J. wrote:
>
> <clip>
>
> > In any case,
> > the posing of moths on tree trunks was merely done in order to show
> > how the two color morphs blended in with (or stood out from) lichen-
> > covered bark vs. soot-covered bark. Since branches of trees also had
> > lichens or soot on them, and since birds are perfectly capable of
> > preying on moths in the branches, the illustrations still show
> > relevant facts about the moths: how well the two morphs are camoflaged
> > in different circumstances.
>
> <clip>
>
> Hummm ... in REAL science this sort of atypical "posing" would be
> considered fraud. The investigator-in-question would be forced to RECALL
> the paper, his GRANT might well be revoked, and possibly he would lose his
> (tenure-track) position.
>
doing research (in ID, I understand, things are different: see Ray's
post, upthread, where he treats Jonathan Wells' popular book recycling
old creationist arguments as though it were an original contribution
to science). The posed photographs were illustrations for a textbook.
Now, this sort of rigging and posing organisms for photos is standard
in nature photography. This is well-known, and I think it would be
obvious from the photos themselves, which (in every textbook I've seen
with these photos) show two moths, one black and one grey, side by
side, first on lichen-covered bark and again (in the exact same
positions and poses) on soot-covered bark.
>
> His post-docs would SPIT on him. That's REAL science. Biology evidently
> has different academic standards.
>
Why? If the photos are fraudulent, what fraudulent point are they
supposed to be making? They can't be illustrating evolution directly,
since the (very small) population shown is half black and half grey in
each photo (i.e. there is no change in the frequency of traits between
the photos). They can't be showing that moths rest on tree trunks
(even though they do), since the small amount of bark shown might be
on either a trunk or one of the branches. It can't even be said that
they attempt to show natural selection, since the photos don't show a
bird eating one of the moths. What they show is what is believed to
be the basis of natural selection: how well each color morph is
camoflaged in each environmental circumstance. This is not a fraud;
it is an empirically-demonstrated fact.
>
> nss
> ****
-- Steven J.
Iain
> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
I think Creationists misportray the raison d'etre of the moth
camouflage example, and appear pretty naive in the process.
The moth example is meant to give a nice, lucid schoolbook example of
what natural selection *means*. It is referred to in textbooks without
any regard for Creationism, for or against. It is not meant to be an
eye-poke to Creationists(although it is anyway).
By saying that the moth example is "staged", one is implying that this
kind of evolution is considered rare enough to be worth faking, even
though Creationists often admit that it is commonplace. The rest of
the evo\creo debate consists of their insistence that this process is
insufficient, probably by some failing of the mind's eye.
The moth camouflage example is not normally cited in order to prove
evolution. Very few evolutionary biologists ever give a second thought
to anti-Creationism.
ToE is not Creationism-centric. ToE was conceived and is ongoingly
added to today without any regard for Creationism one way or another.
Creationists often assume otherwise, which is why they think it is
useful to claim that evolving peppered moths are "staged". Arguing in
this way just makes their side appear hopelessly naive.
~Iain
max maypo
my thanks to all who replied, and most especially to Ernest Major,
Rupert Morrish, and John Harshman...I've learned a lot from this
thread
max maypo <max....@notinsane.net> wrote in
news:Xns9A89C0D292...@69.28.186.120:
> hoping someone here will help...on another forum, I'm engaged in the
> exchange reproduced below. his position appears to be that
> evolution only occurs when new species are produced, that a
> transition to some state of 'higher complexity' is required, and
> that the effects of natural selection within a species do not
> qualify as evolution.
>
> I say humbug to all of the above. it's my (perhaps misguided?)
> understanding that
>
> (a) new species are definitely not required for evolution to occur
> (but if I'm right, I'd sure like to be able to point to a
> kick-ass example!)
>
> (b) 'evolution' and 'higher complexity' don't have anything to do
> with
> one another
>
> (c) the change in general species characteristics over time *IS*
> evolution (although I have problems with the concept of species
> ...for sexually reproducing organisms, I'm under the impression
> that the line between one species and another is whether or not
> organisms from the two classes can mate and produce fertile
> offspring...if not, then it's two species; if yes, then only
> one. and again, if I'm even close to right on this stuff, I'd
> very much like to be able to point to yet another (or even the
> same) kick-ass example!)
>
--
max
noshellswill
>
> my thanks to all who replied, and most especially to Ernest Major,
> Rupert Morrish, and John Harshman...I've learned a lot from this
> thread
>
>>>>
>>>> I believe you're a bit confused about some of the concepts
>>>> being discussed in this thread. there's an accessible
>>>> tutorial on evolution here: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
>>>> with reference to your comments above, you might also
>>>> want to take note of this page:
>>>> http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIENaturalSelection.s
>>>> html
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Don
>>>
>>>
>>
>> (just in case: fnord)
>>
mm:
Just for fun, and being interested I went to the Berkeley site and soon
read this:
'...Humans are not "higher" or "more evolved" than other living
lineages Since our lineages split, humans and chimpanzees have each
evolved traits unique to their own lineages ...'
Oh darn, agendas make bad science as do non-sequiturs. Soldier on.
nss
*****
John Harshman
Was that last sentence intended as a self-referential example of a non
sequitur? If not, further explanation seems required.
alwaysaskingquestions
Ray, today's second reading in my Church happened to be from 1 Peter 3:15-18
"Reverence the Lord Christ in your hearts, and always have your answer ready
for people who ask you the reason for the hope that you all have. But give
it with courtesy and respect and with a clear conscience, so that those who
slander you when you are living a good life in Christ may be proved wrong in
the accusations that they bring."
Do you really think that the way you describe people who disagree with you
qualifies as courtesy and respect?
Ye Old One
Dishonest Ray doesn't get slandered.
--
Bob.
Ray Martinez
> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
You are hysterical, the same has blinded you to the fact that Atheist
evolutionists like John Harshman are dishonest. His lack of a
spiritual IQ automatically makes him a liar.
You should also be satisfied that Harshman has sacrificed his degree
and its objective reputation to cover for a blatant liar like
yourself. I wouldn't hesitate to expose a creationist liar. All this
proves is that Harshman's degree, however "legitimate," is
counterfeit. He has not the courage or integrity to put a lay
evolutionist in his place. He understands that you are a howler
protecting his turf. If he had any creative intelligence grounded in
truth he wouldn't need a TEist lap dog. Richard Dawkins wouldn't dream
of defending a scum bag like yourself, much less accept your
protection.
Ray
Ray Martinez
[knock-knock]....is anybody home?
> [snip various rants]
>
> > "I do understand that some of those photos were staged" --John
> > Harshman.
>
> > When forced, Harshman comes through.
>
> Quote-mining is a sin. Shame on you.
>
> [snip further rants]
>
> Speaking of sins, I really do feel bad for baiting Ray like this. I
> suppose I'm not doing him much harm, unless I'm keeping him from seeking
> treatment. But I don't think Ray is going to seek treatment anyway.
> Still, making fun of the insane is in poor taste. I'm a bit sorry, and
> I'll try to stop.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
There is no quote mine, unless you do not mean what you say or say
what you mean. It is dishonest to claim quote mine when there is none,
"Dr." Harshman.
Peppered moths have been thoroughly exposed and debunked. It seems you
are unable to admit only because you have spoken up for veracity. Real
scholars, when they have spoken up and need to retract something
simply say "their view has changed."
Also:
Nature is not a reproductive free-for-all. For the most part it takes
a male and a female to reproduce. It is impossible for a inanimate
material process to evolve a reproductive pair, and have that pair
find each other and mate. This would be a miracle: performed as many
times as however many of these species to have ever existed.
It appears that the needs of your Atheism is not in the least bit
hindered by scientific facts.
Ray
Ye Old One
Unlike you, Dishonest Ray, John is a good example of an honest man.
>His lack of a
>spiritual IQ automatically makes him a liar.
The only liar is, as always, you.
>
>You should also be satisfied that Harshman has sacrificed his degree
>and its objective reputation to cover for a blatant liar like
>yourself. I wouldn't hesitate to expose a creationist liar. All this
>proves is that Harshman's degree, however "legitimate," is
>counterfeit.
Hohohoho!
> He has not the courage or integrity to put a lay
>evolutionist in his place. He understands that you are a howler
>protecting his turf. If he had any creative intelligence grounded in
>truth he wouldn't need a TEist lap dog. Richard Dawkins wouldn't dream
>of defending a scum bag like yourself, much less accept your
>protection.
>
>Ray
>
So endeth the lesson according to Dishonest Ray. Treat it with the
total contempt it (and him) deserves.
--
Bob.
chris thompson
> >> I'm sorry to say that a PhD doesn't guarantee that you know anything
> >> about anything other than a single, narrow subject,....
>
> > In your case this could not be anymore true, [deleted].
>
> But {deleted}, this *is* my single, narrow subject.
>
Ray Martinez
> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
>
> snip
>
>
>
> >> It's irrelevant what degree Wells has. He's still wrong. The 'plain fact'
> >> is that the peppered moth studies are a good example of natural selection
> >> on
> >> a population. You seem to have not bothered to take Well's
> >> anti-evolutionary agenda into account.
>
> > Everyone knows that Wells is an antievolutionist.
>
> scientific reasons. Wells is a member of Moon's Unification Church
> (Moonies) This is his own statement of why he opposes evolution.
>
> "Father's [Moon's] words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I
> should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow
> Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When
> Father chose me to enter a PhD program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity
> to prepare myself for battle."http://www.tparents.org/Library/Unification/Talks/Wells/0-Toc.htm
>
> Also see:
>
> http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jonathan_Wells
>
Quote mine.
Jonathan Wells full story and reasons for opposing evolution include
the fact that by his own admission the theory is not supported by the
evidence (which is what I have also concluded); and that he did not
have the "faith to believe in it anymore." Wells was an evolutionist,
the facts convinced him that the theory is false. Exclusion of this
crucial information is why you have engaged in quote mining.
> Now, if it was only that Wells was anti evolution, that would be one thing.
> The fact is that his claims are false.
>
> > The book cited
> > dismantles evolution is spectacular fashion.
>
> Actually, it doesn't, and it's not even it's stated intent.
Your belief is false, if not screwball. Wells is an antievolutionist;
his book is hostile to evolution.
> Wells talks
> about "Icons" of evolution, and why he feels they aren't really evidence for
> evolution. Wells' statements, however are grossly misleading, and often
> false. Here's Euginie Scott's review of the book:
>
> http://www.scienceormyth.org/icons%20of%20evolution.html
>
> Jerry Coyne's:
>
> http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/Coyne-IconsReview.htm
>
What two dark minded Atheist evolutionists think about a book that
attacks the veracity of their theory is entirely predictable,
containing no objective value whatsoever.
> > The chapter on peppered
> > moths was written to show how egregious fraud is in evolutionary
> > theory. Moths do not rest on tree trunks.
>
> Which, even if were true, is irrelevant. The fact is that they moths do
> rest on the trees, and the color morphs of the populations did change due to
> increased predation.
>
All this says is that you refuse to accept plain facts.
> > The photographs were staged.
>
> The photographs were meant to illustrate the camoflage the color patterns
> gave to the moths. They were not meant to show where the moths normally
> rested. See:http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB601_1.html
>
The photos were staged and passed off as genuine, or not being staged.
> > This means willful fraud was engaged in. These reasons are why Wells
> > and over half of all adults in the U.S. are not evolutionists.
>
> There was no fraud involved. Wells opposes evolution due to his religious
> beliefs, and did so even before he went to school. The population of the US
> is largely ignorant of the facts, and their failure to accept the science of
> evolution has more to do with that ignorance, and their religious beliefs.
>
Damage control attempting to downplay the failures of evolution.
>
>
> > Its hard to believe that John Harshman does not have the integrity to
> > admit the fraud here.
>
> He has the "integrity" to admit a fraud, but no reason to. There was no
> fraud to admit.
>
> > The evidence is plain and irrefutable.
>
> Then why has it been refuted?http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB601.html
>
> > It is not
> > hard to believe that a lay evolutionist like yourself refuses to give
> > up this particular bunk.
>
> This "particular bunk" is Wells' falsehoods, and distortions.
>
>
>
> > I urge everyone to read Jonathan Wells, "Icons of Evolution" 2002.
>
> And see how dishonest it really is?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> snip
>
> >> >> >> The change in species characteristics is one definition of
> >> >> >> evolution;
> >> >> >> more rigorously, the change in allele frequency in populations. But
> >> >> >> I
> >> >> >> would consider this an incomplete definition.
>
> >> >> > Dana Tweedy and Steven J - are you listening?
>
> >> >> Yes, and I agree. It shows that you are wrong. John is not saying that
> >> >> change in allele frequency is not evolution [No one said or implied
> >> >> that
> >> >> he did - blatant
> >> >> misrepresentation].
>
> >> Ray, I've pointed out before that trying to interject your comments into
> >> my
> >> statements in this way is dishonest.
>
> > Every writer and author uses brackets to do what I did.
>
> Not to add words and change the meaning. What you did was dishonest. You
> know this.
>
Words within brackets are not yours, you are ignorant of basic writing
practices. I can detect that you are also highly enraged, the truth
within the brackets hurt.
Ray
> >That is what
>
> > they mean. That is their purpose. There is no dishonesty whatsoever.
> > Saying the use of brackets is dishonest is a willful lie since you
> > very well know that brackets is the tool for writers to inject text
> > that is theirs and not the person who is being quoted.
>
> The fact is that "injecting" text to change the meaning is dishonest.
> It's not a tool that honest authors use at all.
>
>
>
> > Your paranoia is fringe hysterics.
>
> No paranoia, not hysterics. I'm just pointing out that your adding words to
> my statements is dishonest.
>
> > I can sense it in your tone.
>
> Ray, you always get it wrong when you try to "sense" anything in my, or
> other's writing. You keep referring to how much "rage" someone shows,
> when it's clear they are very calm.
>
> > The
> > only dishonest person is you and the Group of evolutionists here who
> > read your bullshit and remain quiet. The Group here has no integrity,
> > including John Harshman, who is supposed to be a scholar.
>
> Ray, you know that what you did was dishonest. Trying to shift the blame
> onto me is not only irrational, but only confirms your own dishonesty.
>
>
>
> >> Furthermore, you *have * claimed
> >> that evolution is not change in allele frequency, which is the only way
> >> your
> >> comment about "Dana Tweedy and Steven J- are you listenting" makes any
> >> kind
> >> of sense. I did not misrepresent you at all, and you know it.
>
> > Yes you did. You made it appear that I said Harshman was denying a
> > gene frequency definition of evolution.
>
> Ray, once again, that's not a distortion, but a plain reading of what you
> said.
>
> > You straight out lied since I
> > never said it and since I know Harshman accepts a change in gene
> > frequency to be at least part of a definition of evolution.
>
> Then what you wrote about me and Steven paying attention makes absolutely no
> sense. It's possible you are just being irrational, but I (silly me)
> assumed you were attempting to make some kind of sense.
>
>
>
> > Again, the real point here is the Group and their dishonesty as they
> > ignore your bullshit and remain quiet. Your deliberate distortions are
> > plain and self-evident.
>
> Then why does no one but yourself seem to see them as "distortions"?
> It's not my fault if you can't write clearly, or say what you mean. No
> one supports your claims, because they don't see any truth to them.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Your claim that microevolution is defined as change due to natural
> >> selection
> >> is
>
> >> >> wrong [I said material causation, and I am right. But I accept the
> >> >> CLAIM
> >> >> that natural selection
> >> >> causes microevolution, as does Harshman and every evolutionist. It is
> >> >> "the main but not the exclusive
> >> >> means of modification."]
>
> >> Ray, Natural selection is part of the mechanism of adaptive evolution,
> >> but
> >> evolution can occur without selection, natural or otherwise. "Every
> >> evolutionist" including Dr. Harshman is aware of that. Natural selection
> >> does not cause "modification" in individuals, but is part of the
> >> mechanism
> >> that produces genetic change in populations.
>
> > You are a completely ignorant lay evolutionist.
>
> Other than name calling, you don't actually address my point. I'll take
> that as an admission you concede that natural selection does not cause
> modifications in individuals.
>
>
>
> >> > [Please note comments in brackets.]
>
> >> The comments in brackets are not mine, and as I've pointed out before,
> >> adding your own comments into my statements to change their meaning is
> >> dishonest.
>
> > Who would think brackets are yours?
>
> The point is that you are adding "brackets" to change the meaning of my
> words. You are quite aware that is dishonest.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> > Since 1859 evolution of any increment or rate has never been suggested
> >> > except within the confines of a proposed causation mechanism to
> >> > accomplish the alleged change;
>
> >> That is not true, before or after 1859. It had been known before Darwin
> >> that populations did show change over generations, even when the
> >> mechanism
> >> was not known.
>
> >> > hence "On The Origin Of Species By
> >> > Means Of Natural Selection" (= material causation).
>
> >> Ray, "Natural Selection" as used by Darwin was not a synonym for
> >> "material
> >> causation". As a scientist, Darwin was aware that all causation that
> >> science can study is "material". Natural Selection was Darwin's term for
> >> the process by which organisms in a population reproduce differentially.
> >> Darwin's discovery was that nature acted as the "agent" that determined
> >> which variations in a population would be selected for propigation.
>
> > Self evident contradictory nonsense of a lay evolutionist.
>
> Again, you don't address my point, or provide any counter point. I'll take
> it as you are conceding the point.
>
>
>
> > I am through, here.
>
> Ray's on the run once more.....
>
> snipping what Ray is unable to address
>
> DJT- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Steven J.
> On Apr 25, 11:42 am, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
>
> > > "I do understand that some of those photos were staged" --John
> > > Harshman.
>
> > > When forced, Harshman comes through.
>
> > Quote-mining is a sin. Shame on you.
>
> > [snip further rants]
>
> > Speaking of sins, I really do feel bad for baiting Ray like this. I
> > suppose I'm not doing him much harm, unless I'm keeping him from seeking
> > treatment. But I don't think Ray is going to seek treatment anyway.
> > Still, making fun of the insane is in poor taste. I'm a bit sorry, and
> > I'll try to stop.
>
> what you mean. It is dishonest to claim quote mine when there is none,
> "Dr." Harshman.
>
different from its meaning out of context. Dr. Harshman's point was
that the peppered moth photos were never meant to show anything except
how different color morphs served as camoflage in different
environments. They show that, whether they are posed or not. Now, if
the color of the moths had been altered, that would be fraud -- but
that did not happen, and no one has even hinted that it happened. If
the moths, in fact, never rested on bark that was covered in lichens
or soot, the photos would be misleading, but the moths have in fact
been observed resting on such surfaces (note: the photos were not,
themselves, offered as evidence that moths rested on trunks, although
in fact peppered moths sometimes do so). By offering Dr. Harshman's
quote that the moth photos were staged, without noting the context,
you were implying that they somehow were somehow altered to provide
false evidence, but they were not, and Dr. Harshman did not say that
they were.
>
> Peppered moths have been thoroughly exposed and debunked. It seems you
> are unable to admit only because you have spoken up for veracity. Real
> scholars, when they have spoken up and need to retract something
> simply say "their view has changed."
>
major element of the peppered moth story is correct: they do rest on
tree trunks and branches, the principle selective agent on moth
survival is predation by birds, and their principle protection against
predation is camoflage: the peppered morph succeeds better when tree
bark is covered by lichens, and the black morph succeeds better when
tree bark is soot-covered.
>
> Also:
>
> Nature is not a reproductive free-for-all. For the most part it takes
> a male and a female to reproduce. It is impossible for a inanimate
> material process to evolve a reproductive pair, and have that pair
> find each other and mate. This would be a miracle: performed as many
> times as however many of these species to have ever existed.
>
all; he noted that individuals sometimes interbreed with members of
other species. That you could dispute this suggests that you've never
heard of mules, or tangelos, or "ligons" and "tigrons," or numerous
other interspecies hybrids, some of considerable economic
significance. As so often, I marvel at the height and breadth and
depth of abject ignorance from which you presume to pontificate on
matters of science and theology.
Now, concerning "reproductive pairs," reproduction is older than sex
(and, arguably, was originally separate from it: bacteria exchange
genes with one another, and reproduce, but the two processes are
separate). Sexual reproduction is older than distinct sexes: see,
e.g. conjugation in paramecia. Separate sex organs for small and
large gametes are older than distinct sexes for individuals: consider
both hermaphroditic earthworms and flowers with both male and female
organs. For much of the history of sexual reproduction, there were no
separate male and female individuals, and hence no need for them to
find each other. Of course, vertebrates have had distinct sexes for
several million centuries now: it's not as though evolution needed to
start from scratch with monkeys and had to evolve separate male and
female humans. There were already male and female monkeys, with parts
that fit one another (as had been the case with mammals for well over
a million centuries already).
>
> It appears that the needs of your Atheism is not in the least bit
> hindered by scientific facts.
>
Well, that could be because the scientific facts support Dr. Harshman
(I am here assuming that by "atheism" you mean "recognition of common
descent and natural selection).
>
> Ray
-- Steven J.
DJT
> On Apr 24, 8:09 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:dde42a6c-24f5-4856...@j33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...> On Apr 24, 4:51 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
> > snip
>
> > >> It's irrelevant what degree Wells has. He's still wrong. The 'plain fact'
> > >> is that the peppered moth studies are a good example of natural selection
> > >> on
> > >> a population. You seem to have not bothered to take Well's
> > >> anti-evolutionary agenda into account.
>
> > > Everyone knows that Wells is an antievolutionist.
>
> > Do you know *Why* Wells is an antievolutionist? It has nothing to do with
> > scientific reasons. Wells is a member of Moon's Unification Church
> > (Moonies) This is his own statement of why he opposes evolution.
>
> > "Father's [Moon's] words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I
> > should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow
> > Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When
> > Father chose me to enter a PhD program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity
> > to prepare myself for battle."http://www.tparents.org/Library/Unification/Talks/Wells/0-Toc.htm
>
> > Also see:
>
> >http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jonathan_Wells
>
> Quote mine.
How is this a "quote mine"? Where did I change the meaning of the
statement by removing context?
>
> Jonathan Wells full story and reasons for opposing evolution include
> the fact that by his own admission the theory is not supported by the
> evidence (which is what I have also concluded);
Ray, it's clear that Wells wasn't willing to look at the evidence that
supports evolution. Your own "conclusion" is due to the same
religious bigotry, not any actual evidence.
>and that he did not
> have the "faith to believe in it anymore."
Which was disingenuous, as it was clear that Wells never accepted
evolution in the first place, due to his religious beliefs.
>Wells was an evolutionist,
> the facts convinced him that the theory is false.
Do you have any evidence that Wells ever accepted evolutionary
theory?
> Exclusion of this
> crucial information is why you have engaged in quote mining.
I didn't engage in any quote mining at all. You were taken in by
Wells' falsehood.
>
> > Now, if it was only that Wells was anti evolution, that would be one thing.
> > The fact is that his claims are false.
>
> > > The book cited
> > > dismantles evolution is spectacular fashion.
>
> > Actually, it doesn't, and it's not even it's stated intent.
>
> Your belief is false, if not screwball. Wells is an antievolutionist;
> his book is hostile to evolution.
Because of his religious beliefs. However the stated purpose of the
book was to highlight what Wells said were particular arguing points
that he claimed were not supported. The fact is that Wells
misrepresented the "icons" and was outright deceptive in his
claims.
>
> > Wells talks
> > about "Icons" of evolution, and why he feels they aren't really evidence for
> > evolution. Wells' statements, however are grossly misleading, and often
> > false. Here's Euginie Scott's review of the book:
>
> >http://www.scienceormyth.org/icons%20of%20evolution.html
>
> > Jerry Coyne's:
>
> >http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/Coyne-IconsReview.htm
>
> What two dark minded Atheist evolutionists think about a book that
> attacks the veracity of their theory is entirely predictable,
> containing no objective value whatsoever.
Whether their statements are 'predictable' or not, they pointed out
the places where Wells was wrong, and being deceptive. You need to
address the rebuttals, not just use ad hominem to dismiss the case
they make against Wells. In any case, Neither Eugenie Scott, or
Jerry Coyne are "dark minded".
>
> > > The chapter on peppered
> > > moths was written to show how egregious fraud is in evolutionary
> > > theory. Moths do not rest on tree trunks.
>
> > Which, even if were true, is irrelevant. The fact is that they moths do
> > rest on the trees, and the color morphs of the populations did change due to
> > increased predation.
>
> All this says is that you refuse to accept plain facts.
On the contrary, I am quite willing to accept plain facts. The plain
facts are that Wells lied. That is what you refuse to accept.
Wells said the moths don't rest on tree trunks. Scientists, however
have shown they do rest on tree trunks, at least 25% of the time.
More to the point, the color morph of the moths did change over time,
which is due to natural selection.
>
> > > The photographs were staged.
>
> > The photographs were meant to illustrate the camoflage the color patterns
> > gave to the moths. They were not meant to show where the moths normally
> > rested. See:http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB601_1.html
>
> The photos were staged and passed off as genuine, or not being staged.
Ray, what do you think the photos were trying to show? ; They were
"genuine" as they showed the genuine camouflage the different color
morphs provided in the different conditions.
>
> > > This means willful fraud was engaged in. These reasons are why Wells
> > > and over half of all adults in the U.S. are not evolutionists.
>
> > There was no fraud involved. Wells opposes evolution due to his religious
> > beliefs, and did so even before he went to school. The population of the US
> > is largely ignorant of the facts, and their failure to accept the science of
> > evolution has more to do with that ignorance, and their religious beliefs.
>
> Damage control attempting to downplay the failures of evolution.
There is no "damage" to control. How is Wells' falsehoods a
"failure" for evolution?
snip
> > > Every writer and author uses brackets to do what I did.
>
> > Not to add words and change the meaning. What you did was dishonest. You
> > know this.
>
> Words within brackets are not yours, you are ignorant of basic writing
> practices. I can detect that you are also highly enraged, the truth
> within the brackets hurt.
I am quite aware of basic writing techniques, which is why I know what
you did was dishonest. The reason I object to those words is because
they were not the truth, as you are quite aware.
Ray, you know you were being deceptive, and you know that what you did
was dishonest. It's pretty much what anyone expects from you. Why
not just apologize and go on?
snip or what Ray is unable to deal with.
DJT
DJT
> On Apr 25, 11:32 am, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
> > > Attempted whitewashing of premeditated fraud, but it nonetheless
> > > admits to the fraud when the intelligence insulting excuses are
> > > ignored.
>
> > Ray, there was no fraud. You know this. Dick doesn't "admit" to what
> > does not exist. The pictures of the moths do not need "excuses". Wells
> > charges were false, and demonstratably so. It's amazing that, when shown
> > Wells' deception, you choose to ignore the evidence, and continue to repeat
> > Wells' falsehoods.
>
> > > I think that this is about as "objective" as we can expect from
> > > evolutionists.
>
> > You know nothing of objectivity, and have no regard for the truth. Wells
> > is the one who lied to you, and you are attacking those who are telling you
> > the truth.
>
> > DJT- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> You are hysterical, the same has blinded you to the fact that Atheist
> evolutionists like John Harshman are dishonest. His lack of a
> spiritual IQ automatically makes him a liar.
Ray, where have I ever displayed any hysteria? Dr. Harshman is
honest, and what's more, he's correct, something you don't seem to be
able to admit. Whether or not he has a "spiritual IQ" (whatever
that is) is irrelevant to the fact that he's quite correct in his
scientific statements.
Your own hysteria is evident in the fact that you can't dispute the
fact,so you fall back on name calling.
>
> You should also be satisfied that Harshman has sacrificed his degree
> and its objective reputation to cover for a blatant liar like
> yourself.
John "sacrificed" nothing, for me, or anyone else. His statements
are entirely correct. You are the one who is wrong. John owes me
nothing, and I don't expect that he would give me any support I didn't
come by legitimately.
By the way, exactly why do you think your disagreement with John
will cause him any personal, or professional harm?
>I wouldn't hesitate to expose a creationist liar.
Yet you failed to "expose" Harun Yayha's lies. You often give
excuses for liars such as Wells, Ham, Hovind, etc.
> All this
> proves is that Harshman's degree, however "legitimate," is
> counterfeit.
Because you were wrong about a point of biology? How so?
> He has not the courage or integrity to put a lay
> evolutionist in his place.
Since I'm right, why would he have to "put me in my place"?
>He understands that you are a howler
> protecting his turf. If he had any creative intelligence grounded in
> truth he wouldn't need a TEist lap dog.
He doesn't need me, and I'm not his lap dog, nor is he mine. Please
make up your mind as to who is the "lap dog".
> Richard Dawkins wouldn't dream
> of defending a scum bag like yourself, much less accept your
> protection.
Again, I see you are reduced to name calling. I've never met Dr.
Dawkins, and I don't expect ever to meet him, but I have no doubt he'd
agree with me on scientific matters, providing that I was correct.
DJT
Earle Jones
<a74ed011-003e-4983...@y22g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 24, 6:13 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
> > Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > On Apr 23, 6:20 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> > > wrote:
> > >> max maypo wrote:
> > >>> hoping someone here will help...on another forum, I'm engaged in the
> > >>> exchange reproduced below. his position appears to be that evolution
> > >>> only occurs when new species are produced, that a transition to some
> > >>> state of 'higher complexity' is required, and that the effects of
> > >>> natural selection within a species do not qualify as evolution.
> > >>> I say humbug to all of the above. it's my (perhaps misguided?)
> > >>> understanding that
> > >>> (a) new species are definitely not required for evolution to occur
> > >>> (but if I'm right, I'd sure like to be able to point to a kick-ass
> > >>> example!)
> > >> You are right. The peppered moth remains a good example, regardless of
> > >> creationist attempts to dispose of it. Or pick up any issue of the
> > >> journal Evolution for a dozen examples.
> >
> > > "....peppered moths in the wild don't even rest on tree trunks. The
> > > textbook photographs, it turns out, have been staged."
> >
> > > --Jonathan Wells, "Icons of Evolution" 2002:140.
> >
> > > These moths have been thoroughly debunked, John. Time to obtain a new
> > > gimmick.
> >
> > It's not wise to use Jonathan Wells as a source. He's wrong about almost
> > everything, this included. Count wells among "creationist attempts to
> > dispose of it". And yes, the moths do rest on tree trunks, as well as
> > other parts of trees.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >>> (b) 'evolution' and 'higher complexity' don't have anything to do with
> > >>> one another
> > >> You are right, except that evolution may result in higher complexity. Or
> > >> lower complexity. Or no change in complexity.
> >
> > >>> (c) the change in general species characteristics over time *IS*
> > >>> evolution (although I have problems with the concept of species
> > >>> ...for sexually reproducing organisms, I'm under the impression
> > >>> that the line between one species and another is whether or not
> > >>> organisms from the two classes can mate and produce fertile
> > >>> offspring...if not, then it's two species; if yes, then only one.
> > >>> and again, if I'm even close to right on this stuff, I'd very much
> > >>> like to be able to point to yet another (or even the same) kick-ass
> > >>> example!)
> > >> The change in species characteristics is one definition of evolution;
> > >> more rigorously, the change in allele frequency in populations. But I
> > >> would consider this an incomplete definition.
> >
> > > Dana Tweedy and Steven J - are you listening?
> >
> > They may be, in which case they probably understand what I meant much
> > better than you did.
> >
>
> Up until this moment, John, your TEist lap dog emphatically said that
> a change in gene frequencies is the only valid definition of
> evolution. Your comment above refutes his belief and corroborates my
> claim/fact that evolution has more than one valid definition.
>
> Dana is obviously flabbergasted over your remark. My research into
> evolutionary theory has shown more than one valid definition of
> evolution. Darwin's definition is still valid. In fact the biological
> synthesis said that Darwin was correct. That is why they affirmed
> natural selection at the genetic level even though many big name
> evolutionists, during the synthesis, rejected a gene centric
> definition, including Huxley.
>
> > >> Your definition of species
> > >> is faulty, however. Many species can mate and produce fertile offspring
> > >> with many other species. SNIP....
> >
> > > What?
> >
> > > I have fallen out of my chair!
> >
> > > Species only mate with members of their own species, John. When they
> > > get close to other species they kill them or run away.
> >
> > You are instructing me on biology?
>
> In the wild, species mate with their own kind and never any other
> species. No one was talking about hybridity. You attempted to make it
> look like that it is normal and common for species to mate with other
> species in the wild. This is completely false.
>
> We know different animals graze along side of each other but for the
> most part they are hostile and competing for limited resources. They
> do not mate with other species. This is impossible. Your doctorate is
> worthless here.
>
> > At this point I am forcibly reminded
> > that Ray is technically insane. I really shouldn't respond to him. For
> > any lurkers, Ray is comically wrong about this as about almost
> > everything he says. And for this he should probably be a recipient of
> > sympathy rather than ridicule. There are literally millions (billions)
> > of known examples of hybrids between species, mules being the ones that
> > come to mind most immediately to most people. To me, of course, it would
> > be hybrids among duck species.
> >
> >
> >
> > >>> comments, corrections, and (if at all possible) confirmation would
> > >>> be most appreciated. thanks...
> > >>> Max
> > >>> the Other Guy wrote
> > >>>> Max Maypo wrote:
> > >>>>> the Other Guy wrote
> > >>>>>> In the case of the Peppered Moth, you're primarily seeing natural
> > >>>>>> selection, not evolution. There's no new higher complexity and no
> > >>>>>> new species.
> > >>>>> I believe you're a bit confused about some of the concepts
> > >>>>> being discussed in this thread. there's an accessible
> > >>>>> tutorial on evolution here:http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
> > >>>>> with reference to your comments above, you might also
> > >>>>> want to take note of this page:
> > >>>>>http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIENaturalSelection.shtml
> > >>>> I didn't have a lot of time to look at the links, but nothing I read
> > >>>> contradicts anything I've said. They talk a lot about theory, but not
> > >>>> a lot about actual evidence of biological advancement other than simple
> > >>>> natural selection within a species. Which obviously does occur. The
> > >>>> biological variety they often point to is present within the gene pool
> > >>>> from the beginning so no advancements are actually made, just
> > >>>> "selected."
> > >>>> I would humbly suggest that you read the links more carefully.
> > >>>> Regards,
> > >>>> Don
> > >>> (just in case: fnord)- Hide quoted text -
> > >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> It is disappointing to see you play the "agree with me or you are
> insane" card. You have made an egregious error and now you will do
> everything but admit it. I am fond of pointing out that anytime an
> evolutionist says a creationist is insane then that is a compliment.
***
Then why do you say you are disappointed? You should thank him for
insulting you.
BTW, I think you are a pathetic lying bastard.
Now thank me!
earle
*
Caranx latus
<snip>
> Nature is not a reproductive free-for-all. For the most part it takes
> a male and a female to reproduce.
Do you have any idea how many million organisms there are right now
within 5 feet of you? The overwhelmingly vast majority are microscopic,
and they reproduce asexually. Contrast this with the two that reproduce
sexually (you and your tapeworm), and it becomes mindnumbingly obvious
that reproduction is, for the most part, asexual.
> It is impossible for a inanimate
> material process to evolve a reproductive pair, and have that pair
> find each other and mate. This would be a miracle: performed as many
> times as however many of these species to have ever existed.
Obviously, you feel that this is a miracle that God cannot perform. I
find it interesting that you have such a firm grasp of what God's
limitations are. How did you come by this information? It surely isn't
Biblical, is it?
Caranx latus
According to Wells' own words
(http://www.tparents.org/library/unification/talks/wells/DARWIN.htm):
--- begin quote ---
He [Father] also spoke out against the evils in the world; among them,
he frequently criticized Darwin's theory that living things originated
without God's purposeful, creative activity. My studies included modern
theologians who took Darwinism for granted and thus saw no room for
God's involvement in nature or history; in the process, they re-
interpreted the fall, the incarnation, and even God as products of human
imagination.
Father's words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should
devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow
Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism.
When Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates)
to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare
myself for battle.
...
When I finished my Yale Ph.D., I felt confident that I understood the
theological basis of the conflict between Darwinism and theism.
...
I eventually decided to join the fray by returning to graduate school in
biology. I was convinced that embryology is the Achilles' heel of
Darwinism; one cannot understand how organisms evolve unless one
understands how they develop. In 1989, I entered a second Ph.D. program,
this time in biology, at the University of California at Berkeley. While
there, I studied embryology and evolution.
--- end quote ---
Wells' objection to Darwinism was originally religiously based: he was
never what you would consider an evolutionist. However, I could be wrong.
It could just be that Wells isn't the best authority on Wells, and that
you know better than he. Perhaps you could elaborate on why you think
that Wells was ever an evolutionist.
<snip>
Dana Tweedy
>> > (Recently, I have implied the DI and David Berlinski to be liars
>> > concerning certain things.]
>>
>
> [knock-knock]....is anybody home?
It appears that John has gone back to ignoring you.
snip
>> Speaking of sins, I really do feel bad for baiting Ray like this. I
>> suppose I'm not doing him much harm, unless I'm keeping him from seeking
>> treatment. But I don't think Ray is going to seek treatment anyway.
>> Still, making fun of the insane is in poor taste. I'm a bit sorry, and
>> I'll try to stop.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>
> There is no quote mine, unless you do not mean what you say or say
> what you mean. It is dishonest to claim quote mine when there is none,
> "Dr." Harshman.
Ray, you accused me of "quote mining" when I gave a quote from Wells showing
his anti-science bias. There was no quote mine there, and you claimed
there was. That must have been dishonest of you.
>
> Peppered moths have been thoroughly exposed and debunked.
Sorry, Ray, but that's wrong. Despite you wanting them to be "debunked"
they still are a good example of natural selection.
> It seems you
> are unable to admit only because you have spoken up for veracity.
Did it occur to you that when everyone is telling you that you are wrong,
you might be wrong?
> Real
> scholars, when they have spoken up and need to retract something
> simply say "their view has changed."
Scientist's views haven't changed. The Peppered Moths are a good example of
natural selection.
>
> Also:
>
> Nature is not a reproductive free-for-all.
John didn't say it was. He pointed out that species do interbreed with
other closely related species. Your own claim, that one species can never
interbreed with another species, is wrong. Individuals from one species
can, and do interbreed with individuals from other species, usually closely
related ones. These pairings produce hybrids, such as mules, ligers, etc.
> For the most part it takes
> a male and a female to reproduce.
Actually, Ray, most of the living things on Earth don't reproduce sexually.
Those that do, don't always need a male female pair.
> It is impossible for a inanimate
> material process to evolve a reproductive pair,
What are you basing this bald assertion upon? Why can't a reproductive
pair evolve from a population of asexual breeders, or from a hermaphodidic
population? For more information, see:
http://biomed.brown.edu/Courses/BIO48/19.Evol.of.Sex.HTML
http://www.nature.com/nrg/focus/evolsex/index.html
> and have that pair
> find each other and mate.
You seem to be missing the idea that evolution happens in populations, not
single individuals. Sexual reproduction most likely began in populations
of organisms that could reproduce asexually as well. See:
http://www.answers.com/topic/asexual-reproduction?cat=technology
"Some species alternate between the sexual and asexual strategies, an
ability known as heterogamy, depending on conditions. For example, the
freshwater crustacean Daphnia reproduces by parthenogenesis in the spring to
rapidly populate ponds, then switches to sexual reproduction as the
intensity of competition and predation increases. Many protists and fungi
alternate between sexual and asexual reproduction. For example, the slime
mold Dictyostelium undergoes binary fission as single-celled amboebae under
favorable conditions. However, when conditions turn unfavorable, the cells
aggregate and switch to sexual reproduction leading to the formation of
spores. The hyphae of the common mold (Rhizopus) are capable of producing
both mitotic as well as meiotic spores. Many algae similarly switch between
sexual and asexual reproduction. Asexual reproduction is far less
complicated than sexual reproduction. In sexual reproduction one must find a
mate."
> This would be a miracle: performed as many
> times as however many of these species to have ever existed.
It's not a "miracle" in any sense of the term. Sexual reproduction isn't
an all or nothing thing. In nature there are many different methods of
reproducing. There are asexual organisms, that reproduce without any
sexual mixing, there are populations that are both male and female, such as
earthworms, and there are populations that reproduce by parthogenesis, like
certian species of lizards.
http://home.pcisys.net/~dlblanc/articles/whiptail.php
http://www.uwex.edu/ces/wihort/turf/Earthworms.htm
>
> It appears that the needs of your Atheism is not in the least bit
> hindered by scientific facts.
The problem is, Ray, that you are ignorant of the vast field of scientific
facts. You have combined your ignorance with a large amount of arrogance,
to put you into this situation. By lecturing John Harshman, who is much
better educated than you are, you are just exposing your own stupidity.
DJT
Ye Old One
<pyram...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
So he went a little mad. Happens to many, especially when exposed to
the canker of religion.
> Exclusion of this
>crucial information is why you have engaged in quote mining.
>
>> Now, if it was only that Wells was anti evolution, that would be one thing.
>> The fact is that his claims are false.
>>
>> > The book cited
>> > dismantles evolution is spectacular fashion.
>>
>> Actually, it doesn't, and it's not even it's stated intent.
>
>Your belief is false, if not screwball. Wells is an antievolutionist;
>his book is hostile to evolution.
So what, there are many kooks like you around that have a hatred of
science.
>
>> Wells talks
>> about "Icons" of evolution, and why he feels they aren't really evidence for
>> evolution. Wells' statements, however are grossly misleading, and often
>> false. Here's Euginie Scott's review of the book:
>>
>> http://www.scienceormyth.org/icons%20of%20evolution.html
>>
>> Jerry Coyne's:
>>
>> http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/Coyne-IconsReview.htm
>>
>
>What two dark minded Atheist evolutionists think about a book that
>attacks the veracity of their theory is entirely predictable,
>containing no objective value whatsoever.
What a very dark minded creationist like you thinks about a trash book
is also very predictable and contains no objective value whatsoever.
>
>
>> > The chapter on peppered
>> > moths was written to show how egregious fraud is in evolutionary
>> > theory. Moths do not rest on tree trunks.
>>
>> Which, even if were true, is irrelevant. The fact is that they moths do
>> rest on the trees, and the color morphs of the populations did change due to
>> increased predation.
>>
>
>All this says is that you refuse to accept plain facts.
You are a total stranger to plain facts Dishonest Ray.
>
>
>> > The photographs were staged.
>>
>> The photographs were meant to illustrate the camoflage the color patterns
>> gave to the moths. They were not meant to show where the moths normally
>> rested. See:http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB601_1.html
>>
>
>The photos were staged and passed off as genuine, or not being staged.
The photos show reality. Why is it that you have such a problem with
reality?
>
>
>> > This means willful fraud was engaged in. These reasons are why Wells
>> > and over half of all adults in the U.S. are not evolutionists.
>>
>> There was no fraud involved. Wells opposes evolution due to his religious
>> beliefs, and did so even before he went to school. The population of the US
>> is largely ignorant of the facts, and their failure to accept the science of
>> evolution has more to do with that ignorance, and their religious beliefs.
>>
>
>Damage control attempting to downplay the failures of evolution.
Damage control attempting to downplay the total failure of religion.
[grossly excessive sig removed and reported as abuse.]
--
Bob.
Ray Martinez
> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
>
>
> > It appears that the needs of your Atheism is not in the least bit
> > hindered by scientific facts.
>
> The problem is, Ray, that you are ignorant of the vast field of scientific
> facts. You have combined your ignorance with a large amount of arrogance,
> to put you into this situation. By lecturing John Harshman, who is much
> better educated than you are, you are just exposing your own stupidity.
>
> DJT
Harshman is a crank, Dana. His Atheism provides no choice; he must
accept evolution. He initiates ad homs against Theists and when we
give him a taste of his own medicine he runs away like a little brat
behind the skirt of the nearest TEist. These are not the actions of a
scholar; and anyone has the right to challenge his claims, especially
when they are self-evident nonsense.
Ray
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
Wells is famous for saying that he forsook evolution because he did
not have the faith to believe in it anymore. Quote mining short
excerpts that support your biased point is dishonest. Atheists, on the
other hand, must accept evolution for anti-religious reasons, they
have no choice. Since Wells hold a Ph.D. in microbiology he opposes
evolution because the facts do not support the claims, which confirms
his religious beliefs to be accurate and true.
Ray
Ray Martinez
> In article
> <a74ed011-003e-4983-b910-771bade78...@y22g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
I do not feel insulted in being called a "pathetic lying bastard" by a
person who says apes morphed into men or that the material brain,
produced by material evolution, imagined th idea of God, resulting in
hundreds of millions of persons to have an imaginary relationship with
a non-existent Being.
In view of these things, which you advocate as true, I just don't feel
insulted, in fact I would say that my honesty and integrity is
testified to when a person like yourself, believing what you believe,
calls me a liar. Calling me a liar is the best evidence that I am not
in view of what you say is true.
Ray
Caranx latus
> not have the faith to believe in it anymore.
If he is famous for saying it, then perhaps he wrote it somewhere is
his own words rather than in yours. Are you able to provide me with
such a reference, or are you unable to do so.
> Quote mining short
> excerpts that support your biased point is dishonest.
I didn't see anything in what Wells wrote that supported your point of
view, and I made what I felt were adequate efforts *not* to change the
context of his words. Perhaps you could explain to me how my selective
quote changed the sense of what Wells wrote.
> Atheists, on the
> other hand, must accept evolution for anti-religious reasons, they
> have no choice.
... <sigh> ... I'd ask you to outline the logic behind this particular
argument, but I know that you would be unable to do so.
> Since Wells hold a Ph.D. in microbiology he opposes
> evolution because the facts do not support the claims, which confirms
> his religious beliefs to be accurate and true.
It is probably more accurate to say that Wells obtained a PhD in
microbiology so that he could understand that which he was already
predisposed to attempt to tear down. You might learn a lesson from
that.
Caranx latus
> On Apr 27, 6:11 pm, Earle Jones <earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
<snip>
> > > It is disappointing to see you play the "agree with me or you are
> > > insane" card. You have made an egregious error and now you will do
> > > everything but admit it. I am fond of pointing out that anytime an
> > > evolutionist says a creationist is insane then that is a compliment.
>
> > ***
> > Then why do you say you are disappointed? You should thank him for
> > insulting you.
>
> > BTW, I think you are a pathetic lying bastard.
>
> > Now thank me!
>
> > earle
> > *
>
> I do not feel insulted in being called a "pathetic lying bastard" by a
> person who says apes morphed into men or that the material brain,
> produced by material evolution, imagined th idea of God, resulting in
> hundreds of millions of persons to have an imaginary relationship with
> a non-existent Being.
>
> In view of these things, which you advocate as true, I just don't feel
> insulted, in fact I would say that my honesty and integrity is
> testified to when a person like yourself, believing what you believe,
> calls me a liar. Calling me a liar is the best evidence that I am not
> in view of what you say is true.
Out of curiosity, Ray, do you actually find I'm-rubber-you're-glue
arguments compelling?
Ray Martinez
By excluding portions, if included would plainly show that you are
misrepresenting Dr. Wells.
>
>
> > Jonathan Wells full story and reasons for opposing evolution include
> > the fact that by his own admission the theory is not supported by the
> > evidence (which is what I have also concluded);
>
> Ray, it's clear that Wells wasn't willing to look at the evidence that
> supports evolution. Your own "conclusion" is due to the same
> religious bigotry, not any actual evidence.
>
Wells has a Ph.D. in molecular and cell biology. He rejects evolution
because there isn't any evidence, Dana. Evolution is accepted for anti-
religious reasons. This is why nearly all Atheists are evolutionists;
and the ones that do not accept evolution believe in even more
preposterous things than evolution.
> >and that he did not
>
> > have the "faith to believe in it anymore."
>
> Which was disingenuous, as it was clear that Wells never accepted
> evolution in the first place, due to his religious beliefs.
>
I have read his testimony, he accepted evolution, then the facts
showed that evolution was false. This is a common testimony.
On the other hand, your quackpot "Dr." Harshman, who thinks he can
insult anyone who does not accept his baloney, always believed in
evolution. He is an Atheist, Dana. This means his views are
predetermined and are not subject to modification. His mind is
closed.
> >Wells was an evolutionist,
>
> > the facts convinced him that the theory is false.
>
> Do you have any evidence that Wells ever accepted evolutionary
> theory?
>
Again, I have read his testimony.
> > Exclusion of this
> > crucial information is why you have engaged in quote mining.
>
> I didn't engage in any quote mining at all. You were taken in by
> Wells' falsehood.
>
Could we expect an evolutionist with your dishonest track record to
say anything else?
>
>
> > > Now, if it was only that Wells was anti evolution, that would be one thing.
> > > The fact is that his claims are false.
>
> > > > The book cited
> > > > dismantles evolution is spectacular fashion.
>
> > > Actually, it doesn't, and it's not even it's stated intent.
>
> > Your belief is false, if not screwball. Wells is an antievolutionist;
> > his book is hostile to evolution.
>
> Because of his religious beliefs. However the stated purpose of the
> book was to highlight what Wells said were particular arguing points
> that he claimed were not supported. The fact is that Wells
> misrepresented the "icons" and was outright deceptive in his
> claims.
>
Could we expect an evolutionist to say or believe anything else?
>
>
> > > Wells talks
> > > about "Icons" of evolution, and why he feels they aren't really evidence for
> > > evolution. Wells' statements, however are grossly misleading, and often
> > > false. Here's Euginie Scott's review of the book:
>
> > >http://www.scienceormyth.org/icons%20of%20evolution.html
>
> > > Jerry Coyne's:
>
> > >http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/Coyne-IconsReview.htm
>
> > What two dark minded Atheist evolutionists think about a book that
> > attacks the veracity of their theory is entirely predictable,
> > containing no objective value whatsoever.
>
> Whether their statements are 'predictable' or not, they pointed out
> the places where Wells was wrong, and being deceptive. You need to
> address the rebuttals, not just use ad hominem to dismiss the case
> they make against Wells. In any case, Neither Eugenie Scott, or
> Jerry Coyne are "dark minded".
>
Two of the most infamous lying hateful evolutionists in the public eye
asserting their enemy is wrong and deceptive?
About as objective as a Judge deciding a case involving his ex-wife,
how is it that you cannot understand this?
>
>
> > > > The chapter on peppered
> > > > moths was written to show how egregious fraud is in evolutionary
> > > > theory. Moths do not rest on tree trunks.
>
> > > Which, even if were true, is irrelevant. The fact is that they moths do
> > > rest on the trees, and the color morphs of the populations did change due to
> > > increased predation.
>
> > All this says is that you refuse to accept plain facts.
>
> On the contrary, I am quite willing to accept plain facts. The plain
> facts are that Wells lied. That is what you refuse to accept.
> Wells said the moths don't rest on tree trunks. Scientists, however
> have shown they do rest on tree trunks, at least 25% of the time.
> More to the point, the color morph of the moths did change over time,
> which is due to natural selection.
>
Wells was an evolutionist. He has a Ph.D. in biology. He has exposed
the self-evident lies of evolution, which he calls "Icons". This term
is an accurate description of evolutionary ideas. What evolution
believes is not subject to falsification because these icons are idols
- their gods. The Bible tells us that idol worship is a grave sin
because it recognizes gods that do not exist in defiance to God.
Evolution says God is not the Designer - intelligence is not seen in
reality, their icons are the "designer" which is their moronic ideas,
the ideas of Atheists who have taken God's place.
Wells has shown that evolutionists are liars. Evolutionists are not
liars because they lie; rather, they lie because they are liars. Wells
book was written to prove this point. Anyone without an anti-religious
agenda accepts these truths, Dana.
Refusal to accept is expected since you too are a evolutionist.
>
>
> > > > The photographs were staged.
>
> > > The photographs were meant to illustrate the camoflage the color patterns
> > > gave to the moths. They were not meant to show where the moths normally
> > > rested. See:http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB601_1.html
>
> > The photos were staged and passed off as genuine, or not being staged.
>
> Ray, what do you think the photos were trying to show? ; They were
> "genuine" as they showed the genuine camouflage the different color
> morphs provided in the different conditions.
>
Typical evasion.
>
>
> > > > This means willful fraud was engaged in. These reasons are why Wells
> > > > and over half of all adults in the U.S. are not evolutionists.
>
> > > There was no fraud involved. Wells opposes evolution due to his religious
> > > beliefs, and did so even before he went to school. The population of the US
> > > is largely ignorant of the facts, and their failure to accept the science of
> > > evolution has more to do with that ignorance, and their religious beliefs.
>
> > Damage control attempting to downplay the failures of evolution.
>
> There is no "damage" to control. How is Wells' falsehoods a
> "failure" for evolution?
>
> snip
>
> > > > Every writer and author uses brackets to do what I did.
>
> > > Not to add words and change the meaning. What you did was dishonest. You
> > > know this.
>
> > Words within brackets are not yours, you are ignorant of basic writing
> > practices. I can detect that you are also highly enraged, the truth
> > within the brackets hurt.
>
> I am quite aware of basic writing techniques, which is why I know what
> you did was dishonest. The reason I object to those words is because
> they were not the truth, as you are quite aware.
>
> Ray, you know you were being deceptive, and you know that what you did
> was dishonest. It's pretty much what anyone expects from you. Why
> not just apologize and go on?
>
> snip or what Ray is unable to deal with.
>
> DJT- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Self-evident implacable rage caused by truth. This is what keeps Dana
Tweedy in hot pursuit of me day and night.
Ray
Dana Tweedy
>> The problem is, Ray, that you are ignorant of the vast field of
>> scientific
>> facts. You have combined your ignorance with a large amount of arrogance,
>> to put you into this situation. By lecturing John Harshman, who is much
>> better educated than you are, you are just exposing your own stupidity.
>>
>> DJT
>
> Harshman is a crank, Dana.
Ray, what are you basing this libel on? John is a published scientist, who
has supported everything he's said.
>His Atheism provides no choice; he must
> accept evolution.
even if that were true, and it isn't, so what? I accept evolution based on
the evidence, and because it explains the observed facts.
> He initiates ad homs against Theists and when we
> give him a taste of his own medicine he runs away like a little brat
> behind the skirt of the nearest TEist.
Where has John ever done such a thing? You are reduced to name calling,
because you know you don't have any evidence on your side.
>These are not the actions of a
> scholar;
They aren't the actions of John Harshman either. You are the one who runs
and hides whenever you are challenged with real science.
> and anyone has the right to challenge his claims, especially
> when they are self-evident nonsense.
You can "challenge" him all you want, but when it's you who is spouting the
"self evident nonsense", you only look more foolish than normal.
The fact is that species do interbreed with other closely related species.
Hybridization happens in the wild, and John knows it. The only one who
doesn't know this, is you, and you are making a spectacle of yourself by
insisting on something that has been observed, can't happen. You have not
addressed any of the refutations of Wells, and you haven't addressed any of
the examples of hybrids presented to you.
You made a mistake, Ray, a big one, and you won't admit your own ignorance.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
>
> Wells is famous for saying that he forsook evolution because he did
> not have the faith to believe in it anymore.
Of course, he said that *after* the quotes above. It's obvious that Wells
was lying when he said he "didn't have the faith" to accept science, which
doesn't require faith.
> Quote mining short
> excerpts that support your biased point is dishonest.
Ray, quote mining is taking quotes out of context, to change the meaning.
Presenting what Wells actually believes is not quote mining.
> Atheists, on the
> other hand, must accept evolution for anti-religious reasons, they
> have no choice.
While that's quite irrelevant, atheists have plenty of choices for what to
believe, as far as the diversity of life. Most atheists accept evolution
for the same reason theists accept it. It's because the theory is the best
explanation for the evidence.
> Since Wells hold a Ph.D. in microbiology he opposes
> evolution because the facts do not support the claims, which confirms
> his religious beliefs to be accurate and true.
However Wells has never published any scientific journal article opposing
evoluiton, and his claims in his book are easily shown to be false. Having
a Ph. D. does not mean that Wells is correct, and his religious bias is an
important reason for why he rejects the evidence for evolution. If Wells
were honest, he'd admit that the facts do support evolution. Instead he
just recycles creationist claims.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
>> ***
>> Then why do you say you are disappointed? You should thank him for
>> insulting you.
>>
>> BTW, I think you are a pathetic lying bastard.
>>
>> Now thank me!
>>
>> earle
>> *- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> I do not feel insulted in being called a "pathetic lying bastard" by a
> person who says apes morphed into men or that the material brain,
> produced by material evolution, imagined th idea of God, resulting in
> hundreds of millions of persons to have an imaginary relationship with
> a non-existent Being.
Ray, the evidence clearly shows that humans are closely related to other ape
species, and that humans have a "material brain". Whether the idea of God
is "imagined" or not, is a religious belief, not a scientific conclusion.
As for people having a "imaginary relationship", you have to admit that many
people had an "imaginary relationship" with many pagan gods throughout
history.
>
> In view of these things, which you advocate as true, I just don't feel
> insulted, in fact I would say that my honesty and integrity is
> testified to when a person like yourself, believing what you believe,
> calls me a liar. Calling me a liar is the best evidence that I am not
> in view of what you say is true.
Obviously, Ray, you do feel insulted, otherwise you'd not be trying so hard
to pretend it doesn't bother you. You have no honesty, or integrity, for
anyone to testify to. The best evidence that you are a liar, is your lies.
Evidence that you aren't a liar, would be a reputation for not lying,
something you don't have.
DJT
John Harshman
I hope you are gaining some benefit from arguing with Ray. Ray certainly
won't. I usually post for one or more of several reasons:
1. To inform people of something interesting.
2. To correct a poster's error for his benefit.
3. To correct a poster's error for the benefit of lurkers.
4. To get a response that will teach me something.
5. To hone my skills at countering creationist arguments.
6. For pure entertainment.
None of these seem applicable to Ray, except occasionally for #3, and
that only once per error. And so I ignore him most of the time. As I've
mentioned, I also consider it bad form to pick on those who are
obviously unbalanced, as well as not very entertaining, and certainly
not much of a challenge. But your mileage may vary.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by "alwaysaskingquestions"
<alwaysaski...@gmail.com>:
Do you have any evidence that Ray actually thinks?
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by noshellswill
<noshel...@gmail.com>:
>On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 20:55:00 +0000, max maypo wrote:
>
>>
>> my thanks to all who replied, and most especially to Ernest Major,
>> Rupert Morrish, and John Harshman...I've learned a lot from this
>> thread
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe you're a bit confused about some of the concepts
>>>>> being discussed in this thread. there's an accessible
>>>>> tutorial on evolution here: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
>>>>> with reference to your comments above, you might also
>>>>> want to take note of this page:
>>>>> http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIENaturalSelection.s
>>>>> html
>>>>
>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Don
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> (just in case: fnord)
>>>
>
>mm:
>
>
>Just for fun, and being interested I went to the Berkeley site and soon
>read this:
>
>'...Humans are not "higher" or "more evolved" than other living
>lineages Since our lineages split, humans and chimpanzees have each
>evolved traits unique to their own lineages ...'
>
>Oh darn, agendas make bad science as do non-sequiturs.
Perhaps you'd care to explain how this statement relates to
the material quoted?
> Soldier on.
Dana Tweedy
>> > Quote mine.
>>
>> How is this a "quote mine"? Where did I change the meaning of the
>> statement by removing context?
>>
>
> By excluding portions, if included would plainly show that you are
> misrepresenting Dr. Wells.
What parts are those? I haven't misrepresented Mr. Wells, in fact I
"represented" him quite correctly. Are you denying that Wells is a
follower of Moon? Are you denying that Wells sought his Ph.D. on the
orders of Moon, in order to oppose evolution?
>
>
>>
>>
>> > Jonathan Wells full story and reasons for opposing evolution include
>> > the fact that by his own admission the theory is not supported by the
>> > evidence (which is what I have also concluded);
>>
>> Ray, it's clear that Wells wasn't willing to look at the evidence that
>> supports evolution. Your own "conclusion" is due to the same
>> religious bigotry, not any actual evidence.
>>
>
> Wells has a Ph.D. in molecular and cell biology.
Which is irrelevant to whether or not he's wrong.
> He rejects evolution
> because there isn't any evidence, Dana.
Which is false. There is plenty of evidence for evolution, as we have
discussed many times. That you keep running away from that evidence means
that you know it exists.
> Evolution is accepted for anti-
> religious reasons.
Then why do so many religious people accept it? Evolution is accepted
because it's the best explanation for the evidence. Trying to reverse the
fact that creationist reject evolution for solely religious reasons doesn't
work.
> This is why nearly all Atheists are evolutionists;
"nearly all" atheists aren't "evolutionist" and, more importantly, many
people who accept evolution are not atheist. Your logical fallacy of
affirming the consequent fails you once again.
> and the ones that do not accept evolution believe in even more
> preposterous things than evolution.
Few things are more preposterous as creationism. Those who accept
evolution do so due to the evidence. It has nothing to do with being
"against religion".
>
>> >and that he did not
>>
>> > have the "faith to believe in it anymore."
>>
>> Which was disingenuous, as it was clear that Wells never accepted
>> evolution in the first place, due to his religious beliefs.
>>
>
> I have read his testimony, he accepted evolution, then the facts
> showed that evolution was false. This is a common testimony.
Ray, Wells was obviously lying. His earlier statements clearly show he
never accepted evolution in the first place.
>
> On the other hand, your quackpot "Dr." Harshman, who thinks he can
> insult anyone who does not accept his baloney, always believed in
> evolution.
So what? Dr. Harshman is entitled to his own opinions. The fact that
you, and Wells reject evolution for religious reasons, having nothing to do
with science is your own problem. John has the evidence to back up his
scientific work. You have only your own ignorance, and Wells has nothing
but his own deception.
> He is an Atheist, Dana. This means his views are
> predetermined and are not subject to modification.
Ray, do you realize here, that you are describing yourself? I've never
met John, but I suspect that he knows science well enough to know that all
knowledge in science is provisional. That it's only as good as the lastest
set of data. If evidence that contradicted evolution were to be found, I
am confident that John, and other honest scientists, would accept the
evidence, and modify the theory as necessary.
On the other hand, you, and Wells, and all the other "creationists" are
committed to your belief, and can't stand any exposure to real evidence.
The fact that life does evolve, and that the evidence clearly shows the
process means nothing to you.
As for John's religious beliefs, that's his own business, and does not
seem to have an impact on his ability to recognize the truth. I can't say
that about you.
> His mind is
> closed.
Ray, your own "mind" (and I do use the term loosely) is not only closed,
it's nailed shut, bound in iron chains, sealed in 3 feet of reenforced
concrete, and dumped in a deep ocean trench. You've been, by your own
claim, been engaged in "research" for several years, and you still don't
know that individuals from one species can hybridize with other species.
You don't know anything about adaptive radiation, you aren't able to
correctly define evolution, as used by biologists, and you seem to think
that crystal formation, and radioactive decay is impossible.
To accuse John of having a "closed mind" is absurd, coming from you.
>
>
>> >Wells was an evolutionist,
>>
>> > the facts convinced him that the theory is false.
>>
>> Do you have any evidence that Wells ever accepted evolutionary
>> theory?
>>
>
> Again, I have read his testimony.
You have read what he wanted you to believe. You have ignored his earlier
"testimony" that contradicts his later claim. Now, do you have any
*evidence* that Wells ever accepted evolution? Do you have any published
papers by Wells, concerning evolutionary theory? Any valid research Wells
conducted?
>
>> > Exclusion of this
>> > crucial information is why you have engaged in quote mining.
>>
>> I didn't engage in any quote mining at all. You were taken in by
>> Wells' falsehood.
>>
>
> Could we expect an evolutionist with your dishonest track record to
> say anything else?
I suppose, but since I have a "track record" of honesty, what's the
relevance? Now, can you address the point?
>
>
>>
>>
>> > > Now, if it was only that Wells was anti evolution, that would be one
>> > > thing.
>> > > The fact is that his claims are false.
>>
>> > > > The book cited
>> > > > dismantles evolution is spectacular fashion.
>>
>> > > Actually, it doesn't, and it's not even it's stated intent.
>>
>> > Your belief is false, if not screwball. Wells is an antievolutionist;
>> > his book is hostile to evolution.
>>
>> Because of his religious beliefs. However the stated purpose of the
>> book was to highlight what Wells said were particular arguing points
>> that he claimed were not supported. The fact is that Wells
>> misrepresented the "icons" and was outright deceptive in his
>> claims.
>>
>
> Could we expect an evolutionist to say or believe anything else?
Yes, you could. Now, can you address the point, or run away some more?
I've already provided links to show where Wells is wrong, and/or deceptive.
What can you show that Wells is right?
snip
>> Whether their statements are 'predictable' or not, they pointed out
>> the places where Wells was wrong, and being deceptive. You need to
>> address the rebuttals, not just use ad hominem to dismiss the case
>> they make against Wells. In any case, Neither Eugenie Scott, or
>> Jerry Coyne are "dark minded".
>>
>
> Two of the most infamous lying hateful evolutionists in the public eye
> asserting their enemy is wrong and deceptive?
Can you provide any evidence that either Scott, or Coyne are "hateful" or
"lying"? Name calling doesn't make them wrong.
>
> About as objective as a Judge deciding a case involving his ex-wife,
> how is it that you cannot understand this?
Because the two reviews above provided evidence, and facts, which showed
Wells wrong. Now, are you going to address the point, or run away some
more? Forget your false "objetive" and address the evidence.
smnip
>> > All this says is that you refuse to accept plain facts.
>>
>> On the contrary, I am quite willing to accept plain facts. The plain
>> facts are that Wells lied. That is what you refuse to accept.
>> Wells said the moths don't rest on tree trunks. Scientists, however
>> have shown they do rest on tree trunks, at least 25% of the time.
>> More to the point, the color morph of the moths did change over time,
>> which is due to natural selection.
>>
>
> Wells was an evolutionist. He has a Ph.D. in biology.
Wells got the Ph. D. for the sole purpose of opposing evolution. He was
never an "evolutionist" in the first place. In any case, his claims are
wrong, and deceptive. I've already provided the evidence that shows Wells
was wrong.
> He has exposed
> the self-evident lies of evolution, which he calls "Icons".
The only thing that Wells "exposed" was his own dishonesty . Again, I've
already provided you with evidence that Wells was wrong. Why not address
the evidence?
> This term
> is an accurate description of evolutionary ideas. What evolution
> believes is not subject to falsification because these icons are idols
> - their gods.
Which only goes to show how much you misunderstand science. Science
doesn't have idols, or gods. Evolution is open to falsification in many
ways, but putting out deceptive, and false claims isn't one of them.
> The Bible tells us that idol worship is a grave sin
> because it recognizes gods that do not exist in defiance to God.
Which makes one wonder why you worship a false idol like Gene Scott.
> Evolution says God is not the Designer - intelligence is not seen in
> reality, their icons are the "designer" which is their moronic ideas,
> the ideas of Atheists who have taken God's place.
Evolution says nothing about God, one way or the other. What atheists
believe is irrelevant to the science behind evolution anyway. Wells'
claims about the "icons" of evolution are false, and easily demonstrated to
be false. That is why you won't look at the evidence which contradicts
Wells.
>
> Wells has shown that evolutionists are liars.
No, he's only shown himself to be a liar.
> Evolutionists are not
> liars because they lie; rather, they lie because they are liars.
Ray, you have no evidence that "evolutionists" lie at all. You only go by
your own mistaken, biased, and blinded beliefs. You refuse to see the
evidence that shows yourself to be wrong.
> Wells
> book was written to prove this point.
If so, he failed miserably. He only showed the lengths creationists go to
ruin their own credibility.
> Anyone without an anti-religious
> agenda accepts these truths, Dana.
That's odd, because I don't have a anti-religious agenda, and I don't accept
your falsehoods. Many people don't have anything against religion, and
don't accept your false claims.
>
> Refusal to accept is expected since you too are a evolutionist.
"Refusal to accept" is expected because I'm aware of the evidence.
>
>
>>
>>
>> > > > The photographs were staged.
>>
>> > > The photographs were meant to illustrate the camoflage the color
>> > > patterns
>> > > gave to the moths. They were not meant to show where the moths
>> > > normally
>> > > rested. See:http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB601_1.html
>>
>> > The photos were staged and passed off as genuine, or not being staged.
>>
>> Ray, what do you think the photos were trying to show? ; They were
>> "genuine" as they showed the genuine camouflage the different color
>> morphs provided in the different conditions.
>>
>
> Typical evasion.
How do you imagine this to be an evasion? I'm asking you to show where
the wrong in the photos is supposed to be. That you can't show why the
photos were wrong, indicates you don't even know what they were meant to
show.
snip
>> Ray, you know you were being deceptive, and you know that what you did
>> was dishonest. It's pretty much what anyone expects from you. Why
>> not just apologize and go on?
>>
>> snip or what Ray is unable to deal with.
>>
>> DJT- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Self-evident implacable rage caused by truth.
Once again, your ability to detect 'rage' is off. I'm not angry at all.
Moreover, it's you who seems to be upset by the truth.
>This is what keeps Dana
> Tweedy in hot pursuit of me day and night.
Oh, Ray, your false bravado is funny sometimes. What keeps me responding
to you, is your penchant to explode into amusing bouts of irrational
ranting, such as above. I'm not angry at you, Ray, you keep me amused.
DJT
Vernon Balbert
and produced this interesting bit of text:
> On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 11:57:34 +0100, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by "alwaysaskingquestions"
> <alwaysaski...@gmail.com>:
>
>> "Ray Martinez" pyram...@yahoo.com wrote in message
>> news:dde42a6c-24f5-4856...@j33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Ray, today's second reading in my Church happened to be from 1 Peter 3:15-18
>>
>> "Reverence the Lord Christ in your hearts, and always have your answer ready
>> for people who ask you the reason for the hope that you all have. But give
>> it with courtesy and respect and with a clear conscience, so that those who
>> slander you when you are living a good life in Christ may be proved wrong in
>> the accusations that they bring."
>>
>> Do you really think that the way you describe people who disagree with you
>> qualifies as courtesy and respect?
>
> Do you have any evidence that Ray actually thinks?
He does seem to spout the same dogma without considering the facts.
When he's confronted with something that shows he doesn't even
understand his dogma properly, he ignores it and goes onto something
else because otherwise he'd have to admit he's wrong which requires some
thought on his part.
--
If you find extra pieces after assembling or reassembling an object, you
have not made a mistake. You have just made that object more efficient.
Ye Old One
<pyram...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
That is because you know that you are.
>by a
>person who says apes morphed into men
All men, including you, are still apes.
>or that the material brain,
>produced by material evolution, imagined th idea of God,
That is a fact that you can never escape.
>resulting in
>hundreds of millions of persons to have an imaginary relationship with
>a non-existent Being.
There do seem to be a lot of deluded people about. Luckily, as much of
Europe is showing, as the education of people improves the delusions
reduce.
>In view of these things, which you advocate as true, I just don't feel
>insulted, in fact I would say that my honesty and integrity is
Totally non-existent.
>testified to when a person like yourself, believing what you believe,
>calls me a liar. Calling me a liar is the best evidence that I am not
>in view of what you say is true.
>
>Ray
>
--
Bob.
Dana Tweedy
"John Harshman" <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:v%oRj.62$3O7...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...
snip
>> You made a mistake, Ray, a big one, and you won't admit your own
>> ignorance.
>
> I hope you are gaining some benefit from arguing with Ray.
Just my own amusement. I know that Ray is not worth the effort, but I
get a laugh from his pronouncements. It's also amusing to me, to watch him
huff and puff, and blow a gasket.
> Ray certainly won't. I usually post for one or more of several reasons:
>
> 1. To inform people of something interesting.
> 2. To correct a poster's error for his benefit.
> 3. To correct a poster's error for the benefit of lurkers.
> 4. To get a response that will teach me something.
> 5. To hone my skills at countering creationist arguments.
> 6. For pure entertainment.
>
> None of these seem applicable to Ray, except occasionally for #3, and that
> only once per error. And so I ignore him most of the time.
That's probably for the best, but someone has to take on the loons, and it
keeps me in practice for any real challenges.
>As I've mentioned, I also consider it bad form to pick on those who are
>obviously unbalanced, as well as not very entertaining, and certainly not
>much of a challenge. But your mileage may vary.
Well, I admit I like poking loons, to see them dance. Call it a character
flaw, if you wish. Ray is the only one right now who I find amusing enough
to keep poking. I realize it's pointless, and Ray isn't going to learn
anything, or ever admit his error.
DJT
>
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
Atheists are notorious for obtaining degrees to legitimize what they
already believe. Their conclusions are predetermined and entirely
predictable.
In the case of Wells, he came to reject evolution because the evidence
does not support the claims. Wells has said this plainly and clearly
whether it is available on the Internet or not. It is why all persons
reject evolution: the evidence does not support the claims. Evolution
is Atheist ideology packaged as science.
Ray
Ray Martinez
wrote:
> Dana Tweedy wrote:
> > "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Harshman giving his TEist lap dog some encouragement.
John: I happen to believe that Dana Tweedy is actually more smarter
and clever than you are. We Theists are simply more intelligent than
you dark minded Atheists. But my belief has problems since Dana
accepts you as his superior. Maybe Dana is not a Theist? I have made
my points and I think you will think twice before insulting Theists
and Theist scholars again. But I have not singled you out per se. I
will (and I have) given Atheists a taste of their own medicine after
they initiate.
And you did say nature was a reproductive free-for-all, hybridism was
absent from the context.
Ray
Caranx latus
> On Apr 28, 10:20 am, Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> On Apr 28, 12:43 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
>>> Wells is famous for saying that he forsook evolution because he did
>>> not have the faith to believe in it anymore.
>> If he is famous for saying it, then perhaps he wrote it somewhere is
>> his own words rather than in yours. Are you able to provide me with
>> such a reference, or are you unable to do so.
You missed this part here, Ray. Why?
>>> Quote mining short
>>> excerpts that support your biased point is dishonest.
>> I didn't see anything in what Wells wrote that supported your point of
>> view, and I made what I felt were adequate efforts *not* to change the
>> context of his words. Perhaps you could explain to me how my selective
>> quote changed the sense of what Wells wrote.
You missed this part here, Ray. I'll make you a deal. One of us should
apologize to the group: either me for changing the context of Wells'
words, or you for erroneously suggesting that that context had been
changed. All you have to do is to show me how I was unfair to the
meaning of Wells' document. You OK with that?
>>> Atheists, on the
>>> other hand, must accept evolution for anti-religious reasons, they
>>> have no choice.
>> ... <sigh> ... I'd ask you to outline the logic behind this particular
>> argument, but I know that you would be unable to do so.
>>
>>> Since Wells hold a Ph.D. in microbiology he opposes
>>> evolution because the facts do not support the claims, which confirms
>>> his religious beliefs to be accurate and true.
>> It is probably more accurate to say that Wells obtained a PhD in
>> microbiology so that he could understand that which he was already
>> predisposed to attempt to tear down. You might learn a lesson from
>> that.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Atheists are notorious for obtaining degrees to legitimize what they
> already believe.
They are? Can you give me any examples?
John Harshman
I enjoy poking loons as much as anyone, but I would like to make a
distinction between loons (those who hold ridiculous opinions for their
own reasons) and the truly insane (those whose thought processes are
themselves pathological). Ray seems to be the main current
representative of the latter group, and he's should be sympathized with
rather than poked. In my opinion. Admittedly, it's not always clear
which category a poster falls into.
Dana Tweedy
>> It is probably more accurate to say that Wells obtained a PhD in
>> microbiology so that he could understand that which he was already
>> predisposed to attempt to tear down. You might learn a lesson from
>> that.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Atheists are notorious for obtaining degrees to legitimize what they
> already believe.
Can you provide any examples of such?
> Their conclusions are predetermined and entirely
> predictable.
So you say, but your own "conclusions" are not only "predictable" but wrong.
>
> In the case of Wells, he came to reject evolution because the evidence
> does not support the claims.
So, why is there so much evidence that does support evolution? Ray,
Wells did not "come to reject evolution", he never accepted it in the first
place, because of his religious position.
>Wells has said this plainly and clearly
> whether it is available on the Internet or not.
Wells statements that are available clearly show he had rejected evolution
for religious reasons before he went to school.
> It is why all persons
> reject evolution: the evidence does not support the claims. Evolution
> is Atheist ideology packaged as science.
Ray, the only reason why anyone rejects the fact of evolution is their
religious beliefs. The evidence does support the claims, which is why
evolution is considered a science, and why all legitamate colleges,
universities, foundations, research facilities, etc, accept evolution.
DJT