Spit it out Ray
Devils Advocaat
Background first.
In past posts Ray has insisted that the wolf and the dog are separate
and distinct species.
More recently Ray has declared that he accepts the biological species
concept.
The question.
Can Ray explain how he can accept the biological species concept while
insisting that the wolf and the dog are separate and distinct species?
That is my question I hope to get an answer.
T Pagano
Regardless Ray more or less argues that species are discrete entities
in time. The fossil record confirms this and NOT Darwin's conception.
While Darwin titled his magnum opus "Origin of Species" he placed no
special significance to any population with this classification. They
were nothing more and nothing less than part of an unbroken,
"continuous," evolutionary path which had partial overlaps with the
its predecessors and with its decendents. Unlike the atheists of
today Darwin was aware that all naturalistic processes are continous
processes with overlaps between predecessor and descendant.
Discontinuities are PROHIBITED.
However to Darwin's dismay (and disappointment) he discovered that the
fossil record disconfirmed his conception of the emergence and
development of biological diversity. He found that whatever a
"species" might be it appeared to have (in some aspects) a discrete
character from its putative evolutionary predecessors and descendants.
This discrete and discontinuous nature of "species" confirmed Linnaeus
(and creationism) not Darwin.
Interestingly the whole Gouldian camp disagrees with Darwin also. They
aver that the fossil record is too voluminous and inconsistent with
Darwin's conception to be true. Gould and Eldredge, more or less,
admit that there is something "discontinuous" about populations
classified as species. To be sure they don't believe it is a genuine
discontinuity but they seriously doubt the continuous, unbroken,
overlapping nature that Darwin proposed and required by naturalistic
processes.
Because Gould and Eldredge were never able to define what the boundary
condition would look like or what genetic mechanisms were causing the
leap the problem of the fossil record and the discontinuous nature of
species is a discordant fact for evolutionists.
Devils' Advocate is pissing into the wind over this issue.
Regards,
T Pagano
John Harshman
> On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 21:12:09 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
> <mank...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> I have a simple little question for Ray,
>>
>> Background first.
>>
>> In past posts Ray has insisted that the wolf and the dog are separate
>> and distinct species.
>>
>> More recently Ray has declared that he accepts the biological species
>> concept.
>>
>> The question.
>>
>> Can Ray explain how he can accept the biological species concept while
>> insisting that the wolf and the dog are separate and distinct species?
>>
>> That is my question I hope to get an answer.
>
> Regardless Ray more or less argues that species are discrete entities
> in time. The fossil record confirms this and NOT Darwin's conception.
Do you agree that species are to be identified with "kinds"? Most
creationists appear to disagree, generally claiming that "kind" is to be
identified roughly with genus or family. What about you, Tony? Do you
think there are multiple kinds within the family Canidae, or the family
Felidae?
How, in fact, do we recogonize kinds? It seems to me that if entities
were separately created, we should be able to distinguish their
boundaries quite easily.
> While Darwin titled his magnum opus "Origin of Species" he placed no
> special significance to any population with this classification. They
> were nothing more and nothing less than part of an unbroken,
> "continuous," evolutionary path which had partial overlaps with the
> its predecessors and with its decendents. Unlike the atheists of
> today Darwin was aware that all naturalistic processes are continous
> processes with overlaps between predecessor and descendant.
> Discontinuities are PROHIBITED.
>
> However to Darwin's dismay (and disappointment) he discovered that the
> fossil record disconfirmed his conception of the emergence and
> development of biological diversity. He found that whatever a
> "species" might be it appeared to have (in some aspects) a discrete
> character from its putative evolutionary predecessors and descendants.
> This discrete and discontinuous nature of "species" confirmed Linnaeus
> (and creationism) not Darwin.
I can see how you're confused. The fossil record is discontinuous
because that's the way deposition works, not because of any properties
of the organisms that get caught in it.
> Interestingly the whole Gouldian camp disagrees with Darwin also. They
> aver that the fossil record is too voluminous and inconsistent with
> Darwin's conception to be true. Gould and Eldredge, more or less,
> admit that there is something "discontinuous" about populations
> classified as species. To be sure they don't believe it is a genuine
> discontinuity but they seriously doubt the continuous, unbroken,
> overlapping nature that Darwin proposed and required by naturalistic
> processes.
Are they correct? And did Darwin actually claim that the fossil record
ought to be continuous?
> Because Gould and Eldredge were never able to define what the boundary
> condition would look like or what genetic mechanisms were causing the
> leap the problem of the fossil record and the discontinuous nature of
> species is a discordant fact for evolutionists.
"Boundary conditions"? And what leap, exactly? Didn't you just get done
saying that Gould and Eldredge didn't believe in actual leaps?
> Devils' Advocate is pissing into the wind over this issue.
Sure, because he can never hope to get an answer from a creationist,
just as you have avoided answering his question. I see, by the way, that
"post-and-run" is your new strategy. Lately, you don't seem to be
offering even a single response before running away.
Devils Advocaat
> On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 21:12:09 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
>
>
>
>
>
> <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >I have a simple little question for Ray,
>
> >Background first.
>
> >In past posts Ray has insisted that the wolf and the dog are separate
> >and distinct species.
>
> >More recently Ray has declared that he accepts the biological species
> >concept.
>
> >The question.
>
> >Can Ray explain how he can accept the biological species concept while
> >insisting that the wolf and the dog are separate and distinct species?
>
> >That is my question I hope to get an answer.
>
> Regardless Ray more or less argues that species are discrete entities
> in time. The fossil record confirms this and NOT Darwin's conception.
>
first described in 1942 by Ernst Mayr. Also wolves and dogs are not
extinct. So bringing up Darwin and the fossil record is pointless.
The biological species concept defines a species as members of
populations that actually or potentially interbreed in nature.
Wolves and dogs can and do interbreed where their populations overlap,
and so according to the biological species concept they are the same
species.
So what I want to know is how Ray is going to resolve this clear
contradiction of his own making?
John S. Wilkins
> On 3 July, 15:33, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 21:12:09 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > >I have a simple little question for Ray,
> >
> > >Background first.
> >
> > >In past posts Ray has insisted that the wolf and the dog are separate
> > >and distinct species.
> >
> > >More recently Ray has declared that he accepts the biological species
> > >concept.
> >
> > >The question.
> >
> > >Can Ray explain how he can accept the biological species concept while
> > >insisting that the wolf and the dog are separate and distinct species?
> >
> > >That is my question I hope to get an answer.
> >
> > Regardless Ray more or less argues that species are discrete entities
> > in time. The fossil record confirms this and NOT Darwin's conception.
> >
> Darwin wasn't responsible for the biological species concept, it was
> first described in 1942 by Ernst Mayr. Also wolves and dogs are not
> extinct. So bringing up Darwin and the fossil record is pointless.
Actually I think the first person to use a criterion of interfertility
may have been Blumenbach in the 18thC. Mayr was beaten by a number of
people, including Dobzhansky and several geneticists, but the only one
he ever acknowledged was his teacher Stresemann. Mayr is regarded as the
originator of this because Mayr so often recounted his own version (and
whose else would he promote?) and not others. I often feel that Mayr won
because he outlived all his contemporaries.
>
> The biological species concept defines a species as members of
> populations that actually or potentially interbreed in nature.
Darwin explicitly rejected this criterion, quite early on, because he
knew, as many others did even then, that species often hybridise
successfully.
>
> Wolves and dogs can and do interbreed where their populations overlap,
> and so according to the biological species concept they are the same
> species.
>
> So what I want to know is how Ray is going to resolve this clear
> contradiction of his own making?
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Devils Advocaat
which led him to identify the different human races? Can you point out
any work of his on the interfertility of different species?
While I don't doubt that Ernst Mayr outlived his contemporaries could
it be that it was the clarity of his description of the biological
species that won the day so to speak?
But if you can offer extracts of or sources for the works of his
contemporaries that would help me reexamine my position on this issue.
>
> > The biological species concept defines a species as members of
> > populations that actually or potentially interbreed in nature.
>
> Darwin explicitly rejected this criterion, quite early on, because he
> knew, as many others did even then, that species often hybridise
> successfully.
>
Can you recall reading anything that would explain why Darwin rejected
this form of classification, as I would love to read it myself.
>
> > Wolves and dogs can and do interbreed where their populations overlap,
> > and so according to the biological species concept they are the same
> > species.
>
> > So what I want to know is how Ray is going to resolve this clear
> > contradiction of his own making?
>
> --
> John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Sydneyhttp://evolvingthoughts.net
Ray Martinez
> I have a simple little question for Ray,
>
> Background first.
>
> In past posts Ray has insisted that the wolf and the dog are separate
> and distinct species.
>
Since both exist----yes, of course. Wolves mate with other wolves;
dogs mate with other dogs----that's why both concepts exist in
nature.
> More recently Ray has declared that he accepts the biological species
> concept.
>
> The question.
>
> Can Ray explain how he can accept the biological species concept while
> insisting that the wolf and the dog are separate and distinct species?
>
> That is my question I hope to get an answer.
Your question presupposes a false definition or understanding of the
BSC. The BSC does not preclude the species concept of "wolf" or the
species concept of "dog" from existing.
Look, Darwin encountered birds that appeared virtually identical. Upon
returning home from the Beagle voyage he enlisted the help of what the
literature calls the "London experts" who positively identified these
specimens to be unique and separate species. Nobody needs an expert to
tell the difference between a dog and a wolf; and I have no interest
in teaching anyone here the meaning of Mayr's BSC. It is a relatively
simple concept. Your comments and questions tell me that you do not
understand the BSC. See Coyne 2009 for an excellent summary.
Ray
Devils Advocaat
> On Jul 2, 9:12 pm, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > I have a simple little question for Ray,
>
> > Background first.
>
> > In past posts Ray has insisted that the wolf and the dog are separate
> > and distinct species.
>
> Since both exist----yes, of course. Wolves mate with other wolves;
> dogs mate with other dogs----that's why both concepts exist in
> nature.
And as you very well know wolves and dogs interbreed where their
populations overlap.
>
> > More recently Ray has declared that he accepts the biological species
> > concept.
>
> > The question.
>
> > Can Ray explain how he can accept the biological species concept while
> > insisting that the wolf and the dog are separate and distinct species?
>
> > That is my question I hope to get an answer.
>
> Your question presupposes a false definition or understanding of the
> BSC. The BSC does not preclude the species concept of "wolf" or the
> species concept of "dog" from existing.
Are you suggesting that Ernst Mayr got his definition wrong, because
that is the definition I am familiar with:
“species are groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural
populations, which are reproductively isolated from other such
groups” (Mayr, 1942)
presuming that is the definition you are familiar with then you are
going to have a very hard time explaining your position.
>
> Look, Darwin encountered birds that appeared virtually identical. Upon
> returning home from the Beagle voyage he enlisted the help of what the
> literature calls the "London experts" who positively identified these
> specimens to be unique and separate species. Nobody needs an expert to
> tell the difference between a dog and a wolf; and I have no interest
> in teaching anyone here the meaning of Mayr's BSC. It is a relatively
> simple concept. Your comments and questions tell me that you do not
> understand the BSC. See Coyne 2009 for an excellent summary.
>
> Ray
Insults aside, may I remind you of what I and others have told you in
the past, wolves and dogs interbreed where their populations overlap,
a fact that you are loathe to accept and unable to disprove.
By the way, I really can't wait for your refutation of the theory of
evolution, when are you publishing Ray?
Frank J
> On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 21:12:09 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
>
>
>
>
>
> <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >I have a simple little question for Ray,
>
> >Background first.
>
> >In past posts Ray has insisted that the wolf and the dog are separate
> >and distinct species.
>
> >More recently Ray has declared that he accepts the biological species
> >concept.
>
> >The question.
>
> >Can Ray explain how he can accept the biological species concept while
> >insisting that the wolf and the dog are separate and distinct species?
>
> >That is my question I hope to get an answer.
>
> Regardless Ray more or less argues that species are discrete entities
> in time. The fossil record confirms this and NOT Darwin's conception.
>
1. How do you explain that the very inconvnient fact that the only
major ID advocate who (1) agrees with you about that (in general - not
necessarily at the species level) and (2) stated a *clear* position on
whether the alleged "discontinuity" was explained by new origin-of-
life events said "no"? I'm referring of course to Michael Behe.
2. Regardless of what the fossil record confirms regarding species
continuity, it confirms a very clear and detailed chronology (Cambrian
~540 MY ago, K/T ~65 MY ago, "Lucy" ~3MY ago etc. etc.) that Behe,
Gould and all modern day "Darwinists" agree on. Do you agree with
them, or do you have your own detailed alternate chronology?
(snip another pathetic attempt to change the subject back to his
personal incredulity)
[M]adman
<cut to one point>
>
> How, in fact, do we recogonize kinds? It seems to me that if entities
> were separately created, we should be able to distinguish their
> boundaries quite easily.
Opposite actually.
If there are two "kinds" of seed bearing fruit trees and you can make a
third from the first two then the third kind is after the original first 2
"kinds" of fruit trees; but, becomes a separate kind within the original
kinds. I believe you call it a sub species.
It is still a seed bearing fruit tree that originated "after his own kind"
which are the first two seed bearing fruit trees.
We may never know what all of the /original/ created kinds were.
In the Book of Enoch they mention 14 tress which are what we call
"evergreens" today. But today we have more then 14 evergreens. Some have
been added to the earth's population of evergreens after their own kind.
The earth is dynamic; which is what evolution attempts to explain but fails.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com
Andrew Cunningham
The Book of Enoch also describes stars as living entities "whose
sexual organs were like the organs of horses". If we are to use the
Book of Enoch as a literal means of proof of something, we would have
to assume all of it was the literal truth, no(it is all the direct
word of a deity, after all)? If so, tell me, do you also believe that
the stars are living creatures? If you don't, then why would you
believe anything else that the book states?
I continue to fail to understand why proponentsists only challenge
biology and not astronomy.
wf3h
evolution has explained more about life in 150 years than creationism
did in 3000
f
wf3h
>
>
>
>
>
> <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >I have a simple little question for Ray,
>
> >Background first.
>
> >In past posts Ray has insisted that the wolf and the dog are separate
> >and distinct species.
>
> >More recently Ray has declared that he accepts the biological species
> >concept.
>
> >The question.
>
> >Can Ray explain how he can accept the biological species concept while
> >insisting that the wolf and the dog are separate and distinct species?
>
> >That is my question I hope to get an answer.
>
> Regardless Ray more or less argues that species are discrete entities
> in time. The fossil record confirms this and NOT Darwin's conception.
well no it doesn't. the fossil record shows both intermediate
'transitional' species AND fully developed species that are
descendents of ancestors......just 'cuz you don't like the evidence
doesn't mean it's OK to lie about it
>
> While Darwin titled his magnum opus "Origin of Species" he placed no
> special significance to any population with this classification. They
> were nothing more and nothing less than part of an unbroken,
> "continuous," evolutionary path which had partial overlaps with the
> its predecessors and with its decendents. Unlike the atheists of
> today Darwin was aware that all naturalistic processes are continous
> processes with overlaps between predecessor and descendant.
> Discontinuities are PROHIBITED.
no one knows what this means. what 'discontinuities'? meaningless
verbiage.
>
> However to Darwin's dismay (and disappointment) he discovered that the
> fossil record disconfirmed his conception of the emergence and
> development of biological diversity. He found that whatever a
> "species" might be it appeared to have (in some aspects) a discrete
> character from its putative evolutionary predecessors and descendants.
> This discrete and discontinuous nature of "species" confirmed Linnaeus
> (and creationism) not Darwin.
since creationism does not allow the existence of transitional forms,
and such forms are seen in the fossil record (eg the transitionals in
whales, the transitionals in the development of the ear from the jaws
of reptiles), pagano...again....seems not to know of where he speaks
no surprise. he's a creationst. the evidence against him is
overwhelming so the only way to deal with it is to deny its very
existence...IOW lie.
>
> Interestingly the whole Gouldian camp disagrees with Darwin also. They
> aver that the fossil record is too voluminous and inconsistent with
> Darwin's conception to be true.
well...no they don't. there is a discussion, as there is in all
sciences, about the EXACT consequence of mechanisms but aint no one
arguing darwin was wrong. sorry, pagano.
Gould and Eldredge, more or less,
> admit that there is something "discontinuous" about populations
> classified as species. To be sure they don't believe it is a genuine
> discontinuity but they seriously doubt the continuous, unbroken,
> overlapping nature that Darwin proposed and required by naturalistic
> processes.
well...no. they argued about the PACE of evolution...the 'punctuated
equilibrium' concept. the idea of 'discontinuity' seems to be an
invention of one tony pagano.....IOW a lie.
>
> Because Gould and Eldredge were never able to define what the boundary
> condition would look like or what genetic mechanisms were causing the
> leap the problem of the fossil record and the discontinuous nature of
> species is a discordant fact for evolutionists.
>
> Devils' Advocate is pissing into the wind over this issue.
>
and you're blowing wind.
John S. Wilkins
Here it is, from Blumenbach, De Generis Humani Varietate Nativa, 1775
(On the natural varieties of mankind), third edition, section 2.
<bq>23. What is species? We say that animals belong to one and the same
species, if they agree so well in form and constitution, that those
things in which they do differ may have arisen from degeneration. We say
that those, on the other hand, are of different species, whose essential
difference is such as cannot be explained by the known sources of
degeneration, if I may be allowed to use such a word. So far well in the
abstract, as they say. Now we come to the real difficulty, which is to
set forth the characters by which, _in the natural world_, we may
distinguish mere varieties from genuine species.
The immortal Ray, in the last century, long before Buffon, thought those
animals should be referred to the same species, which copulate together,
and have a fertile progeny. But, as in the domestic animals which man
has subdued, this character seemed ambiguous and uncertain, on account
of the enslaved life they lead; in the beginning of this century, the
sagacious Frisch restricted it to wild animals alone, and declared that
those were of the same species, who copulate in a natural state.[1]
But it must be confessed that, even with this limitation, we make but
little progress. For, in the first place, what very little chance is
there of bringing so many wild animals, especially the exotic ones,
about which it is of the greatest possible interest for us to know
whether they are to be considered as mere varieties, or as different
species, to that test of copulation? especially if their native
countries are widely apart; as is the case with the _Satyrus Angolensis_
(Chimpanzee) and that of the island of Borneo (Orang-utan).
Then it is universally the case that the obscurity and doubt is much
smaller, and of much less importance, in the case of wild animals on the
point in question, than of those very animals which are excluded by this
argument, that is, the domestic. Here, in truth, is the great
difficulty. Hence the wonderful differences of opinion about, for
example, the common dog, whose races you see are by some referred to
many primitive species; by others are considered as mere degenerated
varieties from that stock which is called the domestic dog (_Chien de
herger_); again, there are others who think that all these varieties are
derived from the jackal; and, finally, others contend that the latter,
together with all the domestic dogs and their varieties, are descended
from the wolf, and so forth.
As then the principle sought to be deduced from copulation is not
sufficient to define the idea of species and its difference from
variety, so neither are the other things which are adduced with this
object, for example, the constancy of any character. Thus the snowy
colour and the red pupils of the white variety of rabbit are as constant
as any specific character could possibly be. So that I almost despair of
being able to deduce any notion of species in the study of zoology,
except from analogy and resemblance.
1 "When beasts by nature copulate with each other, it is an unfailing
sign that they are of the same species." Berthout van Berchem fil. has
lately adopted the same test of species, "if animals mix when in a
natural state." But he makes no mention of Frisch, or even of Ray, nay,
he says, "M. de Buffon, who was the first to abandon the
little-to-be-depended-upon distinctions of the nomenclators, was also
the first to make it understood that copulation was the best criterion
for ascertaining species." See _Mem. de la Soci�te des Sciences
Physiques de Laitsanne_, T. II. p. 49.
<eq>
He misascribes this view to Ray, who merely had the same form propagated
from seed as the definition of species. Note also that Blumenbach had an
extensive discussion on why the human race was a unity and why races did
not differ in intelligence as well.
>
> While I don't doubt that Ernst Mayr outlived his contemporaries could
> it be that it was the clarity of his description of the biological
> species that won the day so to speak?
Perhaps. Critics of his view began almost immediately.
>
> But if you can offer extracts of or sources for the works of his
> contemporaries that would help me reexamine my position on this issue.
>
> >
> > > The biological species concept defines a species as members of
> > > populations that actually or potentially interbreed in nature.
> >
> > Darwin explicitly rejected this criterion, quite early on, because he
> > knew, as many others did even then, that species often hybridise
> > successfully.
> >
> Can you recall reading anything that would explain why Darwin rejected
> this form of classification, as I would love to read it myself.
Read chapter 6 of
Wilkins, John S. 2009. Species: a history of the idea, Species and
Systematics. Berkeley: University of California Press.
r norman
Wilkins) wrote:
>Read chapter 6 of
>
>Wilkins, John S. 2009. Species: a history of the idea, Species and
>Systematics. Berkeley: University of California Press.
>
I would, except U Cal Press says it won't be out until September.
And then I will shell out $49.95 out-of-pocket money to buy the damn
thing hoping that the author might get a few pennies out of the deal.
John Harshman
> John Harshman wrote:
> <cut to one point>
>> How, in fact, do we recogonize kinds? It seems to me that if entities
>> were separately created, we should be able to distinguish their
>> boundaries quite easily.
>
> Opposite actually.
>
> If there are two "kinds" of seed bearing fruit trees and you can make a
> third from the first two then the third kind is after the original first 2
> "kinds" of fruit trees; but, becomes a separate kind within the original
> kinds. I believe you call it a sub species.
No, I call it weird confusion on your part. I don't think you have any
real idea what you mean by "kind". What you have here is actually an odd
fantasy of what many creationists think would be a consequence of
evolution -- no separate kinds, just a smearing out of genotypes.
Creationists, on the other hand, commonly believe that if two organisms
can hybridize, that means they belong to the same kind. (In fact, I
swear that was once your criterion, now abandoned.)
> It is still a seed bearing fruit tree that originated "after his own kind"
> which are the first two seed bearing fruit trees.
Do you understand that seed-bearing fruit trees belong to many different
families of plants, and that many other members of these same families
aren't trees at all? Your notion of "kind" is incoherent.
> We may never know what all of the /original/ created kinds were.
>
> In the Book of Enoch they mention 14 tress which are what we call
> "evergreens" today. But today we have more then 14 evergreens. Some have
> been added to the earth's population of evergreens after their own kind.
"Evergreen", like "tree" or "fruit tree", isn't a taxonomic term at all.
There are many different sorts of evergreen plants, belonging to many
different families. Many of these families have other members that
aren't evergreens.
> The earth is dynamic; which is what evolution attempts to explain but fails.
All you do here is reveal your complete ignorance of botany, and of
biology in general. And you seem to disagree strongly with other
creationists, including Ray.
John S. Wilkins
Well, Devils Advocaat wanted to know when Darwin rejected the idea of
using interfertility as a criterion of specific identity. I give the
material in that, but it's hard to summarise. Still here's a passage
from the (6th edition of) the Origin:
From these facts it can no longer be maintained that varieties when
crossed are invariably quite fertile. From the great difficulty of
ascertaining the infertility of varieties in a state of nature, for a
supposed variety, if proved to be infertile in any degree, would almost
universally be ranked as a species; – from man attending only to
external characters in his domestic varieties, and from such varieties
not having been exposed for very long periods to uniform conditions of
life; – from these several considerations we may conclude that fertility
does not constitute a fundamental distinction between varieties and
species when crossed. The general sterility of crossed species may
safely be looked at, not as a special acquirement or endowment, but as
incidental on changes of an unknown nature in their sexual elements.
[p229]
Fundamentally he is making this point:
Since if we found infertility between varieties we'd immediately call
them a species, this is not an argument that infertility is what causes
species in the first place. Instead he thinks it (infertility) is a side
effect of changes caused by local adaptation.
So in the end, Darwin refuses to make sterility a test of species, nor
even to expect that sterility will correlate with systematic affinity,
summarizing the arguments in that chapter thus:
First crosses between forms, sufficiently distinct to be ranked as
species, and their hybrids, are very generally, but not universally,
sterile. The sterility is of all degrees, and is often so slight that
the most careful experimentalists have arrived at diametrically opposite
conclusions in ranking forms by this test. The sterility is innately
variable in individuals of the same species, and is eminently
susceptible to the action of favourable and unfavourable conditions. The
degree of sterility does not strictly follow systematic affinity, but is
governed by several curious and complex laws. It is generally different,
and sometimes widely different in reciprocal crosses between the same
two species. It is not always equal in degree in a first cross and in
the hybrids produced from this cross. I
n the same manner as in grafting trees, the capacity in one species or
variety to take on another, is incidental on differences, generally of
an unknown nature, in their vegetative systems, so in crossing, the
greater or less facility of one species to unite with another is
incidental on unknown differences in their reproductive systems. There
is no more reason to think that species have been specially endowed with
various degrees of sterility to prevent their crossing and blending in
nature, than to think that trees have been specially endowed with
various and somewhat analogous degrees of difficulty in being grafted
together in order to prevent their inarching in our forests. [p233]
He makes comments about sterility not being a test of species as early
as 1838, in his Notebooks (B and E), and you can spot where he switches
from one to the other, as he initially thought it *was*.
Devils Advocaat
> Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > On 3 July, 16:37, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
[snipped for brevity]
> > While I don't doubt that Ernst Mayr outlived his contemporaries could
> > it be that it was the clarity of his description of the biological
> > species that won the day so to speak?
>
> Perhaps. Critics of his view began almost immediately.
>
[snipped for brevity]
Thanks for all your input John, it whetted my appetite with respect to
understanding where the idea of the biological species concept came
from.
And I found this
http://abacus.gene.ucl.ac.uk/jim/Sp/Sub-semi.pdf
“Mayr successfully blended the local species concept of Poulton and
Dobzhansky based on interbreeding with the geographic Rassenkreis idea
of species, and renamed this combination of ideas “the biological
species concept” (see also SPECIES, CONCEPTS OF), a term which has
since remained strongly associated with Mayr’s name”.
So I have to say you were right in suggesting that others were looking
at the species problem before Ernst Mayr, but it seems to me - and
correct me if I am wrong - that his name became synonymous with the
term because he united two separate ideas into that single concept.
[M]adman
> [M]adman wrote:
>> John Harshman wrote:
>> <cut to one point>
>>> How, in fact, do we recogonize kinds? It seems to me that if
>>> entities were separately created, we should be able to distinguish
>>> their boundaries quite easily.
>>
>> Opposite actually.
>>
>> If there are two "kinds" of seed bearing fruit trees and you can
>> make a third from the first two then the third kind is after the
>> original first 2 "kinds" of fruit trees; but, becomes a separate
>> kind within the original kinds. I believe you call it a sub species.
>
> No, I call it weird confusion on your part. I don't think you have any
> real idea what you mean by "kind". What you have here is actually an
> odd fantasy of what many creationists think would be a consequence of
> evolution -- no separate kinds, just a smearing out of genotypes.
> Creationists, on the other hand, commonly believe that if two
> organisms can hybridize, that means they belong to the same kind. (In
> fact, I swear that was once your criterion, now abandoned.)
"seed bearing" fruit tress was pretty specific; Not a "smearing". In the
end, you still have another "kind" of seed bearing fruit tree which is what
you started with.
Selective breeding can be seen as far back as Genesis when Isaac bread
spotted and solid calves. The "each after his own kind" concept is not hard
follow John yet you have such difficulty with it. Why is that? I have tried
to explain it several times and from several different approaches. I am
beginning to believe you deliberately misunderstand.
A dog is simply a variation "after his own kind" (the wolf) as explained in
Genesis. Some will call this micro-evolution. Dogs are the same species as
the wolf but are different "kinds" of the original wolf. Yet even though
they may eventually become reproductively isolated one day the dogs are
still "after his own kind" (the wolf) as described in the bible. We can
observe this kind of evolution, we can even manipulate it ourselves. We can
repeat it.
But if you think a fish can eventually (for what ever reason) gave rise to
another "kind" such as a dog, well, you are sadly mistaken with your
science. That has never been observed, not can we repeat it, nor can we
manipulate it. Some call that macro-evolution. There is not a shred of real
objective evidence for that.
>
>> It is still a seed bearing fruit tree that originated "after his own
>> kind" which are the first two seed bearing fruit trees.
>
> Do you understand that seed-bearing fruit trees belong to many
> different families of plants, and that many other members of these
> same families aren't trees at all? Your notion of "kind" is
> incoherent.
No ..the problem is your classification of things is wrong and that is why
the biblical explanation makes no sense to you.
>
>> We may never know what all of the /original/ created kinds were.
>>
>> In the Book of Enoch they mention 14 tress which are what we call
>> "evergreens" today. But today we have more then 14 evergreens. Some
>> have been added to the earth's population of evergreens after their
>> own kind.
>
> "Evergreen", like "tree" or "fruit tree", isn't a taxonomic term at
> all. There are many different sorts of evergreen plants, belonging to
> many different families. Many of these families have other members
> that aren't evergreens.
That is like saying you are a member of the human family and the ape family
and the fish family ALL at the same time. Now who is "blending"?
Like I said. Your classification of things is wrong. You should re-write it
order to follow biblical laws and principals; which are clearly explained in
the bible of course. THEN and only THEN will you have more accuracy when
classifying "LIFE".
>> The earth is dynamic; which is what evolution attempts to explain
>> but fails.
>
> All you do here is reveal your complete ignorance of botany, and of
> biology in general. And you seem to disagree strongly with other
> creationists, including Ray.
Unlike you , at least Ray understands there is an original created "kind"
for everything. Soon he will reconcile to his research that Isaac bread
spotted and solid calves intentionally and that by doing so he was following
the biblical principal described in Genesis as "each after his own kind".
But please notice that when Isaac bread spotted and solid calves none of
them showed the slightest sign of diverging into another "kind" that is
nothing like the /original/ kind that was started with.
So variation within the "kind" seems permissible under the biblical
principal "each after his own kind" while a total divergence from the
original kind seems impossible. Complete divergence has that ever been
observed or repeated as we see with it's counterpart micro-evolution which
we can witness and manipulate every day.
Conclusion:
1) Micro Evolution = Yes
2) Macro Evolution = No
Reason: We can observe and repeat number 1. We have never observed or
repeated number 2.
If you still do not understand how the biblical principal "each after his
own kind" works after this post then you may never understand because of
your bias frame of mind on the subject.
adman.
[M]adman
Which book of Enoch and what chapter please. I would like to read the
context that is written it.
Devils Advocaat
http://www.heaven.net.nz/writings/thebookofenoch.htm
LXXXVI. The Fall of the Angels and the Demoralization of Mankind.
86
1 And again I saw with mine eyes as I slept, and I saw the heaven
above, and behold a star fell
2 from heaven, and it arose and eat and pastured amongst those oxen.
And after that I saw the large and the black oxen, and behold they all
changed their stalls and pastures and their cattle, and began
3 to live with each other. And again I saw in the vision, and looked
towards the heaven, and behold I saw many stars descend and cast
themselves down from heaven to that first star, and they became
4 bulls amongst those cattle and pastured with them [amongst them].
And I looked at them and saw, and behold they all let out their privy
members, like horses, and began to cover the cows of the oxen,
5 and they all became pregnant and bare elephants, camels, and asses.
And all the oxen feared them and were affrighted at them, and began to
bite with their teeth and to devour, and to gore with their
6 horns. And they began, moreover, to devour those oxen; and behold
all the children of the earth began to tremble and quake before them
and to flee from them.
wf3h
> But if you think a fish can eventually (for what ever reason) gave rise to
> another "kind" such as a dog, well, you are sadly mistaken with your
> science. That has never been observed, not can we repeat it, nor can we
> manipulate it. Some call that macro-evolution. There is not a shred of real
> objective evidence for that.
actually it has been observed. it's recorded in the fossils. that's
why we NEED a theory of evolution: to explain what is SEEN in the
fossil record. even the ancients knew this which is why THEY developed
such a theory
that you deny the ancient texts is a problem for creationism not for
science. creationism is useless at explaining change.
as to 'your' science, go ahead creationist: try living without the
results of modern science. see how far you get.
>
>
>
> >> It is still a seed bearing fruit tree that originated "after his own
> >> kind" which are the first two seed bearing fruit trees.
>
> > Do you understand that seed-bearing fruit trees belong to many
> > different families of plants, and that many other members of these
> > same families aren't trees at all? Your notion of "kind" is
> > incoherent.
>
> No ..the problem is your classification of things is wrong and that is why
> the biblical explanation makes no sense to you.
YOUR biblical explanation makes no sense. can't help it you're wrong
about the bible. there are LOTS of interpretations about the bible.
some of them are wrong
like yours.
>
> That is like saying you are a member of the human family and the ape family
> and the fish family ALL at the same time. Now who is "blending"?
>
> Like I said. Your classification of things is wrong. You should re-write it
> order to follow biblical laws and principals; which are clearly explained in
> the bible of course. THEN and only THEN will you have more accuracy when
> classifying "LIFE".
what 'biblical laws and principles'? the wrong ones you invented? the
ones that have no basis in reality? the ones that even the ancient
philosopher porphyry knew were a laughing stock and the christian
church father augustine knew were stupid, such as biblical literalism?
those the 'principles' you talking about?
>
> Conclusion:
> 1) Micro Evolution = Yes
> 2) Macro Evolution = No
>
> Reason: We can observe and repeat number 1. We have never observed or
> repeated number 2.
>
we do not have to 'observe' number 2 since it's found in the fossil
record. it's ALREADY an observation as the ancients knew. we have to
EXPLAIN number 2. and the creationist explanantion is 'number 2' in
that it's complete shit. it's useless and doesn't work. it's not
testable which is why it's not science. evolution is testable.
> If you still do not understand how the biblical principal "each after his
> own kind" works after this post then you may never understand because of
> your bias frame of mind on the subject.
nor do you understand science. you have no rules of evidence or logic
on which to form conclusions. therefore you rely on an arbitrary set
of rules which lead to wrong conclusions.
which is creationism at its finest...it was wrong 2000 years ago. it's
wrong today. it's totally useless.
TomS
<6d4a946f-1bd1-4d7d...@i6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, Frank J
stated..."
>
>On Jul 3, 10:33=A0am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 21:12:09 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> >I have a simple little question for Ray,
>>
>> >Background first.
>>
>> >In past posts Ray has insisted that the wolf and the dog are separate
>> >and distinct species.
>>
>> >More recently Ray has declared that he accepts the biological species
>> >concept.
>>
>> >The question.
>>
>> >Can Ray explain how he can accept the biological species concept while
>> >insisting that the wolf and the dog are separate and distinct species?
>>
>> >That is my question I hope to get an answer.
>>
>> in time. =A0The fossil record confirms this and NOT Darwin's conception.
>>
>
>1. How do you explain that the very inconvnient fact that the only
>major ID advocate who (1) agrees with you about that (in general - not
>necessarily at the species level) and (2) stated a *clear* position on
>whether the alleged "discontinuity" was explained by new origin-of-
>life events said "no"? I'm referring of course to Michael Behe.
>
>2. Regardless of what the fossil record confirms regarding species
>continuity, it confirms a very clear and detailed chronology (Cambrian
>~540 MY ago, K/T ~65 MY ago, "Lucy" ~3MY ago etc. etc.) that Behe,
>Gould and all modern day "Darwinists" agree on. Do you agree with
>them, or do you have your own detailed alternate chronology?
I'd like to hear from an advocate of "Intelligent Design" whether
the apparent chronology of the fossil record - that is to say, the
many observations of the association of particular fossils with the
geological strata, and the many observations of the association of
ages with the strata - constitute "complex specified information",
and is thus, if not due to the only natural explanation that anyone
can think of, must be due to purposeful design.
To put that paragraph briefly: if we don't accept paleontology, are
we committed to omphalism?
>
>(snip another pathetic attempt to change the subject back to his
>personal incredulity)
>
--
---Tom S.
"...ID is not science ... because we simply do not know what it is saying."
Sahotra Sarkar, "The science question in intelligent design", Synthese,
DOI:10,1007/s11229-009-9540-x
TomS
<8d4d669b-fdf7-43f4...@t13g2000yqt.googlegroups.com>, wf3h
stated..."
>
>>
>> But if you think a fish can eventually (for what ever reason) gave rise t=
>o
>> another "kind" such as a dog, well, you are sadly mistaken with your
>> science. That has never been observed, not can we repeat it, nor can we
>al
>> objective evidence for that.
>
>actually it has been observed. it's recorded in the fossils. that's
>why we NEED a theory of evolution: to explain what is SEEN in the
>fossil record. even the ancients knew this which is why THEY developed
>such a theory
>
>that you deny the ancient texts is a problem for creationism not for
>science. creationism is useless at explaining change.
>
>as to 'your' science, go ahead creationist: try living without the
>results of modern science. see how far you get.
No one has given an explanation for the complexities of the fossil
record which does *not* involve descent with modification. No one.
The creationists (including the advocates of "Intelligent Design")
have not given an explanation. The only "alternative" to evolution
amount to either "it's all a coincidence" or "someone purposely did
it with the intent to deceive". (That "someone" could be agents as
different as gnostic demiurges or the community of paleontologists.)
And the fossil record isn't the only feature of the world of life
which is a complex of predictions without any known explanation other
than one involving descent with modification.
And it is obvious that the creationists are desperate when they appeal
to a kind of nihilism out of the necessity imposed by the vast variety
of evidence for evolutionary biology.
After all, there are plenty of examples from the history of science
where everyone admits that something has been established beyond any
conceivable doubt short of universal scepticism, but for which there
is no "direct observation".
Let's take some examples from the oldest of sciences, astronomy.
It was long ago established beyond doubt that the sun is one and
the same body from day to day, even though it went away from view
overnight (for all the civilizations away from the polar regions).
Likewise for the moon (even through the changes of shape, people
recognized it as the same body). And, at one time there was a
belief among the ancient Greeks that Venus's appearances as the
evening star ("Hesperos") was a different body from the body that
appeared as the morning star ("Vesperos") - Pythagoras (6th
century) is credited with being the first to say that they were
the same body. Even though nobody had "directly observed" Venus as
one body until the mid-20th century interplanetary rockets. (One
small exception, on rare occasions Venus can be seen both as
the evening star and the morning star in the same 24-hour day,
although obviously not at the same time: nighttime still intervenes
making continuous observation impossible.) Even though "direct
observation" of Hesperus being continuous with Vesperus was
impossible, nobody doubted it. Just like "macro" evolution.
John Harshman
> John Harshman wrote:
>> [M]adman wrote:
>>> John Harshman wrote:
>>> <cut to one point>
>>>> How, in fact, do we recogonize kinds? It seems to me that if
>>>> entities were separately created, we should be able to distinguish
>>>> their boundaries quite easily.
>>> Opposite actually.
>>>
>>> If there are two "kinds" of seed bearing fruit trees and you can
>>> make a third from the first two then the third kind is after the
>>> original first 2 "kinds" of fruit trees; but, becomes a separate
>>> kind within the original kinds. I believe you call it a sub species.
>> No, I call it weird confusion on your part. I don't think you have any
>> real idea what you mean by "kind". What you have here is actually an
>> odd fantasy of what many creationists think would be a consequence of
>> evolution -- no separate kinds, just a smearing out of genotypes.
>> Creationists, on the other hand, commonly believe that if two
>> organisms can hybridize, that means they belong to the same kind. (In
>> fact, I swear that was once your criterion, now abandoned.)
>
> "seed bearing" fruit tress was pretty specific; Not a "smearing". In the
> end, you still have another "kind" of seed bearing fruit tree which is what
> you started with.
No, that's not specific at all. It refers to a nebulous sampling of
angiosperms, choosing a habit that is clearly convergent in multiple
groups and that you couldn't defend even if you had any notion of botany.
> Selective breeding can be seen as far back as Genesis when Isaac bread
> spotted and solid calves.
That wasn't selective breeding. That was sympathetic magic. If you
recall, he bred these calves by showing their mothers spotted rods.
> The "each after his own kind" concept is not hard
> follow John yet you have such difficulty with it. Why is that? I have tried
> to explain it several times and from several different approaches. I am
> beginning to believe you deliberately misunderstand.
>
> A dog is simply a variation "after his own kind" (the wolf) as explained in
> Genesis. Some will call this micro-evolution. Dogs are the same species as
> the wolf but are different "kinds" of the original wolf. Yet even though
> they may eventually become reproductively isolated one day the dogs are
> still "after his own kind" (the wolf) as described in the bible. We can
> observe this kind of evolution, we can even manipulate it ourselves. We can
> repeat it.
>
> But if you think a fish can eventually (for what ever reason) gave rise to
> another "kind" such as a dog, well, you are sadly mistaken with your
> science. That has never been observed, not can we repeat it, nor can we
> manipulate it. Some call that macro-evolution. There is not a shred of real
> objective evidence for that.
You are using "kind" in multiple meanings here. You say that dogs are a
different kind than wolves, and that therefore evolution from one kind
to another is possible. Yet you also say that dogs are the same kind as
wolves. And you further say that a fish must be a different kind from a
dog, and that it's therefore impossible for them to be related. So kinds
can change into other kinds, but they're all the same kind, but kinds
can't change into other kinds.
Of course there's real objective evidence for macroevolution, the best
being the nested hierarchy of life. A fish and a dog are both
vertebrates, and their genomes retain traces of their common ancestry.
>>> It is still a seed bearing fruit tree that originated "after his own
>>> kind" which are the first two seed bearing fruit trees.
>> Do you understand that seed-bearing fruit trees belong to many
>> different families of plants, and that many other members of these
>> same families aren't trees at all? Your notion of "kind" is
>> incoherent.
>
> No ..the problem is your classification of things is wrong and that is why
> the biblical explanation makes no sense to you.
How would you classify things? Are you saying that an apple and an
orange are related by common descent, but an apple and a rose are not?
>>> We may never know what all of the /original/ created kinds were.
>>>
>>> In the Book of Enoch they mention 14 tress which are what we call
>>> "evergreens" today. But today we have more then 14 evergreens. Some
>>> have been added to the earth's population of evergreens after their
>>> own kind.
>> "Evergreen", like "tree" or "fruit tree", isn't a taxonomic term at
>> all. There are many different sorts of evergreen plants, belonging to
>> many different families. Many of these families have other members
>> that aren't evergreens.
>
> That is like saying you are a member of the human family and the ape family
> and the fish family ALL at the same time. Now who is "blending"?
You are misusing the technical term "family" here. Any given organism
can belong to only one family. Under current classifications, humans and
apes belong to the family Hominidae. There is, strictly speaking, no
human family. And there are a great many fish families, none of which we
belong to. However, there is a much larger taxon called Craniata or
Vertebrata, to which all fish belong, as do apes and humans.
You have also managed to confuse the nested hierarchy of life with this
random assemblage of entities you envision. You are the one who is
blending. Not me.
> Like I said. Your classification of things is wrong. You should re-write it
> order to follow biblical laws and principals; which are clearly explained in
> the bible of course. THEN and only THEN will you have more accuracy when
> classifying "LIFE".
If these laws and principles were clearly explained, you should be able
to classify life sensibly, which you can't. (It would help if you knew
something about biology.)
>>> The earth is dynamic; which is what evolution attempts to explain
>>> but fails.
>> All you do here is reveal your complete ignorance of botany, and of
>> biology in general. And you seem to disagree strongly with other
>> creationists, including Ray.
>
> Unlike you , at least Ray understands there is an original created "kind"
> for everything. Soon he will reconcile to his research that Isaac bread
> spotted and solid calves intentionally and that by doing so he was following
> the biblical principal described in Genesis as "each after his own kind".
>
> But please notice that when Isaac bread spotted and solid calves none of
> them showed the slightest sign of diverging into another "kind" that is
> nothing like the /original/ kind that was started with.
> So variation within the "kind" seems permissible under the biblical
> principal "each after his own kind" while a total divergence from the
> original kind seems impossible. Complete divergence has that ever been
> observed or repeated as we see with it's counterpart micro-evolution which
> we can witness and manipulate every day.
Well of course. Nobody is proposing a total divergence. Descendants of
ancient ancestors all retain many similarities inherited from that
ancestor. Fish and humans are not "nothing like the /original/ kind".
Their retained similarities are in fact clues to their relationship.
> Conclusion:
> 1) Micro Evolution = Yes
> 2) Macro Evolution = No
>
> Reason: We can observe and repeat number 1. We have never observed or
> repeated number 2.
Depending on your precise definition of #2, we have repeated it. But
never mind. The important thing is that we have observed it, meaning
that we have gathered evidence that can't be interpreted sensibly in any
other way. There are many varieties of evidence, most of which you
ignore, in fact most of which you seem not to be aware of at all despite
having been told many times. The best evidence, as I may have mentioned,
comes from genomes.
> If you still do not understand how the biblical principal "each after his
> own kind" works after this post then you may never understand because of
> your bias frame of mind on the subject.
Or perhaps because of your self-contradictory uses of the term "kind" to
mean both immutable, created groups and transformations of those groups.
Frank J
> "On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 13:55:55 -0700 (PDT), in article
Not sure what you mean by the concluding statement. AIUI Omphalism
means that one takes one conclusion on faith, and concedes that the
evidence does not support it. Also AIUI, Omphalism was originally
defined particularly for a YEC conclusion, but there's no reason that
it can't be used in a strictly progressive OEC context - i.e. no
disagreements with any chronology, only with common descent and the
mechanisms of species change. But concession that the evidence does
not support independent origins.
As you know, Dembski and Behe do not base CSI or IC on the fossil
record (Behe even once referred to the FR as "irrelevant") but on
other (mined) data. Meyer retroactively tried to shoehorn their ideas
into the Cambrian "explosion," but IIRC even he did not specifically
claim either that all those phyla arose independently (which says
nothing about whether a Creator/designer intervened) *or* whether
that's where and when a Creator/designer intervened (which says
nothing about whether the phyla arose independently from nonliving
matter). Of course most of their fans infer both. And they give little
or no thought as to the chronology.
So with the possible exception of Nelson (who in 2008 refused to
answer my question of whether he was an Omphalos creationist) the main
DI folk do not dispute any fossil chronology either in terms of what
they think the evidence supports or what they appear to "take on
faith" if different. Of course their prior commitment is to the big
tent, so (1) it's hard to get straight answers from them, and (2) it's
easy for a critic to wrongly assume that they are closet YECs.
>
>
>
> >(snip another pathetic attempt to change the subject back to his
> >personal incredulity)
>
> --
> ---Tom S.
> "...ID is not science ... because we simply do not know what it is saying."
> Sahotra Sarkar, "The science question in intelligent design", Synthese,
> DOI:10,1007/s11229-009-9540-x- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Frank J
> No one cares what you think, Tony. (shrug)
Not even Ray (ooh that must hurt!)
Ernest Major
<626c0d03-34c6-43c3...@37g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
Frank J <fc...@verizon.net> writes
>Not sure what you mean by the concluding statement. AIUI Omphalism
>means that one takes one conclusion on faith, and concedes that the
>evidence does not support it. Also AIUI, Omphalism was originally
>defined particularly for a YEC conclusion, but there's no reason that
>it can't be used in a strictly progressive OEC context - i.e. no
>disagreements with any chronology, only with common descent and the
>mechanisms of species change. But concession that the evidence does not
>support independent origins.
Omphalism means created with the appearance of a history. (According to
a "literal" interpretation of Genesis Adam wasn't born of woman, and
therefore had no reason to possess a navel - aka omphalos - Gosse argued
that Adam would still have possessed a navel, giving the appearance that
he had been born of woman.) As you say omphalism was originated in a
young earth context, but I agree with you that it could be applied to
progressive creation with the appearance of common descent.
--
alias Ernest Major
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
https://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/f7a7b692ddab4863
Ray
John S. Wilkins
There is a sense in which the invention of genetics made the concept of
species as a gene pool possible, but Mayr did not invent that aspect -
as your source notes, that was definitely E B Poulton in his 1904?
essay. The claim that species are marked by interfertility within, and
infertility between them goes back, as I showed, to Blumenbach or even
earlier. What Mayr is responsible for is a slogan.
Matt Silberstein
<r_s_n...@comcast.net> in
<1fet45dlso6kltftm...@4ax.com> wrote:
What form of purchase of the book will produce the most value for said
author?
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
John S. Wilkins
> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 22:13:05 -0400, in talk.origins , r norman
> <r_s_n...@comcast.net> in
> <1fet45dlso6kltftm...@4ax.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 4 Jul 2009 12:00:36 +1000, jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S.
> >Wilkins) wrote:
> >
> >>Read chapter 6 of
> >>
> >>Wilkins, John S. 2009. Species: a history of the idea, Species and
> >>Systematics. Berkeley: University of California Press.
> >>
> >
> >I would, except U Cal Press says it won't be out until September.
> >
> >And then I will shell out $49.95 out-of-pocket money to buy the damn
> >thing hoping that the author might get a few pennies out of the deal.
> >
> What form of purchase of the book will produce the most value for said
> author?
I suspect there is no such pathway. I forewent the royalties to make it
affordable.
TomS
<626c0d03-34c6-43c3...@37g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>, Frank J
stated..."
>
>On Jul 4, 7:30=A0am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> "On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 13:55:55 -0700 (PDT), in article
> J
>> stated..."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Jul 3, 10:33=3DA0am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 21:12:09 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
>>
>> >> <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> >I have a simple little question for Ray,
>>
>> >> >Background first.
>>
>> >> >In past posts Ray has insisted that the wolf and the dog are separate
>> >> >and distinct species.
>>
>> >> >More recently Ray has declared that he accepts the biological species
>> >> >concept.
>>
>> >> >The question.
>>
>e
>> >> >insisting that the wolf and the dog are separate and distinct species=
>?
>>
>> >> >That is my question I hope to get an answer.
>>
>ties
>> >> in time. =3DA0The fossil record confirms this and NOT Darwin's concept=
You are right to question my loose use of the word "omphalism".
Of course, there are a lot of evolution-deniers who accept the
billions of years for life on earth.
I was rather carelessly extending the meaning of "omphalism" beyond
"belief that the earth was created a few thousand years ago with the
appearance, from the very start, of a prior history".
What I was talking about is that life on earth has the appearance of
a history of descent with modification. Even in my loose use of the
word "omphalism", an "omphalist" would have to acknowledge the
complexity of that web of observations, while it seems to me that
the evolution deniers rather just remain silent about it.
Frank J
> "On Sat, 4 Jul 2009 07:22:59 -0700 (PDT), in article
I'm glad you mentioned "descent with modification" instead of
"evolution", because unfortunately the word "evolution" (though
definitely not "Darwinian" evolution) is usually used for the
conceptual "saltation" (e.g. Goldschmidt's idea), even though those
"jumps" would be anything but "evolutionary."
Most DI IDers seem to think - or want their audience to think - that
there are "gaps" in the fossil record that preclude "descent with
modification" via Darwinian (or drift, etc.) mechanisms. But they
either concede that the process had to be "in-vivo" or just play dumb
about it. Unlike the YECs and OECs who eventually cop out with "The
Bible says so," IDers know that if it's not an in-vivo process it
requires the independent origin of multicellular eukaryotes. They can
scream "common design" all they want, but they know that the onus is
on them to state *and test* where, when and how those "common designs"
originated.
Of course their target audience is unlikely to *think* of those
questions, let alone challenge the group that is feeding them so many
feel-good sound bites. But I think you at least share my frustration
that so few *critics* of ID ask them those questions.
>
> --
> ---Tom S.
> "...ID is not science ... because we simply do not know what it is saying."
> Sahotra Sarkar, "The science question in intelligent design", Synthese,
Frank J
> On Jul 4, 7:24 am, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 3, 9:15 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > No one cares what you think, Tony. (shrug)
>
> > Not even Ray (ooh that must hurt!)
>
> > > ================================================
> > > Lenny Flank
> > > "There are no loose threads in the web of life"
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
That will not make POTM, and you will undoubtedly attribute it to
"Darwinist"-atheist-materialist-naturalist bias, but the real reason
is that mere arguments from personal incredulity - even if they come
from "Darwinists" - are simply not POTM material. If you do care what
Tony thinks I stand corrected. But you could show it by nominating his
post on UncommonDescent or other anti-evolution boards, where it might
stand a chance.
TomS
<4996ce9b-6ade-404f...@q11g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, Frank J
stated..."
>
>On Jul 5, 6:27=A0am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> "On Sat, 4 Jul 2009 07:22:59 -0700 (PDT), in article
> J
>> stated..."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Jul 4, 7:30=3DA0am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> >> "On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 13:55:55 -0700 (PDT), in article
>ank=3D
>> > J
>> >> stated..."
>>
>> >> >On Jul 3, 10:33=3D3DA0am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>> >> >> On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 21:12:09 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
>>
>> >> >> <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> >> >I have a simple little question for Ray,
>>
>> >> >> >Background first.
>>
>ate
>> >> >> >and distinct species.
>>
>> >> >> >More recently Ray has declared that he accepts the biological spec=
>ies
>> >> >> >concept.
>>
>> >> >> >The question.
>>
>> >> >> >Can Ray explain how he can accept the biological species concept w=
>hil=3D
>> >e
>> >> >> >insisting that the wolf and the dog are separate and distinct spec=
>ies=3D
>> >?
>>
>> >> >> >That is my question I hope to get an answer.
>>
> enti=3D
>> >ties
>> >> >> in time. =3D3DA0The fossil record confirms this and NOT Darwin's co=
>ncept=3D
>> >ion.
>>
>> >> >1. How do you explain that the very inconvnient fact that the only
>t
>> >> >necessarily at the species level) and (2) stated a *clear* position o=
>n
>> >> >whether the alleged "discontinuity" was explained by new origin-of-
>> >> >life events said "no"? I'm referring of course to Michael Behe.
>>
>> >> >2. Regardless of what the fossil record confirms regarding species
ISTM that there are so many ways that creationism gets it wrong, and
so many of them are attractive to scientists as opportunities to teach
about some of the grand ideas of science, that it is often forgotten
to mention that "there is no theory of creationism". (Much less a
"testable" theory. Not to mention any actual tests, not even "thought
experiments".)
Desertphile
<mank...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> I have a simple little question for Ray,
>
> Background first.
>
> In past posts Ray has insisted that the wolf and the dog are separate
> and distinct species.
>
> More recently Ray has declared that he accepts the biological species
> concept.
>
> The question.
>
> Can Ray explain how he can accept the biological species concept while
> insisting that the wolf and the dog are separate and distinct species?
>
> That is my question I hope to get an answer.
The answer: "The Mind of the Bible Believer," by Edmund Cohen
explains it all.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Walter Bushell
jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 22:13:05 -0400, in talk.origins , r norman
> > <r_s_n...@comcast.net> in
> > <1fet45dlso6kltftm...@4ax.com> wrote:
> >
> > >On Sat, 4 Jul 2009 12:00:36 +1000, jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S.
> > >Wilkins) wrote:
> > >
> > >>Read chapter 6 of
> > >>
> > >>Wilkins, John S. 2009. Species: a history of the idea, Species and
> > >>Systematics. Berkeley: University of California Press.
> > >>
> > >
> > >I would, except U Cal Press says it won't be out until September.
> > >
> > >And then I will shell out $49.95 out-of-pocket money to buy the damn
> > >thing hoping that the author might get a few pennies out of the deal.
> > >
> > What form of purchase of the book will produce the most value for said
> > author?
>
> I suspect there is no such pathway. I forewent the royalties to make it
> affordable.
Now that's class.
Devils Advocaat
> On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 21:12:09 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
>
>
>
>
>
> <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > I have a simple little question for Ray,
>
> > Background first.
>
> > In past posts Ray has insisted that the wolf and the dog are separate
> > and distinct species.
>
> > More recently Ray has declared that he accepts the biological species
> > concept.
>
> > The question.
>
> > Can Ray explain how he can accept the biological species concept while
> > insisting that the wolf and the dog are separate and distinct species?
>
> > That is my question I hope to get an answer.
>
> The answer: "The Mind of the Bible Believer," by Edmund Cohen
> explains it all.
Unfortunately I don't have access to that book, could you offer any
quotations from it please?
>
> --http://desertphile.org
John S. Wilkins
Not entirely pure. If the paperback sells hundreds of thousands of
copies, I may make enough to take a holiday, after taxes.
*Hemidactylus*
> Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <1j2e0in.1vjnz9jbzayfN%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,
>> jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>>
>> > Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 22:13:05 -0400, in talk.origins , r norman
>> > > <r_s_n...@comcast.net> in
>> > > <1fet45dlso6kltftm...@4ax.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >On Sat, 4 Jul 2009 12:00:36 +1000, jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S.
>> > > >Wilkins) wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >>Read chapter 6 of
>> > > >>
>> > > >>Wilkins, John S. 2009. Species: a history of the idea, Species and
>> > > >>Systematics. Berkeley: University of California Press.
>> > > >>
>> > > >
>> > > >I would, except U Cal Press says it won't be out until September.
>> > > >
>> > > >And then I will shell out $49.95 out-of-pocket money to buy the damn
>> > > >thing hoping that the author might get a few pennies out of the
>> > > >deal.
>> > > >
>> > > What form of purchase of the book will produce the most value for
>> > > said author?
>> >
>> > I suspect there is no such pathway. I forewent the royalties to make it
>> > affordable.
>>
>> Now that's class.
>
> Not entirely pure. If the paperback sells hundreds of thousands of
> copies, I may make enough to take a holiday, after taxes.
>
Well it will surely be more affordable than Fog's _Cultural Selection_. I
had to do a double take when I first saw that price.
http://www.amazon.com/Cultural-Selection-
Fog/dp/0792355792/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246925310&sr=1-5
--
*Hemidactylus*
-it ends here-
John S. Wilkins
I read it in manuscript and was uninspired to buy a copy.