Leftover questions for Tony P.

[John Harshman]

A very long time ago, T Pagano wrote, and then ignored the response:

> Harshman has claimed that the Archeopteryx is an example of genuine
> transformational change in prehistory. Darwin disagreed.

I would appreciate support for that claim.

> So this is earth shattering. This should be the makings of a
> revelation worthy of publication in the peer reviewed literature. I'll
> pay good money for a copy of that Nobel prize winning report. What say
> Harshman?

There is no Nobel Prize in evolutionary biology or paleontology,
unfortunately. Nor would it be much of a revelation to anyone other than
the most ignorant creationist that Archaeopteryx is a transitional fossil.

And while it is indeed an example of "transformational change",
depending on what you mean by that, that isn't quite the context in
which I mentioned it. You asked for a nascent structure, and I said the
wing of Archaeopteryx was such a structure. You responded only with a
plagiarized and irrelevant screed from Duane Gish. Remember now?

[T Pagano]

On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 14:36:23 -0700, John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:

>A very long time ago, T Pagano wrote, and then ignored the response:
>
> > Harshman has claimed that the Archeopteryx is an example of genuine
> > transformational change in prehistory. Darwin disagreed.
>
>I would appreciate support for that claim.

What exactly is Harshman denying? The answer should prove
entertaining.

>
> > So this is earth shattering. This should be the makings of a
> > revelation worthy of publication in the peer reviewed literature. I'll
> > pay good money for a copy of that Nobel prize winning report. What say
> > Harshman?
>
>There is no Nobel Prize in evolutionary biology or paleontology,
>unfortunately.

I suspect that the rewards for actually identifying an unambiguous
example of transformational change would have professional rewards
that would exceed that which the Nobel prize can confer. So far no
one has received anything for the Archeopteryx. Nor has anyone proved
anything with this fossil or any other fossil for that matter.

> Nor would it be much of a revelation to anyone other than
>the most ignorant creationist that Archaeopteryx is a transitional fossil.

I am quite ignorant; so are we all. However whether the Archeopteryx
is a transitional form is a matter of atheist belief and not science
fact. While Darwin found the Archeopteryx interesting, he never
considered it the transitional form which his theory predicted. His
opus contained both his remarks about the Archeopteryx and his
lamentation about the absence of transitional fossil forms. Nothing
has changed.

Harshman's crowing about my ignorance of the Nobel Prize is
irrelevent.

>And while it is indeed an example of "transformational change",
>depending on what you mean by that, that isn't quite the context in
>which I mentioned it.

What exactly is it a transition from and to? What new structures
emerged along the supposed continuous path of which it was a part? And
how exactly does Harshman know this? Some in the atheist community
don't agree with him and they are hardly creationists.

>You asked for a nascent structure, and I said the
>wing of Archaeopteryx was such a structure.

Its wing not only looks fully formed but most in the atheist community
describe the Archeopteryx as fully capable of powered flight. That
means the Archeopteryx wing is not "nascent."

>You responded only with a
>plagiarized and irrelevant screed from Duane Gish. Remember now?

Harshman couldn't produce quotes from Gish matching my posts if his
life depended on it. Care to try? The last time I quoted from
Gish in this forum was back in 1998.


Regards,
T Pagano

And little 'ol amateur me able to keep the mighty clown master at bay.

[John Harshman]

T Pagano wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 14:36:23 -0700, John Harshman
> <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> A very long time ago, T Pagano wrote, and then ignored the response:
>>
>>> Harshman has claimed that the Archeopteryx is an example of genuine
>>> transformational change in prehistory. Darwin disagreed.
>> I would appreciate support for that claim.
>
> What exactly is Harshman denying? The answer should prove
> entertaining.

"Darwin disagreed". I would have thought that was obvious. But thanks
for finally offering to answer. More thanks if you actually answer.

>>> So this is earth shattering. This should be the makings of a
>>> revelation worthy of publication in the peer reviewed literature. I'll
>>> pay good money for a copy of that Nobel prize winning report. What say
>>> Harshman?
>> There is no Nobel Prize in evolutionary biology or paleontology,
>> unfortunately.
>
> I suspect that the rewards for actually identifying an unambiguous
> example of transformational change would have professional rewards
> that would exceed that which the Nobel prize can confer. So far no
> one has received anything for the Archeopteryx. Nor has anyone proved
> anything with this fossil or any other fossil for that matter.

Sadly, all the scientists disagree with you, to the point that a nice
transitional fossil might get you into Nature if it's interesting
enough, but nobody expects another transitional to be earthshattering.
There are enough already.

>> Nor would it be much of a revelation to anyone other than
>> the most ignorant creationist that Archaeopteryx is a transitional fossil.
>
> I am quite ignorant; so are we all.

The first part of your sentence is correct, but don't go claiming
universals here. Some of us are more ignorant than others.

> However whether the Archeopteryx
> is a transitional form is a matter of atheist belief and not science
> fact. While Darwin found the Archeopteryx interesting, he never
> considered it the transitional form which his theory predicted. His
> opus contained both his remarks about the Archeopteryx and his
> lamentation about the absence of transitional fossil forms. Nothing
> has changed.

Which opus? What did Darwin actually say about Archaeopterys? Please
answer this question.

> Harshman's crowing about my ignorance of the Nobel Prize is
> irrelevent.

No crowing, just seeking to repair your ignorance, one bit at a time.

>> And while it is indeed an example of "transformational change",
>> depending on what you mean by that, that isn't quite the context in
>> which I mentioned it.
>
> What exactly is it a transition from and to? What new structures
> emerged along the supposed continuous path of which it was a part? And
> how exactly does Harshman know this?

It's transitional between primitive theropods and modern birds. Isn't
that obvious? And my new structure (which is after all the reason for
bringing it up in the first place) is the avian wing. I'm assuming you
will agree that the forelimb of, say, Compsognathus is not a wing, and
that the forelimb of Passer is. Archaeopteryx is about in the middle of
this transformation, and we have many examples of intermediates at other
points in the transition.

> Some in the atheist community
> don't agree with him and they are hardly creationists.

Name them.

>> You asked for a nascent structure, and I said the
>> wing of Archaeopteryx was such a structure.
>
> Its wing not only looks fully formed but most in the atheist community
> describe the Archeopteryx as fully capable of powered flight. That
> means the Archeopteryx wing is not "nascent."

The problem here is that it's impossible to tell what you would accept
as not fully formed. I consider the wing not fully formed because it
lacks many of the important adaptations of modern birds. You must agree
that if there's a transition, powered flight need not have evolved right
at the end, all at once.

But if you think an animal that can't fly is needed, how about
Deinonychus? There's your nascent wing. I fully expect you to reject it,
though, because it isn't a wing -- wings only appear on animals that can
fly. Catch-22.

>> You responded only with a
>> plagiarized and irrelevant screed from Duane Gish. Remember now?
>
> Harshman couldn't produce quotes from Gish matching my posts if his
> life depended on it. Care to try? The last time I quoted from
> Gish in this forum was back in 1998.

Do you deny plagiarism? Then why does your post look almost word for
word like a Gish rant that's up on the web? This comparison was posted
long ago, though with characteristic courage you ignored it. I suppose
you're hoping I won't do the work. And I don't have time now. Let's hope
someone else will supply the reference. In the meantime, could you
explicitly deny plagiarism, so it will be more fun when the evidence
emerges?

[Suzanne]

On Sep 16, 9:05 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 14:36:23 -0700, John Harshman
>

Didn't a later find diffuse this? They found that before
archaeopterix,
there were normal birds that predated him, showing that he could not
have been a proto-type bird. They have also found a feathered dinosaur
called Anchiornis that predates them all.
>
Anchiornis

[Ron O]

You are ignoring how evolution works. It isn't a ladder, but more
like a bush. There are simply a lot of similar looking and related
populations and they change at their own pace. There is a thread on
giraffes. A lot of antelopes still exist that look much more similar
to the antelopes that giraffes evolved from, and they would leave
fossils that did not have the derived traits of the giraffe millions
of years after giraffes had already evolved. The okapi would be like
the archeopteryx example. It could leave fossils millions of years
after longer necked giraffes could be found in the fossil record.
Since okapi still exist we can get DNA from them and determine that
they are the closest living antelope relatives to giraffes and they
obviously have a longer neck that isn't as long as what we would
consider to be a giraffe neck. If we could get DNA from archeopteryx
and any other fossil bird or dino we would be able to do the same DNA
analysis and determine how they were related.

We don't expect ancestral species to go extinct when something else
evolves. One of the reasons that something new evolves is often so
that something new about the environment can be exploited and the new
species can occupy that niche and not really compete against the
parent species. There is also the case where it is pretty hard to
drive your competition to extinction when you are on different
continents. Just take the example of monotremes (platypus). You have
the transition of mammals from egg laying reptilian type animals. The
egg laying transitionls to marsupial and eutherian mammals are still
alive and would still be leaving fossils nearly 200 million years
after the evolutionary transition had taken place.

We just have to find the intermediates. It doesn't matter so much
where they fall in the temporal order because we know for a fact that
the intermediate forms can be preserved as living species for millions
of years after the initial transition took place.

This does not mean that we do not expect some order in the fossil
record because there is also a lot of extinction, but the extinction
would be in an evolutionary order. We don't expect mammal like
reptiles to go extinct before monotremes evolved, or monotremes to go
extinct before eutherian mammals evolved.

We also expect the transitionals in about the order that they evolved
because that is the order that they evolved in and that is likely the
time when such similar looking species existed in the greatest number
of species (things tend to change over time;-)). There are a lot of
species of deer around the world. They all look pretty similar and
they would all be good candidates for transitional forms for whatever
strange new thing evolved from one of the extant deer species millions
of years from now even if they are only related to the species linage
that evolved the new characteristic. All the extant deer population
would still look something like the ancestral species even though they
all obviously can not be the ancestral species. There may even be
deer like descendant species millions of years from now that haven't
changed very much. There are so many species and who knows what
different selective pressures would have been placed on them.

You just have to look at existing nature to understand what you are
observing in the fossil record.

Ron Okimoto

[John Harshman]

Suzanne wrote:

> Didn't a later find diffuse this? They found that before
> archaeopterix,
> there were normal birds that predated him, showing that he could not
> have been a proto-type bird.

No. There were a few claims, but none of them turned out to be true.

> They have also found a feathered dinosaur
> called Anchiornis that predates them all.

True, but doesn't that support the idea that Archaeopteryx is a
transitional form?

[Suzanne]

[Suzanne]

On Sep 17, 9:16 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:

Well, you know I am not a biologist and don't know what all is
involved in deciding those matters, but it seems to me that it
could be interpreted several ways. If it is ligitimately a dinosaur,
and if it has feathers, it would certainly seem so. But a few years
ago someone in science decided that dinosaurs and birds are
the same species. I don't know if that designation stuck though.
>
Let me explain something, though. Creationists allow that
variations do exist, that is, microevolution. But they argue
against macroevolution. I have observed that people on
both sides of the argument have different ideas or definitions
of microevolution and macroevolution. And the definition of
the word "species" itself has some problems. The definition
of species, since we know more now, does not have one
definition that will cover all kinds of lifeforms. I think that they
base that difference on how organisms reproduce, and also
newer information. Some are willing to go with the definition
they have now, but others find it difficult to do that. I would
like to see creationists and non-creationists get together on
the definitions and work it out and agree with the definitions.
>
I offered the dinosaur with feathers as an example of a bird-like
animal that predates archaeopterix and I think would show that
archaopterix is not "the" (as in one and only) prototype for
modern birds.
>
Suzanne
>

[Suzanne]

Yes, we've all talked about the okapi before, and I know what you
are saying, but see, there are a lot of people arguing this and they
are not all on the same page, if you follow me. As long as
archaeopterix
was considered to be the earlier ancient bird-like animal, people on
the
evolution side would claim it as the one and only prototype for all
modern birds. And that is a prematurely formed conclusion, I believe,
and not something to argue over, but at least observe and consider.
>
Your argument sounds good except I would challenge that there is
no reason for a giraffe to want to grow a longer neck, if okapi's
still
exist contemporary with giraffes. Or, maybe I should ask, do you
think there has to be a reason for a giraffe being to have grown a
longer neck? Also, what is the reason that you think the giraffe is
the more modern result and not the converse (if you think it, that
is).
I'm not meaning to argue, but just see what you think, because I
don't have the answers and am not claiming to.

>
> We don't expect ancestral species to go extinct when something else
> evolves.  One of the reasons that something new evolves is often so
> that something new about the environment can be exploited and the new
> species can occupy that niche and not really compete against the
> parent species.  There is also the case where it is pretty hard to
> drive your competition to extinction when you are on different
> continents.  Just take the example of monotremes (platypus).  You have
> the transition of mammals from egg laying reptilian type animals.  The
> egg laying transitionls to marsupial and eutherian mammals are still
> alive and would still be leaving fossils nearly 200 million years
> after the evolutionary transition had taken place.
>

I guess that answers my last question.

>
> We just have to find the intermediates.  It doesn't matter so much
> where they fall in the temporal order because we know for a fact that
> the intermediate forms can be preserved as living species for millions
> of years after the initial transition took place.
>
> This does not mean that we do not expect some order in the fossil
> record because there is also a lot of extinction, but the extinction
> would be in an evolutionary order.  We don't expect mammal like
> reptiles to go extinct before monotremes evolved, or monotremes to go
> extinct before eutherian mammals evolved.
>
> We also expect the transitionals in about the order that they evolved
> because that is the order that they evolved in and that is likely the
> time when such similar looking species existed in the greatest number
> of species (things tend to change over time;-)).  There are a lot of
> species of deer around the world.  They all look pretty similar and
> they would all be good candidates for transitional forms for whatever
> strange new thing evolved from one of the extant deer species millions
> of years from now even if they are only related to the species linage
> that evolved the new characteristic.  All the extant deer population
> would still look something like the ancestral species even though they
> all obviously can not be the ancestral species.  There may even be
> deer like descendant species millions of years from now that haven't
> changed very much.  There are so many species and who knows what
> different selective pressures would have been placed on them.
>

What do you think about the key deer? Why do you think they are
so small? An adult doe will weigh between 44 and 64 pounds.

>
> You just have to look at existing nature to understand what you are
> observing in the fossil record.
>
> Ron Okimoto
>

Thank you, Ron. Nice post. I have a few objections to the evolution
view,
and it's not anything that you haven't heard before, but I find that
the
fossil record is lacking and also I think there should be more
transitional
forms existing that are very much alive. I did like your example of
the
isolated populations. Thanks for your post.
>
Suzanne

[Bill]

On 18 Sep, 14:32, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 17, 9:16 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:> Suzanne wrote:
> > > Didn't a later find diffuse this? They found that before
> > > archaeopterix,
> > > there were normal birds that predated him, showing that he could not
> > > have been a proto-type bird.
>
> > No. There were a few claims, but none of them turned out to be true.
>
> > > They have also found a feathered dinosaur
> > > called Anchiornis that predates them all.
>
> > True, but doesn't that support the idea that Archaeopteryx is a
> > transitional form?
>
> Well, you know I am not a biologist and don't know what all is
> involved in deciding those matters, but it seems to me that it
> could be interpreted several ways. If it is ligitimately a dinosaur,
> and if it has feathers, it would certainly seem so.

>But a few years
> ago someone in science decided that dinosaurs and birds are
> the same species. I don't know if that designation stuck though.

Not the same species. The conclusion was that birds *are* dinosaurs.
All birds are dinosaurs but not all dinosaurs are birds. Like all
humans are apes, but not all apes are humans.

>
> Let me explain something, though. Creationists allow that
> variations do exist, that is, microevolution. But they argue
> against macroevolution. I have observed that people on
> both sides of the argument have different ideas or definitions
> of microevolution and macroevolution. And the definition of
> the word "species" itself has some problems. The definition
> of species, since we know more now, does not have one
> definition that will cover all kinds of lifeforms. I think that they
> base that difference on how organisms reproduce, and also
> newer information. Some are willing to go with the definition
> they have now, but others find it difficult to do that.
.

>I would
> like to see creationists and non-creationists get together on
> the definitions and work it out and agree with the definitions.

Not very likely to happen. Why would the non-creationists bother? But
in fact, definitions are not that important. What matters is what
things *are*, not what you call them. If you have two populations of
animals which do not interbreed in nature but which can interbreed in
captivity, whether you call them separate species or not doesn't
matter very much. What matters is that you know underwhat conditions
they can interbreed and whether and by how much the fertility of the
hybrid progeny is reduced. As long as you and the person you are
talking to agree on what you mean by a given term, that's fine.
Definitions only tell you about language, not about the world. Here's
an example; you may know there was quite a fuss when Pluto got demoted
from being a planet to being a planetesimal. But that change didn't
effect anything about what we know about Pluto, all it effected was
our agreement about how to use the word planet. Nothing about Pluto
changed. In the same way, it doesn't matter what definition you use
for species, as long as you make clear what you mean when you talk to
someone else.

I personally think that creationists are very interested in
definitions because they think that words are more important than do
non-creationists. And I think that that is because they believe so
strongly in the truth and impotance of the specific words in the
Bible. I think that that spills over into other areas and makes you
value the names of things as much as the properties of the things. A
sort of magical thinking.

>
> I offered the dinosaur with feathers as an example of a bird-like
> animal that predates archaeopterix and I think would show that
> archaopterix is not "the" (as in one and only) prototype for
> modern birds.

Archeopterix is certainly an example of a transitional form with
features intermediate between those of non-avian dinosaurs and modern
birds. I don't think it is generally regarded as being on a linear
path between velociraptor and a pigeon.

[Ron O]

It doesn't matter. The fact is that you have no point and it will
never get any better. When you know that no matter what you say, it
isn't worth bringing up what is the point. The fact is that
biological evolution accounts for what we observe in the fossil
record. You just have to observe nature as it is and determine that.
If you want to claim that you have an alternative that explains the
data better go for it, but you can't claim that archae isn't a
transitional type. Just like you can't claim that the Okapi isn't a
transitional type, when we not only have the morphological evidence,
but we have the genetic evidence to confirm the relationship. To
claim that we do not have the genetic evidence you have to claim that
paternity testing is bogus when you know that it is not.

Really, you need a better alternative for the data. Until you have
one, you have no argument period. Are antelopes all one kind? Did
giraffes evolve after the flood? The AIG is claiming that all cats
from saber toothed cats of the ice ages after the flood to your tabby
are one kind, and we can get DNA from ice age cats and determine that
they are three times more distantly related from your tabby than
chimps are to humans. If genetics do not matter in your scenario you
have a lot of explaining to do.

Not only that, but science goes with what is known. For decades
Archaeoptryx was the earliest bird ancestor known. As you already
know we can expect to make these kinds of mistakes due to the
fragmentary nature of the fossil record. As you also know it doesn't
matter. Archae is still a transitional form, just like the Okapi is a
transistional form even though it is still alive and coexists with the
giraffe.

>
> Your argument sounds good except I would challenge that there is
> no reason for a giraffe to want to grow a longer neck, if okapi's
> still
> exist contemporary with giraffes. Or, maybe I should ask, do you
> think there has to be a reason for a giraffe being to have grown a
> longer neck? Also, what is the reason that you think the giraffe is
> the more modern result and not the converse (if you think it, that
> is).
> I'm not meaning to argue, but just see what you think, because I
> don't have the answers and am not claiming to.

You don't know the whole story. Do the ranges of the two types
overlap to any significant extent? From what I recall the okapi is
found in denser forests where a long neck might be a detriment in
tangled forest trails. You have to understand the selection
environment before you can make these types of claims. If you don't
know the selection parameters there is no reason to assume that they
are the same.

>
> > We don't expect ancestral species to go extinct when something else
> > evolves. One of the reasons that something new evolves is often so
> > that something new about the environment can be exploited and the new
> > species can occupy that niche and not really compete against the
> > parent species. There is also the case where it is pretty hard to
> > drive your competition to extinction when you are on different
> > continents. Just take the example of monotremes (platypus). You have
> > the transition of mammals from egg laying reptilian type animals. The
> > egg laying transitionls to marsupial and eutherian mammals are still
> > alive and would still be leaving fossils nearly 200 million years
> > after the evolutionary transition had taken place.
>
> I guess that answers my last question.

See, you can understand this stuff. The fact is that a lot of good
minds have already gone over the data and come up with the best
explanation. Your explanation may be plausible, but it is so far from
the best explanation that it is no longer considered to be viable.

No one denies that the fossil record is far from complete. There are
less than half a million species characterized in the fossil record,
and this is a tiny fraction of the species that have ever existed.
There could be over 10 million maybe closer to 20 million species
extant today, and we don't expect that there were fewer at pretty much
any time in the past. There were times where the diversity dropped,
but we can't tell the exact numbers only the trends. 90% of the
species disappeared in the Permian extinction. There is no doubt that
life on earth has changed a lot since the Permian 200 million years
ago. How many species have come and gone since then and we only have
half a million species characterized as fossils for the whole 3.8
billion year history of life on earth?

Your problem is that your objections have little to do with the
science. The science has passed your view and left it so far behind
that there is no reason to even debate the issue any longer. No one
should claim that your views are not plausible, but it is so unlikely
that it isn't even considered. Look at the creationist flat
earthers. What possible chance do they have for their world view to
be true? The world could be flat, but all our observations and
technology would have to be manipulated by their supreme being to make
it look the way that we currently observe the earth. What would need
to be true to make your view plausible? If you go through that
exercise you should come to a better understanding of why no one with
any sense takes it seriously. It could be true, but what has to be
true to make it true?

Most people make a distinction between faith and science. There are
things that you can take on faith that science will never address.
Your problem is that you have taken some notions on faith that science
has already addressed. This is a losing proposition because basically
all you have is your faith, and the science has everything else. Your
time would likely be better spent trying to figure out what parts of
your faith are most important to you and determining if the science
matters.

People have brought up a fellow named Wise who got a PhD in
paleontology under Gould, but was a YEC. His take is that the science
doesn't matter. No matter what the science says the Bible takes
priority. He admits that he has nothing better than the science to
support his theology, but he has chosen to ignore the science to keep
believing. This is a pretty extreme case, but this is a guy that
understands the science and can't figure out a way around the issue.
He is essentially no better than a flat earther in terms of what he
understands and what he has to ignore.

My take is that people have to make their own choices and decide for
themselves about their religious beliefs. That is one of the reasons
why I am so against the bogousity and dishonesty of the current crop
of creationist scam artists. You can't make an honest evaluation and
decision when so many people are lying to you. The fact is that
biological evolution is a fact of nature. The science has so little
chance of changing that you might as well be claiming that the world
is flat. Nothing any scam artists or well intentioned fool tells you
will change that fact. Even the scam artists that are feeding the
rubes with so much nonsense are hedging their bets and claiming things
like the intelligent designer tweeked things along the way for the
last several billion years. Life has been evolving, but it has been
manipulated at some points in time. One of the promoters of this
tweeker is Behe and he has admitted that the designer might be dead
because he can't figure out any evidence for the last couple hundred
million years of tweeking. The flagellum likely evolved around 2
billion years ago, and the blood clotting system and immune system
likely evolved around 400 million years ago. It is obvious that
obfuscation is the primary goal of the scam artists. It is a
difficult job trying to figure out what the viable options are when
all you get are lies and unsupported assertions.

Ron Okimoto

[John Harshman]

Suzanne wrote:
> On Sep 17, 9:16 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> Suzanne wrote:
>>> Didn't a later find diffuse this? They found that before
>>> archaeopterix,
>>> there were normal birds that predated him, showing that he could not
>>> have been a proto-type bird.
>> No. There were a few claims, but none of them turned out to be true.
>>
>>> They have also found a feathered dinosaur
>>> called Anchiornis that predates them all.
>> True, but doesn't that support the idea that Archaeopteryx is a
>> transitional form?
>>
> Well, you know I am not a biologist and don't know what all is
> involved in deciding those matters,

That's what I'm trying to teach you.

> but it seems to me that it
> could be interpreted several ways.

I notice you never get down to your alternative interpretation. What is it?

> If it is ligitimately a dinosaur,
> and if it has feathers, it would certainly seem so. But a few years
> ago someone in science decided that dinosaurs and birds are
> the same species.

No. Nobody ever decided that. They're related, but two organisms can be
related without being the same species. What you perhaps means is that
birds are dinosaurs. That just means that birds fall within the group we
call dinosaurs. Every species of bird (and there are close to 10,000
living ones) is also a species of dinosaur, though not every species of
dinosaur is also a species of bird. Exactly what we expect from common
descent: groups within groups.

> I don't know if that designation stuck though.

It did indeed.

> Let me explain something, though. Creationists allow that
> variations do exist, that is, microevolution. But they argue
> against macroevolution. I have observed that people on
> both sides of the argument have different ideas or definitions
> of microevolution and macroevolution. And the definition of
> the word "species" itself has some problems. The definition
> of species, since we know more now, does not have one
> definition that will cover all kinds of lifeforms.

All nice, but all irrelevant to any argument here.

> I think that they
> base that difference on how organisms reproduce, and also
> newer information. Some are willing to go with the definition
> they have now, but others find it difficult to do that. I would
> like to see creationists and non-creationists get together on
> the definitions and work it out and agree with the definitions.

Sure. But none of that has anything to do with common descent of birds
and other dinosaurs, or with the transitional nature of Archaeopteyx.

> I offered the dinosaur with feathers as an example of a bird-like
> animal that predates archaeopterix and I think would show that
> archaopterix is not "the" (as in one and only) prototype for
> modern birds.

Well, that's lucky, isn't it? Because if common descent is true, there
should be an unbroken chain of descent linking any two organisms. Not
just one prototype, but something both prior to and following every
intermediate. The descent of birds has not just one prototype,
Archaeoptery, but a series of transitionals linking Archaeopteryx to
modern birds, and a series of transitionals linking primitive dinosaurs
to Archaeopteryx. (Note that none of these need be actual ancestors,
just a series showing intermediate steps in the evolution of characters,
just like your favorite okapi.)

[TomS]

"On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 06:31:08 -0700 (PDT), in article
<e456186d-f0d3-44e0...@19g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>, Ron O
stated..."
[...snip...]

>It doesn't matter. The fact is that you have no point and it will
>never get any better. When you know that no matter what you say, it
>isn't worth bringing up what is the point. The fact is that
>biological evolution accounts for what we observe in the fossil
>record. You just have to observe nature as it is and determine that.
>If you want to claim that you have an alternative that explains the
>data better go for it, but you can't claim that archae isn't a
>transitional type. Just like you can't claim that the Okapi isn't a
>transitional type, when we not only have the morphological evidence,
>but we have the genetic evidence to confirm the relationship. To
>claim that we do not have the genetic evidence you have to claim that
>paternity testing is bogus when you know that it is not.
>
>Really, you need a better alternative for the data. Until you have
>one, you have no argument period. Are antelopes all one kind? Did
>giraffes evolve after the flood? The AIG is claiming that all cats
>from saber toothed cats of the ice ages after the flood to your tabby
>are one kind, and we can get DNA from ice age cats and determine that
>they are three times more distantly related from your tabby than
>chimps are to humans. If genetics do not matter in your scenario you
>have a lot of explaining to do.

[...snip...]

I would make a slight modification, to say something like this:

"You need an alternative for the data."

Something which at least is in the game. An attempt at accounting
for the data. A new theory might be in the offing when we back up
and approach the data from a new beginning. Maybe a "Kuhnian"
would say that the new theory is "incomparable" with the old, rather
than "better".

But I can't think of any excuse for totally abandoning any attempt
to account for anything, in the style of "that's what an inscrutable
and omnipotent agent wanted", when there is an explanation which
accounts for something.


--
---Tom S.
"... the heavy people know some magic that can make things move and even fly,
but they're not very bright, because they can't survive without their magic
contrivances"
Xixo, in "The Gods Must Be Crazy II"

[jillery]

Perhaps it would help if you kept in mind that taxonomic assignments
aren't arbitrary. When someone says birds are also dinosaurs, it
means that birds have a set of specific anatomical features which is
shared by other dinosaurs, and that birds can't be excluded as
dinosaurs on the basis of a different set anatomical features without
also excluding other dinosaurs. This is very different from the
biblical classification of kinds, ie bird/bat and fish/whale.

[Ilas]

T Pagano <not....@address.net> wrote in
news:apagano-9et777dugd269...@4ax.com:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/f22064037ccc8878?hl=en

Any response, Tony?

[Karel]

On 19 sep, 11:43, Ilas <nob...@this.address.com> wrote:
> T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote innews:apagano-9et777dugd269...@4ax.com:

Good for a giggle is Gish, "Research on various anatomical features
of Archaeopteryx in the last ten years or so, ...", copied by Pagano.
Gish wrote that around 1990. Now it is still "research in the last ten
years or so", apparently

Regards,

Karel

[Charles Brenner]

On Sep 19, 2:43 am, Ilas <nob...@this.address.com> wrote:
> T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote innews:apagano-9et777dugd269...@4ax.com:

That's nice and clearly laid out Ilas. Tony is going to have to argue
that it's not plagarism if one re-arranges the line breaks.

[John Harshman]

More likely, he's going to have to ignore that post, as he usually does.

[John Harshman]

Thanks. Considering the slight variations from the original, I wonder if
Tony has an out here. He may not have plagiarized Gish. He may have
plagiarized another source that itself plagiarized Gish. There may in
fact have been many links in a chain of plagiarism. Still plagiarism,
though.

[Ilas]

John Harshman <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in
news:NIidnQ7YAtz...@giganews.com:

> Ilas wrote:
>> T Pagano <not....@address.net> wrote in
>> news:apagano-9et777dugd269...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 14:36:23 -0700, John Harshman
>>> <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> You responded only with a
>>>> plagiarized and irrelevant screed from Duane Gish. Remember now?
>>> Harshman couldn't produce quotes from Gish matching my posts if his
>>> life depended on it. Care to try? The last time I quoted from
>>> Gish in this forum was back in 1998.
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/f22064037ccc8878?hl=en
>>
>> Any response, Tony?
>>
> Thanks. Considering the slight variations from the original, I wonder if
> Tony has an out here. He may not have plagiarized Gish. He may have
> plagiarized another source that itself plagiarized Gish.

Could be, except in the hazy reaches of my brain, I seem to remember being
quite amused that his post started out as a slight rewrite of Gish's
garbage, then there obviously being a "oh, sod it" moment where it
degenerated into an almost verbatim cut and paste.

And a quick cut, paste and Google of:

"the quadrate of the Eichastatt specimen of the Archeopteryx was
double-headed and thus similar in condition to that of the modern
bird" (Tony's version of Gish's almost identical lines)

only gives links to Tony's posts, so I'd say it was he who did the
plagiarising.

Personally, I'm intrigued, that's all. Is it lying for Jesus? Doublethink?

[John Harshman]

We'll only know in the unlikely event that Tony tells us what he did and
why. Truthfully, I mean.

[DanaTweedy]

On 9/19/11 4:20 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:

> On Sep 16, 2:36 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> A very long time ago, T Pagano wrote, and then ignored the response:
>>
>> > Harshman has claimed that the Archeopteryx is an example of genuine
>> > transformational change in prehistory. Darwin disagreed.
>>
>> I would appreciate support for that claim.
>>
>

> I've seen support in the literature, but I can't remember where. It
> would take some time and work to produce a citation, but Darwin did
> reject Archeopteryx.

That assertion is highly unlikely.




> Be content, for now, with the fact that in all 6
> editions of "The Origin" he did not include the specimen as evidence
> of evolution.

Actually, Darwin, in the sixth edition wrote:

“[A]nd still more recently, that strange bird, the Archeopteryx [sic],

with a long lizard-like tail, bearing a pair of feathers on each joint,

and with its wings furnished with two free claws,

has been discovered in the oolitic slates of Solenhofen.

Hardly any recent discovery shows more forcibly than this ,

how little we as yet know of the former inhabitants of the world.”



>
> Funny how Darwin wrote an article touting Batesian mimicry as evidence
> of natural selection but he never included the same in later editions
> of "The Origin" as evidence of natural selection.


Why would that be "funny"? Darwin had plenty of other evidence of
natural selection.



>
> My point is that you shouldn't worry about what Darwin thought of
> Archeopteryx.

Darwin, like other scientists of the day, appears to have thought of
Archae as a good example of a transitional fossil.


DJT

[Greg G.]

On Sep 19, 5:20 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 16, 2:36 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>

> > A very long time ago, T Pagano wrote, and then ignored the response:
>
> > > Harshman has claimed that the Archeopteryx is an example of genuine
> > > transformational change in prehistory. Darwin disagreed.
>
> > I would appreciate support for that claim.
>

> I've seen support in the literature, but I can't remember where. It
> would take some time and work to produce a citation, but Darwin did

> reject Archeopteryx. Be content, for now, with the fact that in all 6

> editions of "The Origin" he did not include the specimen as evidence
> of evolution.

But he does mention Archaeopteryx in later editions. Here is the 6th
edition:
http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species-6th-edition/chapter-10.html

...and still more recently, that strange bird, the Archeopteryx, with

a long lizard-like tail, bearing a pair of feathers on each joint, and
with its wings furnished with two free claws, has been discovered in
the oolitic slates of Solenhofen. Hardly any recent discovery shows

more forcibly than this how little we as yet know of the former
inhabitants of the world.


snippage

[Alex Crisis]

On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 15:20:41 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Sep 16, 2:36 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:

>> A very long time ago, T Pagano wrote, and then ignored the response:
>>
>>  > Harshman has claimed that the Archeopteryx is an example of genuine
>>  > transformational change in prehistory.  Darwin disagreed.
>>
>> I would appreciate support for that claim.
>>
>

>I've seen support in the literature, but I can't remember where. It
>would take some time and work to produce a citation, but Darwin did
>reject Archeopteryx. Be content, for now, with the fact that in all 6
>editions of "The Origin" he did not include the specimen as evidence
>of evolution.
>

>Funny how Darwin wrote an article touting Batesian mimicry as evidence
>of natural selection but he never included the same in later editions
>of "The Origin" as evidence of natural selection.
>

Yea, Darwin should have mentioned Archeopteryx in the very first
addition of Origin.. since it was supposed to be clear evidence of
evilution

Of course, the fact that the first Archeopteryx wasn't discovered
until 2 years after the first edition of Origin is no excuse, right?

>My point is that you shouldn't worry about what Darwin thought of
>Archeopteryx.
>

>Ray

[Alex Crisis]

On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 15:20:41 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Sep 16, 2:36 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:

>> A very long time ago, T Pagano wrote, and then ignored the response:
>>
>>  > Harshman has claimed that the Archeopteryx is an example of genuine
>>  > transformational change in prehistory.  Darwin disagreed.
>>
>> I would appreciate support for that claim.
>>
>

>I've seen support in the literature, but I can't remember where. It
>would take some time and work to produce a citation, but Darwin did
>reject Archeopteryx. Be content, for now, with the fact that in all 6
>editions of "The Origin" he did not include the specimen as evidence
>of evolution.
>
>Funny how Darwin wrote an article touting Batesian mimicry as evidence
>of natural selection but he never included the same in later editions
>of "The Origin" as evidence of natural selection.
>

>My point is that you shouldn't worry about what Darwin thought of
>Archeopteryx.
>

oh oh oh. I should have checked wikipedia *FIRST*....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx

"In the subsequent 4th edition of his On the Origin of Species,[47]
Charles Darwin described how some authors had maintained "that the
whole class of birds came suddenly into existence during the eocene
period; but now we know, on the authority of Professor Owen, that a
bird certainly lived during the deposition of the upper greensand; and

still more recently, that strange bird, the Archeopteryx, with a long
lizard-like tail, bearing a pair of feathers on each joint, and with
its wings furnished with two free claws, has been discovered in the

oolitic slates of Solnhofen. Hardly any recent discovery shows more

forcibly than this how little we as yet know of the former inhabitants

of the world."[48]



So Ray, are you suggesting that this article in wikipedia is
incorrectly quoting OOS?


>Ray

[Harry K]

> >> plagiarized and irrelevant screed from Duane Gish. Remember now?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

And Ray once again has that foot stuck in his mouth.

Harry K

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 18:56:24 -0600, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by DanaTweedy
<reddf...@gmail.com>:

Ray will now retire, probably under Tony's rock, to suck his
thumb and glower at the world.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

[Ray Martinez]

On Sep 19, 5:56 pm, DanaTweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/19/11 4:20 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > On Sep 16, 2:36 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net>  wrote:
> >> A very long time ago, T Pagano wrote, and then ignored the response:
>
> >>   >  Harshman has claimed that the Archeopteryx is an example of genuine
> >>   >  transformational change in prehistory.  Darwin disagreed.
>
> >> I would appreciate support for that claim.
>
> > I've seen support in the literature, but I can't remember where. It
> > would take some time and work to produce a citation, but Darwin did
> > reject Archeopteryx.
>
> That assertion is highly unlikely.
>
> > Be content, for now, with the fact that in all 6
> > editions of "The Origin" he did not include the specimen as evidence
> > of evolution.
>
> Actually, Darwin, in the sixth edition wrote:
>
>   “[A]nd still more recently, that strange bird, the Archeopteryx [sic],
>
>   with a long lizard-like tail, bearing a pair of feathers on each joint,
>
>   and with its wings furnished with two free claws,
>
>   has been discovered in the oolitic slates of Solenhofen.
>
>   Hardly any recent discovery shows more forcibly than this ,
>
>   how little we as yet know of the former inhabitants of the world.”
>

You meant 4th edition. Darwin rejected the specimen.

http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F385&keywords=bird+strange&pageseq=399

Your howler friends upthread suddenly cannot read, using the
opportunity to make fools of themselves.

In my initial reply I was talking about a reference to a scholarly
source who could be quoted as saying Darwin rejected the specimen.
Seems like your howler friends think the mere mentioning means Darwin
accepted. Just the opposite is true. And when Darwin called the
specimen a "strange bird" he was insulating himself from the
possibility of fraud. Yet no where in his text does he tout the
specimen as supporting divergence.

>
>
> > Funny how Darwin wrote an article touting Batesian mimicry as evidence
> > of natural selection but he never included the same in later editions
> > of "The Origin" as evidence of natural selection.
>
> Why would that be "funny"?   Darwin had plenty of other evidence of
> natural selection.
>
>
>
> > My point is that you shouldn't worry about what Darwin thought of
> > Archeopteryx.
>
> Darwin, like other scientists of the day, appears to have thought of
> Archae as a good example of a transitional fossil.
>
> DJT

Show us where Darwin says that?

Of course you have chosen to make a fool of yourself too.

Ray

[Karel]

On 20 sep, 20:42, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 19, 5:56 pm, DanaTweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 9/19/11 4:20 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 16, 2:36 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > >> A very long time ago, T Pagano wrote, and then ignored the response:
>
> > >> > Harshman has claimed that the Archeopteryx is an example of genuine
> > >> > transformational change in prehistory. Darwin disagreed.
>
> > >> I would appreciate support for that claim.
>
> > > I've seen support in the literature, but I can't remember where. It
> > > would take some time and work to produce a citation, but Darwin did
> > > reject Archeopteryx.
>
> > That assertion is highly unlikely.
>
> > > Be content, for now, with the fact that in all 6
> > > editions of "The Origin" he did not include the specimen as evidence
> > > of evolution.
>
> > Actually, Darwin, in the sixth edition wrote:
>
> > [A]nd still more recently, that strange bird, the Archeopteryx [sic],
>
> > with a long lizard-like tail, bearing a pair of feathers on each joint,
>
> > and with its wings furnished with two free claws,
>
> > has been discovered in the oolitic slates of Solenhofen.
>
> > Hardly any recent discovery shows more forcibly than this ,
>
> > how little we as yet know of the former inhabitants of the world.
>
> You meant 4th edition. Darwin rejected the specimen.
>

> http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F38...

>
> Your howler friends upthread suddenly cannot read, using the
> opportunity to make fools of themselves.
>
> In my initial reply I was talking about a reference to a scholarly
> source who could be quoted as saying Darwin rejected the specimen.
> Seems like your howler friends think the mere mentioning means Darwin
> accepted. Just the opposite is true. And when Darwin called the
> specimen a "strange bird" he was insulating himself from the
> possibility of fraud. Yet no where in his text does he tout the
> specimen as supporting divergence.

From the quote it does not appear at all that Darwin rejected
the specimen. The context is that of exciting new finds that
start to give a better picture of life on earth, and Archaeopteryx
is placed right there. Darwin does not explicitly say that
Archaeopteryx is an intermediate, but the mention of a lizard-
like tail might give some idea which direction his thoughts
were taking.

It is unlikely that Darwin was hedging. Hedging can be done
much more effectively and with less damage to one's integrity
than by using a word like "strange".

> > > Funny how Darwin wrote an article touting Batesian mimicry as evidence
> > > of natural selection but he never included the same in later editions
> > > of "The Origin" as evidence of natural selection.
>
> > Why would that be "funny"? Darwin had plenty of other evidence of
> > natural selection.
>
> > > My point is that you shouldn't worry about what Darwin thought of
> > > Archeopteryx.
>
> > Darwin, like other scientists of the day, appears to have thought of
> > Archae as a good example of a transitional fossil.
>
> > DJT
>
> Show us where Darwin says that?

Darwin is more explicit in the 2nd edition of The Descent of Man, p.
204.

http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F937.1&keywords=archeopteryx&pageseq=217

http://preview.tinyurl.com/5w9mkx3

One could question if Darwin here really means that Archaeopteryx
is a transitional, as he does not say so explicitly, but like the
"ostrich tribe" it was regarded as an intermediate or primitive form,
as argued by Huxley. (In the case of the "ostrich tribe" this was
wrong.)

[Ray Martinez]

First, from the 5th edition of "On The Origin":

http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F387&keywords=bridged+partially&pageseq=435

"Even the wide interval between birds and reptiles has been shown by
Professor Huxley to be partially bridged over in the most unexpected
manner, by, on the one hand, the ostrich and extinct Archeopteryx" (p.
402-03).

Upthread I said I had seen, in the literature, support for Darwin's
rejection of Archeopteryx as evidence supporting evolution.

http://books.google.com/books?id=h4WRTHfTzXsC&pg=PA220&dq=darwin+rejected+archaeopteryx&hl=en&ei=Ket4TuOmDMmJsQKL3_m9DQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=book-thumbnail&resnum=2&ved=0CDQQ6wEwAQ#v=onepage&q=famously&f=false

"Famously, although Huxley encouraged Darwin to use Archeopteryx as
evidence for transitions across major groups of oranisms in new
editions of the Origin Of Species, Darwin demurred" ("The Dinosauria"
Edited By David B. Weishampel, Peter Dodson, Halszka Osmólska
2004:220; 2nd edition).

If you take the time to read the full quote it explains why Darwin
decided against using Archeopteryx. I could find more scholarly quotes
saying the same thing. The point is, Evolutionists, you have
misunderstood what Darwin is saying.

Ray

[John Harshman]

Ray Martinez wrote:
> First, from the 5th edition of "On The Origin":
>
> http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F387&keywords=bridged+partially&pageseq=435
>
> "Even the wide interval between birds and reptiles has been shown by
> Professor Huxley to be partially bridged over in the most unexpected
> manner, by, on the one hand, the ostrich and extinct Archeopteryx" (p.
> 402-03).
>
> Upthread I said I had seen, in the literature, support for Darwin's
> rejection of Archeopteryx as evidence supporting evolution.

And then you proceed with a quote that mentions no such rejection.

> http://books.google.com/books?id=h4WRTHfTzXsC&pg=PA220&dq=darwin+rejected+archaeopteryx&hl=en&ei=Ket4TuOmDMmJsQKL3_m9DQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=book-thumbnail&resnum=2&ved=0CDQQ6wEwAQ#v=onepage&q=famously&f=false
>
> "Famously, although Huxley encouraged Darwin to use Archeopteryx as
> evidence for transitions across major groups of oranisms in new
> editions of the Origin Of Species, Darwin demurred" ("The Dinosauria"
> Edited By David B. Weishampel, Peter Dodson, Halszka Osmólska
> 2004:220; 2nd edition).
>
> If you take the time to read the full quote it explains why Darwin
> decided against using Archeopteryx.

None of which has to do with him rejecting it as a transitional form. 1)
He didn't feel confident enough of his expertise to disagree with Owen
on that matter and 2) he didn't see a single transitional as important.
Apparently he felt free to dispense with problem 1 after Huxley had
studied the fossil, and so we get the quote in the Descent of Man.

> I could find more scholarly quotes
> saying the same thing. The point is, Evolutionists, you have
> misunderstood what Darwin is saying.

More likely that you have misunderstood your quotes, as is evident from
the one you post here.

[Burkhard]

On Sep 20, 7:42 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 19, 5:56 pm, DanaTweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 9/19/11 4:20 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 16, 2:36 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > >> A very long time ago, T Pagano wrote, and then ignored the response:
>
> > >> > Harshman has claimed that the Archeopteryx is an example of genuine
> > >> > transformational change in prehistory. Darwin disagreed.
>
> > >> I would appreciate support for that claim.
>
> > > I've seen support in the literature, but I can't remember where. It
> > > would take some time and work to produce a citation, but Darwin did
> > > reject Archeopteryx.
>
> > That assertion is highly unlikely.
>
> > > Be content, for now, with the fact that in all 6
> > > editions of "The Origin" he did not include the specimen as evidence
> > > of evolution.
>
> > Actually, Darwin, in the sixth edition wrote:
>
> > [A]nd still more recently, that strange bird, the Archeopteryx [sic],
>
> > with a long lizard-like tail, bearing a pair of feathers on each joint,
>
> > and with its wings furnished with two free claws,
>
> > has been discovered in the oolitic slates of Solenhofen.
>
> > Hardly any recent discovery shows more forcibly than this ,
>
> > how little we as yet know of the former inhabitants of the world.
>
> You meant 4th edition. Darwin rejected the specimen.
>

> http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F38...

>
> Your howler friends upthread suddenly cannot read, using the
> opportunity to make fools of themselves.
>
> In my initial reply I was talking about a reference to a scholarly
> source who could be quoted as saying Darwin rejected the specimen.
> Seems like your howler friends think the mere mentioning means Darwin
> accepted. Just the opposite is true. And when Darwin called the
> specimen a "strange bird" he was insulating himself from the
> possibility of fraud. Yet no where in his text does he tout the
> specimen as supporting divergence.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Funny how Darwin wrote an article touting Batesian mimicry as evidence
> > > of natural selection but he never included the same in later editions
> > > of "The Origin" as evidence of natural selection.
>
> > Why would that be "funny"? Darwin had plenty of other evidence of
> > natural selection.
>
> > > My point is that you shouldn't worry about what Darwin thought of
> > > Archeopteryx.
>
> > Darwin, like other scientists of the day, appears to have thought of
> > Archae as a good example of a transitional fossil.
>
> > DJT
>
> Show us where Darwin says that?

"I particularly wish to hear about the wondrous Bird. THE CASE HAS
DELIGHTED ME, because no group is so isolated as Birds. I much wish to
hear when we meet which digits are developed; when examining birds two
or three years ago, I distinctly remember writing to Lyell that some
day a fossil bird would be found with end of wing cloven, i.e. the
bastard wing and other part both well developed"

Darwin to Hugh Falconer 5 [and 6] Jan [1863]

"The fossil Bird with the long tail & fingers to its wings (I hear
from Falconer that Owen has not done the work well) is BY FRA THE
GREATEST prodigy of recent times. IT IS A GRAND CASE FOE ME; as no
group was so isolated as Birds; & it shows how little we know what
lived during former times."

Darwin to J. D. Dana 7 Jan [1863]

That, of course, is not our Dana, James Dwight Dana

[Burkhard]

On Sep 20, 8:47 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> First, from the 5th edition of "On The Origin":
>

> http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F38...

>
> "Even the wide interval between birds and reptiles has been shown by
> Professor Huxley to be partially bridged over in the most unexpected
> manner, by, on the one hand, the ostrich and extinct Archeopteryx" (p.
> 402-03).
>
> Upthread I said I had seen, in the literature, support for Darwin's
> rejection of Archeopteryx as evidence supporting evolution.
>

> http://books.google.com/books?id=h4WRTHfTzXsC&pg=PA220&dq=darwin+reje...

>
> "Famously, although Huxley encouraged Darwin to use Archeopteryx as
> evidence for transitions across major groups of oranisms in new
> editions of the Origin Of Species, Darwin demurred" ("The Dinosauria"

> Edited By David B. Weishampel, Peter Dodson, Halszka Osm lska

> 2004:220; 2nd edition).
>
> If you take the time to read the full quote it explains why Darwin
> decided against using Archeopteryx.

Because he had not seen the specimen himself, and the literature
available to him then was
insufficient to get a clear picture? With other words NOT because he
rejected Archeopertyx as a
transitional form. Once the dust had settled and he had seen
Huxley's authoritative study, he used it in 2Descent"

[Dana Tweedy]

On Tuesday, September 20, 2011 12:42:35 PM UTC-6, Ray Martinez wrote:

> On Sep 19, 5:56�pm, DanaTweedy <reddf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 9/19/11 4:20 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >

> > > On Sep 16, 2:36 pm, John Harshman<jhar...@pacbell.net> �wrote:

> > >> A very long time ago, T Pagano wrote, and then ignored the response:
> >
> > >> � > �Harshman has claimed that the Archeopteryx is an example of genuine
> > >> � > �transformational change in prehistory. �Darwin disagreed.
> >
> > >> I would appreciate support for that claim.
> >
> > > I've seen support in the literature, but I can't remember where. It
> > > would take some time and work to produce a citation, but Darwin did
> > > reject Archeopteryx.
> >
> > That assertion is highly unlikely.
> >
> > > Be content, for now, with the fact that in all 6
> > > editions of "The Origin" he did not include the specimen as evidence
> > > of evolution.
> >
> > Actually, Darwin, in the sixth edition wrote:
> >
> > � �[A]nd still more recently, that strange bird, the Archeopteryx [sic],
> >
> > � with a long lizard-like tail, bearing a pair of feathers on each joint,
> >
> > � and with its wings furnished with two free claws,
> >
> > � has been discovered in the oolitic slates of Solenhofen.
> >
> > � Hardly any recent discovery shows more forcibly than this ,
> >
> > � how little we as yet know of the former inhabitants of the world.�
> >
>
> You meant 4th edition. Darwin rejected the specimen.

No, I mean the 6th edition, and there's no indication that Darwin "rejected" the specimen

>
> http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F385&keywords=bird+strange&pageseq=399
>
> Your howler friends upthread suddenly cannot read, using the
> opportunity to make fools of themselves.

As usual, Ray, you are the one making a fool of yourself. At least you can say you are a self made man.

>
> In my initial reply I was talking about a reference to a scholarly
> source who could be quoted as saying Darwin rejected the specimen.

Darwin did not reject the specimen. That's your own error.

> Seems like your howler friends think the mere mentioning means Darwin
> accepted. Just the opposite is true.

Sorry, Ray, but this isn't "opposite day".

> And when Darwin called the
> specimen a "strange bird" he was insulating himself from the
> possibility of fraud. Yet no where in his text does he tout the
> specimen as supporting divergence.

Except where he indicates the long reptillian tail, and claws....

>
> >
> >
> > > Funny how Darwin wrote an article touting Batesian mimicry as evidence
> > > of natural selection but he never included the same in later editions
> > > of "The Origin" as evidence of natural selection.
> >
> > Why would that be "funny"? � Darwin had plenty of other evidence of
> > natural selection.

No response here, Ray?

> >
> >
> >
> > > My point is that you shouldn't worry about what Darwin thought of
> > > Archeopteryx.
> >
> > Darwin, like other scientists of the day, appears to have thought of
> > Archae as a good example of a transitional fossil.
> >
> > DJT
>
> Show us where Darwin says that?

Where he mentions the "reptillian" parts of the fossil.

>
> Of course you have chosen to make a fool of yourself too.

Nope, I leave that up to you, Ray.

DJT

[Ray Martinez]

Private letters that fail to mention Archeopteryx. But if these are
about Archeopteryx then what Darwin is saying privately is
contradicted by the fact that he fails to reproduce the praise in his
publications. Why is that? I have already answered.

Ray

[Dana Tweedy]

On Tuesday, September 20, 2011 1:47:16 PM UTC-6, Ray Martinez wrote:
> First, from the 5th edition of "On The Origin":
>
> http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F387&keywords=bridged+partially&pageseq=435
>
> "Even the wide interval between birds and reptiles has been shown by
> Professor Huxley to be partially bridged over in the most unexpected
> manner, by, on the one hand, the ostrich and extinct Archeopteryx" (p.
> 402-03).

No indication that Darwin rejected the fossil.....

>
> Upthread I said I had seen, in the literature, support for Darwin's
> rejection of Archeopteryx as evidence supporting evolution.

I don't see anywhere that Darwin rejected Archeopteryx. Where is it?

>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=h4WRTHfTzXsC&pg=PA220&dq=darwin+rejected+archaeopteryx&hl=en&ei=Ket4TuOmDMmJsQKL3_m9DQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=book-thumbnail&resnum=2&ved=0CDQQ6wEwAQ#v=onepage&q=famously&f=false
>
> "Famously, although Huxley encouraged Darwin to use Archeopteryx as
> evidence for transitions across major groups of oranisms in new
> editions of the Origin Of Species, Darwin demurred" ("The Dinosauria"

> Edited By David B. Weishampel, Peter Dodson, Halszka Osm�lska

> 2004:220; 2nd edition).
>
> If you take the time to read the full quote it explains why Darwin
> decided against using Archeopteryx. I could find more scholarly quotes
> saying the same thing.

You haven't found even ONE "scholarly quote" that indicates Darwin rejected archeopteryx.

> The point is, Evolutionists, you have
> misunderstood what Darwin is saying.

Wrong again, Ray. You are clearly showing you neither understand Darwin, or what he wrote.

DJT

[Ray Martinez]

On Sep 20, 1:31 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Ray Martinez wrote:
> > First, from the 5th edition of "On The Origin":
>

> >http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F38...

>
> > "Even the wide interval between birds and reptiles has been shown by
> > Professor Huxley to be partially bridged over in the most unexpected
> > manner, by, on the one hand, the ostrich and extinct Archeopteryx" (p.
> > 402-03).
>
> > Upthread I said I had seen, in the literature, support for Darwin's
> > rejection of Archeopteryx as evidence supporting evolution.
>
> And then you proceed with a quote that mentions no such rejection.
>

> >http://books.google.com/books?id=h4WRTHfTzXsC&pg=PA220&dq=darwin+reje...

>
> > "Famously, although Huxley encouraged Darwin to use Archeopteryx as
> > evidence for transitions across major groups of oranisms in new
> > editions of the Origin Of Species, Darwin demurred" ("The Dinosauria"

> > Edited By David B. Weishampel, Peter Dodson, Halszka Osm lska

> > 2004:220; 2nd edition).
>
> > If you take the time to read the full quote it explains why Darwin
> > decided against using Archeopteryx.
>
> None of which has to do with him rejecting it as a transitional form. 1)
> He didn't feel confident enough of his expertise to disagree with Owen
> on that matter and 2) he didn't see a single transitional as important.
> Apparently he felt free to dispense with problem 1 after Huxley had
> studied the fossil, and so we get the quote in the Descent of Man.
>
> > I could find more scholarly quotes
> > saying the same thing. The point is, Evolutionists, you have
> > misunderstood what Darwin is saying.
>
> More likely that you have misunderstood your quotes, as is evident from
> the one you post here.

The scholarly quote says Darwin rejected the advice of Huxley. The 5th
edition quote says Huxley says thus and such, not Darwin; hence the
scholarly quote confirms.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Sep 20, 2:30 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 20, 2011 1:47:16 PM UTC-6, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > First, from the 5th edition of "On The Origin":
>

> >http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F38...

>
> > "Even the wide interval between birds and reptiles has been shown by
> > Professor Huxley to be partially bridged over in the most unexpected
> > manner, by, on the one hand, the ostrich and extinct Archeopteryx" (p.
> > 402-03).
>
> No indication that Darwin rejected the fossil.....
>
>
>
> > Upthread I said I had seen, in the literature, support for Darwin's
> > rejection of Archeopteryx as evidence supporting evolution.
>
> I don't see anywhere that Darwin rejected Archeopteryx.    Where is it?  
>
>
>

> >http://books.google.com/books?id=h4WRTHfTzXsC&pg=PA220&dq=darwin+reje...

>
> > "Famously, although Huxley encouraged Darwin to use Archeopteryx as
> > evidence for transitions across major groups of oranisms in new
> > editions of the Origin Of Species, Darwin demurred" ("The Dinosauria"
> > Edited By David B. Weishampel, Peter Dodson, Halszka Osm lska
> > 2004:220; 2nd edition).
>
> > If you take the time to read the full quote it explains why Darwin
> > decided against using Archeopteryx. I could find more scholarly quotes
> > saying the same thing.
>
> You haven't found even ONE "scholarly quote" that indicates Darwin rejected archeopteryx.  
>

"Famously, although Huxley encouraged Darwin to use Archeopteryx as
evidence for transitions across major groups of oranisms in new
editions of the Origin Of Species, Darwin demurred" ("The Dinosauria"
Edited By David B. Weishampel, Peter Dodson, Halszka Osm lska
2004:220; 2nd edition).

Your dismissal reminds me of the way Holocaust deniers operate.

Ray

[Burkhard]

That's because he disliked the name. "What a pity you give Owen’s name
of “macrurus” instead of von Meyer’s proper name of Lithographicus."
Darwin to Charles Lyell 6 Mar [1863]. Calling it "that bird" and
aviding any technical designation allowed him to avoid the issue.
If you read the letters, it is abundantly clear that they are indeed
about Archaeopteryx .

> But if these are
> about Archeopteryx then what Darwin is saying privately is
> contradicted by the fact that he fails to reproduce the praise in his
> publications. Why is that?

Because he did not yet have a quotable, reliable source appropriate
for an academic publication, despite his personal belief.
Once he had one, he used it.

>I have already answered.

Yes, you did: you showed you misunderstood a passage from the
secondary literature

> Ray

[Walter Bushell]

In article <qfih77th1hp4rq0b9...@4ax.com>,

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

> Ray will now retire, probably under Tony's rock, to suck his
> thumb and glower at the world.
> --

I thought being an invertebrate creationist, that he would go under the
rock to lay eggs.

--
Ignorance is no protection against reality. -- Paul J Gans

[John Harshman]

Which is quite different from rejecting Archaeopteryx, eh?

> The 5th
> edition quote says Huxley says thus and such, not Darwin; hence the
> scholarly quote confirms.

Very confused. No, it doesn't say Huxley says thus and such, it says
Huxley has shown thus and such, much stronger than merely noting a claim.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 21:01:30 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>:

>In article <qfih77th1hp4rq0b9...@4ax.com>,
> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
>> Ray will now retire, probably under Tony's rock, to suck his
>> thumb and glower at the world.
>> --
>
>I thought being an invertebrate creationist, that he would go under the
>rock to lay eggs.

Shouldn't that be "inveterate creationist"? ;-)

But I was wrong; Ray returned with additional errors.
Apparently Ray is made of sterner stuff than
Tony-the-Cowardly-Runner (Tony's own term for those who run
from questions; frequently misapplied by Tony).

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 21:26:42 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net>:

Not to a Biblical literalist, it isn't.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <vu5k779fpuljsjm7j...@4ax.com>,

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

> On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 21:01:30 -0400, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>:
>
> >In article <qfih77th1hp4rq0b9...@4ax.com>,
> > Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >
> >> Ray will now retire, probably under Tony's rock, to suck his
> >> thumb and glower at the world.
> >> --
> >
> >I thought being an invertebrate creationist, that he would go under the
> >rock to lay eggs.

>
> Shouldn't that be "inveterate creationist"? ;-)

I used "invertebrate" with malice aforethought. As sort of a 'pune or
play on words.'

>
> But I was wrong; Ray returned with additional errors.
> Apparently Ray is made of sterner stuff than
> Tony-the-Cowardly-Runner (Tony's own term for those who run
> from questions; frequently misapplied by Tony).

--

[John Harshman]

By which you mean that a biblical literalist must be practiced in
interpreting any text so that it literally means whatever he wants it to?

[Ray Martinez]

Flabbegasting to say the very least!

Huxley's advice was for Darwin to come out in favor of the specimen
supporting macro-transitionality.

"Famously, although Huxley encouraged Darwin to use Archeopteryx as
evidence for transitions across major groups of oranisms in new

editions of the Origin Of Species, Darwin demurred."

John: what does the quote above say and mean?

> > The 5th
> > edition quote says Huxley says thus and such, not Darwin; hence the
> > scholarly quote confirms.
>
> Very confused. No, it doesn't say Huxley says thus and such, it says

> Huxley has shown thus and such, much stronger than merely noting a claim.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

What then does the scholarly quote say and mean in this context?

Ray

[Rolf]

But what does it matter whther Darwin did this or that? What about the
scientific production the past 150 years, don't you thin that is more
important?

Why are you so concerned with what people thought or said 150 years ago?

What counts is what we know today that was not known 150 years ago, and
that's quite a lot.

Take a good look at the world around you, at your keyboard, screen, comuter,
printer, cell phone, GPS receiver, stereo, DVD player, color tv, cars,
aeroplanes, we live in a new wold with a new science and new knoeledge.
CT scanners, electrom microscopes, I could go on on and on. Do you have an
idea about all the we know that Darwin would have given both arms and legs
to know?




The 19th century is history but you don't seem to have discovered that yet.

[Ray Martinez]

On Sep 21, 10:02 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 21:01:30 -0400, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>:
>

> >In article <qfih77th1hp4rq0b9e3t9b2vaeqt004...@4ax.com>,

> > Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
> >> Ray will now retire, probably under Tony's rock, to suck his
> >> thumb and glower at the world.
> >> --
>
> >I thought being an invertebrate creationist, that he would go under the
> >rock to lay eggs.
>
> Shouldn't that be "inveterate creationist"? ;-)
>
> But I was wrong; Ray returned with additional errors.
> Apparently Ray is made of sterner stuff than
> Tony-the-Cowardly-Runner (Tony's own term for those who run
> from questions; frequently misapplied by Tony).
> --
>
> Bob C.
>
> "Evidence confirming an observation is
> evidence that the observation is wrong."
>                           - McNameless

Now that he has made a big deal about not having a religious bias, Bob
is reduced to brooding. He can no longer participate the way he would
like.

Fine with me. One less liar for Charlie to deal with.

Ray

[Rolf]

If, so what?

> Ray

[Rolf]

It doesn't matter. Why are you interested only in subjects of no interest?


> Ray

[Rolf]

And you are one.

> Ray

[John Harshman]

It means that Darwin was not yet secure enough in his interpretation to
go against Owen's ideas. But he clearly became so later, after Huxley
had completed his analysis.

>>> The 5th
>>> edition quote says Huxley says thus and such, not Darwin; hence the
>>> scholarly quote confirms.
>> Very confused. No, it doesn't say Huxley says thus and such, it says
>> Huxley has shown thus and such, much stronger than merely noting a claim.

> What then does the scholarly quote say and mean in this context?

Which scholarly quote? Weishempel? It says what it says and means what
it means.

Here's Darwin from Descent of Man:

"Nevertheless it is certain that groups of animals have existed, or do
now exist, which serve to connect more or less closely the several great
vertebrate classes. We have seen that the Ornithorhynchus graduates
towards reptiles; and Prof. Huxley has made the remarkable discovery,
confirmed by Mr. Cope and others, that the old Dinosaurians are
intermediate in many important respects between certain reptiles and
certain birds—the latter consisting of the ostrich-tribe (itself
evidently a widely-diffused remnant of a larger group) and of the
Archeopteryx, that strange Secondary bird having a long tail like that
of the lizard."

I don't think he could have been much clearer: Archaeopteryx is
transitional between reptiles and birds.

[Ray Martinez]

The "Darwin demurred" quote.

> Weishempel? It says what it says and means what
> it means.
>
> Here's Darwin from Descent of Man:
>
> "Nevertheless it is certain that groups of animals have existed, or do
> now exist, which serve to connect more or less closely the several great
> vertebrate classes. We have seen that the Ornithorhynchus graduates
> towards reptiles; and Prof. Huxley has made the remarkable discovery,
> confirmed by Mr. Cope and others, that the old Dinosaurians are
> intermediate in many important respects between certain reptiles and
> certain birds�the latter consisting of the ostrich-tribe (itself
> evidently a widely-diffused remnant of a larger group) and of the
> Archeopteryx, that strange Secondary bird having a long tail like that
> of the lizard."
>
> I don't think he could have been much clearer: Archaeopteryx is

> transitional between reptiles and birds.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

**Darwin** is not saying what you are saying. He is informing his
readers what Huxley and Cope have said. We don't see any of the strong
language that he is capable of in behalf of the specimen. Darwin uses
the phrase "strange....bird," which contradicts your position. IF what
you are saying is true then we should see victory and vindication in
the Origin itself.

Descent was published in 1871, the last edition of the Origin was the
6th in 1872, however. A final correction edition of the 6th was
published in 1876. Where is Darwin's unequivocal conclusions in these
works? This is what, I believe, the modern scholars are on about. I
could produce many more similar quotes. I see them all the time in the
literature. Your handling has not produced a satisfying explanation of
all the facts, my only point.

Ray

[John Harshman]

Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Sep 21, 3:28 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:

>> Here's Darwin from Descent of Man:
>>
>> "Nevertheless it is certain that groups of animals have existed, or do
>> now exist, which serve to connect more or less closely the several great
>> vertebrate classes. We have seen that the Ornithorhynchus graduates
>> towards reptiles; and Prof. Huxley has made the remarkable discovery,
>> confirmed by Mr. Cope and others, that the old Dinosaurians are
>> intermediate in many important respects between certain reptiles and
>> certain birds�the latter consisting of the ostrich-tribe (itself
>> evidently a widely-diffused remnant of a larger group) and of the
>> Archeopteryx, that strange Secondary bird having a long tail like that
>> of the lizard."
>>
>> I don't think he could have been much clearer: Archaeopteryx is
>> transitional between reptiles and birds.

> **Darwin** is not saying what you are saying. He is informing his
> readers what Huxley and Cope have said.

Again, no he isn't. He's informing his readers what Huxley has
discovered and Cope confirmed. Both are strong words implying truth.

> We don't see any of the strong
> language that he is capable of in behalf of the specimen. Darwin uses
> the phrase "strange....bird," which contradicts your position.

No it doesn't. Of course Archaeopteryx is a strange bird. It has all
those non-bird features like the long tail and wing claws. As for
"Secondary", I don't know what you think it means, but it's a synonym
for "Mesozoic", nothing more.

> IF what
> you are saying is true then we should see victory and vindication in
> the Origin itself.

That's exactly what this one is:

"Even the wide interval between birds and reptiles has been shown by the
naturalist just quoted [Huxley] to be partially bridged over in the most
unexpected manner, on the one hand, by the ostrich and extinct
Archeopteryx, and on the other hand by the Compsognathus, one of the
Dinosaurians--that group which includes the most gigantic of all
terrestrial reptiles."

> Descent was published in 1871, the last edition of the Origin was the
> 6th in 1872, however. A final correction edition of the 6th was
> published in 1876. Where is Darwin's unequivocal conclusions in these
> works? This is what, I believe, the modern scholars are on about.

Nobody cares what you believe.

> I
> could produce many more similar quotes.

Go for it.

> I see them all the time in the
> literature. Your handling has not produced a satisfying explanation of
> all the facts, my only point.

If that's your only point, you have no point.

[Dana Tweedy]

On Tuesday, September 20, 2011 3:35:20 PM UTC-6, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Sep 20, 1:31 pm, John Harshman <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
snip

> > > I could find more scholarly quotes
> > > saying the same thing. The point is, Evolutionists, you have
> > > misunderstood what Darwin is saying.
> >
> > More likely that you have misunderstood your quotes, as is evident from
> > the one you post here.
>
> The scholarly quote says Darwin rejected the advice of Huxley.

Which is not saying that Darwin rejected the fossil Achaeopteryx.

> The 5th
> edition quote says Huxley says thus and such, not Darwin; hence the
> scholarly quote confirms.

Again, the "scholarly quote" does not indicate that Darwin rejected the fossil. You are trying to make things fit your own mistaken assertions.


DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

On Tuesday, September 20, 2011 4:18:42 PM UTC-6, Ray Martinez wrote:

Which does not say that Darwin rejected the fossil. You still haven't found a "scholarly source" that says Darwin rejected Archaeopteryx.

>
> Your dismissal reminds me of the way Holocaust deniers operate.

Which is odd, as you are the one denying the facts here. The quotation above indicates that Darwin wasn't ready at that particular time to use Archae as an example of a transitonal fossil not that he rejected it. As others have pointed out, Darwin in his later writing clearly stated he believed it to be a good example of a transitonal form.


Again, Ray, you are merely making yourself look more foolish by this insitance on following your own mistake into the ground. Why not just admit you were wrong?

DJT

[Harry K]

> Ray- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

It means he _didn't want to use it_. Reasons not specified. Has
nothing to do with what he thought on the subject. Other writings
show he fully accepted archeo.

Why don't you write your own dictionary so we have some idea of what
that deseased mind of yours is trying to think of.

Harry K

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 13:25:46 -0400, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>:

>In article <vu5k779fpuljsjm7j...@4ax.com>,
> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 21:01:30 -0400, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>:
>>
>> >In article <qfih77th1hp4rq0b9...@4ax.com>,
>> > Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Ray will now retire, probably under Tony's rock, to suck his
>> >> thumb and glower at the world.
>> >> --
>> >
>> >I thought being an invertebrate creationist, that he would go under the
>> >rock to lay eggs.
>
>>
>> Shouldn't that be "inveterate creationist"? ;-)
>
>I used "invertebrate" with malice aforethought. As sort of a 'pune or
>play on words.'

I was aware of that; see the " ;-) "?

>> But I was wrong; Ray returned with additional errors.
>> Apparently Ray is made of sterner stuff than
>> Tony-the-Cowardly-Runner (Tony's own term for those who run
>> from questions; frequently misapplied by Tony).
--

Bob C.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 11:36:15 -0700, the following appeared

Well, yes, but my point was that to a Biblical literalist
the claims made in the Bible outweigh any conceivable
physical evidence, and therefore "has shown" is *not* much
stronger than such a claim; it's actually weaker.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 14:21:07 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:

>On Sep 21, 10:02�am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 21:01:30 -0400, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>:
>>
>> >In article <qfih77th1hp4rq0b9e3t9b2vaeqt004...@4ax.com>,
>> > Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>
>> >> Ray will now retire, probably under Tony's rock, to suck his
>> >> thumb and glower at the world.
>> >> --
>>
>> >I thought being an invertebrate creationist, that he would go under the
>> >rock to lay eggs.
>>
>> Shouldn't that be "inveterate creationist"? ;-)
>>
>> But I was wrong; Ray returned with additional errors.
>> Apparently Ray is made of sterner stuff than
>> Tony-the-Cowardly-Runner (Tony's own term for those who run
>> from questions; frequently misapplied by Tony).

>Now that he has made a big deal about not having a religious bias, Bob

>is reduced to brooding. He can no longer participate the way he would
>like.

I have to confess I have no idea what that is supposed to
mean. Are you imagining that my refusal to allow Tony (and
you) to characterize me as an atheist with zero evidence to
support that claim has changed the way I post? It hasn't,
and won't.

And just FYI, I never claimed to not have a personal
religious bias. If you'll exercise that tiny brain of yours,
you might remember that what I said was that I don't discuss
my beliefs, and that I don't attack the beliefs of others
*except* when they attempt to claim those beliefs trump
science in a scientific field. Or, as in the case of one
well-known believer in scientism who's been absent for a few
months, when someone claims that science has "proven" that
no deities exist.

>Fine with me. One less liar for Charlie to deal with.

Please show where I lied, Ray; thanks ever so much.

An who's this "Charlie" person?

[pnyikos]

On Sep 21, 7:44�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 21, 3:28�pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > On Sep 20, 9:26 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > >> Ray Martinez wrote:
> > >>> On Sep 20, 1:31 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > >>>> Ray Martinez wrote:
> > >>>>> First, from the 5th edition of "On The Origin":
> > >>>>>http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F38...
> > >>>>> "Even the wide interval between birds and reptiles has been shown by
> > >>>>> Professor Huxley to be partially bridged over in the most unexpected
> > >>>>> manner, by, on the one hand, the ostrich and extinct Archeopteryx" (p.
> > >>>>> 402-03).

Except for the "partially", which just acknowledges the big gap above
"Archie," this seems pretty clear. Harshman even quoted the other
half of the sentence, which mentioned Compsognathus, and the gap
there, below "Archie" and forms similar to C., seems to be quite
small.

> > >>>>> Upthread I said I had seen, in the literature, support for Darwin's
> > >>>>> rejection of Archeopteryx as evidence supporting evolution.
> > >>>> And then you proceed with a quote that mentions no such rejection.
> > >>>>>http://books.google.com/books?id=h4WRTHfTzXsC&pg=PA220&dq=darwin+reje...
> > >>>>> "Famously, although Huxley encouraged Darwin to use Archeopteryx as
> > >>>>> evidence for transitions across major groups of oranisms in new
> > >>>>> editions of the Origin Of Species, Darwin demurred" ("The Dinosauria"
> > >>>>> Edited By David B. Weishampel, Peter Dodson, Halszka Osm lska
> > >>>>> 2004:220; 2nd edition).

A huge question is the order in which these actions by Darwin
occurred.

> > >>>>> If you take the time to read the full quote it explains why Darwin
> > >>>>> decided against using Archeopteryx.
> > >>>> None of which has to do with him rejecting it as a transitional form. 1)
> > >>>> He didn't feel confident enough of his expertise to disagree with Owen
> > >>>> on that matter and 2) he didn't see a single transitional as important.
> > >>>> Apparently he felt free to dispense with problem 1 after Huxley had
> > >>>> studied the fossil, and so we get the quote in the Descent of Man.
> > >>>>> I could find more scholarly quotes
> > >>>>> saying the same thing. The point is, Evolutionists, you have
> > >>>>> misunderstood what Darwin is saying.
> > >>>> More likely that you have misunderstood your quotes, as is evident from
> > >>>> the one you post here.
> > >>> The scholarly quote says Darwin rejected the advice of Huxley.
> > >> Which is quite different from rejecting Archaeopteryx, eh?
>
> > > Flabbegasting to say the very least!

Darwin was obviously avoiding stirring up the enmity of Owen. Perhaps
Owen might have become as implacable a foe of his as Leopold Kronecker
became of Georg Cantor, the discoverer of modern set theory.
[...]

> > > What then does the scholarly quote say and mean in this context?
>
> > Which scholarly quote?
>
> The "Darwin demurred" quote.

See above for one possible explanation

> > Weishempel? It says what it says and means what
> > it means.
>
> > Here's Darwin from Descent of Man:
>
> > "Nevertheless it is certain that groups of animals have existed, or do
> > now exist, which serve to connect more or less closely the several great
> > vertebrate classes. We have seen that the Ornithorhynchus graduates
> > towards reptiles; and Prof. Huxley has made the remarkable discovery,
> > confirmed by Mr. Cope and others, that the old Dinosaurians are
> > intermediate in many important respects between certain reptiles and
> > certain birds�the latter consisting of the ostrich-tribe (itself
> > evidently a widely-diffused remnant of a larger group) and of the
> > Archeopteryx, that strange Secondary bird having a long tail like that
> > of the lizard."
>
> > I don't think he could have been much clearer: Archaeopteryx is
> > transitional between reptiles and birds.

> **Darwin** is not saying what you are saying. He is informing his

> readers what Huxley and Cope have said.

Huh? He's crediting them with something and is endorsing it. What
could be plainer?

> We don't see any of the strong
> language that he is capable of in behalf of the specimen. Darwin uses
> the phrase "strange....bird,"

Thereby acknowledging the gap, but "Archie" is an even better example
of a transitional than the platypus, Ornithorhyincus.

Anyway, Ray, I have some good news for you: I have displayed some
insane "logic" by Ron Okimoto which strongly suggests that he was
projecting by calling you insane. You can read about it here:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/4f3e2c442207abea

When I saw the post where Ron O's insane comment (IV) in it was made,
it reminded me of what the agnostic Huxley thought when Wilberforce
made a *faux pas* in a public debate they were having on evolution:
"The Good Lord has delivered him into my hands."

I've sent you CC's of the above post and also of a direct reply I made
to the post in which (IV) appeared,

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/512af948c102fdd2

Peter Nyikos

Peter Nyikos

[Ray Martinez]

Some people argue that Darwin thought Owen was waiting for him to make
an unequivocal statement lauding the specimen as spectacular evidence
showing transition, at which time Owen would then announce the
specimen not authentic, but fraud. This could explain a lot.

> > > > What then does the scholarly quote say and mean in this context?
>
> > > Which scholarly quote?
>
> > The "Darwin demurred" quote.
>
> See above for one possible explanation
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Weishempel? It says what it says and means what
> > > it means.
>
> > > Here's Darwin from Descent of Man:
>
> > > "Nevertheless it is certain that groups of animals have existed, or do
> > > now exist, which serve to connect more or less closely the several great
> > > vertebrate classes. We have seen that the Ornithorhynchus graduates
> > > towards reptiles; and Prof. Huxley has made the remarkable discovery,
> > > confirmed by Mr. Cope and others, that the old Dinosaurians are
> > > intermediate in many important respects between certain reptiles and
> > > certain birds the latter consisting of the ostrich-tribe (itself
> > > evidently a widely-diffused remnant of a larger group) and of the
> > > Archeopteryx, that strange Secondary bird having a long tail like that
> > > of the lizard."
>
> > > I don't think he could have been much clearer: Archaeopteryx is
> > > transitional between reptiles and birds.
> > **Darwin** is not saying what you are saying. He is informing his
> > readers what Huxley and Cope have said.
>
> Huh?  He's crediting them with something and is endorsing it.  What
> could be plainer?
>

The scholarly quote and other quotes like it say otherwise.

> > We don't see any of the strong
> > language that he is capable of in behalf of the specimen. Darwin uses
> > the phrase "strange....bird,"
>
> Thereby acknowledging the gap, but "Archie" is an even better example
> of a transitional than the platypus, Ornithorhyincus.
>
> Anyway, Ray, I have some good news for you: I have displayed some
> insane "logic" by Ron Okimoto which strongly suggests that he was
> projecting by calling you insane.  You can read about it here:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/4f3e2c442207abea
>

Actually I have read it. First, I feel no insult in being called
insane by the likes of Ron Okimoto. Second, I am more of an enemy of
the DI than Ron could ever be. They accept natural selection,
evolution and common descent to exist in nature. Yet Ronny remains
unhappy.

Peter: the concepts of selection, evolution and branching descent do
not exist in nature. Right now I have no time because I am writing my
book refuting evolution. One day you will hate me more than deluded
liar Ron Okimoto.

> When I saw the post where Ron O's insane comment (IV) in it was made,
> it reminded me of what the agnostic  Huxley thought when Wilberforce
> made a *faux pas* in a public debate they were having on evolution:
> "The Good Lord has delivered him into my hands."
>
> I've sent you CC's of the above post and also of a direct reply I made
> to the post in which (IV) appeared,
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/512af948c102fdd2
>
> Peter Nyikos
>

Thanks.

In addition: I know for a fact that Ron Okimoto is scared of me. He
wakes up every day fearing a reply from me because I am smarter and he
can't best anything I say. He has asked me not to reply to his posts!

But I must confess that I do enjoy watching you torment him.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Sep 22, 9:37 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 14:21:07 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez

> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:

>                           - McNameless- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Imagine that; Bob has made thousands of posts to **this group** yet
none of them contain his religious bias!

Ray

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 09/24/2011 02:01 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:

[snip]

> Imagine that; Bob has made thousands of posts to **this group** yet
> none of them contain his religious bias!

Not that it's relevant to anything as it smacks of *ad hominem* or
perhaps the genetic fallacy, but can you produce any posts that
demonstrate Casanova's alleged religious bias? Or are you as True
Christian Supreme able to magically divine who is biased (=your
ideological enemy) or not.


--
*Hemidactylus*
Darwin is daemonic

[Suzanne]

On Sep 22, 11:26 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 11:36:15 -0700, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman

> <jharsh...@pacbell.net>:

>
>
>
>
>
> >Bob Casanova wrote:
> >> On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 21:26:42 -0700, the following appeared
> >> in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman

> >> <jharsh...@pacbell.net>:

There are versions of what it means to take the words in the Bible
literally. And, saying that, it drives some people nuts because
they can't figure out how a literalist tells the difference between
some metaphors and some literal things. Sorry about that. I guess
it would seem that way to an unbeliever. But it's true.
>
Suzanne

[Suzanne]

On Sep 17, 7:26 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sep 16, 11:18 pm, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 16, 9:05 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 14:36:23 -0700, John Harshman

>
> > > <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > >A very long time ago, T Pagano wrote, and then ignored the response:
>
> > > > > Harshman has claimed that the Archeopteryx is an example of genuine
> > > > > transformational change in prehistory. Darwin disagreed.
>
> > > >I would appreciate support for that claim.
>

> > > What exactly is Harshman denying? The answer should prove
> > > entertaining.
>
> > > > > So this is earth shattering. This should be the makings of a
> > > > > revelation worthy of publication in the peer reviewed literature. I'll
> > > > > pay good money for a copy of that Nobel prize winning report. What say
> > > > > Harshman?
>
> > > >There is no Nobel Prize in evolutionary biology or paleontology,
> > > >unfortunately.
>
> > > I suspect that the rewards for actually identifying an unambiguous
> > > example of transformational change would have professional rewards
> > > that would exceed that which the Nobel prize can confer. So far no
> > > one has received anything for the Archeopteryx. Nor has anyone proved
> > > anything with this fossil or any other fossil for that matter.
>
> > > > Nor would it be much of a revelation to anyone other than
> > > >the most ignorant creationist that Archaeopteryx is a transitional fossil.
>
> > > I am quite ignorant; so are we all. However whether the Archeopteryx
> > > is a transitional form is a matter of atheist belief and not science
> > > fact. While Darwin found the Archeopteryx interesting, he never
> > > considered it the transitional form which his theory predicted. His
> > > opus contained both his remarks about the Archeopteryx and his
> > > lamentation about the absence of transitional fossil forms. Nothing
> > > has changed.
>
> > > Harshman's crowing about my ignorance of the Nobel Prize is
> > > irrelevent.
>
> > > >And while it is indeed an example of "transformational change",
> > > >depending on what you mean by that, that isn't quite the context in
> > > >which I mentioned it.
>
> > > What exactly is it a transition from and to? What new structures
> > > emerged along the supposed continuous path of which it was a part? And
> > > how exactly does Harshman know this? Some in the atheist community
> > > don't agree with him and they are hardly creationists.
>
> > > >You asked for a nascent structure, and I said the
> > > >wing of Archaeopteryx was such a structure.
>
> > > Its wing not only looks fully formed but most in the atheist community
> > > describe the Archeopteryx as fully capable of powered flight. That
> > > means the Archeopteryx wing is not "nascent."
>
> > > >You responded only with a
> > > >plagiarized and irrelevant screed from Duane Gish. Remember now?
>
> > > Harshman couldn't produce quotes from Gish matching my posts if his
> > > life depended on it. Care to try? The last time I quoted from
> > > Gish in this forum was back in 1998.
>
> > > Regards,
> > > T Pagano
>
> > > And little 'ol amateur me able to keep the mighty clown master at bay.
>
> > Didn't a later find diffuse this? They found that before
> > archaeopterix,
> > there were normal birds that predated him, showing that he could not
> > have been a proto-type bird. They have also found a feathered dinosaur
> > called Anchiornis that predates them all.
>
> > Anchiornis
>
> You are ignoring how evolution works.  It isn't a ladder, but more
> like a bush.  There are simply a lot of similar looking and related
> populations and they change at their own pace.  There is a thread on
> giraffes.  A lot of antelopes still exist that look much more similar
> to the antelopes that giraffes evolved from, and they would leave
> fossils that did not have the derived traits of the giraffe millions
> of years after giraffes had already evolved.  The okapi would be like
> the archeopteryx example.  It could leave fossils millions of years
> after longer necked giraffes could be found in the fossil record.
> Since okapi still exist we can get DNA from them and determine that
> they are the closest living antelope relatives to giraffes and they
> obviously have a longer neck that isn't as long as what we would
> consider to be a giraffe neck.  If we could get DNA from archeopteryx
> and any other fossil bird or dino we would be able to do the same DNA
> analysis and determine how they were related.
>
> We don't expect ancestral species to go extinct when something else
> evolves.  One of the reasons that something new evolves is often so
> that something new about the environment can be exploited and the new
> species can occupy that niche and not really compete against the
> parent species.  There is also the case where it is pretty hard to
> drive your competition to extinction when you are on different
> continents.  Just take the example of monotremes (platypus).  You have
> the transition of mammals from egg laying reptilian type animals.  The
> egg laying transitionls to marsupial and eutherian mammals are still
> alive and would still be leaving fossils nearly 200 million years
> after the evolutionary transition had taken place.
>
> We just have to find the intermediates.  It doesn't matter so much
> where they fall in the temporal order because we know for a fact that
> the intermediate forms can be preserved as living species for millions
> of years after the initial transition took place.
>
> This does not mean that we do not expect some order in the fossil
> record because there is also a lot of extinction, but the extinction
> would be in an evolutionary order.  We don't expect mammal like
> reptiles to go extinct before monotremes evolved, or monotremes to go
> extinct before eutherian mammals evolved.
>
> We also expect the transitionals in about the order that they evolved
> because that is the order that they evolved in and that is likely the
> time when such similar looking species existed in the greatest number
> of species (things tend to change over time;-)).  There are a lot of
> species of deer around the world.  They all look pretty similar and
> they would all be good candidates for transitional forms for whatever
> strange new thing evolved from one of the extant deer species millions
> of years from now even if they are only related to the species linage
> that evolved the new characteristic.  All the extant deer population
> would still look something like the ancestral species even though they
> all obviously can not be the ancestral species.  There may even be
> deer like descendant species millions of years from now that haven't
> changed very much.  There are so many species and who knows what
> different selective pressures would have been placed on them.
>
> You just have to look at existing nature to understand what you are
> observing in the fossil record.
>
> Ron Okimoto- Hide quoted text -
>
Ron, thank you for expressing yourself in such intelligent detail,
concerning your studied opinion. I think that God created all life on
the earth, and that he did so by a bit different model than the
evolutionist or the creationist thinks.
I'll tell you what I think, and I'll also tell you what I believe is
causing a
miscommunication between the sides of the arguments. We know now,
because of newer findings in science, that the word "species," no
longer
covers all life forms. Could you suggest how many categories of
species will not conform to just one definition of species?
>
Suzanne

[Harry K]

> Suzanne- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Just curious. On a scale of 1 to 10 (10 being every thing is literal)
where do you rate yourself as a literalist?

Harry K

[Burkhard]

Couple of problems here I think. First, how many life-forms are not
covered by a given definition of species obviously depends on what
definition of species you choose. If you choose a very inclusive
definition, then most, maybe all, life forms will be covered. (the
problem with that type of concept is that it does not tell you a lot).
If you choose a narrow definition of species, more life forms will no
be covered. However, you can then argue whether these life forms
really _have_ species to begin with.

So the answer to your question could be:
- none, because the person you ask uses a very broad concept for
species, e.g. "species as separately evolving metapopulation lineages"
- billions, because the person you ask uses the traditional
(restrictive) biological species concept which does not cover bacteria
and other non-sexually reproducing organisms
- none, because the person you ask uses e.g. the traditional
(restrictive) biological species concept which does not cover bacteria
and other non-sexually reproducing
organisms - but he argues that these don't form species to start
with

What any of this has to do with the issue of creation vs evolution I
don't know

[Ron O]

On Sep 24, 6:56�pm, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 17, 7:26�am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:

SNIP:

>
> Ron, thank you for expressing yourself in such intelligent detail,
> concerning your studied opinion. I think that God created all life on
> the earth, and that he did so by a bit different model than the
> evolutionist or the creationist thinks.
> I'll tell you what I think, and I'll also tell you what I believe is
> causing a
> miscommunication between the sides of the arguments. We know now,
> because of newer findings in science, that the word "species," no
> longer
> covers all life forms. Could you suggest how many categories of
> species will not conform to just one definition of species?
>
> Suzanne

I think that what you are talking about has been known since
Linnaeus. There is simply a large variation within groups and between
what humans want to group. There is no mystery for this variation.
For one thing if two populations have really diverged from one
population there are obviously going to be various degrees of
differences between all the populations that are becomming more
different from each other. Some splits many have just happened (like
a species of ant hitch hiking to the US in some mangos.) to other
populations such as humans and the E. coli bacteria in your guts that
have been separatated for billions of years.

At the level of differentiation that you seem to be talking about is
one of the more recent separation events. Differences between species
within the same genus are often difficult to categorize simply because
there are a large number of ways to speciate and the difference
between populations isn't that large or obvious to human observation.
No one has a problem saying that chickens and humans are different
species. They diverged around 300 million years ago and have been
separate populations for a very long time. The problem occurs for
things like the spotted owl and its close owl relatives. When is
something different enough to be called a separate species when you
haven't done breeding experiments or you don't know enough about the
biology to know how little or a lot of cross hybridization occurs. A
lot of times the bean counters have to just go by geographic
separation. You have to be able to recognize that we would not have
this problem if it wasn't for biological evolution. Where there was
once one population there are now two that might be separated by some
river or that can't interbreed sharing the same geographic location
because one is derived by a tetraploidization event (doubling of the
chromosomes) and no longer produces viable hibrids. You have examples
where behavior is the deciding factor in calling two populations
different species. One population of a certain genus of insects may
only feed on apple trees and another in the same genus may only feed
on peach trees. The two species would interbreed if they were ever on
the same tree, but that rarely happens.

The bottom line is that there isn't just one definition of species
that works, because there isn't just one mode of speciation and we
simply just do not know enough to make the call sometimes. For
biological evolution all that matters is that two populations can
become genetically isolated. Once that happens the two populations
are free to diverge from each other, and they can get more and more
different from each other.

Ron Okimoto

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 11:01:21 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez

<pyram...@yahoo.com>:

>On Sep 22, 9:37 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

>> On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 14:21:07 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:

>> >On Sep 21, 10:02 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

>> >> On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 21:01:30 -0400, the following appeared
>> >> in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>:

>> >> >In article <qfih77th1hp4rq0b9e3t9b2vaeqt004...@4ax.com>,
>> >> > Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

>> >> >> Ray will now retire, probably under Tony's rock, to suck his
>> >> >> thumb and glower at the world.

[Crickets...]

>> An who's this "Charlie" person?

>Imagine that; Bob has made thousands of posts to **this group** yet
>none of them contain his religious bias!

Why is that so hard to imagine? Not everyone is a fanatic,
either pro or anti, and my beliefs are solely my business.

To refute it, all you have to do is post a reference to any
religious bias I've stated.

Good luck with that. And a word of advice - when you're in a
hole it's a good idea to discard the shovel you used to get
there,

And again, who's this "Charlie" person?

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 15:20:05 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Suzanne
<leil...@hotmail.com>:

Really? OK, so handle this one for Tony, who runs like a
scared rabbit from it:

Is the Noachian Flood literally true as described in the
Bible?

> And, saying that, it drives some people nuts because
>they can't figure out how a literalist tells the difference between
>some metaphors and some literal things. Sorry about that. I guess
>it would seem that way to an unbeliever. But it's true.

Your opinion is noted.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <46om77p4o3012gb0i...@4ax.com>,

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

> On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 13:25:46 -0400, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>:
>
> >In article <vu5k779fpuljsjm7j...@4ax.com>,
> > Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 21:01:30 -0400, the following appeared
> >> in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>:
> >>
> >> >In article <qfih77th1hp4rq0b9...@4ax.com>,
> >> > Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Ray will now retire, probably under Tony's rock, to suck his
> >> >> thumb and glower at the world.
> >> >> --
> >> >
> >> >I thought being an invertebrate creationist, that he would go under the
> >> >rock to lay eggs.
> >
> >>
> >> Shouldn't that be "inveterate creationist"? ;-)
> >
> >I used "invertebrate" with malice aforethought. As sort of a 'pune or
> >play on words.'
>
> I was aware of that; see the " ;-) "?

But it gave me a chance to quote Terry Pratchett and double the insult.
And of course, I could have make a typo or an inappropriate spell
correction. It has happened before.

--
Ignorance is no protection against reality. -- Paul J Gans

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 06:50:05 -0400, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>:

>In article <46om77p4o3012gb0i...@4ax.com>,
> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 13:25:46 -0400, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>:
>>
>> >In article <vu5k779fpuljsjm7j...@4ax.com>,
>> > Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 21:01:30 -0400, the following appeared
>> >> in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <qfih77th1hp4rq0b9...@4ax.com>,
>> >> > Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Ray will now retire, probably under Tony's rock, to suck his
>> >> >> thumb and glower at the world.
>> >> >> --
>> >> >
>> >> >I thought being an invertebrate creationist, that he would go under the
>> >> >rock to lay eggs.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Shouldn't that be "inveterate creationist"? ;-)
>> >
>> >I used "invertebrate" with malice aforethought. As sort of a 'pune or
>> >play on words.'
>>
>> I was aware of that; see the " ;-) "?
>
>But it gave me a chance to quote Terry Pratchett and double the insult.
>And of course, I could have make a typo or an inappropriate spell
>correction. It has happened before.

Point(s) taken. ;-)

[Harry K]

On Sep 25, 10:59 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 15:20:05 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Suzanne

> <leila...@hotmail.com>:

>                           - McNameless- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Looks like she is avoiding answering. Dunno why as she is on record
as adamantly insisting Ye Floode is literal.

Harry K

[Suzanne]

> Harry K- Hide quoted text -

[Suzanne]

On Sep 24, 10:40 pm, Harry K <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Harry K- Hide quoted text -
>

I can't answer that on the basis of what I just said. Being literal
means different things to different people. It usually ends up, Harry,
with people saying, "If you literally believe the Bible, then you will
keep a kosher kitchen," for example. That isn't true because God
requires different things for differnt times. For
example, in the Garden of Eden nothing but one things was off limits.
During the time after the flood, they could eat all things. During the
Exodus,
they had limits and specificities (is that the word?). Now they can
eat
meat at the idols temple even, so long as it does not cause a weaker
brother to stumble. Every verse is not for all times. I believe the
whole Bible
is true for the times when are being addressed. I just don't believe
that all
instructions are for all times. In the future, for example, there is a
time when
people are to go to the hills for protection. In another place, it
says, "Yea
though I walk through the Valley of Death..." and that is a real
place, but
it obviously also has a figurative meaning. Yet, if you think about
the
sentence before that, you can't flee unto the hills and also walk
through a
valley. Some people, Harry, would think the Bible means literally to
do
both. So, you see, there are degrees to which people go to when they
hear about someone believing the Bible literally.
>
What the number one meaning of believing the Bible literally really
means to most people, is that if the Bible says Noah built an ark,
then Noah built an ark. And if the Bible says there was one man in
the beginning named Adam, then there was one man. And if the
Bible says "Eve was taken out of man," then she was taken out of
man. And if the Bible says that the flood was worldwide, then it
must have been world wide. If the Bible says that the water covered
the highest mountain, then the water covered the highest mountain.
If from the viewpoint of the earth, when a battle was going on where
the person prayed that the sun would stand still, etc., then that
really did happen.
>
Also, Harry, when someone says "I don't believe the Bible literally,
but I believe the Bible figuratively, I also believe the Bible
figuratively,
because there are spiritual applications that one can get from literal
things. So it's not "either literal, or then spiritual," but one can
believe something literally happened, and still believe a spiritual
application from it. For example, Peter walked on the water literally
by keeping his eyes on Jesus, but when he took his eyes off of Jesus
he started to sink (but Jesus reached out and saved him).
>
>
Suzanne

[Bill]

On 27 Sep, 07:41, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Just curious.  On a scale of 1 to 10 (10 being every thing is literal)
> > where do you rate yourself as a literalist?
>
> > Harry K- Hide quoted text -
>
> I can't answer that on the basis of what I just said. Being literal
> means different things to different people. It usually ends up, Harry,
> with people saying, "If you literally believe the Bible, then you will
> keep a kosher kitchen," for example. That isn't true because God
> requires different things for differnt times. For
> example, in the Garden of Eden nothing but one things was off limits.
> During the time after the flood, they could eat all things. During the
> Exodus,
> they had limits and specificities (is that the word?). Now they can
> eat
> meat at the idols temple even, so long as it does not cause a weaker
> brother to stumble.
.

>Every verse is not for all times.

If you answered my question about Psalm 137 from the other thread I
missed it. Did you mean to say that, at a certain point in time, it
was truly, literally, blessed to smash the heads of newborn Babylonian
babies against the rocks, but that it is no longer blessed to do so?
You cited verses about the spirit of God moving in unpredictable ways.
Are His morals so shifting and unpredictable that in one year violent
infanticide is blessed and in other it is evil? This is not a matter
of dietary restrictions and ritual purity laws, this is a question of
murdering children. And remember, God didn't just call murdering
children blessed in Psalm 137, He did it Himself in Exodus (after
hardening Pharoah's heart to make sure Pharoah wouldn't give in in
time to take away His excuse for the killings). Even if God
subsequently changed his mind and took a firm right-to-life position,
doesn't it make you in the least uncomfortable that (1) He once
thought infanticide was blessed and (2) there's no way of predicting
which way his Spirit will blow?

.

>I believe the
> whole Bible
> is true for the times when are being addressed. I just don't believe
> that all
> instructions are for all times.
>In the future, for example, there is a
> time when
> people are to go to the hills for protection. In another place, it
> says, "Yea
> though I walk through the Valley of Death..." and that is a real
> place, but
> it obviously also has a figurative meaning. Yet, if you think about
> the
> sentence before that, you can't flee unto the hills and also walk
> through a
> valley. Some people, Harry, would think the Bible means literally to
> do
> both.

I doubt it. But the question is not about where to walk, or what to
eat, or about whether to give all you have to the poor, but about
whether murdering children is blessed or evil. You are really
indulging in a distraction by bringing in the dietary laws here.

>So, you see, there are degrees to which people go to when they
> hear about someone believing the Bible literally.
>
> What the number one meaning of believing the Bible literally really
> means to most people, is that if the Bible says Noah built an ark,
> then Noah built an ark. And if the Bible says there was one man in
> the beginning named Adam, then there was one man. And if the
> Bible says "Eve was taken out of man," then she was taken out of
> man. And if the Bible says that the flood was worldwide, then it
> must have been world wide. If the Bible says that the water covered
> the highest mountain, then the water covered the highest mountain.
> If from the viewpoint of the earth, when a battle was going on where
> the person prayed that the sun would stand still, etc., then that
> really did happen.
>
> Also, Harry, when someone says "I don't believe the Bible literally,
> but I believe the Bible figuratively, I also believe the Bible
> figuratively,
> because there are spiritual applications that one can get from literal
> things.  So it's not "either literal, or then spiritual," but one can
> believe something literally happened, and still believe a spiritual
> application from it. For example, Peter walked on the water literally
> by keeping his eyes on Jesus, but when he took his eyes off of Jesus
> he started to sink (but Jesus reached out and saved him).
>

> Suzanne- Sembunyikan teks kutipan -
>
> - Perlihatkan teks kutipan -

[Harry K]

That would put you at a 10 it would seem.

but
> it obviously also has a figurative meaning. Yet, if you think about
> the
> sentence before that, you can't flee unto the hills and also walk
> through a
> valley. Some people, Harry, would think the Bible means literally to
> do
> both. So, you see, there are degrees to which people go to when they
> hear about someone believing the Bible literally.
>

Straining there. "flee" does not automatically mean run if you are on
about run vs walk. And one can easily "walk through a valley" while
fleeing into the hills.

> What the number one meaning of believing the Bible literally really
> means to most people, is that if the Bible says Noah built an ark,
> then Noah built an ark. And if the Bible says there was one man in
> the beginning named Adam, then there was one man. And if the
> Bible says "Eve was taken out of man," then she was taken out of
> man. And if the Bible says that the flood was worldwide, then it
> must have been world wide. If the Bible says that the water covered
> the highest mountain, then the water covered the highest mountain.
> If from the viewpoint of the earth, when a battle was going on where
> the person prayed that the sun would stand still, etc., then that
> really did happen.

Well then, so do you believe that all really happened? From past
dthreads I know you do and if you are literal in the genesis part it
pretty well makes you a 10 for the rest of the bible.

> Also, Harry, when someone says "I don't believe the Bible literally,
> but I believe the Bible figuratively, I also believe the Bible
> figuratively,
> because there are spiritual applications that one can get from literal
> things.  So it's not "either literal, or then spiritual," but one can
> believe something literally happened, and still believe a spiritual
> application from it. For example, Peter walked on the water literally
> by keeping his eyes on Jesus, but when he took his eyes off of Jesus
> he started to sink (but Jesus reached out and saved him).
>

And that would pretty much make you a 10 also.

This is not about "spiritual or literal" it is about just how
credulous you are.

Harry K

[Suzanne]

> don't know- Hide quoted text -
>
I read some comments on the Internet where some evolutionists
were talking about how to argue with a Creationist. One of the
evolutionists said to the other one, "don't let them get you on the
subject of the definition of 'species,' because the one we have now
is not adequate to cover all organisms." The other one replied,
"Yeah. I suppose we should write a new definition for "species."
I had already encountered this, and I can see that it is the truth
from what I've heard people talking about in T.O. So, I think that
it very much does bring up the issue of creation vs. evolution,
>
If a non-evolutionist says that macroevolution occurs only above
the species level, and if the evolutionist only wants to just win an
argument, he can act like there is no difference. That's not true.
There's a difference. I've asked for examples of a new species
being formed and what I have gotten from some is that they will
give a species of bacteria, or something that would be quite
different from a rabbit, or a dog, or a cat, etc. Comparing a bacteria
to a horse is not quite the same.
>
You know, you illustrated what I was talking about above when
you said

"First, how many life-forms are not
covered by a given definition of species obviously depends on what
definition of species you choose."

Burkhard this is exactly what I was meaning. I want to hear the
different
definitions of species. You see, we used to have only one, and when
more and more knowledge started coming in within the last few years
especially, the one definition no longer covered all of the life
forms.
But I have not heard how many definitions they have now, and it would
help to know that. I'm interested in that, and I'd like to know more
of it.
>
Suzanne

[Bill]

The definition of species is not important at all. By that, I mean
that it is only important that you and the person you are talking with
are using the same definition. If a creationist says that
"macroevolution only occurs above the species level," the important
thing to know is what he, the creationist, means by species. Two
populations of animals do not become more or less alike because
someone changes the definition of species they are using at the
moment. The real world is the real world, and it is unaffected by how
we use words.

If someone uses the definition that a species is "a group of organisms
capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring," that's
fine. If someone else says a species is "a separately evolving lineage
that forms a single gene pool," that's fine, too. What matters is that
are aware of which definition you are using. If the creationist says
that evolution cannot produce new species, then as long as he is using
the first definition of species, what he is claiming is that it is
impossible for two populations of a given species to change over time
in such a way that after X number of years members of the two
populations can no longer interbreed and produce fertile offspring.
Using the word "species" is not important to his claim. He can state
his claim perfectly clearly without using that word.

If you go to higher taxonomic levels, like genus and family, the
definitions are even fuzzier and more arbitrary than species (so, for
example, a reasonable argument can be made that the genus Homo should
not be separated from the genus Pan, in which case humans would be in
the same genus as chimpanzees, but even if that change in naming were
made, there'd be no change in the degree of similarity between humans
and (other) chimpanzees). So if you want to assert, for example, that
new species can evolve but that new genera cannot, well you'd be
better off specifying the degree of difference between two organisms
which you want to claim is two much to have evolved. The words we use
to describe nature do not change nature. It is what it is, no matter
how we define our terms.

[Suzanne]

> Ron Okimoto- Hide quoted text -
>

Very nice presentation of your viewpoint, Ron. Believe me, it may not
be new as you say, but many people don't talk about this very much,
and that is why I am mentioning it. People that do not know much
about evolution theory have some ideas that are not correct about
what constitutes a species. They argue, and it happens on both sides,
for many non-evolutionists also be thinking that there is only one
definitions, too. I've seen some argue about a morphological species,
and be talking to someone who takes the viewpoint of the biological
species. I've seen people come to blows over a variety that is not
a species. So, could I make a request if you have time? Would you
explain what you mean by making a difference between what is a
variety, and what is a species, and why some things are difficult to
put in either category? And could you explain something about why
we need to understand that all living things can't go into the same
species definition?
>
One other thing, if you can, could you explain the difference between
a species and a subspecies, with some samples that we can see
in the animal kingdom, forexample? If you don't have time for all of
this, just some of it will be great, too. I hope I haven't asked too
much.
The thing I would like to know the most is how many definitions of
species do we need? I other words, what things should be in each
group.
>
Suzanne

[Suzanne]

On Sep 25, 12:54 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 11:01:21 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez

> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:

Unless you are good at pole vaulting. : )
>
Suzanne

[Burkhard]

No it doesn't, unless you can give a proper reasn why that would
matter the least.

a vague reference to two alleged "evolutionists on the internet",who
either may have been lacking any understanding f the science, or more
likely were creationists to start with (on the internet, nobody knows
you are a dog) really does not help. There are proposals for species
definitions that cover pretty much every organism Then thee are
proposals that cover most organisms and argue that those missed out
simply don't form species. But even if there wasn't, why on earth
would anything follow for creationists?As an analogy: In political
science, there are definitions of "state" that do not cover all forms
of human social groupings - does that mean states do not exists, or
that political science has to claim god created all states?

>
> If  a non-evolutionist says that macroevolution occurs only above
> the species level, and if the evolutionist only wants to just win an
> argument, he can act like there is no difference.

There is not difference, and this is regardless of the definition of
species that you use. Evolution happens because very minor changes
keep accumulating over time. If the time frame you look at is short,
the changes will be comparatively minor, if it is long, they will be
massive. Somewhere in between speciation occurs, but there is nothing
magical in that particular step

> That's not true.
> There's a difference. I've asked for examples of a new species
> being formed and what I have gotten from some is that they will
> give a species of bacteria, or something that would be quite
> different from a rabbit, or a dog, or a cat, etc. Comparing a bacteria
> to a horse is not quite the same.

But that is just the choice of examples. Examples are there to
illustrate an idea. The bacteria example is simply a particularly
vivid one that explains well the idea of mutation and selection, but
maybe not as well the idea of speciation. But as there are plenty of
other examples (wolf and doge.g.) it does not really matter.

> You know, you illustrated what I was talking about above when
> you said
>   "First, how many life-forms are not
>    covered by a given definition of species obviously depends on what
>    definition of species you choose."
> Burkhard this is exactly what I was meaning. I want to hear the
> different
> definitions of species.

John Wilkin's book is a good starting point. Here a summary by him of
the available species conceptions:
http://ncse.com/evolution/science/species-concepts-modern-literature

You see, we used to have only one, and when
> more and more knowledge started coming in within the last few years
> especially, the one definition no longer covered all of the life
> forms.

I think that's wrong for sevral reasons. The earlier, and most popular
definitions were never meant to cover all life forms, people were just
not that interested in bacteria. Second, different scientists
suggested different definitions pretty much from the word go. That is
rather typical for the way science is done. Definitions are tools, and
we refine our tools as we go along. We also use different tools for
different tasks (don't saw a plank with a hammer) This often requires
making compromises between different demands, and different people
chose different ways of balancing these demands, depending on what
they try to do with it. again, definitions are mere tools, nothing
substantive follows from it

> But I have not heard how many definitions they have now, and it would
> help to know that.

27 is a number you sometimes hear

[TomS]

"On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 00:53:20 -0700 (PDT), in article
<d41585cb-090b-4265...@m37g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, Burkhard
stated..."

>
>On Sep 27, 5:30 am, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:

[...snip...]

>> But I have not heard how many definitions they have now, and it would
>> help to know that.
>
>27 is a number you sometimes hear

[...snip...]

It depends upon what you mean by "definition" and what counts as a
"different" definition (rather than just a variation on the same
definition).


--
---Tom S.
"... the heavy people know some magic that can make things move and even fly,
but they're not very bright, because they can't survive without their magic
contrivances"
Xixo, in "The Gods Must Be Crazy II"

[TomS]

"On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 00:53:20 -0700 (PDT), in article
<d41585cb-090b-4265...@m37g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, Burkhard
stated..."
>

>On Sep 27, 5:30 am, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:

[...snip...]

>> But I have not heard how many definitions they have now, and it would
>> help to know that.
>
>27 is a number you sometimes hear

[TomS]

"On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 00:53:20 -0700 (PDT), in article
<d41585cb-090b-4265...@m37g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, Burkhard
stated..."
>

>On Sep 27, 5:30 am, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:

[...snip...]

>> But I have not heard how many definitions they have now, and it would
>> help to know that.
>
>27 is a number you sometimes hear

[Burkhard]

On Sep 27, 12:49 pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> "On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 00:53:20 -0700 (PDT), in article

> <d41585cb-090b-4265-a3ac-f76f4e8ed...@m37g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, Burkhard

> stated..."
>
> >On Sep 27, 5:30 am, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> [...snip...]
> >> But I have not heard how many definitions they have now, and it would
> >> help to know that.
>
> >27 is a number you sometimes hear
>
> [...snip...]
>
> It depends upon what you mean by "definition" and what counts as a
> "different" definition (rather than just a variation on the same
> definition).
>

You mean if you count only entire species of definitions, or if you
count also sub-species? :O)

[John Harshman]

It does, but not in the way you would like. Why can't species be clearly
defined? If species were separately created kinds, you would think a
definition would be easy. But if species evolve, we would tend to see
half-species, quarter-species, and so on, making a rigorous definition
difficult.

> If a non-evolutionist says that macroevolution occurs only above
> the species level, and if the evolutionist only wants to just win an
> argument, he can act like there is no difference. That's not true.
> There's a difference.

But not necessarily an easy to define difference, if species boundaries
can be fuzzy.

> I've asked for examples of a new species
> being formed and what I have gotten from some is that they will
> give a species of bacteria, or something that would be quite
> different from a rabbit, or a dog, or a cat, etc. Comparing a bacteria
> to a horse is not quite the same.

Check out the FAQ on speciation in the TO archive. There are examples of
plants and insects, at least. Of course we don't usually expect new
species to be formed so quickly that we can see it happening, so any
such examples would be rare exceptions.

> You know, you illustrated what I was talking about above when
> you said
> "First, how many life-forms are not
> covered by a given definition of species obviously depends on what
> definition of species you choose."
> Burkhard this is exactly what I was meaning. I want to hear the
> different
> definitions of species. You see, we used to have only one, and when
> more and more knowledge started coming in within the last few years
> especially, the one definition no longer covered all of the life
> forms.
> But I have not heard how many definitions they have now, and it would
> help to know that. I'm interested in that, and I'd like to know more
> of it.

How could this possibly help you retain a creationist view? Shouldn't a
creationist have a single definition of "kind"? Shouldn't you expect
total stability? For more species definitions than you could ever want,
see Wilkins' book.

[TomS]

"On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 07:43:34 -0700, in article
<u8KdncQ_HKW...@giganews.com>, John Harshman stated..."
[...snip...]

>It does, but not in the way you would like. Why can't species be clearly
>defined? If species were separately created kinds, you would think a
>definition would be easy. But if species evolve, we would tend to see
>half-species, quarter-species, and so on, making a rigorous definition
>difficult.

[...snip...]

It's even more difficult with "kinds" (or "baramins"). Any category
larger than species seems to be only a matter of convenience. A genus
is nothing more than an arbitrary collection of species, likewise with
family and genera, order and families, etc. And when it comes to "kind"
as "something like a family", what can be said?

[John Harshman]

TomS wrote:
> "On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 07:43:34 -0700, in article
> <u8KdncQ_HKW...@giganews.com>, John Harshman stated..."
> [...snip...]
>> It does, but not in the way you would like. Why can't species be clearly
>> defined? If species were separately created kinds, you would think a
>> definition would be easy. But if species evolve, we would tend to see
>> half-species, quarter-species, and so on, making a rigorous definition
>> difficult.
> [...snip...]
>
> It's even more difficult with "kinds" (or "baramins"). Any category
> larger than species seems to be only a matter of convenience. A genus
> is nothing more than an arbitrary collection of species, likewise with
> family and genera, order and families, etc. And when it comes to "kind"
> as "something like a family", what can be said?

Genera, families, etc. are not quite arbitrary. If we're doing it right,
they should all be clades. The arbitrariness lies only in the assignment
of ranks, i.e. should we call this clade a genus, a family, an order, or
what? But the clades are all real.

[TomS]

"On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 09:39:30 -0700, in article
<8sWdnSo7SYL...@giganews.com>, John Harshman stated..."

Agreed.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 10:54:24 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

And Ray runs away again...

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 12:53:25 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Harry K
<turnk...@hotmail.com>:

>Looks like she is avoiding answering. Dunno why as she is on record

>as adamantly insisting Ye Floode is literal.

But now she's retreated to "what does 'literal' mean?"
Shades of Bill Clinton...

[John Harshman]

TomS wrote:
> "On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 09:39:30 -0700, in article
> <8sWdnSo7SYL...@giganews.com>, John Harshman stated..."
>> TomS wrote:
>>> "On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 07:43:34 -0700, in article
>>> <u8KdncQ_HKW...@giganews.com>, John Harshman stated..."
>>> [...snip...]
>>>> It does, but not in the way you would like. Why can't species be clearly
>>>> defined? If species were separately created kinds, you would think a
>>>> definition would be easy. But if species evolve, we would tend to see
>>>> half-species, quarter-species, and so on, making a rigorous definition
>>>> difficult.
>>> [...snip...]
>>>
>>> It's even more difficult with "kinds" (or "baramins"). Any category
>>> larger than species seems to be only a matter of convenience. A genus
>>> is nothing more than an arbitrary collection of species, likewise with
>>> family and genera, order and families, etc. And when it comes to "kind"
>>> as "something like a family", what can be said?
>> Genera, families, etc. are not quite arbitrary. If we're doing it right,
>> they should all be clades. The arbitrariness lies only in the assignment
>> of ranks, i.e. should we call this clade a genus, a family, an order, or
>> what? But the clades are all real.
>
> Agreed.

To continue this line, if on the other hand "kinds" were real, they
should be obvious, with no concern about whether they corresponded to
some arbitrary Linnean rank. They would just be "kinds". The fact that
kinds can't easily (or at all) be recognized is a good argument against
creationism.

[TomS]

"On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 10:17:32 -0700, in article
<SeednTLAGuG...@giganews.com>, John Harshman stated..."

"Kinds" are *less* recognizable than are species.

If kinds are the real divisions of life, how is it that there came to
be a division called "species", which seems to be "more real" than
kind.

The Bible, if it tells us about the creation of kinds, does not tell
us anything at all about species. Are species not designed? (Of course,
I would say that it would be an anachronism for the Bible to have
anything about species; and I would also say that species are not
designed.)

[John Harshman]

Only because there's no such thing as a "kind". If there were, they
would be easily recognizable.

> If kinds are the real divisions of life, how is it that there came to
> be a division called "species", which seems to be "more real" than
> kind.

It would be possible to have more than one division of life. Most
baraminologists agree that species are within kinds. And why not, if we
allow for a certain amount of evolution after creation? The timing may
be a problem, and there may be a bit of a slippery slope, but it's
certainly not an inconsistent position.

> The Bible, if it tells us about the creation of kinds, does not tell
> us anything at all about species. Are species not designed? (Of course,
> I would say that it would be an anachronism for the Bible to have
> anything about species; and I would also say that species are not
> designed.)

Baraminologists would say that kinds were created as single species and
would then allow for subsequent speciation. Presumably this would mean
that most extant species were not designed, per se, though the original
species from which each kind is descended was. Not to say that god
didn't tweak evolution here or there, for example to create adaptations
for carnivory after the Fall.

[Robert Weldon]

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:84358de3-cd1b-4736...@h34g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 22, 3:59 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> On Sep 21, 7:44 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>
>> > On Sep 21, 3:28 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > Ray Martinez wrote:

>> > > > On Sep 20, 9:26 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> > > >> Ray Martinez wrote:
>> > > >>> On Sep 20, 1:31 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> > > >>>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>> > > >>>>> First, from the 5th edition of "On The Origin":
>> > > >>>>>http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F38...
>> > > >>>>> "Even the wide interval between birds and reptiles has been
>> > > >>>>> shown by
>> > > >>>>> Professor Huxley to be partially bridged over in the most
>> > > >>>>> unexpected
>> > > >>>>> manner, by, on the one hand, the ostrich and extinct
>> > > >>>>> Archeopteryx" (p.
>> > > >>>>> 402-03).
>>

>> Except for the "partially", which just acknowledges the big gap above
>> "Archie," this seems pretty clear. Harshman even quoted the other
>> half of the sentence, which mentioned Compsognathus, and the gap
>> there, below "Archie" and forms similar to C., seems to be quite
>> small.

>>
>> > > >>>>> Upthread I said I had seen, in the literature, support for
>> > > >>>>> Darwin's
>> > > >>>>> rejection of Archeopteryx as evidence supporting evolution.
>> > > >>>> And then you proceed with a quote that mentions no such
>> > > >>>> rejection.
>> > > >>>>>http://books.google.com/books?id=h4WRTHfTzXsC&pg=PA220&dq=darwin+reje...
>> > > >>>>> "Famously, although Huxley encouraged Darwin to use
>> > > >>>>> Archeopteryx as
>> > > >>>>> evidence for transitions across major groups of oranisms in new
>> > > >>>>> editions of the Origin Of Species, Darwin demurred" ("The
>> > > >>>>> Dinosauria"
>> > > >>>>> Edited By David B. Weishampel, Peter Dodson, Halszka Osm lska
>> > > >>>>> 2004:220; 2nd edition).
>>

>> A huge question is the order in which these actions by Darwin
>> occurred.

>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > > >>>>> If you take the time to read the full quote it explains why
>> > > >>>>> Darwin
>> > > >>>>> decided against using Archeopteryx.
>> > > >>>> None of which has to do with him rejecting it as a transitional
>> > > >>>> form. 1)
>> > > >>>> He didn't feel confident enough of his expertise to disagree
>> > > >>>> with Owen
>> > > >>>> on that matter and 2) he didn't see a single transitional as
>> > > >>>> important.
>> > > >>>> Apparently he felt free to dispense with problem 1 after Huxley
>> > > >>>> had
>> > > >>>> studied the fossil, and so we get the quote in the Descent of
>> > > >>>> Man.
>> > > >>>>> I could find more scholarly quotes
>> > > >>>>> saying the same thing. The point is, Evolutionists, you have
>> > > >>>>> misunderstood what Darwin is saying.
>> > > >>>> More likely that you have misunderstood your quotes, as is
>> > > >>>> evident from
>> > > >>>> the one you post here.
>> > > >>> The scholarly quote says Darwin rejected the advice of Huxley.
>> > > >> Which is quite different from rejecting Archaeopteryx, eh?
>>

>> > > > Flabbegasting to say the very least!
>>
>> Darwin was obviously avoiding stirring up the enmity of Owen. Perhaps
>> Owen might have become as implacable a foe of his as Leopold Kronecker
>> became of Georg Cantor, the discoverer of modern set theory.
>> [...]
>>
>
> Some people argue that Darwin thought Owen was waiting for him to make
> an unequivocal statement lauding the specimen as spectacular evidence
> showing transition, at which time Owen would then announce the
> specimen not authentic, but fraud. This could explain a lot.
>
>> > > > What then does the scholarly quote say and mean in this context?
>>
>> > > Which scholarly quote?
>>
>> > The "Darwin demurred" quote.
>>
>> See above for one possible explanation
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > > Weishempel? It says what it says and means what
>> > > it means.
>>
>> > > Here's Darwin from Descent of Man:
>>
>> > > "Nevertheless it is certain that groups of animals have existed, or
>> > > do
>> > > now exist, which serve to connect more or less closely the several
>> > > great
>> > > vertebrate classes. We have seen that the Ornithorhynchus graduates
>> > > towards reptiles; and Prof. Huxley has made the remarkable discovery,
>> > > confirmed by Mr. Cope and others, that the old Dinosaurians are
>> > > intermediate in many important respects between certain reptiles and
>> > > certain birds the latter consisting of the ostrich-tribe (itself
>> > > evidently a widely-diffused remnant of a larger group) and of the
>> > > Archeopteryx, that strange Secondary bird having a long tail like
>> > > that
>> > > of the lizard."
>>
>> > > I don't think he could have been much clearer: Archaeopteryx is
>> > > transitional between reptiles and birds.
>> > **Darwin** is not saying what you are saying. He is informing his
>> > readers what Huxley and Cope have said.
>>
>> Huh? He's crediting them with something and is endorsing it. What
>> could be plainer?
>>
>
> The scholarly quote and other quotes like it say otherwise.
>
>> > We don't see any of the strong
>> > language that he is capable of in behalf of the specimen. Darwin uses
>> > the phrase "strange....bird,"
>>
>> Thereby acknowledging the gap, but "Archie" is an even better example
>> of a transitional than the platypus, Ornithorhyincus.
>>
>> Anyway, Ray, I have some good news for you: I have displayed some
>> insane "logic" by Ron Okimoto which strongly suggests that he was
>> projecting by calling you insane. You can read about it here:
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/4f3e2c442207abea
>>
>
> Actually I have read it. First, I feel no insult in being called
> insane by the likes of Ron Okimoto. Second, I am more of an enemy of
> the DI than Ron could ever be. They accept natural selection,
> evolution and common descent to exist in nature. Yet Ronny remains
> unhappy.
>
> Peter: the concepts of selection, evolution and branching descent do
> not exist in nature. Right now I have no time because I am writing my
> book refuting evolution. One day you will hate me more than deluded
> liar Ron Okimoto.
>
>> When I saw the post where Ron O's insane comment (IV) in it was made,
>> it reminded me of what the agnostic Huxley thought when Wilberforce
>> made a *faux pas* in a public debate they were having on evolution:
>> "The Good Lord has delivered him into my hands."
>>
>> I've sent you CC's of the above post and also of a direct reply I made
>> to the post in which (IV) appeared,
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/512af948c102fdd2
>>
>> Peter Nyikos
>>
>
> Thanks.
>
> In addition: I know for a fact that Ron Okimoto is scared of me. He
> wakes up every day fearing a reply from me because I am smarter and he
> can't best anything I say. He has asked me not to reply to his posts!
>
> But I must confess that I do enjoy watching you torment him.
>
> Ray
>


Wow, I didn't know you were psychic, so you really know what Ron is thinking
huh? I call shinanigans on that, Ron is not scared of you, he thinks you
are a dumbass, as does most of the group here. I also think you are
clinically insane and a pathological liar. And for the record, you have
problems outsmarting a doorknob.

[pnyikos]

Was Owen that intimately connected with the Berlin specimen? Or was
this a time when only the London specimen was known?

Anyway, it seems that you are undermininig your own case. If that was
all the reason for Darwin's behavior, then the specimen could have
been a magnificent case of a transitional in his mind, for all you
know.

> > > > > What then does the scholarly quote say and mean in this context?
>
> > > > Which scholarly quote?
>
> > > The "Darwin demurred" quote.
>
> > See above for one possible explanation
>
> > > > Weishempel? It says what it says and means what
> > > > it means.
>
> > > > Here's Darwin from Descent of Man:
>
> > > > "Nevertheless it is certain that groups of animals have existed, or do
> > > > now exist, which serve to connect more or less closely the several great
> > > > vertebrate classes. We have seen that the Ornithorhynchus graduates
> > > > towards reptiles; and Prof. Huxley has made the remarkable discovery,
> > > > confirmed by Mr. Cope and others, that the old Dinosaurians are
> > > > intermediate in many important respects between certain reptiles and
> > > > certain birds the latter consisting of the ostrich-tribe (itself
> > > > evidently a widely-diffused remnant of a larger group) and of the
> > > > Archeopteryx, that strange Secondary bird having a long tail like that
> > > > of the lizard."
>
> > > > I don't think he could have been much clearer: Archaeopteryx is
> > > > transitional between reptiles and birds.
> > > **Darwin** is not saying what you are saying. He is informing his
> > > readers what Huxley and Cope have said.
>
> > Huh?  He's crediting them with something and is endorsing it.  What
> > could be plainer?
>
> The scholarly quote and other quotes like it say otherwise.

See above for how you seem to have undermined your own case for the
"say otherwise". And what "other quotes" can you put on the table?

> > > We don't see any of the strong
> > > language that he is capable of in behalf of the specimen. Darwin uses
> > > the phrase "strange....bird,"
>
> > Thereby acknowledging the gap, but "Archie" is an even better example
> > of a transitional than the platypus, Ornithorhyincus.

In fact, I think it is rather silly of Harshman to say the platypus is
"a transitional". The platypus suggests the existence of a transition
from reptiles to mammals, by combining features of both, but that is
all.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Sep 24, 6:20 pm, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> There are versions of what it means to take the words in the Bible

> literally. And, saying that, it drives some people nuts because

> they can't figure out how a literalist tells the difference between
> some metaphors and some literal things. Sorry about that. I guess
> it would seem that way to an unbeliever. But it's true.

As someone who was an unshakable believer until the age of 19, I
remember it being not always easy to tell when Jesus was being literal
and when he was indulging in hyperbole. I had to rely on the say-so
of the Sisters and priests who taught us religion.

Here's a rather difficult case: the man in the parable who is told by
his employer, "Give me an accounting of thy stewardship, for thou
canst be steward no longer." The man went out and seemed to cheat his
employer by telling his debtors to alter the documentation of what
they owed his employer. Yet the employer praised him. Can you tell
me the point of this parable? And what was he praising him FOR?
Translations vary.

Peter Nyikos

> Suzanne