For Harshman: IT'S OVER. I MEAN, REALLY OVER.
T Pagano
change apparently doesn't exist. Most of the t.o regulars haven't
even attempted to offer a solution.: Okimoto, Lethe, Friar Broccoli,
Ernest Major, Burkhard, Isaak, Clayton, et cetera. They know better.
Forrest who in past years had a command of the facts has degenerated
into someone who doesn't seem to understand much of anything.
Most of those who did jump into the frey have obviously never read
Darwin's opus AND have been so indoctrinated NOT to look too hard for
real, physical, scientific evidence of transformational change that
they aren't sure what I'm talking about. But Harshman knows.
Harshman whose credentials required a great effort and skill to earn
and who undoubtedly has an expert command of the evidence offered the
Archeopteryx as an example of gradualistic, progressive,
transformational change. I found this amusing since all of the
greats up to this point have considered the Archeopteryx a missing
link of sorts; that is, a good example of an "intermediate" between
dinosaurs and birds. And all of the recent studies (over the last 20
years) seem to agree that the Archeopteryx is, in all important
respects, a fully functional bird (albeit an archaic one). Almost no
one jumped on to the Archeopteryx band wagon, at least not in the NEW
CHALLENGE thread.
Dawkins repeatedly claims that the evidence is overwhelming yet no one
can produce any.
IT'S OVER.
From here on atheist claims of "over whelming" evidence that the
Darwinian mechanism explains biological diversity are in simple terms
that even Ernest Major can understand: Bull Sh*t.
Regards,
T Pagano
Kleuskes & Moos
> The evidence of gradualistic, coherent, progressive transformational
> change apparently doesn't exist. �Most of the t.o regulars haven't
> even attempted to offer a solution.: �Okimoto, Lethe, Friar Broccoli,
> Ernest Major, Burkhard, Isaak, Clayton, et cetera.
Judging from my own expirience, i find it more likely they just don't
want to get sucked into one of your endless "debates" filled with
rants, accusations and premature declarations of victory. Providing
you with a reasonable, insightfull, educated answer seems pointless,
most of the time and hence a slight distaste ensues.
T Pagano
<kle...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>On 19 mrt, 15:47, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>> The evidence of gradualistic, coherent, progressive transformational
>> change apparently doesn't exist. Most of the t.o regulars haven't
>> even attempted to offer a solution.: Okimoto, Lethe, Friar Broccoli,
>> Ernest Major, Burkhard, Isaak, Clayton, et cetera.
I should note at the start that in the time it took Kleuskes & Moos to
post this whine he could have posted a one line link to the proof of
neoDarwinian transformational change. He/she, like the many others in
the forum, cannot find any evidence of this change.
>
>Judging from my own expirience, i find it more likely they just don't
>want to get sucked into one of your endless "debates" filled with
>rants, accusations and premature declarations of victory.
This is nonsense. Most of the regulars of talk.origins accuse me of
failing to respond. I rarely engage in debates requiring back and
forth replies. And I declare victory when justified by the
circumstances.
>Providing
>you with a reasonable, insightfull, educated answer seems pointless,
>most of the time and hence a slight distaste ensues.
Then I suggest you go to the NEW CHALLENGE thread. Care to find me a
post from one of your atheist buddies that fits this criteria and
solves the problem of producing evidence of gradualistic, progressive,
transformational change? Apparently K & M can't produce a post
accomplishing this either.
As such victorious I remain.
Regards,
T Pagano
Friar Broccoli
> The evidence of gradualistic, coherent, progressive transformational
> change apparently doesn't exist. Most of the t.o regulars haven't
> even attempted to offer a solution.: Okimoto, Lethe, Friar Broccoli,
> Ernest Major, Burkhard, Isaak, Clayton, et cetera. They know better.
Since I'm on the list let me clearly say that I know that Archeopteryx
is a transitional - or a close relative of whatever species gave rise
to all modern birds. Since most species never leave any kind of trace
in the fossil record one can never know for certain that the fossil
one has found is in the direct line of descent. The only reason I
stayed out of the debate is because Harshperson is much much more
knowledgeable than I in general, and birds are one of his specialties.
> Forrest who in past years had a command of the facts has degenerated
> into someone who doesn't seem to understand much of anything.
>
> Most of those who did jump into the frey have obviously never read
> Darwin's opus AND have been so indoctrinated NOT to look too hard for
> real, physical, scientific evidence of transformational change that
> they aren't sure what I'm talking about. But Harshman knows.
>
> Harshman whose credentials required a great effort and skill to earn
> and who undoubtedly has an expert command of the evidence offered the
> Archeopteryx as an example of gradualistic, progressive,
> transformational change. I found this amusing since all of the
> greats up to this point have considered the Archeopteryx a missing
> link of sorts; that is, a good example of an "intermediate" between
> dinosaurs and birds. And all of the recent studies (over the last 20
> years) seem to agree that the Archeopteryx is, in all important
> respects, a fully functional bird (albeit an archaic one).
I'm confused Tony. What is an archaic bird, if not a transitional?
> Almost no
> one jumped on to the Archeopteryx band wagon, at least not in the NEW
> CHALLENGE thread.
>
> Dawkins repeatedly claims that the evidence is overwhelming yet no one
> can produce any.
.
> IT'S OVER.
Why does Tony always run away from a challenge? You never explained
why Archeopteryx was not a transitional, you just asserted without
explanation that it was not.
richardal...@gmail.com
> The evidence of gradualistic, coherent, progressive transformational
> change apparently doesn't exist. Most of the t.o regulars haven't
> even attempted to offer a solution.: Okimoto, Lethe, Friar Broccoli,
> Ernest Major, Burkhard, Isaak, Clayton, et cetera. They know better.
> Forrest who in past years had a command of the facts has degenerated
> into someone who doesn't seem to understand much of anything.
Funny thing, but my friends, professional colleagues, and TV
documentary producers don't seem to think so. In fact, they ask me to
teach their children about evolution, they ask for my advice in my
area of expertise, they publish my papers, they ask me to review the
papers of other researchers, and they call on me when they want a
'talking head' to pontificate about plesiosaurs.
What do you know that they don't?
> Most of those who did jump into the frey
That's 'fray', Tony.
> have obviously never read
> Darwin's opus
So what? It's largely irrelevant to modern evolutionary theory.
> AND have been so indoctrinated NOT to look too hard for
> real, physical, scientific evidence of transformational change that
> they aren't sure what I'm talking about.
I don't think that *you* are sure what you're talking about. In fact,
I'm sure that you *don't* know what you're talking about.
You still haven't explained why Archaeopteryx, whose discovery was
welcomed by Darwin as vindicating his theory of evolution by natural
selection, should not be considered a transitional form. Darwin
evidently thought so.
Do you know more about Darwin's theory than Darwin did?
> But Harshman knows.
>
> Harshman whose credentials required a great effort and skill to earn
> and who undoubtedly has an expert command of the evidence offered the
> Archeopteryx as an example of gradualistic, progressive,
> transformational change. I found this amusing since all of the
> greats up to this point have considered the Archeopteryx a missing
> link of sorts; that is, a good example of an "intermediate" between
> dinosaurs and birds.
i.e. a transitional form of the sort predicted by Darwin.
> And all of the recent studies (over the last 20
> years) seem to agree that the Archeopteryx is, in all important
> respects, a fully functional bird (albeit an archaic one).
All organisms are "fully functional". Surely you are not *still"
labouring under the misapprehension that evolution has a teleological
goal, and that we should expect to find transitional forms with half-
formed and biologically useless appendages?
> Almost no
> one jumped on to the Archeopteryx band wagon, at least not in the NEW
> CHALLENGE thread.
>
> Dawkins repeatedly claims that the evidence is overwhelming yet no one
> can produce any.
Sticking your fingers in your ears and humming loudly when presented
with evidence may be the standard creationist approach, but it isn't
exactly honest.
>
> IT'S OVER.
For you, perhaps.
>
> From here on atheist
You only make yourself look dishonest by conflating science with
atheism, Tony.
Perhaps you post here to undermine creationism by demonstrating that
it is morally and intellectually bankrupt, but surely even someone as
stupid and self-absorbed as you seem to be can see that lying in this
way tells us more about your lack of moral values than it does about
those of the scientists whom you denigrate.
RF
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
I've rarely seen victorious used to mean "clueless and delusional", but
Tony seems to think that is the primary definition.
Ernest Major
Pagano <not....@address.net> writes
>The evidence of gradualistic, coherent, progressive transformational
>change apparently doesn't exist. Most of the t.o regulars haven't
>even attempted to offer a solution.: Okimoto, Lethe, Friar Broccoli,
>Ernest Major, Burkhard, Isaak, Clayton, et cetera. They know better.
>Forrest who in past years had a command of the facts has degenerated
>into someone who doesn't seem to understand much of anything.
>
>Most of those who did jump into the frey have obviously never read
>Darwin's opus AND have been so indoctrinated NOT to look too hard for
>real, physical, scientific evidence of transformational change that
>they aren't sure what I'm talking about. But Harshman knows.
>
>Harshman whose credentials required a great effort and skill to earn
>and who undoubtedly has an expert command of the evidence offered the
>Archeopteryx as an example of gradualistic, progressive,
>transformational change. I found this amusing since all of the
>greats up to this point have considered the Archeopteryx a missing
>link of sorts; that is, a good example of an "intermediate" between
>dinosaurs and birds. And all of the recent studies (over the last 20
>years) seem to agree that the Archeopteryx is, in all important
>respects, a fully functional bird (albeit an archaic one). Almost no
>one jumped on to the Archeopteryx band wagon, at least not in the NEW
>CHALLENGE thread.
>
>Dawkins repeatedly claims that the evidence is overwhelming yet no one
>can produce any.
Wrong. You are conflating an existence of an example of a
narrowly-scoped and undefined type of evidence with the existence of the
totality of all the evidence.
Here's some of the overwhelming evidence (that is some of the data from
which the nested hierarchy of gene sequence and other genetic traits is
obtained).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/
You could also try reading the Darwin's "Origin" and subsequent works;
Darwin convinced his contemporaries by adducing evidence.
The evidence of common descent with modification through the agency of
natural selection and other processes includes (not all bits of evidence
address all bits of the theory)
1) The distribution of organisms in time and space, that is the
distribution of species and more inclusive taxa in the present world,
the differences of composition between continental and insular biota,
the differences of composition between continental and oceanic island
biota, the difference of composition between the biotas of archiepelagos
and isolated islands, provinciality in fossil biotas, the existence of a
succession of biotas in the fossil record, and the correlation of
content between the biotas of successive strata in the fossil record.
2) Commonalities of biochemisty, including the repertoire of amino
acids, and the near universality of the genetic code and the nature and
taxonomic distribution of the variations.
3) The nested hierarchies found in genetic data, include gene content,
gene sequence, gene structure, karyotype, gene order, pseudogenes,
active genetic elements (such as transposons) and endogenus
retroviruses, and the correlation between these nested hierarchies.
4) The nested hierarchies found in anatomical, behavioural and
embryological traits, and the correlations between these, and with the
nested hierarchies in the genetic data, and with contemporary
distribution of organisms.
5) The observation of mechanisms of variation acting in the present,
include mutation, recombination, gene flow and introgression.
6) The observation of selective processes acting in the present,
sometimes at rates far in excess of those required to account for the
changes in the fossil record. Consider for example dogs, pigeons and
cabbages. Or the evolution of guppies transferred between streams with
different levels of predation.
7) The observation of speciation in the present.
8) The presence of morphological intermediates in the fossil record and
the living biota, both between large groups, and between species, these
intermediates being in toto consistent with descent with branching and
modification, rather than with the pseudo-Lamarckian Paginian mechanism.
9) The presence of vestigal organs in some organisms. (Please don't
forget, again, that vestigal is not a synonym for functionless.)
10) The presence of organs performing one function which are homologous
to organ performing another function in different species.
And whatever else has escaped my attention./
>
>
>IT'S OVER.
>
>From here on atheist claims of "over whelming" evidence that the
>Darwinian mechanism explains biological diversity are in simple terms
>that even Ernest Major can understand: Bull Sh*t.
Wrong. What you proffer is a test of the Paginian mechanism.
If you were seriously intending to make a scientific case you would
evaluate the completeness of the fossil record, and predict how many
examples of your "gradualistic, coherent, progressive, transformational
change" we should expect to see if the modern evolutionary synthesis was
correct. In the absence of a definition of your "gradualistic, coherent,
progressive, transformational change" no-one else can perform this
calculation, but I suspect that the answer is zero.
For a starting point
* there are estimated to be about 10 million living species.
* there are, IIRC, about 250,000 known fossil species.
* the fossil record has a long duration compared with the typical span
of existence of a species, so the total number of extinct species is a
not small multiple of the number of living species.
We have fossils of between 1 in 1000 and 1 in 10000 extinct species.
Given one species known from the fossil record, if assume no correlation
in the likelihood between discovered, the chance of finding both the
predecessor and successor species is less that one in a million, or an
expected number of instance of less than one. If we correct for the
biases of the fossil record the number becomes larger, but the
correction is non-trivial, so I leave it as an exercise for you. Note
that many fossil species are only known from single individuals, or
single sites, or single horizons - this means that the chances of
finding interspecies transitions are even less than finding a succession
of 3 species.
How many dinobird fossils are known. How many stages do you require to
show "gradualistic, coherent, progressive, transformational change"
between a generic maniraptor and a generic primitive bird. Is the first
number smaller than or less than the second number?
>
>
>Regards,
>T Pagano
>
--
alias Ernest Major
Ernest Major
<0e3555d5-933b-4f3a...@1g2000yqq.googlegroups.com>,
"richardal...@googlemail.com" <richardal...@gmail.com>
writes
>All organisms are "fully functional". Surely you are not *still"
>labouring under the misapprehension that evolution has a teleological
>goal,
His demand for examples of "coherent progressive" change does carry a
whiff of teleology.
>and that we should expect to find transitional forms with half- formed
>and biologically useless appendages?
--
alias Ernest Major
T Pagano
<eli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Mar 19, 10:47 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>> The evidence of gradualistic, coherent, progressive transformational
>> change apparently doesn't exist. Most of the t.o regulars haven't
>> even attempted to offer a solution.: Okimoto, Lethe, Friar Broccoli,
>> Ernest Major, Burkhard, Isaak, Clayton, et cetera. They know better.
>
>Since I'm on the list let me clearly say that I know that Archeopteryx
>is a transitional - or a close relative of whatever species gave rise
>to all modern birds.
In context "transitional" is being used by Broccoli to mean
"intermediate" between some purported predecessor and birds. That is
the atheist conceives of some lineal pathway and strings togethers
fully formed, discrete entities to "fit" somewhere on the path with
considerable gaps. The problem is that there is nothing connecting
these discrete "intermediates" (or "transitionals" in Broccoli's
lexicon). Purely naturalistic processes prohibit discrete entities.
Both Darwin (before his death) and I wish to see actual evidence of
the transformational changes which could bridge the gap.
Darwin's theory didn't predict the existence of isolated, discrete
"intermediates" between some purported fossil predecessor and some
purported fossil descendent-----it predicted innumerable
fine-gradations. Darwin wrote, "why, if species have descended from
other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable
transitional forms? (see Darwin's Chapter VI, The Origin of Species)
His theory predicted fine gradations; and he fully expected the fossil
record to capture "nascent" structures and their development to
maturity (at least some sampling). He honestly admitted that the
fossil record did not capture any such thing.
>Since most species never leave any kind of trace
>in the fossil record one can never know for certain that the fossil
>one has found is in the direct line of descent. The only reason I
>stayed out of the debate is because Harshperson is much much more
>knowledgeable than I in general, and birds are one of his specialties.
Here Broccoli is attempting to explain away the fact that the fossil
record NEVER captured a single instance of a nascent structure or its
development to maturity in an 800 million year fossil record. NOT
ONE. It is this fact which Darwin lamented as a strong argument
AGAINST his theory. Darwin wrote in Chapter X of his opus, "Geology
assuredly does NOT reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and
this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be
urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the
extreme imperfection of the geological record."
Here Darwin argued that the complete absence of evidence for finely
graded transformational change was a result of the imperfection of the
fossil record AND the poverty of the fossil record. However, Darwin
fully expected future discoveries to vindicate his gradualistic
theory. In 1973 Gould made it painfully clear that the fossil record
had become voluminious but had failed to vindicate Darwin. The record
was one of stasis.
Furthermore in 2001 Elsberry unwittingly showed in his Pearson, et al
report that the fossil record was more than adequate to capture finely
graded changes. Elsberry pointed to finely graded changes of a foram
shell over the space of 15 million years from less spherical to more
spherical. Yet there is no transformational change. It is a foram
shell at the beginning and after 15 million years it is still a foram
shell---this is stasis. Darwin and Gould both saw the same example
of finely graded changes which were nonetheless examples of stasis not
transformational change.
So how does Broccoli explain the fact that the fossil record captures
numerous examples of finely graded non transformational change but
never captures a single nascent structure or its development to
maturity? It is this latter evidence that Darwin fully expect to
see but didn't. It is the failure to see this latter evidence that
Gould pointed out in 1973 and set off a shit storm with his Punc Eq
paper.
Apparently the famous and highly respected Stephen J. Gould (who was
an atheist and both a paleontologist AND an evolutionary biologist)
didn't consider the Archeopteryx as a saving example of
transformational change. Otherwise there would have been no need for
his Punc Eq paper.
IT'S OVER. THE ATHEISTS HAVE NO ANSWER OR SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. ONLY
EXCUSES. Darwinism has become sacred text and religion, not science.
IT'S OVER.
snip
Regards,
T Pagano
richardal...@gmail.com
> On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 08:21:02 -0700 (PDT), Friar Broccoli
>
> >On Mar 19, 10:47 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> >> The evidence of gradualistic, coherent, progressive transformational
> >> change apparently doesn't exist. Most of the t.o regulars haven't
> >> even attempted to offer a solution.: Okimoto, Lethe, Friar Broccoli,
> >> Ernest Major, Burkhard, Isaak, Clayton, et cetera. They know better.
>
> >Since I'm on the list let me clearly say that I know that Archeopteryx
> >is a transitional - or a close relative of whatever species gave rise
> >to all modern birds.
>
> In context "transitional" is being used by Broccoli to mean
> "intermediate" between some purported predecessor and birds. That is
> the atheist
Lying again, Tony.
You really need to get over this rather pathetic habit of yours of
mischaracterising
science as atheism.
> conceives of some lineal pathway and strings togethers
> fully formed, discrete entities
*ALL* organisms are "fully formed, discrete entities", transitional or
not.
I repeat this only to demonstrate your dishonesty when you ignore this
rather fundamental flaw in your position.
> to "fit" somewhere on the path with
> considerable gaps.
So why do you think that evolutionary theory has made robust
predictions about the nature of as-yet-undiscovered forms?
> The problem is that there is nothing connecting
> these discrete "intermediates" (or "transitionals" in Broccoli's
> lexicon).
What's wrong with a scientific theory which makes predictions about
the nature of s-yet-undiscovered forms?
> Purely naturalistic processes prohibit discrete entities.
Excuse me? What non-naturalistic processes are involved in growing a
new organism from an egg and a sperm cell?
> Both Darwin (before his death) and I wish to see actual evidence of
> the transformational changes which could bridge the gap.
...and, as the passages from his letters I provided for you, Darwin
was delighted that Archaeopteryx is exactly the sort of transitional
form his theory predicted. What do you think it tells us that you
ignore and lie about the evidence?
>
> Darwin's theory didn't predict the existence of isolated, discrete
> "intermediates" between some purported fossil predecessor and some
> purported fossil descendent-----it predicted innumerable
> fine-gradations.
Have a look at the series of fossils which demonstrate the evolution
of the mamalian ear from the jaw bones of reptiles.
In what way do they *not* represent fine gradations?
> Darwin wrote, "why, if species have descended from
> other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable
> transitional forms? (see Darwin's Chapter VI, The Origin of Species)
> His theory predicted fine gradations; and he fully expected the fossil
> record to capture "nascent" structures and their development to
> maturity (at least some sampling). He honestly admitted that the
> fossil record did not capture any such thing.
...and when Archaeopteryx was discovered he was delighted that his
theory had been vindicated.
Why are you ignoring Darwin's own words?
>
> >Since most species never leave any kind of trace
> >in the fossil record one can never know for certain that the fossil
> >one has found is in the direct line of descent. The only reason I
> >stayed out of the debate is because Harshperson is much much more
> >knowledgeable than I in general, and birds are one of his specialties.
>
> Here Broccoli is attempting to explain away the fact that the fossil
> record NEVER captured a single instance of a nascent structure or its
> development to maturity in an 800 million year fossil record.
What's wrong with the evolutionary series demonstrating the evolution
of the mammalian ear? Or do you think that ears are not "nascent
structures"?
Or how about the excellent series of fossils showing how the tetrapod
limb evolved from fin-rays? Do you think that legs are not "nascent
structures"?
> NOT
> ONE. It is this fact which Darwin lamented as a strong argument
> AGAINST his theory. Darwin wrote in Chapter X of his opus, "Geology
> assuredly does NOT reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and
> this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be
> urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the
> extreme imperfection of the geological record."
To repeat something you are rather pointedly ignoring, he also wrote
this after Archaeopteryx was discovered:"... there has been this grand
Darwinian case of the Arch opteryx for
you and me to have a long jaw about. Had the Solenhofen quarries been
commissioned by august command to turn out a strange being `a la
Darwin
it could not have executed the behest more handsomely than in the
Arch opteryx."
What do you know about Darwin's theory of evolution by natural
selection that Darwin didn't know?
>
> Here Darwin argued that the complete absence of evidence for finely
> graded transformational change was a result of the imperfection of the
> fossil record AND the poverty of the fossil record. However, Darwin
> fully expected future discoveries to vindicate his gradualistic
> theory.
They did.
> In 1973 Gould made it painfully clear that the fossil record
> had become voluminious but had failed to vindicate Darwin.
He didn't. Read what Gould wrote about the way creationists lie about
his contributions to evolutionary science.
> The record
> was one of stasis.
>
> Furthermore in 2001 Elsberry unwittingly showed in his Pearson, et al
> report that the fossil record was more than adequate to capture finely
> graded changes.
It is. There are several well-documented fossil series capturing fine
graded changes in several different lineages, such as the ammonites of
the Oxford Clay and the Micraster series of the Chalk.
Why not educate yourself in the subject? Or is the ignorance on which
you base your dogma so precious to you that you refuse to expose it to
knowledge of the universe you believe your God created?
> Elsberry pointed to finely graded changes of a foram
> shell over the space of 15 million years from less spherical to more
> spherical.
...and the acquisition of additional chambers.
>Yet there is no transformational change.
By what criterion?
> It is a foram
> shell at the beginning and after 15 million years it is still a foram
> shell---this is stasis.
No, because it's a morphologically different foram shell. What do you
this evolutionary theory predicts that it should be? A bird?
> Darwin and Gould both saw the same example
> of finely graded changes which were nonetheless examples of stasis not
> transformational change.
You use language in a very peculiar way, Tony. "change" and "stasis"
are terms with opposite meanings.
>
> So how does Broccoli explain the fact that the fossil record captures
> numerous examples of finely graded non transformational change but
> never captures a single nascent structure or its development to
> maturity?
What's wrong with the mammalian ear series? Or that of early tetrapods
showing the evolution of limbs? In what sense are legs and ears not
"nascent structures"?
> It is this latter evidence that Darwin fully expect to
> see but didn't.
He did. I've provided the citation. Stop lying.
> It is the failure to see this latter evidence that
> Gould pointed out in 1973 and set off a shit storm with his Punc Eq
> paper.
>
> Apparently the famous and highly respected Stephen J. Gould (who was
> an atheist and both a paleontologist AND an evolutionary biologist)
> didn't consider the Archeopteryx as a saving example of
> transformational change.
Evidently you haven't read much of what Gould wrote if you think that
he thought that. But then, it's easier for you to lie about his views
than learn what they actually were.
> Otherwise there would have been no need for
> his Punc Eq paper.
>
> IT'S OVER. THE ATHEISTS HAVE NO ANSWER OR SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. ONLY
> EXCUSES. Darwinism has become sacred text and religion, not science.
>
> IT'S OVER.
>
...and no matter how many times you repeat the lie, it remains a lie.
RF
> snip
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
Randy C
> Darwin's theory didn't predict the existence of isolated, discrete
> "intermediates" between some purported fossil predecessor and some
> purported fossil descendent-----it predicted innumerable
> fine-gradations.
Fine-gradations being precisely what we would see in the fossil record
- **IF** the fossil record was a complete record of the past. It's
not.
Ironically, I was going through some older pictures this morning. I
have three children. But all I have pictures of are "isolated,
discrete 'intermediates'" of them as they grew up.
For example, my older son had a mustache for a while while he was in
college. But I have no pictures of him with an "intermediate"
mustache. I only have pictures of him in high school (and before)
without a mustache, a few pictures of him in college with a full
mustache and later pictures of him without a mustache. Since I have
no photo record of the intermediate steps of my son's mustache growth,
by your reasoning, it must have appeared on his face fully grown!
If I was to show this series of pictures to a rational person, they
would make the proper presumption that the mustache grew on my son's
upper lip gradually - rather than suddenly - but that I simply don't
have photo records of that growth. That lack of photo records doesn't
mean that it appeared suddenly.
The fossil record is like that. Populations evolved gradually -
rather than suddenly - but we simply don't have fossil records of all
of those evolutionary steps.
Things happen for which there are no records, especially in the fossil
record. Deal with it rationally.
RAM
> On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 08:21:02 -0700 (PDT), Friar Broccoli
>
> >On Mar 19, 10:47 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> >> The evidence of gradualistic, coherent, progressive transformational
> >> change apparently doesn't exist. Most of the t.o regulars haven't
> >> even attempted to offer a solution.: Okimoto, Lethe, Friar Broccoli,
> >> Ernest Major, Burkhard, Isaak, Clayton, et cetera. They know better.
>
> >Since I'm on the list let me clearly say that I know that Archeopteryx
> >is a transitional - or a close relative of whatever species gave rise
> >to all modern birds.
>
Snip of spiked "cool aid" logic.
> >Since most species never leave any kind of trace
> >in the fossil record one can never know for certain that the fossil
> >one has found is in the direct line of descent. The only reason I
> >stayed out of the debate is because Harshperson is much much more
> >knowledgeable than I in general, and birds are one of his specialties.
>
Snip of more of the same.
> IT'S OVER.
What's over is that you have any credibility. Any idiot that pretends
to have logic and science on his side can "not" write the following:
"I said that technology does not rely on induction which is a
foundation of sand."
>
> snip
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
TomS
<apagano-c8f9o6927eoo0...@4ax.com>, T Pagano stated..."
[...snip...]
>From here on atheist claims of "over whelming" evidence that the
>Darwinian mechanism explains biological diversity are in simple terms
>that even Ernest Major can understand: Bull Sh*t.
I'd like to see a comparative study of the status of these:
1. evolution ("darwinism")
2. heliocentrism ("copernicanism")
3. atomism ("daltonism")
4. germ theory of disease ("kochism")
This would not be only a test of the theories, but also a test of
the standards. If the standards are so demanding that none of these
four would pass, then I'd begin to suspect that something is wrong
with the standards.
I'd guess that #1 stands up fairly well in this company. Not only
as a scientific theory, but also philosophically and with respect
to compatibility with Scripture, traditional faiths and morality.
--
---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"
raven1
wrote:
>The evidence of gradualistic, coherent, progressive transformational
>change apparently doesn't exist. Most of the t.o regulars haven't
>even attempted to offer a solution.:
Because you still haven't responded to the question of what you would
accept as a valid transitional form. Well?
air
I quite like this analogy. Pushing it one step further, a rational
person unfamiliar with the mechanism of mustache development might
spend some time staring at your son's upper lip and observing that
little tiny hairs come out slowly but steadily over the course of the
day. The rational person would then recognize this as the mechanism
that led to your son's mustache over a period of weeks to months.
Others (naming no names) would say 'No, that's just microhirsutism; a
mustache is macrohisrutism!"
Air
Klaus Hellnick
<snip delusions>
>
>
> IT'S OVER.
>
> From here on atheist claims of "over whelming" evidence that the
> Darwinian mechanism explains biological diversity are in simple terms
> that even Ernest Major can understand: Bull Sh*t.
>
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
>
The only "Bull Sh*t" is you refusing to be clear. You were asked several
times to clarify your vague terms.
You ignored people who made reasonable interpretations of your question
and answered you.
You mere repeated your statements and proclaimed victory.
At least, you are very consistent.
Klaus
Suzanne
is old.
Pedopenna from Mongolia, Protoavis from Post, Texas, and Anchiornis
huxleyi
from China, Some have assymetrical feathers, which flying birds have,
and one has symmetrical feathers which walking-but-not-flyer birds
have. Some scientists complain that the older birds than archaeopteryx
are in worse shape. I should think so, with as much older than
archaeopteryx they are! A number of them have the four wing pattern,
which to us today sounds amazing. That would be something for us to
behold!
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
nice attempt at reasoning. I mean that. But we are not talking about
just one animal evolving, we are talking about millions of animals
evolving and I would not think it to be that we can't find any
evidence of the equivalent of "partly growing moustaches" comparisons
among the millions of animal species.
Don't you see the difference? It's a reasonable request.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
> On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 10:47:53 -0400, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net>
> wrote:
>
> >The evidence of gradualistic, coherent, progressive transformational
> >change apparently doesn't exist. Most of the t.o regulars haven't
> >even attempted to offer a solution.:
>
> Because you still haven't responded to the question of what you would
> accept as a valid transitional form. Well?
>
harder to pronounce than supercalifragilisticexpialidocious. Just an
observation. Carry on.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
>
I love it.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
form, what is it a transition of? Dinosaur to fying bird? Flying bird
to dinosaur? What if whatever "kinds" is, turns out to be a geater
category than people realize? I believe that it is just that, a
greater category than simply a species. Even now some scientists are
classifying birds and dinosaurs in the same category. As information
comes in, they are widening the categories. They may eventually widen
things into categories they realize must be "kinds."
>
Suzanne
Dana Tweedy
From flightless theropods to flight capable birds.
> Dinosaur to fying bird? Flying bird
> to dinosaur? What if whatever "kinds" is, turns out to be a geater
> category than people realize?
Define "kind", for a start. Biologically, the term is meaningless.
> I believe that it is just that, a
> greater category than simply a species. Even now some scientists are
> classifying birds and dinosaurs in the same category.
Just as birds, sharks, toads, and dogs are classified in the same
category, ie "Vertebrates". Birds and dinosaurs are both archosaurs.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/archosauria.html
That classification includes crocodiles, alligators, pterosaurs,
Ichthyosaurs and plesiosarus as well.
> As information
> comes in, they are widening the categories. They may eventually widen
> things into categories they realize must be "kinds."
Again, the term "kind" has no meaning in biology. If a bird, and a
T.rex are the same "kind", why aren't humans and chimps the same "kind"?
DJT
Ernest Major
<c08f1152-f5a9-4c9a...@v8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Suzanne <leil...@hotmail.com> writes
>Your description of your son suddenly growing a moustache is quite a
>nice attempt at reasoning. I mean that. But we are not talking about
>just one animal evolving, we are talking about millions of animals
>evolving and I would not think it to be that we can't find any evidence
>of the equivalent of "partly growing moustaches" comparisons among the
>millions of animal species. Don't you see the difference? It's a
>reasonable request.
For it to be a reasonable request one has to show that it is expected
that we would find an example among the less than 1 million known fossil
species.
--
alias Ernest Major
Ernest Major
<dd2fd26e-c285-4299...@v16g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>,
Suzanne <leil...@hotmail.com> writes
life belongs to a single kind. They're pretty sure that the same holds
for all known fossil earthly life, but less evidence is available for
this; it's hard to demonstrate that a spherical cell in a billion year
old stromatolite was a bacterium and not something else.
--
alias Ernest Major
richardal...@gmail.com
> In message
> <c08f1152-f5a9-4c9a-8edd-4cb98b2ec...@v8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> writes
>
> >Your description of your son suddenly growing a moustache is quite a
> >nice attempt at reasoning. I mean that. But we are not talking about
> >just one animal evolving, we are talking about millions of animals
> >evolving and I would not think it to be that we can't find any evidence
> >of the equivalent of "partly growing moustaches" comparisons among the
> >millions of animal species.
We don't?
What about the fins of lobe-finned fish as partly developed tetrapod
limbs?
What about the forelimbs of theropod dinosaurs as partly developed
bird wings?
The fossil record is full of examples like this.
> Don't you see the difference? It's a
> >reasonable request.
Not when the request is presented in such terms that it is impossible
to satisfy, being based on a dishonest misrepresentation of what
evolutionary theory predicts. Bearing in mind that Tony has been
corrected in his distorted view of evolutionary theory many, many
times, it is utter dishonesty that he persists in this
misrepresentation.
It's lying.
What do you think it tells us about Tony's moral values that he can
maintain his dogmatic views only by lying about science and
scientists?
RF
Dana Tweedy
> On Mar 19, 10:04 am, "Kleuskes& Moos"<kleu...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>> On 19 mrt, 15:47, T Pagano<not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>>
>>> The evidence of gradualistic, coherent, progressive transformational
>>> change apparently doesn't exist. Most of the t.o regulars haven't
>>> even attempted to offer a solution.: Okimoto, Lethe, Friar Broccoli,
>>> Ernest Major, Burkhard, Isaak, Clayton, et cetera.
>>
>> Judging from my own expirience, i find it more likely they just don't
>> want to get sucked into one of your endless "debates" filled with
>> rants, accusations and premature declarations of victory. Providing
>> you with a reasonable, insightfull, educated answer seems pointless,
>> most of the time and hence a slight distaste ensues.
>>
> There are birds that have been found that are older than archaeopteryx
> is old.
> Pedopenna from Mongolia, Protoavis from Post, Texas, and Anchiornis
> huxleyi
> from China,
Pedopenna is known only from leg fossils. It's impossible to know if it
had wings, or other avian features.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedopenna
Protoavis is widely doubted to be a "bird". According to the WIKI
article: " Almost all palaeontologists doubt that Protoavis is a bird,
or that all remains assigned to it even come from a single species,
because of the circumstances of its discovery and unconvincing avian
synapomorphies in its fragmentary material. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protoavis
Anchiornis huxleyi is a feathered dinosaur, but not considered a bird.
It had some avian features, but most likely wasn't capable of powered
flight. It may have been a glider, like Microraptor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchiornis
Some have assymetrical feathers, which flying birds have,
> and one has symmetrical feathers which walking-but-not-flyer birds
> have. Some scientists complain that the older birds than archaeopteryx
> are in worse shape.
"worse shape" for what?
> I should think so, with as much older than
> archaeopteryx they are! A number of them have the four wing pattern,
> which to us today sounds amazing. That would be something for us to
> behold!
Indeed.
DJT
paleobarbie
> On Mar 19, 10:04 am, "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleu...@xs4all.nl> wrote:> On 19 mrt, 15:47, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
> > > The evidence of gradualistic, coherent, progressive transformational
> > > change apparently doesn't exist. Most of the t.o regulars haven't
> > > even attempted to offer a solution.: Okimoto, Lethe, Friar Broccoli,
> > > Ernest Major, Burkhard, Isaak, Clayton, et cetera.
>
> > Judging from my own expirience, i find it more likely they just don't
> > want to get sucked into one of your endless "debates" filled with
> > rants, accusations and premature declarations of victory. Providing
> > you with a reasonable, insightfull, educated answer seems pointless,
> > most of the time and hence a slight distaste ensues.
>
> There are birds that have been found that are older than archaeopteryx
> is old.
> Pedopenna from Mongolia, Protoavis from Post, Texas, and Anchiornis
> huxleyi
> from China,
Pedopenna and Anchiornis are both feathered dinosaurs, not birds, and
are of a similar age to Archaeopteryx (Late Jurassic, although people
have argued for Middle Jurassic). If they actually are older than
Archaeopteryx then this solves the "fossil gap" problem that people
complain about, in that the other dinobirds are Cretaceous (i.e.,
younger than Archaeopteryx). The feathers of both these taxa are
symmetrical.
Protoavis (from the Late Triassic) has long been discredited as being
a bird, and is likely an assemblage of several different animals. No
feathers have been found with this specimen.
Some have assymetrical feathers, which flying birds have,
> and one has symmetrical feathers which walking-but-not-flyer birds
> have. Some scientists complain that the older birds than archaeopteryx
> are in worse shape.
What does this mean? That they weren't preserved so exquisitely in
fine lagoonal shale as Archaeopteryx? This good preservation of
Archaeopteryx is due to its particular mode of preservation, not to
its age.
I should think so, with as much older than
> archaeopteryx they are!
So how old do *you* think they are?
A number of them have the four wing pattern,
> which to us today sounds amazing.
No, you're confusing these animals with Microraptor, a dinosaur from
the Early Cretaceous
That would be something for us to
> behold!
>
> Suzanne
PB
paleobarbie
> On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 08:04:22 -0700 (PDT), "Kleuskes & Moos"
>
"Almost no
one jumped on to the Archeopteryx band wagon, at least not in the NEW
CHALLENGE thread. "
So, what will you do if I repost my extensive listing of all the
transitional features of the skeleton of Archaeopteryx (last night on
the thread "A confession to finally seal evolution's fate"), that you
somehow conveniently ignored (except to claim victory)? Start a
ANOTHER new thread claiming that nobody has now responded to THIS
"new challenge thread"?
PB
John Harshman
[blah, blah, blah]
ARTHUR: I command you as King of the Britons to stand aside!
BLACK KNIGHT: I move for no man.
ARTHUR: So be it!
[hah]
[parry thrust]
[ARTHUR chops the BLACK KNIGHT's left arm off]
ARTHUR: Now stand aside, worthy adversary.
BLACK KNIGHT: 'Tis but a scratch.
ARTHUR: A scratch? Your arm's off!
BLACK KNIGHT: No, it isn't.
ARTHUR: Well, what's that then?
BLACK KNIGHT: I've had worse.
ARTHUR: You liar!
BLACK KNIGHT: Come on you pansy!
[hah]
[parry thrust]
[ARTHUR chops the BLACK KNIGHT's right arm off]
ARTHUR: Victory is mine!
[kneeling]
We thank thee Lord, that in thy merc-
[hah]
BLACK KNIGHT: Come on then.
ARTHUR: What?
BLACK KNIGHT: Have at you!
ARTHUR: You are indeed brave, Sir knight, but the fight is mine.
BLACK KNIGHT: Oh, had enough, eh?
ARTHUR: Look, you stupid bastard, you've got no arms left.
BLACK KNIGHT: Yes I have.
ARTHUR: Look!
BLACK KNIGHT: Just a flesh wound.
[bang]
ARTHUR: Look, stop that.
BLACK KNIGHT: Chicken! Chicken!
ARTHUR: Look, I'll have your leg. Right!
[whop]
BLACK KNIGHT: Right, I'll do you for that!
ARTHUR: You'll what?
BLACK KNIGHT: Come 'ere!
ARTHUR: What are you going to do, bleed on me?
BLACK KNIGHT: I'm invincible!
ARTHUR: You're a loony.
BLACK KNIGHT: The Black Knight always triumphs!
Have at you! Come on then.
[whop]
[ARTHUR chops the BLACK KNIGHT's other leg off]
BLACK KNIGHT: All right; we'll call it a draw.
ARTHUR: Come, Patsy.
BLACK KNIGHT: Oh, oh, I see, running away then. You yellow
bastards! Come back here and take what's coming to you.
I'll bite your legs off!
John Harshman
> On Mar 19, 10:04 am, "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleu...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>> On 19 mrt, 15:47, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>>
>>> The evidence of gradualistic, coherent, progressive transformational
>>> change apparently doesn't exist. Most of the t.o regulars haven't
>>> even attempted to offer a solution.: Okimoto, Lethe, Friar Broccoli,
>>> Ernest Major, Burkhard, Isaak, Clayton, et cetera.
>> Judging from my own expirience, i find it more likely they just don't
>> want to get sucked into one of your endless "debates" filled with
>> rants, accusations and premature declarations of victory. Providing
>> you with a reasonable, insightfull, educated answer seems pointless,
>> most of the time and hence a slight distaste ensues.
>>
> There are birds that have been found that are older than archaeopteryx
> is old.
No there aren't.
> Pedopenna from Mongolia,
Considering that we have only its feet, all we can tell is that it's a
maniraptoran. It might be a bird, might not. It might be older than
Archaeopteryx, might not.
> Protoavis from Post, Texas,
The general consensus is that Protoavis is a chimaera, some of whose
fragments are probably theropod, though others aren't even dinosaurian.
The reconstruction by Chatterjee is fantasy. Not a single identifiable
avian bone.
> and Anchiornis
> huxleyi
> from China,
Not a bird, depending on how you define the term. It's a troodont. It
might be a flyer, though. So is Microraptor, a dromaeosaur. There seems
to have been a lot of it around. But it's not older than Archaeopteryx.
> Some have assymetrical feathers, which flying birds have,
> and one has symmetrical feathers which walking-but-not-flyer birds
> have. Some scientists complain that the older birds than archaeopteryx
> are in worse shape. I should think so, with as much older than
> archaeopteryx they are! A number of them have the four wing pattern,
> which to us today sounds amazing. That would be something for us to
> behold!
Most importantly, none of them prevent Archaeopteryx from being a
transitional form. In fact they make it even more transitional, by
enlarging the pool of feathered theropods and increasing the depth in
the tree of the evolution of flight in theropods.
Randy C
>
> - Show quoted text -
Actually you don't understand the real issue. Instead the real issue
here is that if you only have a fragmentary record, you must
reconstruct the intervening events - the ones that are NOT recorded -
in the most reasonable way based on the evidence we have seen.,
In the case of my son's mustache, we have all seen mustaches grow
slowly. We've never seen a mustache appear suddenly on someone's face
(unless it is glued on). Therefore it is more rational to believe
that my son's mustache also grew slowly - despite the apparent
photograph record showing to appear suddenly.
The same thing is true of genetic change. We see gradual genetic
change all of the time. The size of the beaks of the finches on the
Galapagos Islands don't change suddenly. Instead we observe and even
measure them changing gradually.
That is exactly analogous to how we see mustaches grow.
So, if we see gaps in the fossil record, it is MORE likely and
rational to presume that missing genetic changes that are not
documented occurred gradually rather than suddenly since that is
PRECISELY what we see and measure in nature.
John Harshman
So what you're saying here is that there can be no such thing as a
transitional form, and demonstration of a nascent state is not
sufficient. What you actually demand is a finely graded transition from
no structure to a completely modern one, happening in a continuous
series of fossils. You would, in essence, demand to see a movie of the
process before you will accept it.
If that's really the challenge, I admit it would be almost impossible to
meet. And I say "almost" just out of scientific caution. I really think
it's impossible. The sort of big changes you are looking for don't
happen within the short time over which we might expect to find a
preserved record of continuous deposition. At the most we might expect
the occasional such record of fairly small changes. For big changes, we
would have to go with a much spottier record.
So why couldn't you just say this? Archeopteryx can't be a
Pagano-transitional because it's just one species, and you demand a
continuous, finely graded series from primitive reptile to modern bird.
I think this fits Bill's second predicted case: your criteria, when
clearly expressed, are so absurd that anyone can see how silly they are.
Thanks.
John Harshman
> Could I try (she said sheepishly)? If archeopteryx is a transitional
> form, what is it a transition of? Dinosaur to fying bird? Flying bird
> to dinosaur?
The former.
> What if whatever "kinds" is, turns out to be a geater
> category than people realize?
There is no such thing as a "kind".
> I believe that it is just that, a
> greater category than simply a species. Even now some scientists are
> classifying birds and dinosaurs in the same category.
All scientists do that. They're all archosaurs, all diapsids, all
amniotes, all tetrapods, and so on.
> As information
> comes in, they are widening the categories. They may eventually widen
> things into categories they realize must be "kinds."
If so, then there is one kind: life. All known organisms are related by
common descent. Somehow I suspect that isn't what you meant.
John Harshman
But there are plenty of examples. There are lots of "partly growing
mustaches" in the fossil record. We just don't see the continuous,
infinitely finely graded series leading from no hair to a complete
handlebar with waxed ends. At the risk of wearing out his welcome,
Archaeopteryx is just such an intermediate.
Suzanne
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Burkhard
> The evidence of gradualistic, coherent, progressive transformational
> change apparently doesn't exist. �Most of the t.o regulars haven't
> even attempted to offer a solution.: �Okimoto, Lethe, Friar Broccoli,
> Ernest Major, Burkhard, Isaak, Clayton, et cetera.
Nah, we just grew tired to explain to you over ad over and over again
what the toE actually says,
e.g. that while cheese can be "mature", species aren't
>�They know better.
> Forrest who in past years had a command of the facts has degenerated
> into someone who doesn't seem to understand much of anything.
>
> Most of those who did jump into the frey have obviously never read
> Darwin's opus AND have been so indoctrinated NOT to look too hard for
> real, physical, scientific evidence of transformational change that
> they aren't sure what I'm talking about. �But Harshman knows.
>
> Harshman whose credentials required a great effort and skill to earn
> and who undoubtedly has an expert command of the evidence offered the
> Archeopteryx as an example of gradualistic, progressive,
> transformational change. � I found this amusing since all of the
> greats up to this point have considered the Archeopteryx a missing
> link of sorts; that is, a good example of an "intermediate" between
> dinosaurs and birds. �And all of the recent studies (over the last 20
> years) seem to agree that the Archeopteryx is, in all important
> respects, a fully functional bird (albeit an archaic one). �Almost no
> one jumped on to the Archeopteryx band wagon, at least not in the NEW
> CHALLENGE thread.
>
> Dawkins repeatedly claims that the evidence is overwhelming yet no one
> can produce any.
>
Burkhard
Sure. all evolution is microevolution in the "things that are alive
kind"
Problem solved
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <not....@address.net>:
>The evidence of gradualistic, coherent, progressive transformational
>change apparently doesn't exist.
Define each of these terms *in this context* and we can
discuss it.
Until then go pound sand.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Mark Isaak
> The evidence of gradualistic, coherent, progressive transformational
> change apparently doesn't exist.
And yet there it is, sitting in many books and museums around the world.
Nobody can show it to Pagano until he is willing to look, though.
(And for the record, Tony, I *have* presented such evidence. Open your
eyes.)
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
Randy C
> had become voluminious but had failed to vindicate Darwin. �The record
> was one of stasis.
Gee. Why then did Gould say that creationists who claimed that he
believed that the fossil record lacked transitions were lying, either
through "design or stupidity"?
Which are you?
Both?
If so, that makes your arguments identical with those of Ray Martinez.
Eric Root
> The evidence of gradualistic, coherent, progressive transformational
> even attempted to offer a solution.: �Okimoto, Lethe, Friar Broccoli,
> Ernest Major, Burkhard, Isaak, Clayton, et cetera. �They know better.
> into someone who doesn't seem to understand much of anything.
>
> Most of those who did jump into the frey have obviously never read
> Darwin's opus AND have been so indoctrinated NOT to look too hard for
> real, physical, scientific evidence of transformational change that
> they aren't sure what I'm talking about. �But Harshman knows.
>
> Harshman whose credentials required a great effort and skill to earn
> and who undoubtedly has an expert command of the evidence offered the
> Archeopteryx as an example of gradualistic, progressive,
> transformational change. � I found this amusing since all of the
> greats up to this point have considered the Archeopteryx a missing
> link of sorts; that is, a good example of an "intermediate" between
> dinosaurs and birds. �And all of the recent studies (over the last 20
> years) seem to agree that the Archeopteryx is, in all important
> one jumped on to the Archeopteryx band wagon, at least not in the NEW
> CHALLENGE thread.
>
> Dawkins repeatedly claims that the evidence is overwhelming yet no one
> can produce any.
>
>
> From here on atheist claims of "over whelming" evidence that the
> Darwinian mechanism explains biological diversity are in simple terms
> that even Ernest Major can understand: �Bull Sh*t.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
Atheism is completely irrelevant.
Eric Root
Will in New Haven
This use of "kinds" is the way creationists try to reduce biology to
baby-talk. "Oh, it's a birdy."
--
Will in New Haven
Friar Broccoli
I would like to preface my comments by completely dissociating myself
Richard Forrest's accusation that you are lying (while agreeing with
all his specific arguments). I know as well as you do that you are
not intentionally making statements that you know to be false -
although how you succeed in deceiving yourself is not something I am
able to understand.
On Mar 19, 12:37 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 08:21:02 -0700 (PDT), Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 19, 10:47 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>>> The evidence of gradualistic, coherent, progressive transformational
>>> change apparently doesn't exist. Most of the t.o regulars haven't
>>> even attempted to offer a solution.: Okimoto, Lethe, Friar Broccoli,
>>> Ernest Major, Burkhard, Isaak, Clayton, et cetera. They know better.
>
>> Since I'm on the list let me clearly say that I know that Archeopteryx
>> is a transitional - or a close relative of whatever species gave rise
>> to all modern birds.
.
> In context "transitional" is being used by Broccoli to mean
> "intermediate" between some purported predecessor and birds. That is
> the atheist conceives of some lineal pathway and strings togethers
> fully formed, discrete entities to "fit" somewhere on the path with
> considerable gaps.
Not just atheists Tony. Micheal Behe takes the same position I will
be attempting to defend in all my posts to you - That is descent with
modification, often leading to speciation. To the best of my
knowledge Behe has no disagreement with Darwin who wrote about
selection from naturally occurring variation. Since, for any
Believer, Nature is under God, there is no conflict.
What Behe is fighting about is undirected random mutations as the
exclusive cause of variation. And of course for anyone who believes
that God intervenes in their lives on a daily basis such an idea must
be ridiculous.
> The problem is that there is nothing connecting
> these discrete "intermediates" (or "transitionals" in Broccoli's
> lexicon). Purely naturalistic processes prohibit discrete entities.
This last statement is pretty close to true. It describes the nested
hierarchy. I know of no species that doesn't include characteristics
derived from the common ancestor of apparently related species. Do
you know of any such examples?
> Both Darwin (before his death) and I wish to see actual evidence of
> the transformational changes which could bridge the gap.
>
> Darwin's theory didn't predict the existence of isolated, discrete
> "intermediates" between some purported fossil predecessor and some
> purported fossil descendent-----it predicted innumerable
> fine-gradations. Darwin wrote, "why, if species have descended from
> other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable
> transitional forms? (see Darwin's Chapter VI, The Origin of Species)
> His theory predicted fine gradations; and he fully expected the fossil
> record to capture "nascent" structures and their development to
> maturity (at least some sampling). He honestly admitted that the
> fossil record did not capture any such thing.
This really is embarrassing. Here's a pointer to the page this quote
comes from:
http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F401&pageseq=162
Quite apart from the fact that Darwin wasn't here talking about the
fossil record, (that's in later chapters) if you continue reading you
will see that he then goes on to provide lots of examples of just
this, not that he really needed to, about a fifth of the book consists
of an exhaustive discussion of closely related species and variants.
>> Since most species never leave any kind of trace
>> in the fossil record one can never know for certain that the fossil
>> one has found is in the direct line of descent. The only reason I
>> stayed out of the debate is because Harshperson is much much more
>> knowledgeable than I in general, and birds are one of his specialties.
>
> Here Broccoli is attempting to explain away the fact that the fossil
> record NEVER captured a single instance of a nascent structure or its
> development to maturity in an 800 million year fossil record. NOT
> ONE. It is this fact which Darwin lamented as a strong argument
> AGAINST his theory. Darwin wrote in Chapter X of his opus, "Geology
> assuredly does NOT reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and
> this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be
> urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the
> extreme imperfection of the geological record."
.
> Here Darwin argued that the complete absence of evidence for finely
> graded transformational change was a result of the imperfection of the
> fossil record AND the poverty of the fossil record. However, Darwin
> fully expected future discoveries to vindicate his gradualistic
> theory.
Actually Tony, this isn't quite true. Again here is a link to your
quote.
http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F401&pageseq=294
If from that page you do a search for "Planorbis multiformis" you will
see that he did in fact provide examples - I believe more than one but
this is the only one I could quickly locate.
> In 1973 Gould made it painfully clear that the fossil record
> had become voluminious but had failed to vindicate Darwin. The record
> was one of stasis.
>
> Furthermore in 2001 Elsberry unwittingly showed in his Pearson, et al
> report that the fossil record was more than adequate to capture finely
> graded changes. Elsberry pointed to finely graded changes of a foram
> shell over the space of 15 million years from less spherical to more
> spherical. Yet there is no transformational change. It is a foram
> shell at the beginning and after 15 million years it is still a foram
> shell---this is stasis.
Here, I believe you have been deceived by an empty play on words.
Foraminifera (like Chordates) refers to an entire phylum. Wikipedia
estimates Forama includes 275,000 species.
So by substitution within your phrase:
"It is a foram shell at the beginning and after 15 million years it is
still a foram shell"
becomes:
"It is a bird at the beginning and after 150 million years it is still
a bird"
or
"It is a dinosaur at the beginning and after 250 million years it is
still a dinosaur"
> Darwin and Gould both saw the same example
> of finely graded changes which were nonetheless examples of stasis not
> transformational change.
.
> So how does Broccoli explain the fact that the fossil record captures
> numerous examples of finely graded non transformational change but
> never captures a single nascent structure or its development to
> maturity?
Part of the problem is that no species can ever reach "maturity". All
species include characteristics derived from their ancestors (some of
which are best described as vestigial) and will be gradually modified
by further evolution in a changing environment. As you may know my
favorite example is Pinnipedia:
http://shutterbug.ucsc.edu/sealion/view_album.php?set_albumName=album44
http://shutterbug.ucsc.edu/sealion/view_photo.php?set_albumName=album44&id=Steller_sea_lion_skel_5
Why would sea lions have knee caps which are clearly derived from an
animal that formerly walked on land if evolution wasn't God's means of
creation?
Also, if I understand your meaning of "transformational change" Darwin
thought it was impossible. Exactly as you stated, Darwin insisted
that all change had to be gradual. In the chapter you are discussing
he also explained why it was all but impossible for a single formation
to contain all the changes in a species (or group) showing the
dramatic change you want - basically that sedimentation showing
transitional links can only occur while land is slowly descending over
hundreds of thousands of years and assuming the climate and other
environmental conditions don't change causing the local flora and
fauna to all change in that area. And as described by Darwin, fauna
do often change in the middle of a fossil bed, which certainly doesn't
seem like stasis to me.
> It is this latter evidence that Darwin fully expect to
> see but didn't.
If you read Chapter X completely you will see that Darwin's
expectations for the fossil record were quite limited.
> It is the failure to see this latter evidence that
> Gould pointed out in 1973 and set off a shit storm with his Punc Eq
> paper.
>
> Apparently the famous and highly respected Stephen J. Gould (who was
> an atheist and both a paleontologist AND an evolutionary biologist)
> didn't consider the Archeopteryx as a saving example of
> transformational change. Otherwise there would have been no need for
> his Punc Eq paper.
>
> IT'S OVER. THE ATHEISTS HAVE NO ANSWER OR SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. ONLY
> EXCUSES. Darwinism has become sacred text and religion, not science.
>
> IT'S OVER.
>
> snip
I regret that you have snipped my request for you to explain the
difference between what you called an "archaic bird" and a
transitional form.
You have also failed to explain why Archeopteryx was not a
transitional, you just assert without explanation.
Suzanne
>
> That classification includes crocodiles, alligators, pterosaurs,
> Ichthyosaurs and plesiosarus as well.
>
> > As information
> > comes in, they are widening the categories. They may eventually widen
> > things into categories they realize must be "kinds."
>
> Again, the term "kind" has no meaning in biology. If a bird, and a
> T.rex are the same "kind", why aren't humans and chimps the same "kind"?
>
>
The definition of kinds...
I don't fully know, Dana, but it seems to be a category of living
things that have their seed within themselves, but that have
independant beginnings from other groups of life forms, rather than
that they are all descended from a common ancestor. Today scientists
recognize that not all types of organisms fit into one definition of
the word "species." So they have problems with the definition of
species as well, Dana.
>
Humans and chimps are not in the same "kind" because if chimps
branched off from a common ancestor of man's, chimps show more allele
changes than humans do, so they are said to be actually more evolved,
which would make one wonder, which is the more progressed? On the
other hand, chimps don't have to pay taxes, insurance, and they don't
have to work at jobs or drive through traffic. In fact, they can swing
all day long through trees and pluck their dinner off of a banana
tree. They seem to be at the more advanced level. : )
>
The Bible indicates that Adam was created from the dust of the earth,
but animals were created from their own dust:
Psalm 104:29 "Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled: thou takest
away their breath, they die, and return to their dust."
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
> In message
> <c08f1152-f5a9-4c9a-8edd-4cb98b2ec...@v8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> >Your description of your son suddenly growing a moustache is quite a
> >nice attempt at reasoning. I mean that. But we are not talking about
> >just one animal evolving, we are talking about millions of animals
> >evolving and I would not think it to be that we can't find any evidence
> >of the equivalent of "partly growing moustaches" comparisons among the
> >millions of animal species. Don't you see the difference? It's a
> >reasonable request.
>
> For it to be a reasonable request one has to show that it is expected
> that we would find an example among the less than 1 million known fossil
> species.
> --
> alias Ernest Major
>
would
continually have evolution taking place from scratch. We would see
beginning forms all over the place and we would see advanced forms and
we would not have to look to the fossil record to find intermediate
types, because we would see many living examples of it. From the
example of the son with the full grown moustache, we would see sons
with shadows on their lips, with first week moustaches, with 2 week
moustaches, with 3 week moustaches, with full grown moustaches, and
all simultaneously. You would see partially developed giraffes, 3/4
developed elephants, 1/4 developed crocodiles, They would not all
develop to fully developed living things all at the same time, they
would be in half stages in places, quarter stages in other places,
almost but not quite fully developed stages, as well as completed
stages.
>
Suzanne
David Hare-Scott
> IT'S OVER.
>
Promise me on your hope of eternity that this is the last you will say on
the matter.
D
Dana Tweedy
Something with it's "seed within itself" is a fruit.
> but that have
> independant beginnings from other groups of life forms, rather than
> that they are all descended from a common ancestor.
What evidence do you have that some groups have an independent origin?
> Today scientists
> recognize that not all types of organisms fit into one definition of
> the word "species." So they have problems with the definition of
> species as well, Dana.
that's because of evolution. Since species always are in flux, it's
difficult to have one definition that's applicable to all situations.
It would be different with "kind", if there was no evolution, they would
be fixed, and easily defined.
>>
> Humans and chimps are not in the same "kind" because if chimps
> branched off from a common ancestor of man's, chimps show more allele
> changes than humans do,
? Where do you get that idea? Humans have just as many "allele
changes" from their common ancestor with chimps as chimps do.
Chimps and humans share a recent common ancestor, and both lines are
equally distant from the common ancestor. I also don't follow your
reasoning here. Why can't humans and chimps be the same 'kind'?
> so they are said to be actually more evolved,
> which would make one wonder, which is the more progressed?
Neither is "more evolved" or "more progressed"? Evolution is not a
progression toward humanity. Chimpanzees are equally "evolved" as
modern humans.
> On the
> other hand, chimps don't have to pay taxes, insurance, and they don't
> have to work at jobs or drive through traffic.
Neither do many humans. Until a few thousand years ago, no humans paid
taxes, insurance, worked jobs, or drove through traffic.
> In fact, they can swing
> all day long through trees and pluck their dinner off of a banana
> tree. They seem to be at the more advanced level. : )
Again, "advanced" is a misunderstanding. Humans are not more
'advanced' than chimps. Chimps evolved into different niche, and their
not being human is no reason to think they are less "advanced". Humans
are not "most advanced", they are just another twig on the tree of life.
Further, most chimps have to work fairly hard for their daily
nutrition. They hardly live a life of idyllic ease.
>>
> The Bible indicates that Adam was created from the dust of the earth,
> but animals were created from their own dust:
> Psalm 104:29 "Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled: thou takest
> away their breath, they die, and return to their dust."
Again, this is no reason why humans and chimps aren't the same "kind".
>>
> Suzanne
>
Dana Tweedy
> On Mar 19, 2:55 pm, Ernest Major<{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message
>> <c08f1152-f5a9-4c9a-8edd-4cb98b2ec...@v8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>> Suzanne<leila...@hotmail.com> writes
>>
>>> Your description of your son suddenly growing a moustache is quite a
>>> nice attempt at reasoning. I mean that. But we are not talking about
>>> just one animal evolving, we are talking about millions of animals
>>> evolving and I would not think it to be that we can't find any evidence
>>> of the equivalent of "partly growing moustaches" comparisons among the
>>> millions of animal species. Don't you see the difference? It's a
>>> reasonable request.
>>
>> For it to be a reasonable request one has to show that it is expected
>> that we would find an example among the less than 1 million known fossil
>> species.
>> --
>> alias Ernest Major
>>
> Ernest, if evolution were a fact, it never would have stopped.
Evolution hasn't stopped. Where do you get the idea it has?
> We
> would
> continually have evolution taking place from scratch.
What do you mean by "from scratch"? Evolution is happening all the
time, all around you.
> We would see
> beginning forms all over the place and we would see advanced forms and
> we would not have to look to the fossil record to find intermediate
> types, because we would see many living examples of it.
Once again, you have a very odd idea of what evolution is, and how it
happens. All living things today are equally "evolved". One does
see species which appear intermediate, such as seals, and penguins.
> From the
> example of the son with the full grown moustache, we would see sons
> with shadows on their lips, with first week moustaches, with 2 week
> moustaches, with 3 week moustaches, with full grown moustaches, and
> all simultaneously.
evolution isn't a progression to a fixed goal. One doesn't know what a
"mustasche" of future will look like, so one can't know what current
species will be ancestral to future life forms.
> You would see partially developed giraffes,
One does see "partially developed giraffes", only they are called
"juveniles". Giraffes aren't the goal of evolution, and there's no
reason why another species would evolve into modern day giraffes.
> 3/4
> developed elephants,
Again, elephants aren't the goal of evolution. There's no reason why
elephants would evolve again.
> 1/4 developed crocodiles,
Again, crocodiles aren't the goal of evolution. There's no reason why
any modern species would be evolving into crocodiles when there are
several species of crocodiles already who are taking that particular
niche.
> They would not all
> develop to fully developed living things all at the same time,
All living things today are "fully developed" only because we perceive
them as "fully developed". In another several million years, modern
day species will no doubt we seen as transitional to ones living in the
future. The point is, that all species have to be "fully developed" as
partially developed organisms don't live very long. All ancestors of
modern species were "fully developed" as well.
You are again laboring under the mistaken belief that species have a
goal they are developing towards. There is no 'partially developed'
life.
> they
> would be in half stages in places, quarter stages in other places,
> almost but not quite fully developed stages, as well as completed
> stages.
Evolution is a continuing process, not a set of pre determined stages
progressing towards some goal.
DJT
Suzanne
> Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> writes
>
Yes, I've read that Ernest. I have not really studied it deeply. I
don't know all the pros and cons and viewpoints of this claim. It
might sound simple to say this but since the Bible shows that Adam is
composed originally from the dust of the earth, but separately animals
were made from dust, that we might appear under examination that we
all are descended from one another because of being made from the same
substance originally. Yet we would not be descended from one parent,
but several. They also have this strange substance that is in the DNA
that they don't have an explanation for that is this filler material.
Some people call it junk DNA. Did you know that only 2 % of the DNA is
what they drew their conclusion from that we are all related from the
same original parent? The junk DNA that they don't understand yet is
98% of the DNA. It sort of bothers me that they decided what they did
from just 2 % of the DNA. I'll try and look into it better.
>
One thing they said that some scientists think is that the filler junk
DNA which is protein material has the potential so they think to form
new genes. How would they conclude that if they don't know what it
is? Yet other scientists are baffled by it, and say it has no
discernible function. >chuckle< and if they don't know what it is,
again, how could they conclude that it has no function?
Still others say that to call it "junk" is misleading. Well of course
it's not junk, its got to be there for some reason.
>
Suzanne
chris thompson
Hey! We're not talking about sheep!
:)
> >If archeopteryx is a transitional
> > form, what is it a transition of?
>
> From flightless theropods to flight capable birds.
Yup.
>
> > Dinosaur to fying bird? Flying bird
> > to dinosaur? What if whatever "kinds" is, turns out to be a geater
> > category than people realize?
>
> Define "kind", for a start. Biologically, the term is meaningless.
I am posting this in response to Dana, but really this should be
addressed by Suzanne. Suzanne, the devil is in the details. What is a
"kind"? If it is the same as the biological concept of species, why do
you need a different word? But of course it cannot be the same as
species, since have ironclad evidence of one species giving rise to
others even in human historical time.
>
> > I believe that it is just that, a
> > greater category than simply a species. Even now some scientists are
> > classifying birds and dinosaurs in the same category.
Yes indeed. What you think of as "birds", even those cute little
sparrows you see on your lawn, are descendants of some dinosaur you
might be scared of.
>
> Just as birds, sharks, toads, and dogs are classified in the same
> category, ie "Vertebrates". Birds and dinosaurs are both archosaurs.http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/archosauria.html
>
> That classification includes crocodiles, alligators, pterosaurs,
> Ichthyosaurs and plesiosarus as well.
>
> > As information
> > comes in, they are widening the categories. They may eventually widen
> > things into categories they realize must be "kinds."
>
> Again, the term "kind" has no meaning in biology. If a bird, and a
> T.rex are the same "kind", why aren't humans and chimps the same "kind"?
>
> DJT
Excellent question, and one that should be addressed.
Chris
Sapient Fridge
<redd...@bresnan.net> writes
>On 3/19/11 9:34 PM, Suzanne wrote:
<snip>
>> You would see partially developed giraffes,
>
>One does see "partially developed giraffes", only they are called
>"juveniles". Giraffes aren't the goal of evolution, and there's no
>reason why another species would evolve into modern day giraffes.
Okapi are members of the giraffe family, they branched off before the
giraffe's extended necks evolved:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okapi
--
sapient_...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
Grok: http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org * nuke a spammer *
Find: http://www.samspade.org http://www.netdemon.net * today *
Kill: http://mail-abuse.com http://au.sorbs.net http://spamhaus.org
Suzanne
<richardalanforr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> writes
>
> > >Your description of your son suddenly growing a moustache is quite a
> > >nice attempt at reasoning. I mean that. But we are not talking about
> > >just one animal evolving, we are talking about millions of animals
> > >evolving and I would not think it to be that we can't find any evidence
> > >of the equivalent of "partly growing moustaches" comparisons among the
> > >millions of animal species.
>
> What about the fins of lobe-finned fish as partly developed tetrapod
> limbs?
> What about the forelimbs of theropod dinosaurs as partly developed
> bird wings?
> The fossil record is full of examples like this.
>
> > Don't you see the difference? It's a
> > >reasonable request.
>
> to satisfy, being based on a dishonest misrepresentation of what
> evolutionary theory predicts. Bearing in mind that Tony has been
> corrected in his distorted view of evolutionary theory many, many
> times, it is utter dishonesty that he persists in this
> misrepresentation.
>
> It's lying.
>
> What do you think it tells us about Tony's moral values that he can
> maintain his dogmatic views only by lying about science and
> scientists?
>
> RF
>
Richard, I'm a little lost. I wrote the above, not Tony. Were you
talking about what I wrote? I wrote the paragraph that begins above
"Your description of your son...." and also "Don't you see the
difference...?" If this is what you are speaking of, you inferred
something different than what I had in mind, but I probably wasn't
clear, and I see something in your answer that I had not thought about
before. The evolutionist viewpoint seems to be that only one
animal in a species produces an offspring that will become a
transitional
form. I am suggesting that, given the same environment and
circumstances,
there should be many within a species that would produce transitional
forms
that would become the same new species...because one of the
characteristics of a species is that they must be able to mate and
produce the new type. So, if only one becomes a transitional form, who
do they mate with? If evolution is
true, they would have to have more than one in sexual type animals.
What if a population is stranded on an island? There would be many
that would
produce transitional forms, probably. If they are stranded on an
island, there should be fossils of many phases of the transition, if
they produced fossils.
I hope this is clear, it's sort of difficult to explain what I was
wondering.
>
Suzanne
Ernest Major
<2acca0da-9b0d-4201...@w21g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Suzanne <leil...@hotmail.com> writes
The Bible doesn't show that. It doesn't even say that. (Only Adam is
said to have been formed from the dust to the ground.)
>that we might appear under examination that we
>all are descended from one another because of being made from the same
>substance originally.
As we've explained to Ray Martinez many times, it is not the
similarities that are evidence for common descent, but the *pattern* of
similarities.
> Yet we would not be descended from one parent,
>but several. They also have this strange substance that is in the DNA
>that they don't have an explanation for that is this filler material.
>Some people call it junk DNA.
Junk DNA is chemically the same as an other DNA. Describing it as
"strange substance" is a strange phrasing.
>Did you know that only 2 % of the DNA is
>what they drew their conclusion from that we are all related from the
>same original parent? The junk DNA that they don't understand yet is
>98% of the DNA. It sort of bothers me that they decided what they did
>from just 2 % of the DNA. I'll try and look into it better.
>>
>One thing they said that some scientists think is that the filler junk
>DNA which is protein material has the potential so they think to form
>new genes. How would they conclude that if they don't know what it
>is? Yet other scientists are baffled by it, and say it has no
>discernible function. >chuckle< and if they don't know what it is,
>again, how could they conclude that it has no function?
>Still others say that to call it "junk" is misleading. Well of course
>it's not junk, its got to be there for some reason.
Perhaps you could cite your source. The above sounds rather confused.
("Filler junk DNA which is protein material" is nonsense.)
Your claim (I assumed it's yours and not someone else's) that "it's not
junk, it's got to be there from some reason" embeds a non-sequitur -
that because it is there for some reason it is not junk; it could be
there for a reason, and still be junk. (Compare landfills.)
We can infer with a fair degree of confidence that junk DNA has no
sequence specific function from the fact that it is not conserved; it
changes at a rate consistent with neutral drift.
There are arguments for volume dependent function. For example it has
been argued that bigger cells need more protein assembly which requires
a bigger nucleus, and that easiest way of getting a bigger nucleus is to
have a bigger genome.
But the C-value paradox - the poor correlation between organismal
complexity and the genome size - also argues against a functional
explanation. Among onions the diploid genome size varies by a factor of
3.5. There is a similar variation between American and Australian
diploid cottons.
Junk DNA does not all have the same origin. The greatest amount of junk
DNA is copies of short sequences of DNA, which are good at getting
themselves copied about the genome.
>>
>Suzanne
>
--
alias Ernest Major
Ernest Major
<02f1bfa6-72e0-4a80...@v31g2000vbs.googlegroups.com>,
Suzanne <leil...@hotmail.com> writes
>On Mar 19, 2:55 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message
>> <c08f1152-f5a9-4c9a-8edd-4cb98b2ec...@v8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>> Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> writes
>>
>> >Your description of your son suddenly growing a moustache is quite a
>> >nice attempt at reasoning. I mean that. But we are not talking about
>> >just one animal evolving, we are talking about millions of animals
>> >evolving and I would not think it to be that we can't find any evidence
>> >of the equivalent of "partly growing moustaches" comparisons among the
>> >millions of animal species. Don't you see the difference? It's a
>> >reasonable request.
>>
>> For it to be a reasonable request one has to show that it is expected
>> that we would find an example among the less than 1 million known fossil
>> species.
>> --
>> alias Ernest Major
>>
>Ernest, if evolution were a fact, it never would have stopped.
Evolution hasn't stopped.
> We
>would
>continually have evolution taking place from scratch. We would see
>beginning forms all over the place and we would see advanced forms and
>we would not have to look to the fossil record to find intermediate
>types, because we would see many living examples of it. From the
>example of the son with the full grown moustache, we would see sons
>with shadows on their lips, with first week moustaches, with 2 week
>moustaches, with 3 week moustaches, with full grown moustaches, and
>all simultaneously. You would see partially developed giraffes, 3/4
>developed elephants, 1/4 developed crocodiles, They would not all
>develop to fully developed living things all at the same time, they
>would be in half stages in places, quarter stages in other places,
>almost but not quite fully developed stages, as well as completed
>stages.
>>
>Suzanne
>
However you seem to have the strange idea that every form that ever
evolved should still exist. This is wrong. Extinction is real.
Be that as it may, you can see intermediate types in the contemporary
biota.
On a tree analogy, all living species are at the tips of the twigs, and
the ancestors (intermediate) further back down the twigs, the branches,
the trunk, and into the roots. But some twigs are further from the
branching points than others, in some directions, and hence in some
fashion some species are morphologically intermediate between the
ancestors and other species.
You also seem to be under the misapprehension that there are completed
stages in evolution.
--
alias Ernest Major
richardal...@gmail.com
No, it isn't.
Populations evolve. Individuals don't. Divisions between species are
not clear-cut, and one can determine if a new species has arisen only
in retrospect.
This is basic evolutionary biology. Why not educate yourself in the
subject?
> form. I am suggesting that, given the same environment and
> circumstances,
> there should be many within a species that would produce transitional
> forms
> that would become the same new species...because one of the
> characteristics of a species is that they must be able to mate and
> produce the new type. So, if only one becomes a transitional form, who
> do they mate with? If evolution is
> true, they would have to have more than one in sexual type animals.
> What if a population is stranded on an island? There would be many
> that would
> produce transitional forms, probably. If they are stranded on an
> island, there should be fossils of many phases of the transition, if
> they produced fossils.
> I hope this is clear, it's sort of difficult to explain what I was
> wondering.
I suggest that you need to start by educating yourself in some of the
basics of evolutionary biology.
Don't think you can do so from creationist sources.
They contain lies.
RF
>
> Suzanne
Ernest Major
<eci...@earthlink.net> writes
>On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 10:47:53 -0400, T Pagano wrote:
>
>> The evidence of gradualistic, coherent, progressive transformational
>> change apparently doesn't exist.
>
>And yet there it is, sitting in many books and museums around the world.
>Nobody can show it to Pagano until he is willing to look, though.
>
>(And for the record, Tony, I *have* presented such evidence. Open your
>eyes.)
>
Change of the form predicted by the theory of evolution exists. We don't
know whether this is the same as the "gradualistic, coherent,
progressive transformational" change that Tony is looking for.
I suspect that the gradualism comes from the eclipse of Darwinism, and
the sway of the orthogeneticists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthogenesis
Darwin is perhaps better described as an incrementalist than a
gradualist. Gradual carries an implication of regularity which is
unwarranted in this context.
The consensus theory of evolution predicts incremental, episodic,
opportunistic, cumulative change. This is not obviously the same as the
gradualistic, coherent, progressive, transformational change predicted
by Paganism.
--
alias Ernest Major
Burkhard
> On Mar 19, 2:55 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > In message
> > <c08f1152-f5a9-4c9a-8edd-4cb98b2ec...@v8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> > Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> writes
>
> > >Your description of your son suddenly growing a moustache is quite a
> > >nice attempt at reasoning. I mean that. But we are not talking about
> > >just one animal evolving, we are talking about millions of animals
> > >evolving and I would not think it to be that we can't find any evidence
> > >of the equivalent of "partly growing moustaches" comparisons among the
> > >millions of animal species. Don't you see the difference? It's a
> > >reasonable request.
>
> > For it to be a reasonable request one has to show that it is expected
> > that we would find an example among the less than 1 million known fossil
> > species.
> > --
> > alias Ernest Major
>
> Ernest, if evolution were a fact, it never would have stopped.
Who says it has? Not biologists for sure. Or the peoplpe who have to
worry about bacteria and viruses that evolve drug resistant strains.
We
> would
> continually have evolution taking place from scratch.
Why "from scratch",and what does that actually mean? We have
continually evolution taking place, both through natural means,and
artifical ones (aka "breeding")
We would see
> beginning forms all over the place and we would see advanced forms and
> we would not have to look to the fossil record to find intermediate
> types, because we would see many living examples of it.
We do. Just look around you - or indeed in a mirror. You are a
transitional from from that links our distant ancestor who we shared
with modern apes t whatever humans will look like in a billion years
time, when biologists might write about how primitive two armed man
was an obvious transitional between animals that did not have any arms
at all to the current, four armed form - only of course we can;t
know now how we wil look then, for that the time scales and the chance
element are too large
>From the
> example of the son with the full grown moustache, we would see sons
> with shadows on their lips, with first week moustaches, with 2 week
> moustaches, with 3 week moustaches, with full grown moustaches, and
> all simultaneously.
But not say if the parents are divorced, and your visitation rights
mean you can only see him once very year during the holidays - that is
a bit the analogy to the fossil record, where only a very small number
of "visits" is possible
>You would see partially developed giraffes,
you mean like Climacoceras? Though the analogy breaks down here a bit.
Moustaches are planned by a stupid designer, according to the SD
theory of male self-deception. Therefore it makes sense to think of a
"shadow" as an as yet incomplete moustache. Evolution is not goal
directed, the precursors of giraffes complete animals in their own
right, not "failed giraffes", jut as we are complete humans, just
without some of the characteristics future humans will acquire.
>e/4
jillery
> On 3/19/11 12:50 PM, Suzanne wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 19, 10:04 am, "Kleuskes& Moos"<kleu...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> >> On 19 mrt, 15:47, T Pagano<not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
> >>> The evidence of gradualistic, coherent, progressive transformational
> >>> even attempted to offer a solution.: Okimoto, Lethe, Friar Broccoli,
> >>> Ernest Major, Burkhard, Isaak, Clayton, et cetera.
>
> >> want to get sucked into one of your endless "debates" filled with
> >> rants, accusations and premature declarations of victory. Providing
> >> you with a reasonable, insightfull, educated answer seems pointless,
> >> most of the time and hence a slight distaste ensues.
>
> > There are birds that have been found that are older than archaeopteryx
> > is old.
> > Pedopenna from Mongolia, Protoavis from Post, Texas, and Anchiornis
> > huxleyi
> > from China,
>
> Pedopenna is known only from leg fossils. It's impossible to know if it
> had wings, or other avian features.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedopenna
>
> Protoavis is widely doubted to be a "bird". According to the WIKI
> article: " Almost all palaeontologists doubt that Protoavis is a bird,
> or that all remains assigned to it even come from a single species,
> because of the circumstances of its discovery and unconvincing avian
> synapomorphies in its fragmentary material. "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protoavis
>
> Anchiornis huxleyi is a feathered dinosaur, but not considered a bird.
> It had some avian features, but most likely wasn't capable of powered
> flight. It may have been a glider, like Microraptor.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchiornis
>
> Some have assymetrical feathers, which flying birds have,
>
> > and one has symmetrical feathers which walking-but-not-flyer birds
> > have. Some scientists complain that the older birds than archaeopteryx
> > are in worse shape.
>
> "worse shape" for what?
>
> > I should think so, with as much older than
> > archaeopteryx they are! A number of them have the four wing pattern,
> > which to us today sounds amazing. That would be something for us to
> > behold!
>
> Indeed.
>
> DJT
ISTM both Dana and Suzanne beg the question here. WRT Archaeopteryx
being a transitional form, it doesn't matter whether there existed
earlier flying theropods. That argument assumes transitional forms
must be ancestral, which is nonsense. To the contrary, It's most
likely Archaeopteryx is not ancestral to all birds, but that has
nothing to do with it being correctly described as a transitional
form.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_form
This article also describes the distinction between "transitional" and
"intermediate".
jillery
Suzanne,
I know you directed your reply above to Richard, but I would like to
make a comment here. Your question above implies that creatures with
a transitional form couldn't mate with their immediate kin. I have no
idea why you make such an assumption. I'm pretty sure most scientists
don't make that assumption.
> If evolution is
> true, they would have to have more than one in sexual type animals.
> What if a population is stranded on an island? There would be many
> that would
> produce transitional forms, probably. If they are stranded on an
> island, there should be fossils of many phases of the transition, if
> they produced fossils.
> I hope this is clear, it's sort of difficult to explain what I was
> wondering.
Your expressed confusion is consequence of your confusing use of words
like "kind" and "transitional". This makes your arguments sound to me
very much like Tony's arguments. I am confident that if you take the
time to specifly what you actually mean, your arguments will become
instantly more coherent.
Burkhard
Only that there is no such thing. Evolution is not linear and directed
towards a goal
> which would make one wonder, which is the more progressed? On the
> other hand, chimps don't have to pay taxes, insurance, and they don't
> have to work at jobs or drive through traffic. In fact, they can swing
> all day long through trees and pluck their dinner off of a banana
> tree. They seem to be at the more advanced level. : )
>
They seem to be well adapated tot her specific environment or would
be bar for one particularly nasty predator.
And that is al the ToE says about "advanced"
> The Bible indicates that Adam was created from the dust of the earth,
> but animals were created from their own dust:
> Psalm 104:29 "Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled: thou takest
> away their breath, they die, and return to their dust."
That is an interpretation not really supported by the text.Psalm
104:29 talks about individuals that die, not species that go extinct.
In that sense, very one of us is created from his/her own dust, and
every individual animal, returns to its dust.
> Suzanne
Randy C
> I don't fully know...
Well, someone within the creationist community needs to figure that
out. Without a definition of "kind", it is merely an arbitrary
distinction - a matter of opinion. In other words, "kind" is a silly,
utterly meaningless word in science.
I once read the abstract of a scientific paper where some fruit flies
had been bred so that they no longer ate fruit. If they don't eat
fruit, how can they be of the "fruit fly" kind?
If so, why?
Furthermore the creationist community must propose some sort of
barrier - other than time - that would limit genetic change within
that definition of "kind". At this point there is no apparent limit.
Suzanne
> Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>
>
> >to dinosaur? What if whatever "kinds" is, turns out to be a geater
> >greater category than simply a species. Even now some scientists are
> >comes in, they are widening the categories. They may eventually widen
> >things into categories they realize must be "kinds."
>
>
> Scientists have already concluded that all known contemporary earthly
> life belongs to a single kind. They're pretty sure that the same holds
> for all known fossil earthly life, but less evidence is available for
> this; it's hard to demonstrate that a spherical cell in a billion year
> old stromatolite was a bacterium and not something else.
> --
> alias Ernest Major- Hide quoted text -
>
Suzanne
the wrong call?
>
Suzanne
Harry K
>
> - Show quoted text -
So your "theory" is "if we don't know what it is, there is no point
studying it as obviously goddidit'.
Harry K
Harry K
>
> - Show quoted text -
Scientist have been wrong many times. The difference between them and
theists is that scientists admit their errors and make corrections as
needed to the theories.
Harry K
Suzanne
> On 3/19/11 12:50 PM, Suzanne wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 19, 10:04 am, "Kleuskes& Moos"<kleu...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
> >>> The evidence of gradualistic, coherent, progressive transformational
> >>> change apparently doesn't exist. Most of the t.o regulars haven't
> >>> even attempted to offer a solution.: Okimoto, Lethe, Friar Broccoli,
> >>> Ernest Major, Burkhard, Isaak, Clayton, et cetera.
>
> >> want to get sucked into one of your endless "debates" filled with
> >> rants, accusations and premature declarations of victory. Providing
> >> you with a reasonable, insightfull, educated answer seems pointless,
> >> most of the time and hence a slight distaste ensues.
>
> > There are birds that have been found that are older than archaeopteryx
> > is old.
> > Pedopenna from Mongolia, Protoavis from Post, Texas, and Anchiornis
> > huxleyi
> > from China,
>
> Pedopenna is known only from leg fossils. It's impossible to know if it
> had wings, or other avian features.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedopenna
>
>
> Protoavis is widely doubted to be a "bird". According to the WIKI
> article: " Almost all palaeontologists doubt that Protoavis is a bird,
> or that all remains assigned to it even come from a single species,
> because of the circumstances of its discovery and unconvincing avian
> synapomorphies in its fragmentary material. "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protoavis
>
> Anchiornis huxleyi is a feathered dinosaur, but not considered a bird.
> It had some avian features, but most likely wasn't capable of powered
> flight. It may have been a glider, like Microraptor.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchiornis
>
> Some have assymetrical feathers, which flying birds have,
>
> > and one has symmetrical feathers which walking-but-not-flyer birds
> > have. Some scientists complain that the older birds than archaeopteryx
> > are in worse shape.
>
> "worse shape" for what?
>
the details of what the problem was that some felt when examining the
fossils. If they could determine that the feathers were assymetrical,
that is quite a lot for as old as they said the fossil was dated to
be. If the feathers were assymetrical,
that would likely mean that it was genuinely a bird, since most birds
that fly have assymetrical feathers. However, suppose that a rabbit
died in some
kind of disaster and that at the same time, so did a bird, and they
fell into
the same mud. Someone might find the fossil thousands of years later,
and they might think they had a rabbit fossil who when alive had
wings.
However, when people read about how other scientists viewed a find,
they should be aware that the "other" scientists want their fellow
scientist
to be successful too, but they are exercising caution. That does not
always mean a denial, but it sometimes is reported that way. And, of
course,
the converse is true also.
>
> > I should think so, with as much older than
> > archaeopteryx they are! A number of them have the four wing pattern,
> > which to us today sounds amazing. That would be something for us to
> > behold!
>
> Indeed.
>
>
John Harshman
> On Mar 19, 3:12 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>> On 3/19/11 12:50 PM, Suzanne wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 19, 10:04 am, "Kleuskes& Moos"<kleu...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>>>> On 19 mrt, 15:47, T Pagano<not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>>>>> The evidence of gradualistic, coherent, progressive transformational
>>>>> change apparently doesn't exist. Most of the t.o regulars haven't
>>>>> even attempted to offer a solution.: Okimoto, Lethe, Friar Broccoli,
>>>>> Ernest Major, Burkhard, Isaak, Clayton, et cetera.
>>>> Judging from my own expirience, i find it more likely they just don't
>>>> want to get sucked into one of your endless "debates" filled with
>>>> rants, accusations and premature declarations of victory. Providing
>>>> you with a reasonable, insightfull, educated answer seems pointless,
>>>> most of the time and hence a slight distaste ensues.
>>> There are birds that have been found that are older than archaeopteryx
>>> is old.
>>> Pedopenna from Mongolia, Protoavis from Post, Texas, and Anchiornis
>>> huxleyi
>>> from China,
>> Pedopenna is known only from leg fossils. It's impossible to know if it
>> had wings, or other avian features.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedopenna
>>
> Some scientists say what you are saying. Some do not.
Can you cite the ones who do not? It seems difficult to disagree over
whether a fossil has anything more than legs.
Mark Isaak
coherent, progressive transformational change" has not been seen,
contrary to expectations. Many others here have been demanding that he
define that phrase.
From context, though, the meaning of the phrase is obvious.
"Gradualistic, coherent, progressive transformational change" is the
appearance in the fossil record of change which shows evidence for
evolution, beyond what could be explained by variation within a
population, with similarities and progression close enough to rule out
that the fossils are simply from unrelated species.
In short, "gradualistic, coherent, progressive transformational change"
is common. Archaeopteryx is just one example of many. Tony is simply
wrong.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
Dana Tweedy
> On Mar 19, 3:12 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 3/19/11 12:50 PM, Suzanne wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 19, 10:04 am, "Kleuskes& Moos"<kleu...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> > >> On 19 mrt, 15:47, T Pagano<not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
> > >>> The evidence of gradualistic, coherent, progressive transformational
> > >>> change apparently doesn't exist. Most of the t.o regulars haven't
> > >>> even attempted to offer a solution.: Okimoto, Lethe, Friar Broccoli,
> > >>> Ernest Major, Burkhard, Isaak, Clayton, et cetera.
>
> > >> Judging from my own expirience, i find it more likely they just don't
> > >> want to get sucked into one of your endless "debates" filled with
> > >> rants, accusations and premature declarations of victory. Providing
> > >> you with a reasonable, insightfull, educated answer seems pointless,
> > >> most of the time and hence a slight distaste ensues.
>
> > > There are birds that have been found that are older than archaeopteryx
> > > is old.
> > > Pedopenna from Mongolia, Protoavis from Post, Texas, and Anchiornis
> > > huxleyi
> > > from China,
>
> > Pedopenna is known only from leg fossils. It's impossible to know if it
> > had wings, or other avian features.
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedopenna
>
> Some scientists say what you are saying. Some do not.
Can you give a citation to any scientists who "say not"?
>
>
>
>
>
> > Protoavis is widely doubted to be a "bird". According to the WIKI
> > article: " Almost all palaeontologists doubt that Protoavis is a bird,
> > or that all remains assigned to it even come from a single species,
> > because of the circumstances of its discovery and unconvincing avian
> > synapomorphies in its fragmentary material. "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protoavis
>
> > Anchiornis huxleyi is a feathered dinosaur, but not considered a bird.
> > It had some avian features, but most likely wasn't capable of powered
> > flight. It may have been a glider, like Microraptor.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchiornis
>
> > Some have assymetrical feathers, which flying birds have,
>
> > > and one has symmetrical feathers which walking-but-not-flyer birds
> > > have. Some scientists complain that the older birds than archaeopteryx
> > > are in worse shape.
>
> > "worse shape" for what?
>
> The condition of the fossil is what they were meaning.
The condition of the fossil is rather important, as it would show
features diagnostic to determining whether it is a "bird" or not.
> I don't know
> the details of what the problem was that some felt when examining the
> fossils.
Yet you seemed to be pretty sure that there were "birds" before
Archae. What was that confidence based on?
> If they could determine that the feathers were assymetrical,
> that is quite a lot for as old as they said the fossil was dated to
> be.
Mere assemetry in the feathers doesn't make the creature a bird.
> If the feathers were assymetrical,
> that would likely mean that it was genuinely a bird, since most birds
> that fly have assymetrical feathers.
and some early dromeosarus may have had assymetical feathers as well.
That doesn't mean they were birds.
> However, suppose that a rabbit
> died in some
> kind of disaster and that at the same time, so did a bird, and they
> fell into
> the same mud.
There were no rabbits at the time Archae and his relatives lived.
> Someone might find the fossil thousands of years later,
> and they might think they had a rabbit fossil who when alive had
> wings.
Except that mammal and avian bones have significant differences that
anatomists are able to determine.
> However, when people read about how other scientists viewed a find,
> they should be aware that the "other" scientists want their fellow
> scientist
> to be successful too, but they are exercising caution.
From what I've heard, the relationship between competing scientists
can be very acrimonious. Few scientists "want their fellow scientist
to be successful" when they are competing for the same grant money.
> That does not
> always mean a denial, but it sometimes is reported that way. And, of
> course,
> the converse is true also.
This is rather irrelevant to the discussion.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
wrote:
> In message <cs-dnQ-hfbC14xjQnZ2dnUVZ_t2dn...@bresnan.com>, Dana Tweedy
> <reddfr...@bresnan.net> writes
>
> >On 3/19/11 9:34 PM, Suzanne wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >> You would see partially developed giraffes,
>
> >One does see "partially developed giraffes", only they are called
> >"juveniles". Giraffes aren't the goal of evolution, and there's no
> >reason why another species would evolve into modern day giraffes.
>
> Okapi are members of the giraffe family, they branched off before the
> giraffe's extended necks evolved:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okapi
I know about Okapis (not sure if Suzanne does), but they are not, of
course "partially developed giraffes". They may be close relatives
of modern giraffes, but are fully developed Okapis.
On the other hand, I suppose Suzanne might consider giraffes to be
"partially developed Okapis", who haven't evovled short necks yet.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
Please give a citation to those who have.
>Are scientists always right and never, ever make
> the wrong call?
It's a matter of likelyhoods. Which is more likely to be correct,
someone who's studied the material, or someone who knows nothing about
the material. Scientists aren't always correct, but they are more
likely to be correct than someone who knows nothing about the
matter.
DJT
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
>On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 10:47:53 -0400, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <not....@address.net>:
>
>>The evidence of gradualistic, coherent, progressive transformational
>>change apparently doesn't exist.
>
>Define each of these terms *in this context* and we can
>discuss it.
[Crickets...]
As usual...
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
jillery
> Tony has been compaining that evolution is false because "gradualistic,
> coherent, progressive transformational change" has not been seen,
> contrary to expectations. Many others here have been demanding that he
> define that phrase.
>
> From context, though, the meaning of the phrase is obvious.
> "Gradualistic, coherent, progressive transformational change" is the
> appearance in the fossil record of change which shows evidence for
> evolution, beyond what could be explained by variation within a
> population, with similarities and progression close enough to rule out
> that the fossils are simply from unrelated species.
>
> In short, "gradualistic, coherent, progressive transformational change"
> is common. Archaeopteryx is just one example of many. Tony is simply
> wrong.
Obviously, most people reading this topic can figure out for
themselves some meaning of Tony's phrase. I have no doubt that most
of their meanings are very similar to what you wrote above. However,
the fact that so many people are demanding Tony to explain what he
means shows the problem is much more than your solution suggests.
ISTM the problem is Tony is using his phrase different from stated
meaning, and so expecting him to explain it himself is both reasonable
and necessary.
I would be very surprised if Tony agreed with your statement that he
is "simply wrong".
jillery
A four-legged mammal with wings? Why do you assume scientists are so
gullible? How many laypersons do you know who would be fooled by your
hypothetical?
> However, when people read about how other scientists viewed a find,
> they should be aware that the "other" scientists want their fellow
> scientist
> to be successful too, but they are exercising caution. That does not
> always mean a denial, but it sometimes is reported that way. And, of
> course,
> the converse is true also.
>
> > > I should think so, with as much older than
> > > archaeopteryx they are! A number of them have the four wing pattern,
> > > which to us today sounds amazing. That would be something for us to
> > > behold!
>
> > Indeed.
>
> > DJT- Hide quoted text -
>
> Suzanne- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Suzanne
> On Mar 19, 2:18 pm, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 19, 12:12 pm, Randy C <randyec...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Tony:
> > > > Darwin's theory didn't predict the existence of isolated, discrete
> > > > "intermediates" between some purported fossil predecessor and some
> > > > purported fossil descendent-----it predicted innumerable
> > > > fine-gradations.
>
> > > Fine-gradations being precisely what we would see in the fossil record
> > > - **IF** the fossil record was a complete record of the past. It's
> > > not.
>
> > > Ironically, I was going through some older pictures this morning. I
> > > have three children. But all I have pictures of are "isolated,
> > > discrete 'intermediates'" of them as they grew up.
>
> > > For example, my older son had a mustache for a while while he was in
> > > college. But I have no pictures of him with an "intermediate"
> > > mustache. I only have pictures of him in high school (and before)
> > > without a mustache, a few pictures of him in college with a full
> > > mustache and later pictures of him without a mustache. Since I have
> > > no photo record of the intermediate steps of my son's mustache growth,
> > > by your reasoning, it must have appeared on his face fully grown!
>
> > > If I was to show this series of pictures to a rational person, they
> > > would make the proper presumption that the mustache grew on my son's
> > > upper lip gradually - rather than suddenly - but that I simply don't
> > > have photo records of that growth. That lack of photo records doesn't
> > > mean that it appeared suddenly.
>
> > > The fossil record is like that. Populations evolved gradually -
> > > rather than suddenly - but we simply don't have fossil records of all
> > > of those evolutionary steps.
>
> > > Things happen for which there are no records, especially in the fossil
> > > record. Deal with it rationally.
>
> > Your description of your son suddenly growing a moustache is quite a
> > nice attempt at reasoning. I mean that. But we are not talking about
> > just one animal evolving, we are talking about millions of animals
> > evolving and I would not think it to be that we can't find any
> > evidence of the equivalent of "partly growing moustaches" comparisons
> > among the millions of animal species.
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> here is that if you only have a fragmentary record, you must
> reconstruct the intervening events - the ones that are NOT recorded -
> in the most reasonable way based on the evidence we have seen.,
>
> In the case of my son's mustache, we have all seen mustaches grow
> slowly. We've never seen a mustache appear suddenly on someone's face
> (unless it is glued on). Therefore it is more rational to believe
> that my son's mustache also grew slowly - despite the apparent
> photograph record showing to appear suddenly.
>
> The same thing is true of genetic change. We see gradual genetic
> change all of the time. The size of the beaks of the finches on the
> Galapagos Islands don't change suddenly. Instead we observe and even
> measure them changing gradually.
>
> That is exactly analogous to how we see mustaches grow.
>
> So, if we see gaps in the fossil record, it is MORE likely and
> rational to presume that missing genetic changes that are not
> documented occurred gradually rather than suddenly since that is
> PRECISELY what we see and measure in nature.- Hide quoted text -
>
Randy, I did understand exacty what you were conveying, and I praised
yur example for being so clear, but I observed that you were speaking
of just one single set of observable progessive stages, in only one
person. I was making the point that when we are talking about
evolution, that the formation of a new species is dependent upon
allele changes above the species level in more than one organism.
Otherwise there could be no new population in sexually reproducing
organisms. Therefore, the transitional phases would be observable from
more than just one line of descent. So you at least double the
possibility of seeing transitional forms in the fossil record. In the
case of your son's moustache, if I wanted to show all the transitional
phases, I could find out about ten people who are growing moustaches
and photograph them in all of their phases. I could show a picture of
a quarter of growth of a moustache, and take a picture of someone with
a half of growth and three fourths of the say, and then fully grown
moustaches. The pictures don't have to be of just one person's
moustache progressions. I hope that this is clearer and I'm sorry if I
did not make it clearer before. Your son probably would laugh to know
that his moustache is now famous. <smile>
>
Suzanne
>
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
>On Mar 19, 2:55�pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message
>> <c08f1152-f5a9-4c9a-8edd-4cb98b2ec...@v8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>> Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> writes
>>
>> >Your description of your son suddenly growing a moustache is quite a
>> >nice attempt at reasoning. I mean that. But we are not talking about
>> >just one animal evolving, we are talking about millions of animals
>> >evolving and I would not think it to be that we can't find any evidence
>> >of the equivalent of "partly growing moustaches" comparisons among the
>> >millions of animal species. Don't you see the difference? It's a
>> >reasonable request.
>>
>> For it to be a reasonable request one has to show that it is expected
>> that we would find an example among the less than 1 million known fossil
>> species.
>> --
>> alias Ernest Major
>>
>Ernest, if evolution were a fact, it never would have stopped.
It hasn't stopped.
>We would continually have evolution taking place from scratch.
Why?
>We would see
>beginning forms all over the place and we would see advanced forms and
>we would not have to look to the fossil record to find intermediate
>types, because we would see many living examples of it. From the
>example of the son with the full grown moustache, we would see sons
>with shadows on their lips, with first week moustaches, with 2 week
>moustaches, with 3 week moustaches, with full grown moustaches, and
>all simultaneously. You would see partially developed giraffes, 3/4
>developed elephants, 1/4 developed crocodiles, They would not all
>develop to fully developed living things all at the same time, they
>would be in half stages in places, quarter stages in other places,
>almost but not quite fully developed stages, as well as completed
>stages.
You failed to understand anything in any science class you ever took.
Suzanne
> Suzanne wrote:
> > Could I try (she said sheepishly)? If archeopteryx is a transitional
> > form, what is it a transition of? Dinosaur to fying bird? Flying bird
> > to dinosaur?
>
>
> > What if whatever "kinds" is, turns out to be a geater
> > category than people realize?
>
>
Oh, I see...kind is not in your vocabulary, then.
>
> > I believe that it is just that, a
> > greater category than simply a species. Even now some scientists are
> > classifying birds and dinosaurs in the same category.
>
> amniotes, all tetrapods, and so on.
>
John, do you know all scientists?
>
> > As information
> > comes in, they are widening the categories. They may eventually widen
> > things into categories they realize must be "kinds."
>
> common descent. Somehow I suspect that isn't what you meant.
>
I suspect this has been an "unkind" post.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
<bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> On Mar 19, 2:44 pm, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 19, 10:21 am, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 19, 10:47 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
> > > > The evidence of gradualistic, coherent, progressive transformational
> > > > change apparently doesn't exist. Most of the t.o regulars haven't
> > > > even attempted to offer a solution.: Okimoto, Lethe, Friar Broccoli,
> > form, what is it a transition of? Dinosaur to fying bird? Flying bird
> > category than people realize? I believe that it is just that, a
> > greater category than simply a species. Even now some scientists are
> > comes in, they are widening the categories. They may eventually widen
> > things into categories they realize must be "kinds."
>
> baby-talk. "Oh, it's a birdy."
>
> --
> Will in New Haven- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
>
Bible used for the Hebrew equivalent word.
>
Suzanne
John Harshman
> Tony has been compaining that evolution is false because "gradualistic,
> coherent, progressive transformational change" has not been seen,
> contrary to expectations. Many others here have been demanding that he
> define that phrase.
Actually, the "gradualistic" part is a fairly recent addition. He used
to say just "coherent, progressive, transformational". It may indeed be
that those two were added serially. Tony's challenge may in fact be
evolving gradualistically by numerous, successive, slight modifications.
John Harshman
> On Mar 19, 4:13 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> Suzanne wrote:
>>> Could I try (she said sheepishly)? If archeopteryx is a transitional
>>> form, what is it a transition of? Dinosaur to fying bird? Flying bird
>>> to dinosaur?
>> The former.
>>
>>> What if whatever "kinds" is, turns out to be a geater
>>> category than people realize?
>> There is no such thing as a "kind".
>>
> Oh, I see...kind is not in your vocabulary, then.
No, it's in my vocabulary. But so is "unicorn".
>>> I believe that it is just that, a
>>> greater category than simply a species. Even now some scientists are
>>> classifying birds and dinosaurs in the same category.
>> All scientists do that. They're all archosaurs, all diapsids, all
>> amniotes, all tetrapods, and so on.
>>
> John, do you know all scientists?
One thing a scientist is trained to do is sample a distribution. I don't
know all of them, but I know enough of them. Feel free to present a
counterexample: a scientist who doesn't classify birds and dinosaurs in
the same category.
>>> As information
>>> comes in, they are widening the categories. They may eventually widen
>>> things into categories they realize must be "kinds."
>> If so, then there is one kind: life. All known organisms are related by
>> common descent. Somehow I suspect that isn't what you meant.
>>
> I suspect this has been an "unkind" post.
Not by usenet standards. All I'm doing is telling you you're wrong, and
that in may ways you're not even wrong.
Randy C
I don't see the distinction that you are trying to make.
Certainly evolution up to speciation involves more than one
individual. But that's not the point.
Instead the point is that if you have no record of the intermediates,
either in photographs or in fossils, then those changes are
effectively happening invisibly. But the fact that the changes are
invisible doesn't mean that they are not taking place. You are forced
to fill in the gaps with the most rational explanation. In the case
of a moustache it is more rational to believe that it gradually grew
out like all of the moustaches we have all witnessed. In the case of
fossil gaps it is more rational to believe that the larger changes are
due to a lot of smaller changes since that is what we all see. Even
most creationists acknowledge small genetic changes over a few
generations.
Suzanne
> On 3/19/11 9:23 PM, Suzanne wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 19, 2:56 pm, Dana Tweedy<reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
> >>> form, what is it a transition of?
>
>
> >>> category than people realize?
>
> >> Define "kind", for a start. Biologically, the term is meaningless.
>
> >>> greater category than simply a species. Even now some scientists are
> >>> classifying birds and dinosaurs in the same category.
>
> >> category, ie "Vertebrates". Birds and dinosaurs are both archosaurs.http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/archosauria.html
>
> >> That classification includes crocodiles, alligators, pterosaurs,
> >> Ichthyosaurs and plesiosarus as well.
>
> >>> comes in, they are widening the categories. They may eventually widen
> >>> things into categories they realize must be "kinds."
>
> >> T.rex are the same "kind", why aren't humans and chimps the same "kind"?
>
>
> > I don't fully know, Dana, but it seems to be a category of living
> > things that have their seed within themselves,
>
>
It means that it is capable of replicating itself. An orange tree
has potential oranges in it.
>
> > but that have
> > independant beginnings from other groups of life forms, rather than
> > that they are all descended from a common ancestor.
>
>
We always used to believe that - until someone came along and found
that all living things have some common DNA. But...they based that on
only 2% of
gene material. The rest, (the 98%) is, they don't understand. They
call that
"junk DNA." They naturally wonder why do we all have some common DNA
and they conclude it has to mean that we are all descended from one
person.
Adam and Eve would have the exact same DNA though. Adam also exclaimed
that Eve is "the mother of all living." People always assumed, of
course, that this means the mother of all humans. Now science says
that one being is the parent of all living. And they include all the
animals, too.
>
> > Today scientists
> > recognize that not all types of organisms fit into one definition of
> > the word "species." So they have problems with the definition of
> > species as well, Dana.
>
> difficult to have one definition that's applicable to all situations.
> It would be different with "kind", if there was no evolution, they would
> be fixed, and easily defined.
>
That's your idea though of "kind." I've shown how the Bible says that
Adam said that Eve is the mother of all living, and now science says
that all living came from one parent. Of course Adam had something to
do with it, too,
but since Adam and Eve's DNA are the same, it would show up as one
parent.
>
>
> > Humans and chimps are not in the same "kind" because if chimps
> > branched off from a common ancestor of man's, chimps show more allele
> > changes than humans do,
>
> changes" from their common ancestor with chimps as chimps do.
> Chimps and humans share a recent common ancestor, and both lines are
> equally distant from the common ancestor. I also don't follow your
> reasoning here. Why can't humans and chimps be the same 'kind'?
>
No, that's a new find. Chimps are said to have been more evolved than
man, and have more allele changes. It's not my theory, I got if from
biology. And yes, they are classified now in the same, but I was not
wanting to call attention to someone's possible mistake. But chimps
being more evolved than humans? Doesn't that sound like a fun topic
to explore? Type that into your browser and you will get a lot of
information about that new concept. Here is one example:
http://www.livescience.com/1429-chimps-evolved-humans.html
>
> > so they are said to be actually more evolved,
>
> progression toward humanity. Chimpanzees are equally "evolved" as
> modern humans.
>
The idea orignated with biologists, not with me.
>
> > On the
> > other hand, chimps don't have to pay taxes, insurance, and they don't
> > have to work at jobs or drive through traffic.
>
> taxes, insurance, worked jobs, or drove through traffic.
>
Well.... render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's is taxes of a
kind,
and insurance must have it's equivalent, and traffic we have today,
but way back when, I guess they had wild beasts to drive through
between towns.
Today we have wilder beasts driving with us on the freeways.
>
> > In fact, they can swing
> > all day long through trees and pluck their dinner off of a banana
> > tree. They seem to be at the more advanced level. : )
>
> 'advanced' than chimps. Chimps evolved into different niche, and their
> not being human is no reason to think they are less "advanced". Humans
> are not "most advanced", they are just another twig on the tree of life.
> Further, most chimps have to work fairly hard for their daily
> nutrition. They hardly live a life of idyllic ease.
>
But that part was humor. Yet when I was little we actually lived near
jungle growth in South Florida and we did swing on vines to cross a
little creek. I think that we all must've been inspired by Tarzan. It
was
soooo much fun. We visited a place near where we lived in
West Palm Beach called McKee's Jungle Garden.
They had real monkeys in trees who were having themselves a
fantastic lot of fun. They have restored it, dropped the Jungle and
call it McKee's Botanical Garden, and I don't know if they have the
monkeys there anymore. All I know is we were fascinated with those
playful monkeys that they had, and the monkeys loved to watch us,
too.
>
>
>
> > The Bible indicates that Adam was created from the dust of the earth,
> > but animals were created from their own dust:
> > Psalm 104:29 "Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled: thou takest
> > away their breath, they die, and return to their dust."
>
>
OK, but just remember that a verse says that the animals and man were
created independently but both from dust, whatever the dust was
composed of. Something about their composition could look the same but
still be
independent from one another in their origin. On the other hand we may
not understand "mother of all living" the right way. Did you see the
older
classic movie "The Good Earth" by Pearl S. Buck? The last line in it
is where the husband realizes suddenly after his wife dies and
exclaims
"You are the Earth!" That's one of my favorite movies. When Adam
made his exclamation "the mother of all living," he could have been
relating it to the earth, since he knew that he was made from the
earth,
and that she was taken out of him. Something like that. I think that
was Paul Muni that played that part in The Good Earth, and the woman
was Luise Rainer. It came out before I was born, but I saw it on TV
when I was growing up and also read the book in school. Wang-Lung
was the husband and O-Lan was the wife. Some academy awards
came from it.
>
Suzanne
>
Frank J
> Suzanne wrote:
> > On Mar 19, 4:13 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> Suzanne wrote:
> >>> Could I try (she said sheepishly)? If archeopteryx is a transitional
> >>> form, what is it a transition of? Dinosaur to fying bird? Flying bird
> >>> to dinosaur?
> >> The former.
>
> >>> What if whatever "kinds" is, turns out to be a geater
> >>> category than people realize?
> >> There is no such thing as a "kind".
>
> > Oh, I see...kind is not in your vocabulary, then.
>
> No, it's in my vocabulary. But so is "unicorn".
>
> >>> I believe that it is just that, a
> >>> greater category than simply a species. Even now some scientists are
> >>> classifying birds and dinosaurs in the same category.
> >> All scientists do that. They're all archosaurs, all diapsids, all
> >> amniotes, all tetrapods, and so on.
>
> > John, do you know all scientists?
>
> One thing a scientist is trained to do is sample a distribution. I don't
> know all of them, but I know enough of them. Feel free to present a
> counterexample: a scientist who doesn't classify birds and dinosaurs in
> the same category.
Paticularly one who hasn't signed that pathetic "dissent" statement.
In fact a survey revealed that most biologists who *did* sign that
statement would agree that dinosaurs and living birds shared common
ancestors.
alextangent
Dana Tweedy
One of the definitions of life is ability to reproduce. You aren't
really saying much here. My point is that the phrase "a category of
living ghings that have their seed within themselves" is
gobbeltygook. It doesn't really mean anything relevant to biological
populations.
>
> > > but that have
> > > independant beginnings from other groups of life forms, rather than
> > > that they are all descended from a common ancestor.
>
> > What evidence do you have that some groups have an independent origin?
>
> We always used to believe that - until someone came along and found
> that all living things have some common DNA.
Actually, common descent was known long before the discovery of DNA.
The fact that all living things use DNA, the same molecule, indicates
strongly that all living things share a common ancestor.
> But...they based that on
> only 2% of
> gene material. The rest, (the 98%) is, they don't understand. They
> call that
> "junk DNA."
It's called "Junk DNA" not because it's not understood, but because it
does not code for anything. It may have a purpose, but it's not used
for coding proteins, which is the function of DNA.
> They naturally wonder why do we all have some common DNA
> and they conclude it has to mean that we are all descended from one
> person.
Not just "one person" but a common ancestral population. All modern
humans are descended from a common population. All modern life is
descended from a common population much futher back in time.
> Adam and Eve would have the exact same DNA though.
Why would A&E have shared a broken gene for Vitamin C synthesis with
Gorillas, Chimps and Orangs? It's not just "some DNA" in common,
it's the pattern of DNA in common that indicates common descent.
> Adam also exclaimed
> that Eve is "the mother of all living."
Or so someone said. I doubt that anyone actually was there to quote
him.
> People always assumed, of
> course, that this means the mother of all humans. Now science says
> that one being is the parent of all living. And they include all the
> animals, too.
All animals, all plants, all fungi, all protists, etc, etc, are
descended from a common ancestor. Again, it's not "one being" but
one population of life.
>
> > > Today scientists
> > > recognize that not all types of organisms fit into one definition of
> > > the word "species." So they have problems with the definition of
> > > species as well, Dana.
>
> > that's because of evolution. Since species always are in flux, it's
> > difficult to have one definition that's applicable to all situations.
> > It would be different with "kind", if there was no evolution, they would
> > be fixed, and easily defined.
>
> That's your idea though of "kind."
If so, then "kind" means the group of all living things.
> I've shown how the Bible says that
> Adam said that Eve is the mother of all living,
I'm sorry, but what the Bible says about Adam's personal utterances is
not really relevant to science. Adam's opinion is fine and all, but
not really convincing.
> and now science says
> that all living came from one parent.
One population of living things, that is. "One parent" isn't
correct.
> Of course Adam had something to
> do with it, too,
> but since Adam and Eve's DNA are the same, it would show up as one
> parent.
Again, you need to explain why Adam and Eve's DNA had exactly the type
of ERVs, broken genes, and other signs one would expect to see if we
descended from a species of ape closely related to Gorillas, Chimps
and Orangutans.
>
> > > Humans and chimps are not in the same "kind" because if chimps
> > > branched off from a common ancestor of man's, chimps show more allele
> > > changes than humans do,
>
> > ? Where do you get that idea? Humans have just as many "allele
> > changes" from their common ancestor with chimps as chimps do.
> > Chimps and humans share a recent common ancestor, and both lines are
> > equally distant from the common ancestor. I also don't follow your
> > reasoning here. Why can't humans and chimps be the same 'kind'?
>
> No, that's a new find.
What's a "new find"? Who found it, and where did they publish?
> Chimps are said to have been more evolved than
> man, and have more allele changes. It's not my theory, I got if from
> biology.
Where from biology? Citation please.
> And yes, they are classified now in the same, but I was not
> wanting to call attention to someone's possible mistake.
Who's mistake?
> But chimps
> being more evolved than humans? Doesn't that sound like a fun topic
> to explore?
As I've pointed out before, "more evolved" is a misunderstanding of
how evolution works. There's no set level of evolution, and no goal
to evolution. If chimps indeed have undergone more mutations from
the common ancestor than humans have, that doesn't mean chimps are
closer to some kind of goal, or are somehow "better" than humans. By
the same token, humans aren't "better" or closer to any evolutionary
goal than chimps are.
In short, chimps being "more evolved" is meaningless.
> Type that into your browser and you will get a lot of
> information about that new concept. Here is one example:http://www.livescience.com/1429-chimps-evolved-humans.html
Ah, spare us from poorly written news releases.......
>
> > > so they are said to be actually more evolved,
> > > which would make one wonder, which is the more progressed?
>
> > Neither is "more evolved" or "more progressed"? Evolution is not a
> > progression toward humanity. Chimpanzees are equally "evolved" as
> > modern humans.
>
> The idea orignated with biologists, not with me.
and it appears you've misunderstood what they were talking about.
>
> > > On the
> > > other hand, chimps don't have to pay taxes, insurance, and they don't
> > > have to work at jobs or drive through traffic.
>
> > Neither do many humans. Until a few thousand years ago, no humans paid
> > taxes, insurance, worked jobs, or drove through traffic.
>
> Well.... render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's is taxes of a
> kind,
> and insurance must have it's equivalent, and traffic we have today,
> but way back when, I guess they had wild beasts to drive through
> between towns.
> Today we have wilder beasts driving with us on the freeways.
My point is that humans are acting normally for humans. Chimps act
normally for chimps. Chimps not paying taxes doesn't mean they are
better. Humans having technology doesn't mean they are better.
>
> > > In fact, they can swing
> > > all day long through trees and pluck their dinner off of a banana
> > > tree. They seem to be at the more advanced level. : )
>
> > Again, "advanced" is a misunderstanding. Humans are not more
> > 'advanced' than chimps. Chimps evolved into different niche, and their
> > not being human is no reason to think they are less "advanced". Humans
> > are not "most advanced", they are just another twig on the tree of life.
> > Further, most chimps have to work fairly hard for their daily
> > nutrition. They hardly live a life of idyllic ease.
>
> But that part was humor. Yet when I was little we actually lived near
> jungle growth in South Florida and we did swing on vines to cross a
> little creek. I think that we all must've been inspired by Tarzan. It
> was
> soooo much fun.
I lived in south Florida when I was a small child, and it was fun
playing there, if you ignored the bugs and sandburrs. What does this
have to do with the discussion?
> We visited a place near where we lived in
> West Palm Beach called McKee's Jungle Garden.
> They had real monkeys in trees who were having themselves a
> fantastic lot of fun. They have restored it, dropped the Jungle and
> call it McKee's Botanical Garden, and I don't know if they have the
> monkeys there anymore. All I know is we were fascinated with those
> playful monkeys that they had, and the monkeys loved to watch us,
> too.
Last year I visited "Monkey Jungle" in Homestead, and it was a fun
visit too. I used to live not far from West Palm Beach, north of
Stuart. I agree it's interesting to visit places where monkeys are
on display, but I don't see where it's relevant to our discussion.
>
> > > The Bible indicates that Adam was created from the dust of the earth,
> > > but animals were created from their own dust:
> > > Psalm 104:29 "Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled: thou takest
> > > away their breath, they die, and return to their dust."
>
> > Again, this is no reason why humans and chimps aren't the same "kind".
>
> OK, but just remember that a verse says that the animals and man were
> created independently but both from dust, whatever the dust was
> composed of.
Why can't that be a metaphor for life coming from the Earth? There's
no biological evidence that indicates that humans and other animals
were created independently, or that they were created from dust.
> Something about their composition could look the same but
> still be
> independent from one another in their origin.
But why would God make them look the same, if they were had
independent origins?
> On the other hand we may
> not understand "mother of all living" the right way. Did you see the
> older
> classic movie "The Good Earth" by Pearl S. Buck?
Sorry, no.
> The last line in it
> is where the husband realizes suddenly after his wife dies and
> exclaims
> "You are the Earth!" That's one of my favorite movies. When Adam
> made his exclamation "the mother of all living," he could have been
> relating it to the earth, since he knew that he was made from the
> earth,
> and that she was taken out of him. Something like that. I think that
> was Paul Muni that played that part in The Good Earth, and the woman
> was Luise Rainer. It came out before I was born, but I saw it on TV
> when I was growing up and also read the book in school. Wang-Lung
> was the husband and O-Lan was the wife. Some academy awards
> came from it.
I liked the movie where Charlton Heston said "Soylent Green is
People". But that doesn't mean I think that people are actually
being made into foodstuffs.
DJT
Suzanne
> On 3/19/11 9:34 PM, Suzanne wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 19, 2:55 pm, Ernest Major<{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> In message
> >> <c08f1152-f5a9-4c9a-8edd-4cb98b2ec...@v8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> >> Suzanne<leila...@hotmail.com> writes
>
> >>> nice attempt at reasoning. I mean that. But we are not talking about
> >>> just one animal evolving, we are talking about millions of animals
> >>> evolving and I would not think it to be that we can't find any evidence
> >>> of the equivalent of "partly growing moustaches" comparisons among the
> >>> millions of animal species. Don't you see the difference? It's a
> >>> reasonable request.
>
> >> that we would find an example among the less than 1 million known fossil
> >> species.
> >> --
> >> alias Ernest Major
>
> > Ernest, if evolution were a fact, it never would have stopped.
>
>
If evolution happened, it would not only happen from the beginning
once
because we still have one-celled organisms. It would keep on happening
"from the beginning." What people look for as fossils would be still
here
and alive and observable.
>
> > We
> > would
> > continually have evolution taking place from scratch.
>
> time, all around you.
>
From scratch means from the beginning. And no, I am not talking about
what you are talking about "all around" us. I am saying that we would
be seeing
living primitive forms even now mixed in with our advanced forms. We
still
have horseshoe crabs, amoebas, etc.
>
> > We would see
> > beginning forms all over the place and we would see advanced forms and
> > we would not have to look to the fossil record to find intermediate
> > types, because we would see many living examples of it.
>
> happens. All living things today are equally "evolved". One does
> see species which appear intermediate, such as seals, and penguins.
>
No, I don't have an odd idea of what evolution is. I went through
school,
too, took biology in college: studied the acetabularia, DNA, RNA,
etc. Went to lab. It used to be that within a species or even a
certain
breed of animal, a variation or adaptation was just called a
variation.
Now it is called evolution. But what evolution used to be referring
to,
was not the allele changes within a species or breed, but was allele
changes above the species level.
>
Why do you call seals and penguins intermediate when you don't
know what they are advancing towards becoming? Why do you
think they are going to advance further?
>
> > From the
> > example of the son with the full grown moustache, we would see sons
> > with shadows on their lips, with first week moustaches, with 2 week
> > moustaches, with 3 week moustaches, with full grown moustaches, and
> > all simultaneously.
>
> "mustasche" of future will look like, so one can't know what current
> species will be ancestral to future life forms.
>
Yes, but that's not exactly what we were talking about. Yes, I
understand what you are saying. But you sound now like you are saying
the opposite of what you said about the seals and penguins earlier.
>
> > You would see partially developed giraffes,
>
> "juveniles". Giraffes aren't the goal of evolution, and there's no
> reason why another species would evolve into modern day giraffes.
>
>
> > 3/4
> > developed elephants,
>
> Again, elephants aren't the goal of evolution. There's no reason why
> elephants would evolve again.
>
> > 1/4 developed crocodiles,
>
> Again, crocodiles aren't the goal of evolution. There's no reason why
> any modern species would be evolving into crocodiles when there are
> several species of crocodiles already who are taking that particular
> niche.
>
Dana, yes, thank you. You are not talking about the same thing I was
talking about. You are right, crocs ar not a goal of evolution. And
yes there is no
reason as you say.
>
> > They would not all
> > develop to fully developed living things all at the same time,
>
> them as "fully developed". In another several million years, modern
> day species will no doubt we seen as transitional to ones living in the
> future. The point is, that all species have to be "fully developed" as
> partially developed organisms don't live very long. All ancestors of
> modern species were "fully developed" as well.
>
Yes.
>
> You are again laboring under the mistaken belief that species have a
> goal they are developing towards. There is no 'partially developed'
> life.
>
No. That's not what I was talking about, but thank you.
>
> > they
> > would be in half stages in places, quarter stages in other places,
> > almost but not quite fully developed stages, as well as completed
> > stages.
>
> progressing towards some goal.
>
> DJT- Hide quoted text -
>
>
Suzanne
Ernest Major
<b5e3702a-91ea-42f3...@x8g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
Suzanne <leil...@hotmail.com> writes
>We always used to believe that - until someone came along and found
>that all living things have some common DNA. But...they based that on
>only 2% of gene material. The rest, (the 98%) is, they don't
>understand. They call that "junk DNA." They naturally wonder why do we
>all have some common DNA and they conclude it has to mean that we are
>all descended from one person. Adam and Eve would have the exact same
>DNA though. Adam also exclaimed that Eve is "the mother of all living."
>People always assumed, of course, that this means the mother of all
>humans. Now science says that one being is the parent of all living.
>And they include all the animals, too.
I suspect that you have misunderstood something along the way. The
earliest techniques for studying relationships by common DNA used 100%
of the organisms' genomes.
--
alias Ernest Major
Ernest Major
<97c3e166-3a0c-4d2b...@v11g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
Dana Tweedy <reddf...@gmail.com> writes
>> But...they based that on
>> only 2% of
>> gene material. The rest, (the 98%) is, they don't understand. They
>> call that
>> "junk DNA."
>
>
>It's called "Junk DNA" not because it's not understood, but because it
>does not code for anything. It may have a purpose, but it's not used
>for coding proteins, which is the function of DNA.
There is a large category of DNA which neither codes for proteins, nor
is junk DNA. There are the ribosomal RNA arrays. There are transfers RNA
genes. And several other types of RNA genes. There are telomeres. There
are centromeres. There are regulatory binding sites.
--
alias Ernest Major
Dana Tweedy
> On Mar 19, 11:10�pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
> > > Ernest, if evolution were a fact, it never would have stopped.
>
> > Evolution hasn't stopped. �Where do you get the idea it has?
>
> If evolution happened, it would not only happen from the beginning
> once
> because we still have one-celled organisms.
That doesn't follow. Again, evolution doesn't have goals, or
stages. Single celled creatures have evolved just the same as
multicelled creatures.
> It would keep on happening
> "from the beginning." What people look for as fossils would be still
> here
> and alive and observable.
Again, you aren't making sense here. Modern day unicelluar creatures
aren't evolving toward multicelluar status. There's no script to
evolution, no goal that things are trying to reach. What people
look for in fossils is a record of past life. What's "alive and
observable" today is a product of their ancestors.
>
> > > We
> > > would
> > > continually have evolution taking place from scratch.
>
> > What do you mean by "from scratch"? � �Evolution is happening all the
> > time, all around you.
>
> From scratch means from the beginning. And no, I am not talking about
> what you are talking about "all around" us. I am saying that we would
> be seeing
> living primitive forms even now mixed in with our advanced forms. We
> still
> have horseshoe crabs, amoebas, etc.
the term "primitive" means only "closer to the original state". It
doesn't mean farther down any supposed ladder of evolution.
"Advanced" only means "farther derived", One does see fairly
primitive looking organisms alive today, along with highly derived
organisms.
You seem to think that amoebas and horseshoe crabs that are alive
today are the ancestors of modern life. They are not. They are
modern life forms, and they are the product of almost 4 billion years
of evolution, just like any other living thing
>
> > > We would see
> > > beginning forms all over the place and we would see advanced forms and
> > > we would not have to look to the fossil record to find intermediate
> > > types, because we would see many living examples of it.
>
> > Once again, you have a very odd idea of what evolution is, and how it
> > happens. � All living things today are equally "evolved". � �One does
> > see species which appear intermediate, such as seals, and penguins.
>
> No, I don't have an odd idea of what evolution is. I went through
> school,
> too, took biology in college: studied the acetabularia, DNA, RNA,
> etc. Went to lab.
But somehow you got an odd idea about evolution. None of what you
are regurgitating here is what the actual theory of evolution is all
about.
> It used to be that within a species or even a
> certain
> breed of animal, a variation or adaptation was just called a
> variation.
> Now it is called evolution.
Variation is the fuel for evolution. It's all part of the
process.
> But what evolution used to be referring
> to,
> was not the allele changes within a species or breed, but was allele
> changes above the species level.
The book definition of evolution is: "Allele change in a population
over generations". Above the species level simply means
"speciation" or one population becoming reproductively isolated from
it's parent population. Both change below, and at the species level
is evolution, as long as the changes are inheritable.
>
> Why do you call seals and penguins intermediate when you don't
> know what they are advancing towards becoming?
Because they aren't "advancing" but they do appear to be adapting to a
fully aquatic life. Right now, penguins and seals live both on land,
and in the water. In the future, they may evolve to become fully
aquatic, like modern whales. The ancestors of modern whales may
have lived something like modern seals, and sea lions live today.
> Why do you
> think they are going to advance further?
Once more, evolution is about change, not advancement. Living on
both land, and sea means they are vulernable at times. If either
penguins, or seals became fully aquatic, they may reduce the danger
they face living on land.
>
> > > From the
> > > example of the son with the full grown moustache, we would see sons
> > > with shadows on their lips, with first week moustaches, with 2 week
> > > moustaches, with 3 week moustaches, with full grown moustaches, and
> > > all simultaneously.
>
> > evolution isn't a progression to a fixed goal. �One doesn't know what a
> > "mustasche" of future will look like, so one can't know what current
> > species will be ancestral to future life forms.
>
> Yes, but that's not exactly what we were talking about. Yes, I
> understand what you are saying. But you sound now like you are saying
> the opposite of what you said about the seals and penguins earlier.
That's because you are still thinking of evolution as progression
toward some pre determined goal. Modern seals, and penguins are
fairly well adapted to their lifestyle now, but could, in the future
evolve to become fully aquatic. Or, they could evolve to become
fully terrestrial. Right now, they are "inbetween". Ancient whale
ancestors had a similar niche, and they eventually became fully
aquatic. So, it's possible that seals and penguins could be
intermediate to future fully aquatic species.
>
> > > You would see partially developed giraffes,
>
> > One does see "partially developed giraffes", only they are called
> > "juveniles". � Giraffes aren't the goal of evolution, and there's no
> > reason why another species would evolve into modern day giraffes.
>
> But I think you are describing variations.
Variations are the way evolution works. Modern giraffes evolved from
variations of ancestral giraffes. At no time were any of them not
"fully developed".
Then what are you talking about?
>
> > > they
> > > would be in half stages in places, quarter stages in other places,
> > > almost but not quite fully developed stages, as well as completed
> > > stages.
>
> > Evolution is a continuing process, not a set of pre determined stages
> > progressing towards some goal.
>
> > DJT- Hide quoted text -
>
> Of course it's not a set of pre-determined stages.
>
Then you should stop thinking like there are.
DJT
Burkhard
That is totally garbled. First, "Junk" DNA ( a rather bad term not often
used any longer by scientists) is chemically exactly the same as coding
DNA, and that too we share across all species. Nor is junk DNA something
that science does not understand - it is just DNA that does not code for
proteins e.g. Pseudogenes that have lost their protein-coding ability
at some point during the evolution of a species. (think about it in this
case as the old floppy disc you may stil have stored away somewhere, but
you can't use any longer because modern computers don;t use them)
In fact, in the patterns of "junk" DNA an dte similarities we find there
between species is some of the strongest evidence for common descent.
> Adam and Eve would have the exact same DNA though. Adam also exclaimed
> that Eve is "the mother of all living." People always assumed, of
> course, that this means the mother of all humans. Now science says
> that one being is the parent of all living. And they include all the
> animals, too.
>>
>>> Today scientists
>>> recognize that not all types of organisms fit into one definition of
>>> the word "species." So they have problems with the definition of
>>> species as well, Dana.
>>
>> that's because of evolution. Since species always are in flux, it's
>> difficult to have one definition that's applicable to all situations.
>> It would be different with "kind", if there was no evolution, they would
>> be fixed, and easily defined.
>>
> That's your idea though of "kind." I've shown how the Bible says that
> Adam said that Eve is the mother of all living, and now science says
> that all living came from one parent. Of course Adam had something to
> do with it, too,
> but since Adam and Eve's DNA are the same, it would show up as one
> parent.
If Adam's and Eve's DNA are the same, and the difference between man and
woman is genetic, how exactly does this work?
>>
>>
>>> Humans and chimps are not in the same "kind" because if chimps
>>> branched off from a common ancestor of man's, chimps show more allele
>>> changes than humans do,
>>
>> ? Where do you get that idea? Humans have just as many "allele
>> changes" from their common ancestor with chimps as chimps do.
>> Chimps and humans share a recent common ancestor, and both lines are
>> equally distant from the common ancestor. I also don't follow your
>> reasoning here. Why can't humans and chimps be the same 'kind'?
>>
> No, that's a new find. Chimps are said to have been more evolved than
> man, and have more allele changes. It's not my theory, I got if from
> biology. And yes, they are classified now in the same, but I was not
> wanting to call attention to someone's possible mistake. But chimps
> being more evolved than humans? Doesn't that sound like a fun topic
> to explore? Type that into your browser and you will get a lot of
> information about that new concept. Here is one example:
> http://www.livescience.com/1429-chimps-evolved-humans.html
Mhh, you get some really bad popular science reporting, if that is a
typical example.
>>
>>> so they are said to be actually more evolved,
>>> which would make one wonder, which is the more progressed?
>>
>> Neither is "more evolved" or "more progressed"? Evolution is not a
>> progression toward humanity. Chimpanzees are equally "evolved" as
>> modern humans.
>>
> The idea orignated with biologists, not with me.
The idea seems to have originated with inexact expressions by
journalists of scientific findings. Evolution is not goal directed. What
the article seems to refer to is the sheer quantity , not the quality of
change since the lineage split. Which his interesting, but as no bearing
whatsoever on the kind issue
Burkhard
Well, yes and no. It is a term that the translators of the KJB used,
but whether it is the equivalent to he Hebrew word is at beast a guess
- we have way too few examples of the use of the term to have any idea
what it really meant in the Hebrew of its time Indeed, there are some
philologists who think it was not a noun or group term in Hebrew at
all, but simply part of the grammatical construction that always
follows the term (Clines , David J. A. (2001). The Dictionary of
Classical Hebrew. 5. Sheffield Academic Press. p. 262.) Others take a
middle road, and e.g would simply be: God created all sorts of birds,
fish etc
In that case, the text would say nothing at all about the unit of
creation. If one think it is a group term, then cultures at that
state of development typically would use functional, not biological
taxonomies - edible kind vs inedible kinds, domesticated vs non-
domesticated kind, dangerous v harmless etc, plus some helpful
"coordinator terms" (things that are in water, things that are on
land, things that are in the air etc. The combination then gives you a
taxonomy that is pretty useful, but has nothig to do with biology. Or
as Borges masterly put it :
"On those remote pages it is written that animals are divided into:
a. those that belong to the Emperor
b. embalmed ones
c. those that are trained
d. suckling pigs
e. mermaids
f. fabulous ones
g. stray dogs
h. those that are included in this classification
i. those that tremble as if they were mad
j. innumerable ones
k. those drawn with a very fine camel's hair brush
l. others
m. those that have just broken a flower vase
n. those that resemble flies from a distance"
"Kinds" is pretty similar.
John Harshman
It's unclear what you're claiming here. Are you saying that abiogenesis
should constantly be happening, that new cells should arise from
inorganic materials? If so, there are reasons we wouldn't expect such a
thing. Or are you asking why, if we came from monkeys, there are still
monkeys? If so, even most creationists steer away from that one. Let me
know what you mean, and I'll try to address it for you.
>>> We
>>> would
>>> continually have evolution taking place from scratch.
>> What do you mean by "from scratch"? Evolution is happening all the
>> time, all around you.
>>
> From scratch means from the beginning. And no, I am not talking about
> what you are talking about "all around" us. I am saying that we
> would be seeing living primitive forms even now mixed in with our
> advanced forms. We still have horseshoe crabs, amoebas, etc.
But we don't have everything that ever existed. Some lineages survive
and others go extinct. What you say could be true only if a) there were
no extinction and b) when a species split into two, one of them always
retained all the characteristics of the ancestral one. Neither of these
is true. And so there are species in the fossil record that are no
longer found alive.
>>> We would see
>>> beginning forms all over the place and we would see advanced forms and
>>> we would not have to look to the fossil record to find intermediate
>>> types, because we would see many living examples of it.
>> Once again, you have a very odd idea of what evolution is, and how it
>> happens. All living things today are equally "evolved". One does
>> see species which appear intermediate, such as seals, and penguins.
>>
> No, I don't have an odd idea of what evolution is. I went through
> school, too, took biology in college: studied the acetabularia, DNA,
> RNA, etc. Went to lab. It used to be that within a species or even a
> certain breed of animal, a variation or adaptation was just called a
> variation. Now it is called evolution. But what evolution used to be
> referring to, was not the allele changes within a species or breed,
> but was allele changes above the species level. Why do you call seals
> and penguins intermediate when you don't know what they are advancing
> towards becoming? Why do you think they are going to advance further?
If you did indeed study any biology in college, it either contained
nothing of evolutionary biology, you weren't listening, or you
misremember. Here are some of your problems: 1) Variation is the raw
material of evolution, not evolution itself. 2) I know of no time in
history at which your definition of evolution was current. Certainly not
within the past century. 3) Seals and penguins are intermediate between
land animals and fully aquatic forms like whales. We don't know if they
would ever become fully aquatic -- penguins in particular are tied to
land by their reproductive physiology -- but they are plausible
intermediates nonetheless.
Could you perhaps do something to fix your line lengths? They come out
looking weird.
Suzanne
> On Mar 19, 2:50 pm, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 19, 10:04 am, "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleu...@xs4all.nl> wrote:> On 19 mrt, 15:47, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
> > > > The evidence of gradualistic, coherent, progressive transformational
> > > > change apparently doesn't exist. Most of the t.o regulars haven't
> > > > even attempted to offer a solution.: Okimoto, Lethe, Friar Broccoli,
> > > > Ernest Major, Burkhard, Isaak, Clayton, et cetera.
>
> > > want to get sucked into one of your endless "debates" filled with
> > > rants, accusations and premature declarations of victory. Providing
> > > you with a reasonable, insightfull, educated answer seems pointless,
> > > most of the time and hence a slight distaste ensues.
>
> > There are birds that have been found that are older than archaeopteryx
> > is old.
> > Pedopenna from Mongolia, Protoavis from Post, Texas, and Anchiornis
> > huxleyi
> > from China,
>
> are of a similar age to Archaeopteryx (Late Jurassic, although people
> have argued for Middle Jurassic). If they actually are older than
> Archaeopteryx then this solves the "fossil gap" problem that people
> complain about, in that the other dinobirds are Cretaceous (i.e.,
> younger than Archaeopteryx). The feathers of both these taxa are
> symmetrical.
>
> Protoavis (from the Late Triassic) has long been discredited as being
> a bird, and is likely an assemblage of several different animals. No
> feathers have been found with this specimen.
>
> Some have assymetrical feathers, which flying birds have,
>
>
> > and one has symmetrical feathers which walking-but-not-flyer birds
> > have. Some scientists complain that the older birds than archaeopteryx
> > are in worse shape.
>
> fine lagoonal shale as Archaeopteryx? This good preservation of
> Archaeopteryx is due to its particular mode of preservation, not to
> its age.
>
Yes, your last sentence is what was meant, but the age could be a
factor too, if the find was thousands and even millions of years older
than another find.
>
> I should think so, with as much older than
>
> > archaeopteryx they are!
>
>
I have no opinion about that. I've presented them because they are new
finds
that people should be aware of. In my mind, good reporting is showing
both sides of an issue to a reader, and letting the reader make up his
own mind. I don't make up people's minds for them. I'm happy for you
to express your
opinion. In fact, I've offered a platform for you to do that, or for
anyone else
who does not agree to also speak what he might think as well. People
can type the names of these that I have mentioned into their browsers
on their computers and actually see most of these fossils online for
themselves.
>
>
> A number of them have the four wing pattern,
>
> > which to us today sounds amazing.
>
> the Early Cretaceous
>
I'm not confusing anything, that's why I mentioned the four-winged
pattern that some have found in the fossils, so that people can know
to look for that in order that they can know if the animal was more
birdlike or dinosaur like.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
wrote:
> On Mar 19, 3:56 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 3/19/11 1:44 PM, Suzanne wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 19, 10:21 am, Friar Broccoli<elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On Mar 19, 10:47 am, T Pagano<not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
> > >>> The evidence of gradualistic, coherent, progressive transformational
> > >>> change apparently doesn't exist. Most of the t.o regulars haven't
> > >>> even attempted to offer a solution.: Okimoto, Lethe, Friar Broccoli,
>
> :)
>
Baa-aaa-aaa.
>
> > >If archeopteryx is a transitional
> > > form, what is it a transition of?
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Dinosaur to fying bird? Flying bird
> > > to dinosaur? What if whatever "kinds" is, turns out to be a geater
> > > category than people realize?
>
>
> addressed by Suzanne. Suzanne, the devil is in the details. What is a
> "kind"? If it is the same as the biological concept of species, why do
> you need a different word? But of course it cannot be the same as
> species, since have ironclad evidence of one species giving rise to
> others even in human historical time.
>
Oh, that's what started this. I have a personal belief that "kinds" is
not
the same thing as "species." What set me to thinking this is that the
definition of species, which used to be all right, no longer fits all
organisms as science advanced in the last few years and we know
more.
>
>
> > > I believe that it is just that, a
> > > greater category than simply a species. Even now some scientists are
> > > classifying birds and dinosaurs in the same category.
>
> sparrows you see on your lawn, are descendants of some dinosaur you
> might be scared of.
>
Genesis 1:20-23:
20. "And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving
creature that hath life, and fowl [that] may fly above the earth in
the open firmament of heaven.
21. And God created great whales, and every living creature that
moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind,
and every winged fowl after his kind; and God saw that [it was] good.
22. And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill
the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth
.
23. And the evening and the morning were the fifth day."
>
I remember a day when people said that there was no way that all
people could have come from one woman. I remember the day when someone
told the world they believed that all people came from one woman that
was living in Africa. Some scientists believed it. Some didn't. And
many of them said
"no way." And now, I see scientists that say that all that are living
came from
one person and science people are saying, "way."
>
>
> > Just as birds, sharks, toads, and dogs are classified in the same
> > category, ie "Vertebrates". Birds and dinosaurs are both archosaurs.http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/archosauria.html
>
> > That classification includes crocodiles, alligators, pterosaurs,
> > Ichthyosaurs and plesiosarus as well.
>
> > > As information
> > > comes in, they are widening the categories. They may eventually widen
> > > things into categories they realize must be "kinds."
>
> > Again, the term "kind" has no meaning in biology. If a bird, and a
> > T.rex are the same "kind", why aren't humans and chimps the same "kind"?
>
> > DJT
>
> Excellent question, and one that should be addressed.
>
> Chris- Hide quoted text -
>
Chris I addressed this already.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
> Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> writes
> >> Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> writes
>
> >> >form, what is it a transition of? Dinosaur to fying bird? Flying bird
> >> >to dinosaur? What if whatever "kinds" is, turns out to be a geater
> >> >greater category than simply a species. Even now some scientists are
> >> >comes in, they are widening the categories. They may eventually widen
> >> >things into categories they realize must be "kinds."
>
>
> >> Scientists have already concluded that all known contemporary earthly
> >> life belongs to a single kind. They're pretty sure that the same holds
> >> for all known fossil earthly life, but less evidence is available for
> >> this; it's hard to demonstrate that a spherical cell in a billion year
> >> old stromatolite was a bacterium and not something else.
> >> --
> >> alias Ernest Major- Hide quoted text -
>
> >don't know all the pros and cons and viewpoints of this claim. It
> >might sound simple to say this but since the Bible shows that Adam is
> >composed originally from the dust of the earth, but separately animals
> >were made from dust,
>
> The Bible doesn't show that. It doesn't even say that. (Only Adam is
> said to have been formed from the dust to the ground.)
>
> >that we might appear under examination that we
> >all are descended from one another because of being made from the same
> >substance originally.
>
> As we've explained to Ray Martinez many times, it is not the
> similarities that are evidence for common descent, but the *pattern* of
> similarities.
>
> > Yet we would not be descended from one parent,
> >but several. They also have this strange substance that is in the DNA
> >that they don't have an explanation for that is this filler material.
> >Some people call it junk DNA.
>
> Junk DNA is chemically the same as an other DNA. Describing it as
> "strange substance" is a strange phrasing.
>
> >Did you know that only 2 % of the DNA is
> >what they drew their conclusion from that we are all related from the
> >same original parent? The junk DNA that they don't understand yet is
> >98% of the DNA. It sort of bothers me that they decided what they did
> >from just 2 % of the DNA. I'll try and look into it better.
>
> >One thing they said that some scientists think is that the filler junk
> >DNA which is protein material has the potential so they think to form
> >new genes. How would they conclude that if they don't know what it
> >is? Yet other scientists are baffled by it, and say it has no
> >discernible function. >chuckle< and if they don't know what it is,
> >again, how could they conclude that it has no function?
> >Still others say that to call it "junk" is misleading. Well of course
> >it's not junk, its got to be there for some reason.
>
> Perhaps you could cite your source. The above sounds rather confused.
> ("Filler junk DNA which is protein material" is nonsense.)
>
> Your claim (I assumed it's yours and not someone else's) that "it's not
> junk, it's got to be there from some reason" embeds a non-sequitur -
> that because it is there for some reason it is not junk; it could be
> there for a reason, and still be junk. (Compare landfills.)
>
> We can infer with a fair degree of confidence that junk DNA has no
> sequence specific function from the fact that it is not conserved; it
> changes at a rate consistent with neutral drift.
>
> There are arguments for volume dependent function. For example it has
> been argued that bigger cells need more protein assembly which requires
> a bigger nucleus, and that easiest way of getting a bigger nucleus is to
> have a bigger genome.
>
> But the C-value paradox - the poor correlation between organismal
> complexity and the genome size - also argues against a functional
> explanation. Among onions the diploid genome size varies by a factor of
> 3.5. There is a similar variation between American and Australian
> diploid cottons.
>
> Junk DNA does not all have the same origin. The greatest amount of junk
> DNA is copies of short sequences of DNA, which are good at getting
> themselves copied about the genome.
>
>
>
> >Suzanne
>
> --
> alias Ernest Major- Hide quoted text -
Randy C
> But we don't have everything that ever existed. Some lineages survive
> and others go extinct. What you say could be true only if a) there were
> no extinction and b) when a species split into two, one of them always
> retained all the characteristics of the ancestral one. Neither of these
> is true. And so there are species in the fossil record that are no
> longer found alive.
You've highlighted one of the greatest problems with creationism. It
is ONLY consistent with a God who is cruel, deceptive and
incompetent. In this example you emphasize the incompetence required
if the God of the Bible is real.
Somewhere between 99% and 99.9999% of all species that have ever lived
on Earth are now extinct.
Yet...
All ecological areas on Earth are well balanced (despite man's
efforts). They have the "right" number of predators and prey. The
"right" number of animals and plants.
So if a good balance comes from only one-in-100 or one-in-1,000,000
species surviving, then God over "designed" nature by many orders of
magnitude.
I've been an engineer for more than 40 years. ANY "designer" who over-
designed by so much would be fired instantly for incompetence.
Creationists answer that challenge by saying that even human designers
add redundancy. But that claim simply frames God's incompetence in a
different way.
First of all, NO human designs 100x (much less 1,000,000x) redundancy.
But redundancy is added for components that are not reliable.
Computers used as servers will have redundant disk drives and power
supplies.
Why?
Because disk drives and power supplies are not as reliable as other
components that are not redundant.
So the claim about redundancy merely shifts God's incompetence from
system "design" to component "design".
Fundamentally, Biblical creationists are willing to accept all sorts
of faults in God, as long as they don't have to accept any faults in
the Bible.
John Harshman
>> Suzanne:
>> But we don't have everything that ever existed. Some lineages survive
>> and others go extinct. What you say could be true only if a) there were
>> no extinction and b) when a species split into two, one of them always
>> retained all the characteristics of the ancestral one. Neither of these
>> is true. And so there are species in the fossil record that are no
>> longer found alive.
>
> You've highlighted one of the greatest problems with creationism. It
> is ONLY consistent with a God who is cruel, deceptive and
> incompetent. In this example you emphasize the incompetence required
> if the God of the Bible is real.
How is that a problem with creationism? Doesn't it fit the God of the
Old Testament perfectly?
John Harshman
> I remember a day when people said that there was no way that all
> people could have come from one woman. I remember the day when someone
> told the world they believed that all people came from one woman that
> was living in Africa. Some scientists believed it. Some didn't. And
> many of them said
> "no way." And now, I see scientists that say that all that are living
> came from
> one person and science people are saying, "way."
No, nobody is saying that. You are, as usual, confused. You're talking
of course about mitochondrial Eve. But nobody thinks that all people
came from her. She is merely the most recent common ancestor of a small
piece of your genetic material, your mitochondrial genome. Many other
men and women, living at the same or different times, are the most
recent common ancestors of other bits of that material. Creationists
often confuse mitochondrial Eve with the biblical Eve, but it's nothing
more than an unfortunate choice of names.
Suzanne
Genesis 2:19:
"And OUT OF THE GROUND the LORD GOD FORMED EVERY BEAST OF THE FIELD,
AND EVERY FOWL OF THE AIR; and brought [them] unto Adam to see what he
would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature,
that [was] the name thereof."
Genesis 1:24 says
"And God said, Let THE EARTH BRING FORTH the living creature after his
kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his
kind: and it was so."
And this is about the large animal called leviathan...
Psa 104:29 "Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled: thou takest
away their breath, they die, AND RETURN TO THEIR DUST."
Young's Literal Translation:
Psalm 104:29..."....UNTO THEIR DUST THEY TURN BACK."
>
> >that we might appear under examination that we
> >all are descended from one another because of being made from the same
> >substance originally.
>
> As we've explained to Ray Martinez many times, it is not the
> similarities that are evidence for common descent, but the *pattern* of
> similarities.
>
I was speaking of the DNA that they say we share. When Adam was
created out of the dust of the earth, it says that God formed him and
then breathed into this fashion of clay the breath of life. It is the
breath of life from God that makes the clay to become living tissue.
Another place says that when
something dies, the spirit that was in it (that spirit that was put in
them that made them become alive) "returns to the Father." So things
that are alive
have some of God in them. Breath of God + dust becomes alive. Some
verses show that everything that is alive, even animals have the
Lord's "breath of life" in them:
Genesis 6:17: "And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon
the earth, to desgroy all flesh, wherein [is] the breath of life, from
under heaven;
[and] every thing that [is] in the earth shall die."
Genesis 7:15: "And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of
all flesh, wherein [is] the breath of life."
Genesis 7:22: "All in whose nostrils [was] the breath of life, of all
that [was] in the dry [land], died."
I'm just saying that if man is made of dust and animals are made
independently from man of dust and they are both made from the same
dust, plus possess the breath of God so that they become alive, the
DNA that each has would be the same, yet they would not be descended
from one another.
>
> > Yet we would not be descended from one parent,
> >but several. They also have this strange substance that is in the DNA
> >that they don't have an explanation for that is this filler material.
> >Some people call it junk DNA.
>
> Junk DNA is chemically the same as an other DNA. Describing it as
> "strange substance" is a strange phrasing.
>
Yes, you are right I believe, and callng it "junk" may not be the
right thing to do, and some scientists have pointed that out. And by
strange I am meaning it is just mysterious and it is not yet known
what it is.
>
> >Did you know that only 2 % of the DNA is
> >what they drew their conclusion from that we are all related from the
> >same original parent? The junk DNA that they don't understand yet is
> >98% of the DNA. It sort of bothers me that they decided what they did
> >from just 2 % of the DNA. I'll try and look into it better.
>
> >One thing they said that some scientists think is that the filler junk
> >DNA which is protein material has the potential so they think to form
> >new genes. How would they conclude that if they don't know what it
> >is? Yet other scientists are baffled by it, and say it has no
> >discernible function. >chuckle< and if they don't know what it is,
> >again, how could they conclude that it has no function?
> >Still others say that to call it "junk" is misleading. Well of course
> >it's not junk, its got to be there for some reason.
>
> Perhaps you could cite your source. The above sounds rather confused.
> ("Filler junk DNA which is protein material" is nonsense.)
>
I gave a website with this. If you just type into your browser, "junk
DNA" you will get article after article about it. Some say it is "non-
coding protein."
One website says it's protein. Another says it is not. Another says it
can
possibly produce protein. This one looks interesting from Princeton U:
Says they found that the "junk" DNA has an important role:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090520140408.htm
>
> Your claim (I assumed it's yours and not someone else's) that "it's not
> junk, it's got to be there from some reason" embeds a non-sequitur -
> that because it is there for some reason it is not junk; it could be
> there for a reason, and still be junk. (Compare landfills.)
>
Yes, that was an idea I had.
>
> We can infer with a fair degree of confidence that junk DNA has no
> sequence specific function from the fact that it is not conserved; it
> changes at a rate consistent with neutral drift.
>
> There are arguments for volume dependent function. For example it has
> been argued that bigger cells need more protein assembly which requires
> a bigger nucleus, and that easiest way of getting a bigger nucleus is to
> have a bigger genome.
>
> But the C-value paradox - the poor correlation between organismal
> complexity and the genome size - also argues against a functional
> explanation. Among onions the diploid genome size varies by a factor of
> 3.5. There is a similar variation between American and Australian
> diploid cottons.
>
Really? I don't know a lot about that but I remember a few years ago,
the scientists had genetically engineered the cotton plant to produce
cotton in colors already so that you might not have to dye it. I've
also heard that some sheets and pillow cases are made out of long
fiber cotton. Did you know
that they are making socks out of bamboo now and putting it in some
shampoos?
>
> Junk DNA does not all have the same origin. The greatest amount of junk
> DNA is copies of short sequences of DNA, which are good at getting
> themselves copied about the genome.
>
That's really interesting.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
> Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Mar 19, 2:55 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> In message
> >> Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> writes
>
> >> >Your description of your son suddenly growing a moustache is quite a
> >> >nice attempt at reasoning. I mean that. But we are not talking about
> >> >just one animal evolving, we are talking about millions of animals
> >> >evolving and I would not think it to be that we can't find any evidence
> >> >of the equivalent of "partly growing moustaches" comparisons among the
> >> >millions of animal species. Don't you see the difference? It's a
> >> >reasonable request.
>
> >> For it to be a reasonable request one has to show that it is expected
> >> that we would find an example among the less than 1 million known fossil
> >> species.
> >> --
> >> alias Ernest Major
>
> >Ernest, if evolution were a fact, it never would have stopped.
>
> Evolution hasn't stopped.
>
> >would
> >continually have evolution taking place from scratch. We would see
> >beginning forms all over the place and we would see advanced forms and
> >we would not have to look to the fossil record to find intermediate
> >example of the son with the full grown moustache, we would see sons
> >with shadows on their lips, with first week moustaches, with 2 week
> >moustaches, with 3 week moustaches, with full grown moustaches, and
> >develop to fully developed living things all at the same time, they
> >would be in half stages in places, quarter stages in other places,
> >almost but not quite fully developed stages, as well as completed
> >stages.
>
>
> However you seem to have the strange idea that every form that ever
> evolved should still exist. This is wrong. Extinction is real.
>
I haven't said that. Yes we've had extinctions, of course.
>
> Be that as it may, you can see intermediate types in the contemporary
> biota.
>
> On a tree analogy, all living species are at the tips of the twigs, and
> the ancestors (intermediate) further back down the twigs, the branches,
> the trunk, and into the roots. But some twigs are further from the
> branching points than others, in some directions, and hence in some
> fashion some species are morphologically intermediate between the
> ancestors and other species.
>
> You also seem to be under the misapprehension that there are completed
> stages in evolution.
>
No, that's not what I was talking about. I was speaking of when and if
a new species is actually formed, and comparing it with the son that
accomplished
growing a full moustache.
>
Suzanne