*** Post of the Month (POTM) for November 2006: Vote Now! ***
Friar Broccoli
This is the first of a dozen catchup POTM ballots.
There are five nominees for November 2006. Votes may be posted
here or sent to me by private email at eliasrk(at)gmail.com [(at)=@]
When voting here, please reply directly to this post.
Voting will close midnight EST Saturday Mar 08th.
(1) From: Andrew Glasgow (5 Nov 2006)
A description of Natural Selection and falsification methods
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/5b8e4e52190ae001
news:12ktdmo...@corp.supernews.com
___________________________________________________________________
(2) From: Bryan Heit (8 Nov 2006)
on Observed and potential evolutionary effects of HIV/AIDS
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/3d426c29fee5bb3a
news:1162998057.8...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
___________________________________________________________________
(3) From: Mark Nutter (13 Nov 2006)
on Some metaphysical puzzles of the [Can science distinguish
supernatural causes from wrong ones] variety.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/68ae167b179e4bc6
news:1163470047.8...@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
___________________________________________________________________
(4) From: Mark Isaak (17 Nov 2006)
Design as an evolutionary process that includes chance,
selection, and compromise.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a07f2fed4dd7c1c4
news:pan.2006.11.17....@earthlink.net
___________________________________________________________________
(5) From: Ernest Major (22 Nov 2006)
Are ORFans evidence for design? A provisional analysis
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/93ef19a39010a794
news:Q$RfVuHr1...@meden.invalid
Ye Old One
<Eli...@gmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>(4) From: Mark Isaak (17 Nov 2006)
>Design as an evolutionary process that includes chance,
>selection, and compromise.
>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a07f2fed4dd7c1c4
>news:pan.2006.11.17....@earthlink.net
This one please.
--
Bob.
Ernest Major
<7c29e28e-dfdc-4d1b...@e60g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
Friar Broccoli <Eli...@gmail.com> writes
Glasgow's post in 2nd place).
--
alias Ernest Major
John Wilkins
> (4) From: Mark Isaak (17 Nov 2006)
> Design as an evolutionary process that includes chance,
> selection, and compromise.
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a07f2fed4dd7c1c4
> news:pan.2006.11.17....@earthlink.net
First vote
>
>
> (5) From: Ernest Major (22 Nov 2006)
> Are ORFans evidence for design? A provisional analysis
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/93ef19a39010a794
> news:Q$RfVuHr1...@meden.invalid
Second vote, to be activated in case Ernest sends me a cheque.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
Chris Thompson
news:Cm5LTUQv...@meden.invalid:
I also can vote for your post with a clear conscience.
Ernest Major's post for me please.
Chris
Friar Broccoli
> Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote
> > Friar Broccoli <Elia...@gmail.com> writes
[snip]
> >>When voting here, please reply directly to this post.
[snip]
> Ernest Major's post for me please.
The reason for that request is that I expect some discussion
in these threads, and don't want to have to go hunting
through the sub-threads for votes.
No need to vote again.
Friar Broccoli
> > (4) From: Mark Isaak (17 Nov 2006)
> > Design as an evolutionary process that includes chance,
> > selection, and compromise.
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a07f2fed4dd7c1c4
> >news:pan.2006.11.17....@earthlink.net
>
> First vote
>
>
>
> > (5) From: Ernest Major (22 Nov 2006)
> > Are ORFans evidence for design? A provisional analysis
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/93ef19a39010a794
> >news:Q$RfVuHr1...@meden.invalid
>
> Second vote, to be activated in case Ernest sends me a cheque.
Which will be ignored unless I get a photocopy of yours,
and mine is bigger.
John Wilkins
hersheyh
[snip]
______
>
> (5) From: Ernest Major (22 Nov 2006)
> Are ORFans evidence for design? A provisional analysishttp://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/93ef19a39010a794news:Q$RfVuHr1...@meden.invalid
This one.
Friar Broccoli
> Friar Broccoli <Elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 24, 10:45 pm, j.wilki...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
> > > > (4) From: Mark Isaak (17 Nov 2006)
> > > > Design as an evolutionary process that includes chance,
> > > > selection, and compromise.
> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a07f2fed4dd7c1c4
> > > >news:pan.2006.11.17....@earthlink.net
>
> > > First vote
>
> > > > (5) From: Ernest Major (22 Nov 2006)
> > > > Are ORFans evidence for design? A provisional analysis
> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/93ef19a39010a794
> > > >news:Q$RfVuHr1...@meden.invalid
>
> > > Second vote, to be activated in case Ernest sends me a cheque.
>
> > Which will be ignored unless I get a photocopy of yours,
> > and mine is bigger.
>
> Boasting is not polite...
I'm sorry, if I'd known size was a sensitive area with you
I wouldn't have raised it.
John Wilkins
It's not the size of the cheque that matters, it's what you do with it
that counts.
Ferrous Patella
j.wil...@uq.edu.au:
> It's not the size of the cheque that matters, it's what you do with it
> that counts.
Is the same true for polls? or franks?
Nic
> Hello all;
>
> This is the first of a dozen catchup POTM ballots.
>
> There are five nominees for November 2006. Votes may be posted
> here or sent to me by private email at eliasrk(at)gmail.com [(at)=@]
> When voting here, please reply directly to this post.
> Voting will close midnight EST Saturday Mar 08th.
>
A difficult choice, as they all score well for interestingness,
clarity, and most importantly in my view, author-doing-some-work-so-
that-reader-doesn't-have-to. I'll say Ernest Major, followed closely
by Andrew Glasgow.
Nic
R. Baldwin
news:7c29e28e-dfdc-4d1b...@e60g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> Hello all;
>
> This is the first of a dozen catchup POTM ballots.
>
> There are five nominees for November 2006. Votes may be posted
> here or sent to me by private email at eliasrk(at)gmail.com [(at)=@]
> When voting here, please reply directly to this post.
> Voting will close midnight EST Saturday Mar 08th.
>
All are worthy - but this one, please:
Friar Broccoli
wrote:
> All are worthy.
I completely agree, and am very concerned that almost no
one is voting.
Ernest Major
<654ff4a1-a30d-4b6a...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
Friar Broccoli <Eli...@gmail.com> writes
posts, and they can't be bothered to re-read them. (OTOH, I would have
expected people to re-read the candidate posts, even for the previous
months nominations.)
--
alias Ernest Major
Inez
Inez
Some of us Google Group people have been out of commission for the
last 5 days or so, that might have something to do with it.
Friar Broccoli
I know, I was one of them.
Thanks for voting.
It gives me a sense of meaning and purpose.
AC
> (4) From: Mark Isaak (17 Nov 2006)
> Design as an evolutionary process that includes chance,
> selection, and compromise.
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a07f2fed4dd7c1c4
> news:pan.2006.11.17....@earthlink.net
Tough call, but this one please.
--
Aaron Clausen mightym...@gmail.com
fnor
AC
I didn't get a chance until today to read the posts. I'm working on a
Sunday trying to turn a Windows SBS 2003 server into a Windows 2003 server
(for those who know what I'm talking about, take pity on me), and while I
watch the progress bar progress into infinity, I took the opportunity.
I know we're trying to catch up here, but give some of us time. It may take
me a week or so to get to it. I'm just damned busy right now.
Friar Broccoli
> > In message
> ><654ff4a1-a30d-4b6a-8b9f-63cd2c222...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> > Friar Broccoli <Elia...@gmail.com> writes
> >>On Feb 28, 12:21 am, "R. Baldwin" <res0k...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net>
> >>wrote:
>
> >>> All are worthy.
>
> >>I completely agree, and am very concerned that almost no
> >>one is voting.
>
> > In hindsight I guess that it's too long ago for people to remember the
> > posts, and they can't be bothered to re-read them. (OTOH, I would have
> > expected people to re-read the candidate posts, even for the previous
> > months nominations.)
>
> I didn't get a chance until today to read the posts. I'm working on a
> Sunday trying to turn a Windows SBS 2003 server into a Windows 2003 server
> (for those who know what I'm talking about, take pity on me), and while I
> watch the progress bar progress into infinity, I took the opportunity.
>
> I know we're trying to catch up here, but give some of us time. It may take
> me a week or so to get to it. I'm just damned busy right now.
The Great Broccoli has assured me that He will see to your
vitaminic needs until at least the next vote. Thanks.
Garamond Lethe
> (2) From: Bryan Heit (8 Nov 2006)
My vote for this one, and thanks for the reminder.
Friar Broccoli
And Thanks for reminding me about speciation of the
Australian Rock Wallaby
Jenny6833A
I vote for
> (4) From: Mark Isaak (17 Nov 2006)
> Design as an evolutionary process that includes chance,
> selection, and compromise.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a07f2fed4dd7c1c4news:pan.2006.11.17....@earthlink.net
Mark appears to be one of those much maligned engineers who, like most
of us but unlike so many so-called {dare not use the word}, actually
understands what we do.
:-)
Jenny
Wesley R. Elsberry
> Hello all;
>
> This is the first of a dozen catchup POTM ballots.
For me, this one:
Chris Thompson
63cd2c...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
Hi Friar,
There are probably two reasons the voter turnout is low.
The main reason, I bet, is the recent flap over Google Groups. Lots of
regulars who use Google were unable to post (despite Google telling them
their posts were successful) and votes may have been lost. Now, if I was
paying DIG a salary to take care of this group I'd be pissed, but I'm not,
and if the worst thing that happens to me THIS month is a week without
posting to t.o., I'm doing pretty damned good. (Personally, if I was
moderating this place, I'd probably have taken a ball-peen to Darwin years
ago.)
Second reason: It seems you're calling for votes once/week to clear out the
backlog. That might be a little too often. I know I had to go back through
the older posts in the thread to make sure I had voted for one of these
articles. My US$0.02 (soon to be converted to yuan): go back to the
once/month schedule, but have dual elections, one old, one new. Folks won't
look at the POTM VOTE NOW thread title and assume they've already voted,
because the older thread will have dropped off the radar by then.
Don't think people don't appreciate the effort here. Post of the Month is a
real favorite, and lots of folks look forward to it.
Chris
Shane
wrote:
> Hello all;
>
> This is the first of a dozen catchup POTM ballots.
>
> There are five nominees for November 2006. Votes may be posted
> here or sent to me by private email at eliasrk(at)gmail.com [(at)=@]
> When voting here, please reply directly to this post.
> Voting will close midnight EST Saturday Mar 08th.
>
> (1) From: Andrew Glasgow (5 Nov 2006)
> A description of Natural Selection and falsification methods
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/5b8e4e52190ae001
> news:12ktdmo...@corp.supernews.com
> ___________________________________________________________________
Andrew Glasgow, by a hairs breadth, with an honorable
mention to Ernest Major. It was an excellent month.
Wakboth
> Hello all;
>
> This is the first of a dozen catchup POTM ballots.
>
> There are five nominees for November 2006. Votes may be posted
> here or sent to me by private email at eliasrk(at)gmail.com [(at)=@]
> When voting here, please reply directly to this post.
> Voting will close midnight EST Saturday Mar 08th.
The following, if you please.
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
> (4) From: Mark Isaak (17 Nov 2006)
> Design as an evolutionary process that includes chance,
> selection, and compromise.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a07f2fed4dd7c1c4news:pan.2006.11.17....@earthlink.net
> ___________________________________________________________________
-- Wakboth
Friar Broccoli
wrote:
> Friar Broccoli <Elia...@gmail.com> wrote in news:654ff4a1-a30d-4b6a-8b9f-
> 63cd2c222...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Feb 28, 12:21 am, "R. Baldwin" <res0k...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net>
> > wrote:
>
> >> All are worthy.
>
> > I completely agree, and am very concerned that almost no
> > one is voting.
>
> Hi Friar,
>
> There are probably two reasons the voter turnout is low.
>
> The main reason, I bet, is the recent flap over Google Groups. Lots of
> regulars who use Google were unable to post (despite Google telling them
> their posts were successful) and votes may have been lost. Now, if I was
> paying DIG a salary to take care of this group I'd be pissed, but I'm not,
> and if the worst thing that happens to me THIS month is a week without
> posting to t.o., I'm doing pretty damned good. (Personally, if I was
> moderating this place, I'd probably have taken a ball-peen to Darwin years
> ago.)
>
> Second reason: It seems you're calling for votes once/week to clear out the
> backlog.
Just for the record it is once every two weeks, and never at
the same time as a current vote.
> That might be a little too often. I know I had to go back through
> the older posts in the thread to make sure I had voted for one of these
> articles. My US$0.02 (soon to be converted to yuan):
Are you off to China, or are you just projecting to the approaching
moment when China will call in the Bush's debt?
go back to the
> once/month schedule, but have dual elections, one old, one new. Folks won't
> look at the POTM VOTE NOW thread title and assume they've already voted,
> because the older thread will have dropped off the radar by then.
Well, my judgement was that most folks wouldn't want to read
two sets of POTM posts at the same time, so I would just wind
up reducing the voting population for both sets of votes if I ran
two ballots at once.
What I think I will do is run the remaining ballots backward in time,
beginning from Dec2007, then Nov2007 etc, so that at least a
few votes are from recent memory.
Ray Martinez
> Hello all;
>
> This is the first of a dozen catchup POTM ballots.
>
> There are five nominees for November 2006. Votes may be posted
> here or sent to me by private email at eliasrk(at)gmail.com [(at)=@]
> When voting here, please reply directly to this post.
> Voting will close midnight EST Saturday Mar 08th.
>
>
> (4) From: Mark Isaak (17 Nov 2006)
> Design as an evolutionary process that includes chance,
> selection, and compromise.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a07f2fed4dd7c1c4news:pan.2006.11.17....@earthlink.net
>
I vote for Mark Isaak for the following reasons:
His post shows clearly how a very knowledgeable evolutionist, with an
ulterior motive, will attempt to confuse the issue about the existence
of design. Isaak, like Daniel Dennett and Michael Shermer, seems to
concede that design exists in nature, unlike Charles Darwin and
Richard Dawkins, both of whom say design does not exist in nature.
Even though Dawkins admits the appearance to exist, he is clear to say
it is not real or actual, but illusory. Isaak's commentary, if read
carefully, does not make this distinction. He simply presupposes
design to exist in nature - why?
Although all four persons including Isaak agree that nature was
produced mainly by natural selection, and, of course, all these
persons agree that natural selection does not exhibit Divine control
or guidance, or any intelligence, Isaak's view along with Dennett and
Shermer, which says natural selection produces design (no adjectival
negation), is simply a reaction to the perceived success of the
current ID movement and an ad hoc attempt to steal that success by
saying design is produced by natural selection (instead of implied
invisible Intelligence).
The view of Charles Darwin and Richard Dawkins remains, and always
will remain, as the objective view of evolutionary theory.
Ray
[Please no replies unless accompanied by a vote for one of the
nominees.]
Chris Thompson
> On Mar 3, 6:57 am, Chris Thompson <cthomp...@TAKEOUT.bmcc.cuny.edu>
> wrote:
>> Friar Broccoli <Elia...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:654ff4a1-a30d-4b6a-8b9f-
>> 63cd2c222...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > On Feb 28, 12:21 am, "R. Baldwin" <res0k...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >> All are worthy.
>>
>> > I completely agree, and am very concerned that almost no
>> > one is voting.
>>
>> Hi Friar,
>>
>> There are probably two reasons the voter turnout is low.
>>
>> The main reason, I bet, is the recent flap over Google Groups. Lots
>> of regulars who use Google were unable to post (despite Google
>> telling them their posts were successful) and votes may have been
>> lost. Now, if I was paying DIG a salary to take care of this group
>> I'd be pissed, but I'm not, and if the worst thing that happens to me
>> THIS month is a week without posting to t.o., I'm doing pretty damned
>> good. (Personally, if I was moderating this place, I'd probably have
>> taken a ball-peen to Darwin years ago.)
>>
>> Second reason: It seems you're calling for votes once/week to clear
>> out the backlog.
>
> Just for the record it is once every two weeks, and never at
> the same time as a current vote.
I wonder if folks are not paying close attention to the date. They might
just see POTM and assume it was an older thread.
>
>> That might be a little too often. I know I had to go back through
>> the older posts in the thread to make sure I had voted for one of
>> these articles. My US$0.02 (soon to be converted to yuan):
>
> Are you off to China, or are you just projecting to the approaching
> moment when China will call in the Bush's debt?
Bush gets a share of blame, to be certain. But the lion's share goes to
that evil man, Alan Greenspan, who might have done more harm to the US
middle class and poor than both Bushes combined.
>
> go back to the
>> once/month schedule, but have dual elections, one old, one new. Folks
>> won't look at the POTM VOTE NOW thread title and assume they've
>> already voted, because the older thread will have dropped off the
>> radar by then.
>
> Well, my judgement was that most folks wouldn't want to read
> two sets of POTM posts at the same time, so I would just wind
> up reducing the voting population for both sets of votes if I ran
> two ballots at once.
I yhink you underestimate how much people enjoy potm.
Chris
Steven J.
> Hello all;
>
> This is the first of a dozen catchup POTM ballots.
>
> There are five nominees for November 2006. Votes may be posted
> here or sent to me by private email at eliasrk(at)gmail.com [(at)=@]
> When voting here, please reply directly to this post.
> Voting will close midnight EST Saturday Mar 08th.
>
>
-- [snip]
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
> (5) From: Ernest Major (22 Nov 2006)
> Are ORFans evidence for design? A provisional analysishttp://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/93ef19a39010a794news:Q$RfVuHr1...@meden.invalid
>
-- Steven J.
Steven J.
> On Feb 24, 8:45 am, Friar Broccoli <Elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hello all;
>
> > This is the first of a dozen catchup POTM ballots.
>
> > There are five nominees for November 2006. Votes may be posted
> > here or sent to me by private email at eliasrk(at)gmail.com [(at)=@]
> > When voting here, please reply directly to this post.
> > Voting will close midnight EST Saturday Mar 08th.
>
> > (4) From: Mark Isaak (17 Nov 2006)
> > Design as an evolutionary process that includes chance,
>
> I vote for Mark Isaak for the following reasons:
>
> His post shows clearly how a very knowledgeable evolutionist, with an
> ulterior motive, will attempt to confuse the issue about the existence
> of design. Isaak, like Daniel Dennett and Michael Shermer, seems to
> concede that design exists in nature, unlike Charles Darwin and
> Richard Dawkins, both of whom say design does not exist in nature.
> Even though Dawkins admits the appearance to exist, he is clear to say
> it is not real or actual, but illusory. Isaak's commentary, if read
> carefully, does not make this distinction. He simply presupposes
> design to exist in nature - why?
>
their works are part of nature: Hoover Dam is as much a "natural"
phenomenon as a beaver dam. As has often been noted, ID depends on an
argument by analogy, but all known designers are *natural* designers,
part of nature, constrained by their own natures, and operating to
some extent through trial and error.
>
> Although all four persons including Isaak agree that nature was
> produced mainly by natural selection, and, of course, all these
> persons agree that natural selection does not exhibit Divine control
> or guidance, or any intelligence, Isaak's view along with Dennett and
> Shermer, which says natural selection produces design (no adjectival
> negation), is simply a reaction to the perceived success of the
> current ID movement and an ad hoc attempt to steal that success by
> saying design is produced by natural selection (instead of implied
> invisible Intelligence).
>
"design;" contrary to the position of your e-mail friend backspace,
words don't have divinely-ordained, immutable meanings, but rather
meanings that change and shift across time and context. OTOH, Mark
Isaak's point, of course, was not that natural selection produces
"design," but that actual design, in our experience, is not
supernatural but a natural process of trail and error which in many
ways resembles natural selection.
>
> The view of Charles Darwin and Richard Dawkins remains, and always
> will remain, as the objective view of evolutionary theory.
>
> Ray
>
> [Please no replies unless accompanied by a vote for one of the
> nominees.]
>
Ernest Major's post offered more new insights and scientific data.
It's something of a judgment call, but I voted for nominee five (but
please note, gentle vote tabulator, to count my reply to Friar
Broccoli and not this reply to Ray).
-- Steven J.
Friar Broccoli
wrote:
> Friar Broccoli <Elia...@gmail.com> wrote innews:677d8a5a-cb83-480a...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
> >> That might be a little too often. I know I had to go back through
> >> the older posts in the thread to make sure I had voted for one of
> >> these articles. My US$0.02 (soon to be converted to yuan):
>
> > Are you off toChina, or are you just projecting to the approaching
> > moment whenChinawill call in the Bush's debt?
>
> Bush gets a share of blame, to be certain. But the lion's share goes to
> that evil man, Alan Greenspan, who might have done more harm to the US
> middle class and poor than both Bushes combined.
?? Hmmm, I can't see how Greenspan could in anyway be
responsible for the Trillion dollars that has been added to the
debt EACH year since Bush came into office.
Chris Thompson
That's Bush's fault, obviously. Greenspan just made us infinitely less able
to pay it off in a timely fashion (i.e., before our great- great- great-
grandchildren are dead.)
Chris
Friar Broccoli
wrote:
I'm extremely confused here. As of today the US debt is estimated to
be 9.3 trillion $, thus Bush will finish with a nice round 10 trillion
(and a
bit), which is nearly as big as US GDP at 13.5 trillion. Interest
payments
alone will now cause the debt to rise by 1/2 a trillion a year.
Forget about paying Bush's debt off, my question is, what could
Greenspan have done, that would have made it possible to stop
the growth in the debt? My question is asked a bit sarcastically,
but I really don't know what sins Greenspan is supposed to have
committed.
I mean really, what could the man have done with the US government
sucking up every free penny available from the lending markets?
Free Lunch
Trivial things like speaking up against irresponsible tax cuts that
weren't matched with spending cuts. The guy endorsed irresponsible
spending.
Sonofagunzel
Chris Thompson
> On Mar 4, 8:22 pm, Chris Thompson <cthomp...@TAKEOUT.bmcc.cuny.edu>
> wrote:
>> Friar Broccoli <Elia...@gmail.com> wrote
>> innews:5f360bc9-a551-4fcd-ab12-93968ffbfe45
@q33g2000hsh.googlegroups.c
>> om:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 4, 4:05 am, Chris Thompson <rockwall...@TAKEOUThotmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >> Friar Broccoli <Elia...@gmail.com> wrote
>> >> innews:677d8a5a-cb83-480a-b83a-ac9d5c187237
@d4g2000prg.googlegroups
>> >> .co m:
>>
>> >> >> That might be a little too often. I know I had to go back
>> >> >> through the older posts in the thread to make sure I had voted
>> >> >> for one of these articles. My US$0.02 (soon to be converted to
>> >> >> yuan):
>>
>> >> > Are you off toChina, or are you just projecting to the
>> >> > approaching moment whenChinawill call in the Bush's debt?
>>
>> >> Bush gets a share of blame, to be certain. But the lion's share
>> >> goes to that evil man, Alan Greenspan, who might have done more
>> >> harm to the US middle class and poor than both Bushes combined.
>>
>> > ?? Hmmm, I can't see how Greenspan could in anyway be
>> > responsible for the Trillion dollars that has been added to the
>> > debt EACH year since Bush came into office.
>>
>> That's Bush's fault, obviously. Greenspan just made us infinitely
>> less able to pay it off in a timely fashion (i.e., before our great-
>> great- great- grandchildren are dead.)
>
> I'm extremely confused here. As of today the US debt is estimated to
> be 9.3 trillion $, thus Bush will finish with a nice round 10 trillion
> (and a
> bit), which is nearly as big as US GDP at 13.5 trillion. Interest
> payments
> alone will now cause the debt to rise by 1/2 a trillion a year.
>
> Forget about paying Bush's debt off,
Um, no. Since I limited Greenspan's effect to our ability to pay it off,
it seems odd to forget that part.
> my question is, what could
> Greenspan have done, that would have made it possible to stop
> the growth in the debt? My question is asked a bit sarcastically,
> but I really don't know what sins Greenspan is supposed to have
> committed.
>
> I mean really, what could the man have done with the US government
> sucking up every free penny available from the lending markets?
>
Please, go back and take another look at what I wrote. I didn't say he
was responsible for the debt; I said he made it much much harder to pay
off. There's a big difference. Without the destruction of the middle
class- over which he presided for 20 years- the debt, while
reprehensible, would not be nearly as daunting.
As to a _direct effect_, you might recall that the Federal Reserve sets
interest rates. While the bond market in turn influences the rates the
government is forced to pay on Treasury Notes, the head of the Federal
Reserve exerts a tremendous amount of influence on the rates. Now, I am
still looking into this because I don't understand it entirely, but I've
read recently that Greenspan's actions, especially wrt the housing
bubble, severely damaged the market in US bonds, forcing us to pay
higher rates than we really should be. As I said, I'm looking for more
info on this, and it might be smoke, but it doesn't seem altogether
impossible.
Chris
Friar Broccoli
> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 18:01:27 -0800 (PST), in talk.origins
> <afea334d-75da-4d4a-84b8-dfdfabc50...@d62g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>:
True. Being the only responsible adult involved with economic
policy he should have said something publicly and then resigned,
so Bush could replace him with someone he liked better.
Friar Broccoli
wrote:
Greenspan has had close to nothing to do with "the destruction
of the middle class". That is almost certainly caused by the
outsourcing of low skill jobs to mostly China, and India and
Mexico to a lesser extent.
Canada solved that problem with large subsidies for retraining
older workers (including me).
Greenspan could not have implemented such policies, and it is
difficult to imagine what else he could have done to affect
this problem.
> As to a _direct effect_, you might recall that the Federal
> Reserve sets interest rates. While the bond market in turn
> influences the rates the government is forced to pay on
> Treasury Notes, the head of the Federal Reserve exerts a
> tremendous amount of influence on the rates. Now, I am still
> looking into this because I don't understand it entirely, but
> I've read recently that Greenspan's actions, especially wrt
> the housing bubble, severely damaged the market in US bonds,
> forcing us to pay higher rates than we really should be. As I
> said, I'm looking for more info on this, and it might be
> smoke, but it doesn't seem altogether impossible.
Interest rate policy is an extremely blunt instrument. No
matter what you do, there are always winners and loosers.
Greenspan's job is to adjust rates/money supply so that over
the long term there are more winners. Given that during the
last 7 years he has been competing with a government that is
intent on bleeding the patient to death, it is amazing he has
kept things going this long.
Do I understand the details? Absolutely not.
Do I know the details? Absolutely not.
Could I understand the details if I tried? Not a chance.
Cordially;
Friar Broccoli
Robert Keith Elias, Quebec, Canada Email: EliasRK (of) gmail * com
Best programmer's & all purpose text editor: http://www.semware.com
--------- I consider ALL arguments in support of my views ---------
Free Lunch
Friar Broccoli <Eli...@gmail.com> wrote in
<2d1a7452-23ba-43d9...@47g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>:
Sadly, when it came to enabling irresposibility on Wall Street, he was
like the guy who got out the beer bongs after everyone was completely
smashed.
Chris Thompson
> On Mar 5, 5:32 am, Chris Thompson <cthomp...@TAKEOUT.bmcc.cuny.edu>
> wrote:
>> Friar Broccoli <Elia...@gmail.com> wrote
>> innews:afea334d-75da-4d4a-84b8-
dfdfab...@d62g2000hsf.googlegroups.c
>> om:
When Greenspan became chief of the Fed, one of his first actions was to
convince then-President Reagan that payroll taxes for Social Security
and Medicaire should be increased. That increase, he forecast, would
keep benefit payments stable in perpetuity. A few years ago he
engineered a decrease in benefit payments for Social Security. This was
neccessitated by his short-sightedness. Any actuary in the country could
have told him that there were more people in line to collect SS than
ever before, but he ignore reality.
More recently, Greenspan extolled the virtues of adjustable-rate
mortgates. He did this just in time to get thousands- tens of
thousands?- of people in on the housing crash.
When it comes to the murder of the middle class, Greenspan has plenty of
blood on his hands.
Chris
Chris Thompson
> On Mar 4, 11:58 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 18:01:27 -0800 (PST), in talk.origins
>> Friar Broccoli <Elia...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> <afea334d-75da-4d4a-84b8-dfdfabc50...@d62g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Mar 4, 8:22 pm, Chris Thompson <cthomp...@TAKEOUT.bmcc.cuny.edu>
>> >wrote:
>> >> Friar Broccoli <Elia...@gmail.com> wrote
>> >> innews:5f360bc9-a551-4fcd-ab12-93968ffbfe45
@q33g2000hsh.googlegroup
>> >> s.com:
>>
>> >> > On Mar 4, 4:05 am, Chris Thompson
>> >> > <rockwall...@TAKEOUThotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> Friar Broccoli <Elia...@gmail.com> wrote
>> >> >> innews:677d8a5a-cb83-480a-b83a-ac9d5c187237
@d4g2000prg.googlegro
>> >> >> ups.co m:
There was no one Bush could have liked better- with the possible
exception of Bernanke, who is a retarded clone of Greenspan.
Chris
The Last Conformist
Max
adolescent thrill of being able to say I voted for a Nutter. :)
On Feb 24, 11:45 am, Friar Broccoli <Elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello all;
>
> This is the first of a dozen catchup POTM ballots.
>
> There are five nominees for November 2006. Votes may be posted
> here or sent to me by private email at eliasrk(at)gmail.com [(at)=@]
> When voting here, please reply directly to this post.
> Voting will close midnight EST Saturday Mar 08th.
>
> (1) From: Andrew Glasgow (5 Nov 2006)
> A description of Natural Selection and falsification methodshttp://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/5b8e4e52190ae001news:12ktdmo...@corp.supernews.com
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
> (2) From: Bryan Heit (8 Nov 2006)
> on Observed and potential evolutionary effects of HIV/AIDShttp://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/3d426c29fee5bb3anews:1162998057.8...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
> (3) From: Mark Nutter (13 Nov 2006)
> on Some metaphysical puzzles of the [Can science distinguish
> supernatural causes from wrong ones] variety.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/68ae167b179e4bc6news:1163470047.8...@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
> (4) From: Mark Isaak (17 Nov 2006)
> Design as an evolutionary process that includes chance,
> selection, and compromise.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a07f2fed4dd7c1c4news:pan.2006.11.17....@earthlink.net
> ___________________________________________________________________
Friar Broccoli
wrote:
> Friar Broccoli <Elia...@gmail.com> wrote innews:b0cdcea3-df99-4619...@v3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Mar 5, 5:32 am, Chris Thompson <cthomp...@TAKEOUT.bmcc.cuny.edu>
> > wrote:
> >> Friar Broccoli <Elia...@gmail.com> wrote
> >> innews:afea334d-75da-4d4a-84b8-
>
I am going to (at least partially) concede this argument, but before I
do,
I just have to say that the first example you have given below looks
like an appallingly bad example of your position:
> When Greenspan became chief of the Fed, one of his first actions was to
> convince then-President Reagan that payroll taxes for Social Security
> and Medicaire should be increased.
So he appears to have correctly anticipated the obvious: More
money was required to fund Social Security as us baby boomers
got older.
> That increase, he forecast, would
> keep benefit payments stable in perpetuity. A few years ago he
> engineered a decrease in benefit payments for Social Security. This was
> neccessitated by his short-sightedness.
What short-sightedness? I have no idea how much payroll taxes
were increased, but my bet would be: much less than the minimum
Greenspan said was needed. So he acted to put the situation in
balance, and cut benefits, sending a signal to individuals that they
would have to care of themselves
> Any actuary in the country could
> have told him that there were more people in line to collect SS than
> ever before, but he ignore reality.
If so, your example does not show how.
>
> More recently, Greenspan extolled the virtues of adjustable-rate
> mortgates. He did this just in time to get thousands- tens of
> thousands?- of people in on the housing crash.
I don't know the details of this, but having read a very very little
about the man, this appears to be consistent with his general
philosophy. He believes that markets and economies must be
free from (mostly government) regulation if they are to evolve to
become efficient in the light of new innovations and challenges.
Parenthetically, as a somewhat weird example of this. I used to
wonder why the Chinese and/or Japanese didn't expand enough
to get AT LEAST Australia, instead of letting us European
descendants get it all. The answer appears to have been the
heavy hand of sometimes benevolent central governments.
> When it comes to the murder of the middle class, Greenspan has plenty of
> blood on his hands.
He might agree with that, and add that it is the price that needs
to be paid for an economy that can remain strong and vibrant
into the future.
My own position: I think (economic) evolution is a good thing;
for other people.
Chris Thompson
snip
>>
>> > Greenspan could not have implemented such policies, and it is
>> > difficult to imagine what else he could have done to affect
>> > this problem.
>
> I am going to (at least partially) concede this argument, but before I
> do,
> I just have to say that the first example you have given below looks
> like an appallingly bad example of your position:
>
>> When Greenspan became chief of the Fed, one of his first actions was
>> to convince then-President Reagan that payroll taxes for Social
>> Security and Medicaire should be increased.
>
> So he appears to have correctly anticipated the obvious: More
> money was required to fund Social Security as us baby boomers
> got older.
No, he didn't. He did not take appropriate action. He forced people to
pay more into the system _knowing_ it was not enough to deal with the
problem- but it got the middle class paying more taxes, and don't ever
for a moment think the government leaves Social Security alone. They
raid it all the time, and replace it with IOUs. Reagan engineered the
biggest tax increase in history (up until Bush I, that is) and the most
unbalanced budgets, and a big chunk of it wound up being financed with
yours and my Social Security taxes, which were then replaced by Treasury
Bills gobbled up by the people who _weren't_ feeling the pain of higher
payroll taxes. So we got screwed at least twice.
>
>> That increase, he forecast, would
>> keep benefit payments stable in perpetuity. A few years ago he
>> engineered a decrease in benefit payments for Social Security. This
>> was neccessitated by his short-sightedness.
>
> What short-sightedness? I have no idea how much payroll taxes
> were increased, but my bet would be: much less than the minimum
> Greenspan said was needed. So he acted to put the situation in
> balance, and cut benefits, sending a signal to individuals that they
> would have to care of themselves
>
>> Any actuary in the country could
>> have told him that there were more people in line to collect SS than
>> ever before, but he ignore reality.
>
> If so, your example does not show how.
I know you know what an actuary does. They forecast things like life
expectancies, earnings, sickness- often in relation to age. The cohort
of people coming of retirement age had a certain life expectancy. They
had a certain earnings potential. What Greenspan did was to insure that
the people who are retiring now would not receive the benefits they paid
into the system. The baby boomers are a statistical blip. Had the
government prepared for it 30 years ago- and it was known then what was
going to happen now- we wouldn't be having this issue. Greenspan is up
there talking about the great job he did, and how no one could have
forecast the bubbles he created, which is an out-and-out lie, since
plenty of people were talking about them long before they burst. And
no, he wasn't the only problem, but the SOB sure wasn't any kind of
solution, as he claims.
>>
>> More recently, Greenspan extolled the virtues of adjustable-rate
>> mortgates. He did this just in time to get thousands- tens of
>> thousands?- of people in on the housing crash.
>
> I don't know the details of this, but having read a very very little
> about the man, this appears to be consistent with his general
> philosophy. He believes that markets and economies must be
> free from (mostly government) regulation if they are to evolve to
> become efficient in the light of new innovations and challenges.
The mortgage markets, having been freed from such government regulation,
were incredibly efficient in fleecing people from their money, sticking
them with ARMs that would readjust in a year to outlandish (what used to
be called "usury") interest rates, all based on Greenspan's completely
unwarranted remarks about ARMs.
>
> Parenthetically, as a somewhat weird example of this. I used to
> wonder why the Chinese and/or Japanese didn't expand enough
> to get AT LEAST Australia, instead of letting us European
> descendants get it all. The answer appears to have been the
> heavy hand of sometimes benevolent central governments.
I think just before the European Middle Ages, China had a fleet of
trading vessels that rivaled anything on the planet for the next 300
years or so. An emperor came to power that didn't like boats: he ordered
the ships sunk and the yards burned. I'm sure that's in Wiki somewhere.
>> When it comes to the murder of the middle class, Greenspan has plenty
>> of blood on his hands.
>
> He might agree with that, and add that it is the price that needs
> to be paid for an economy that can remain strong and vibrant
> into the future.
Then he's full of shit, since a strong middle class is what makes for a
strong economy. A powerful small elite and throngs of have-nots is a
recipe for civil unrest- which is generally not associated with a strong
economy.
Chris
Walter Bushell
<2d1a7452-23ba-43d9...@47g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
Friar Broccoli <Eli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >Forget about paying Bush's debt off, my question is, what could
> > >Greenspan have done, that would have made it possible to stop
> > >the growth in the debt? My question is asked a bit sarcastically,
> > >but I really don't know what sins Greenspan is supposed to have
> > >committed.
> >
> > Trivial things like speaking up against irresponsible tax cuts that
> > weren't matched with spending cuts. The guy endorsed irresponsible
> > spending.
>
> True. Being the only responsible adult involved with economic
> policy he should have said something publicly and then resigned,
> so Bush could replace him with someone he liked better.
He could have tighten credit. He could have had a quiet talk with some
bankers about why that they were doing was not kosher, when the Fed
speaks banks listen.
Trouble is housing was sustaining the economy and any move to abort the
bubble is likely to touch off a recession. Bubbles are like virginity
one pick, all gone.
--
What is done in the heat of battle is (normatively) judged
by different standards than what is leisurely planned in
comfortable conference rooms.
Chris Thompson
news:proto-A7CF91....@70-1-84-166.area1.spcsdns.net:
> In article
> <2d1a7452-23ba-43d9...@47g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> Friar Broccoli <Eli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > >Forget about paying Bush's debt off, my question is, what could
>> > >Greenspan have done, that would have made it possible to stop
>> > >the growth in the debt? My question is asked a bit sarcastically,
>> > >but I really don't know what sins Greenspan is supposed to have
>> > >committed.
>> >
>> > Trivial things like speaking up against irresponsible tax cuts that
>> > weren't matched with spending cuts. The guy endorsed irresponsible
>> > spending.
>>
>> True. Being the only responsible adult involved with economic
>> policy he should have said something publicly and then resigned,
>> so Bush could replace him with someone he liked better.
>
> He could have tighten credit. He could have had a quiet talk with some
> bankers about why that they were doing was not kosher, when the Fed
> speaks banks listen.
>
> Trouble is housing was sustaining the economy and any move to abort
> the bubble is likely to touch off a recession. Bubbles are like
> virginity one pick, all gone.
>
Some economists and money-managers have been complaining about
Greenspan's propensity for bubbles for quite some time. The one I'm most
familiar with is Bill Fleckenstein, who writes a weekly column called
The Contrarian Chronicles for MSN Money (every Monday, if you're
interested). No one is able to predict the future but he's got a darn
good track record at calling- in advance- the consequences of the Fed's
policies over the last 10 years or so (well, his column is only about 8
years old I believe). He's also just published a book that makes a
strong case for laying much of the current state of the economy square
at Greenspan's feet:
http://www.amazon.com/Greenspans-Bubbles-Ignorance-Federal-
Reserve/dp/007
1591583/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205675598&sr=8-1
or
So no, while Bush's wastrel spending is not Greenspan's fault, there's
plenty of other bad stuff that is, I believe- including the massive
recession we're entering now, that is going to be much longer and much
more painful than neccesary, because of the serial bubbles he created.
Chris
Friar Broccoli
(4) From: Mark Isaak (17 Nov 2006)
Design as an evolutionary process that includes chance,
selection, and compromise.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a07f2fed4dd7c1c4
news:pan.2006.11.17....@earthlink.net
Note that I got 9 votes for this and 9 for all others.
I had no votes by private email. Feel free to double check
my count.
I will be a bit slow getting these things up since I need to take
some time figuring out how to automate the process.
Thanks to all those who voted.
If you haven't voted for Dec 2007, please go here:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/41d33cdcac56791e?
news:caeebe02-ecaa-4bfe...@e60g2000hsh.googlegroups.com
Ernest Major
<3ad2d9ea-3348-4746...@c19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Friar Broccoli <Eli...@gmail.com> writes
>4) From: Mark Isaak (17 Nov 2006)
>Design as an evolutionary process that includes chance, selection, and
>compromise.
>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a07f2fed4dd7c1c4
>news:pan.2006.11.17....@earthlink.net
>
>Note that I got 9 votes for this and 9 for all others. I had no votes
>by private email. Feel free to double check my count.
I make it 1, 1, 1, 9, 7. I had the impression that Andrew Glasgow had
garnered more votes, but they must have been honourable mentions.
--
alias Ernest Major
Friar Broccoli
> In message
> <3ad2d9ea-3348-4746-803c-8cba30df1...@c19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> Friar Broccoli <Elia...@gmail.com> writes
>
> >4) From: Mark Isaak (17 Nov 2006)
> >Design as an evolutionary process that includes chance, selection, and
> >compromise.
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a07f2fed4dd7c1c4
> >news:pan.2006.11.17....@earthlink.net
>
> >Note that I got 9 votes for this and 9 for all others. I had no votes
> >by private email. Feel free to double check my count.
>
> I make it 1, 1, 1, 9, 7. I had the impression that Andrew Glasgow had
> garnered more votes, but they must have been honourable mentions.
Well, as long as the outcome is not in dispute ...
I was very surprised that that thing on HIV/evolution didn't get
more votes. I thought it had a chance of winning.
Shane
I, make it 2, 1, 1, 9, 7 *if* you count *both* of Sonofagunzel's
votes--as he voted twice, once for Andrew Glasgow and once for Mark
Isaak. His AG vote came in before the MI vote, However if neither vote
is counted, and its against the rules to vote twice, and impossible to
tell who he really wanted to vote for, although the second vote may
carry more weight, then it drops back to 1, 1, 1, 8, 7, not that it
makes any difference to the result.
Ray Martinez
> (4) From: Mark Isaak (17 Nov 2006)
> Design as an evolutionary process that includes chance,
>
> Note that I got 9 votes for this and 9 for all others.
> I had no votes by private email. Feel free to double check
> my count.
>
> I will be a bit slow getting these things up since I need to take
> some time figuring out how to automate the process.
>
> Thanks to all those who voted.
>
Does not the Creationist-ID response get posted with the winner?
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/ea362a19adb124f9
Ray
Steven J.
> On Mar 16, 11:08 am, Friar Broccoli <Elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > (4) From: Mark Isaak (17 Nov 2006)
> > Design as an evolutionary process that includes chance,
>
> > Note that I got 9 votes for this and 9 for all others.
> > I had no votes by private email. Feel free to double check
> > my count.
>
> > I will be a bit slow getting these things up since I need to take
> > some time figuring out how to automate the process.
>
> > Thanks to all those who voted.
>
> Does not the Creationist-ID response get posted with the winner?
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/ea362a19adb124f9
>
and decide (even if they use votes from the newsgroup as the basis for
their decisions) what gets put there to include rebuttal posts to the
post of the month. On occasion, they have included a runner-up or
"editor's choice," but usually it's just the post voted PotM by
itself.
Note that when Mark Isaak originally posted the article, Tony Pagano
posted an attempted rebuttal, and Franck and Dick posted responses
that criticized aspects of the original post. So if it were decided
to post a Creationist-ID response, presumably we would have to hold
another vote to figure out who offered the best response; it is
premature to assume that yours would automatically be deemed the best
or most relevant.
>
> Ray
-- Steven J.
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hmmm.
Ray
Dana Tweedy
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d9ef16d4-2cdd-4a54...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
No, why would it? If the POTM had been by a "Creationist-IDer" it
wouldn't get an "evolutionist" response posted.
DJT
Friar Broccoli
>
> > (4) From: Mark Isaak (17 Nov 2006)
> > Design as an evolutionary process that includes chance,
>
> > Note that I got 9 votes for this and 9 for all others.
> > I had no votes by private email. Feel free to double check
> > my count.
>
> > I will be a bit slow getting these things up since I need to take
> > some time figuring out how to automate the process.
>
> > Thanks to all those who voted.
>
> Does not the Creationist-ID response get posted with the winner?
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/ea362a19adb124f9
As already noted, I could not make such a decision on my own,
even were I so inclined, and as you may suspect I am not at all
so inclined, even though I very much appreciate your
participation in the votes.
Just for fun, I will also note a second problem: you refer to "*the*
Creationist-ID response". As I am sure you are aware, there is
no such thing as THE C-ID position. There are almost as many
creationist positions as there are creationists.
We evolutionists on the other hand stick pretty closely to the
official party line, because (I suggest) that line is constrained by
observational evidence. The reason (I suggest) that there are
so many C-ID positions, is that you folks are largely unconstrained
by much of anything, and so can (and do) just make stuff up.
Given that scripture can reasonably be interpreted in many different
ways, I hope you will begin considering the possibility that it can be
read in a way that is consistent with the other observational
evidence that God has left us. This is essentially the same position
that Augustine and Aquinas (via VBM) are urging on you.
Sonofagunzel
> On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 19:32:47 +0000, Ernest Major wrote:
> > In message
> > Friar Broccoli <Elia...@gmail.com> writes
> >>4) From: Mark Isaak (17 Nov 2006)
> >>Design as an evolutionary process that includes chance, selection, and
> >>compromise.
> >>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a07f2fed4dd7c1c4
> >>news:pan.2006.11.17....@earthlink.net
>
> >>Note that I got 9 votes for this and 9 for all others. I had no votes
> >>by private email. Feel free to double check my count.
>
> > I make it 1, 1, 1, 9, 7. I had the impression that Andrew Glasgow had
> > garnered more votes, but they must have been honourable mentions.
>
> I, make it 2, 1, 1, 9, 7 *if* you count *both* of Sonofagunzel's
> votes--as he voted twice, once for Andrew Glasgow and once for Mark
> Isaak. His AG vote came in before the MI vote, However if neither vote
> is counted, and its against the rules to vote twice, and impossible to
> tell who he really wanted to vote for, although the second vote may
> carry more weight, then it drops back to 1, 1, 1, 8, 7, not that it
> makes any difference to the result.
I didn't vote twice. Google groups is showing only one post of mine in
this thread.
I did however, change my vote. When I did, I did it in a new post,
and deleted the old one. Perhaps there's some glitch where some
versions of this thread are still showing both my posts.
Ernest Major
<9d4c5348-4fd7-4adb...@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
Sonofagunzel <soa...@yahoo.com.au> writes
--
alias Ernest Major
Shane
> On Mar 17, 10:45 am, Shane <remar...@Netscape.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 19:32:47 +0000, Ernest Major wrote:
>>> In message
>>> <3ad2d9ea-3348-4746-803c-8cba30df1...@c19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>>> Friar Broccoli <Elia...@gmail.com> writes
>>>>4) From: Mark Isaak (17 Nov 2006)
>>>>Design as an evolutionary process that includes chance, selection, and
>>>>compromise.
>>>>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a07f2fed4dd7c1c4
>>>>news:pan.2006.11.17....@earthlink.net
>>
>>>>Note that I got 9 votes for this and 9 for all others. I had no votes
>>>>by private email. Feel free to double check my count.
>>
>>> I make it 1, 1, 1, 9, 7. I had the impression that Andrew Glasgow had
>>> garnered more votes, but they must have been honourable mentions.
>>
>> I, make it 2, 1, 1, 9, 7 *if* you count *both* of Sonofagunzel's
>> votes--as he voted twice, once for Andrew Glasgow and once for Mark
>> Isaak. His AG vote came in before the MI vote, However if neither vote
>> is counted, and its against the rules to vote twice, and impossible to
>> tell who he really wanted to vote for, although the second vote may
>> carry more weight, then it drops back to 1, 1, 1, 8, 7, not that it
>> makes any difference to the result.
>
> I didn't vote twice. Google groups is showing only one post of mine in
> this thread.
No problem, but Google Groups is hardly a robust newssreader. Your first
post has been downloaded to a number of newsservers and from thence
downloaded to countless newsreaders, where it still shows up.
> I did however, change my vote. When I did, I did it in a new post,
> and deleted the old one. Perhaps there's some glitch where some
> versions of this thread are still showing both my posts.
Adding to what EM said, it may have been better to leave the original
post in place and make your second post very clear in that it was
cancelling the previous one. 20/20 hindsight, aint it grand?
AC
It's my understanding that damned few do now. Even in the olden days
cancels were hit and miss; a nice idea that didn't always seem to work in
practice.
--
Aaron Clausen mightym...@gmail.com
fnor
Ray Martinez
> On Mar 16, 5:59 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 16, 11:08 am, Friar Broccoli <Elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > (4) From: Mark Isaak (17 Nov 2006)
> > > Design as an evolutionary process that includes chance,
> > > selection, and compromise.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a07f2fed4dd7c1c4news:...
>
> > > Note that I got 9 votes for this and 9 for all others.
> > > I had no votes by private email. Feel free to double check
> > > my count.
>
> > > I will be a bit slow getting these things up since I need to take
> > > some time figuring out how to automate the process.
>
> > > Thanks to all those who voted.
>
> > Does not the Creationist-ID response get posted with the winner?
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/ea362a19adb124f9
>
> As already noted, I could not make such a decision on my own,
> even were I so inclined, and as you may suspect I am not at all
> so inclined,
Why not?
If roles were reversed I would be very much inclined because it would
contrast the degree to which the evolutionist response fails. Your
position is based on fear and censorship whether you admit (and of
course, you won't) or not. Over at Uncommon Descent they have a list
of arguments not to make or the Atheist dunce who fronts for Dembski
will not post your message. This list shows fear - fear of an argument
that they, whether they admit or not, cannot refute. That is why they
have such a list even though the reason they provide for the existence
of the list says the banned arguments are PRATTs. If I was an
evolutionist I would never fail, day or night, to bring this list to
the attention of the world. Banning your opponents arguments for any
reason is because you cannot refute. While the point here is entirely
hypothetical, the point is that your position is the same: you are not
inclined because you cannot refute and perceive a response would harm
the evolutionary view.
> even though I very much appreciate your
> participation in the votes.
>
I only vote so I can also post my reason for voting, otherwise my
participation would make no sense. I realize that my reason has no
chance of being heard outside this medium, but like I said: I wouldn't
hesitate if our roles were reversed. When my paper is released I will
be actively looking for debates to post on my own website forever so
the world can see how evolution fails.
> Just for fun, I will also note a second problem: you refer to "*the*
> Creationist-ID response". As I am sure you are aware, there is
> no such thing as THE C-ID position. There are almost as many
> creationist positions as there are creationists.
>
While you do have a valid point per se, Creationism-ID does have a
small core of undisputed common denominator beliefs:
1. God is the Creator and Designer.
2. Design and organized complexity correspond to His invisible
attributes: power, mind and intelligence. Causation is Divine and not
material.
3. Evolution, Darwinism and the Theory of Evolution is Atheist
ideology packaged as "science" and has been refuted in a great number
of ways repeatedly.
> We evolutionists on the other hand stick pretty closely to the
> official party line, because (I suggest) that line is constrained by
> observational evidence.
What "party line"?
Dawkins or Gould or Mayr?
Are you aware of the fact that how evolution proceeds is hotly
disputed - still?
Are you aware over at Pandas Thumb a poll was conducted which asked
'who's version of evolution do you subscribe to - Dawkins or Gould?'
Dawkins won in a landslide, but Gould was a major scientist, which
tells us that just like Creationists-ID, evolutionists are divided. Of
course Dana Tweedy will now pull one of his stunts and assert that
there is no dispute between Dawkins and Gould; that black is white and
wet is dry. Anyone can google around and see that there are major
disputes between major evolutionists.
> The reason (I suggest) that there are
> so many C-ID positions, is that you folks are largely unconstrained
> by much of anything, and so can (and do) just make stuff up.
>
There isn't any evidence for evolution - none. This is why you refuse
in principle to post responses while I would jump at the opportunity
and expose the hollow horse of evolution.
> Given that scripture can reasonably be interpreted in many different
> ways, I hope you will begin considering the possibility that it can be
> read in a way that is consistent with the other observational
> evidence that God has left us.
Double agency.
Evolution says the Bible is false and that God did not create reality.
If evolution presupposed the presupposition seen in your comment above
then all of the Atheists in this Group and Dawkins and Gould and Mayr
would not be evolutionists. They are evolutionists because it claims
to disprove the Bible and Creationism. Your comment above concedes the
need to camoflauge the pro-Atheism nature of evolution.
> This is essentially the same position
> that Augustine and Aquinas (via VBM) are urging on you.
>
Quote mining hardcore Creationists is a very bad idea and supports the
fact that evolution is Atheist ideology with no evidence in existence
to support its claims.
> Cordially;
>
> Friar Broccoli
> Robert Keith Elias, Quebec, Canada Email: EliasRK (of) gmail * com
> Best programmer's & all purpose text editor:http://www.semware.com
>
> --------- I consider ALL arguments in support of my views ---------- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ray
Elmer
(snip)
>>>> It is inconceivable that anyone could say or believe that the Bible
>>>> supports Darwinism or evolution...
>>>Ray, please explain what Gen 1:11 means when it says, And God said,
>>>Let the earth bring forth....
>> > Verse 11 exists in the context of verse 1:
>> > "....God created...."
>> Created always means direct Divine power.
>So what you're saying is that the words in Gen 1:11 don't really mean
>what they say, is that it Ray?
>> No, that is what you keep saying.
>> Do you agree that "And God said, Let the earth bring forth...." means
>> what it says Ray?
> In context, of course.
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
> We all know what verse one says. Verse 11 exists, of course, in the
> context of verse one. Verse 11 presupposes that the phrase "Let the
> earth bring forth" to mean special creation/supernatural creation. It
> is a synonymous description of the phrase "God created...." so that
> this phrase is not repeated redundantly.
In the beginning George Eastman created Kodak. George said, let the
contractor build a new building, so who built the building?
Dana Tweedy
>
> Are you aware of the fact that how evolution proceeds is hotly
> disputed - still?
>
> Are you aware over at Pandas Thumb a poll was conducted which asked
> 'who's version of evolution do you subscribe to - Dawkins or Gould?'
> Dawkins won in a landslide, but Gould was a major scientist, which
> tells us that just like Creationists-ID, evolutionists are divided. Of
> course Dana Tweedy will now pull one of his stunts and assert that
> there is no dispute between Dawkins and Gould; that black is white and
> wet is dry. Anyone can google around and see that there are major
> disputes between major evolutionists.
Poor Ray, so far off base it's funny. As for "stunts", Ray has asserted
that I "pulls stunts" but has never been able to reply honestly to any of my
points. I would not say that Dawkins and Gould did not dispute, that is
well known that the two did not agree. As for holding positions
opposite to reality, I leave them to Ray. The point that Friar Broccoli
was making is that those who support science tend to agree on matters of
fact. There is a large amount of room for discussion and debate in
science, which is what makes it interesting.
Gould's ideas, and Dawkins' ideas were both based on facts, not on their
religious beliefs. Even when they disagreed on the rate and mode of
evolution, they agreed that evolution has happened. Ray's comment above
shows how badly he misunderstands science, and how it works.
"Evolutionists" are not divided over the fact of evolution, or the mechanism
by which it operates. The areas of debate are over details.
Creationists are divided over religious beliefs, which are not soluible by
application of logic, or fact.
>
>
>> The reason (I suggest) that there are
>> so many C-ID positions, is that you folks are largely unconstrained
>> by much of anything, and so can (and do) just make stuff up.
>>
>
> There isn't any evidence for evolution - none.
Ray, you know this claim is untrue. Why do you keep making it? You run
away from the evidence of evolution, every time it's brought up.
> This is why you refuse
> in principle to post responses while I would jump at the opportunity
> and expose the hollow horse of evolution.
Ray, POTM is not the place for 'responses'. That's in the newsgroup itself.
You have failed utterly to expose any flaws in evolution. You will
continue to fail
>
>> Given that scripture can reasonably be interpreted in many different
>> ways, I hope you will begin considering the possibility that it can be
>> read in a way that is consistent with the other observational
>> evidence that God has left us.
>
> Double agency.
>
> Evolution says the Bible is false and that God did not create reality.
That's wrong. You know that's wrong.
> If evolution presupposed the presupposition seen in your comment above
> then all of the Atheists in this Group and Dawkins and Gould and Mayr
> would not be evolutionists.
How would you know this? Why do you assume you know the minds of
"atheists"?
> They are evolutionists because it claims
> to disprove the Bible and Creationism.
Since evolution makes no such claim, there must be other reasons. The fact
that it's the best explanation for the evidence would be that explanation.
> Your comment above concedes the
> need to camoflauge the pro-Atheism nature of evolution.
There's no such "nature" to camoflage.
>
>> This is essentially the same position
>> that Augustine and Aquinas (via VBM) are urging on you.
>>
>
> Quote mining hardcore Creationists is a very bad idea and supports the
> fact that evolution is Atheist ideology with no evidence in existence
> to support its claims.
Showing that Augstine and Aquinas were logical is not "quote mining". Nor
is the fact that they lived before evolution any evidence they were
'hardcore creationists'.
DJT
Craig Franck
> "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>> Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > Does not the Creationist-ID response get posted with the winner?
>>
>> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/ea362a19adb124f9
>>
>> It has not been the custom of the volunteers who maintain the archives
>> and decide (even if they use votes from the newsgroup as the basis for
>> their decisions) what gets put there to include rebuttal posts to the
>> post of the month. On occasion, they have included a runner-up or
>> "editor's choice," but usually it's just the post voted PotM by
>> itself.
>>
>> Note that when Mark Isaak originally posted the article, Tony Pagano
>> posted an attempted rebuttal, and Franck and Dick posted responses
>> that criticized aspects of the original post. So if it were decided
>> to post a Creationist-ID response, presumably we would have to hold
>> another vote to figure out who offered the best response; it is
>> premature to assume that yours would automatically be deemed the best
>> or most relevant.
> Hmmm.
>
> Ray
Must be another case of the implied invisible being discriminated
against by the actual. . .
--
Craig Franck
craig....@verizon.net
Cortland, NY
Friar Broccoli
Hi Ray,
I snipped almost all of what both of us wrote in the preceding
posts because I like focusing on central issues, and believe
that the following statement from you is directed to the core
issue that separates us:
RM> There isn't any evidence for evolution - none.
For the past year or so the starting point evidence for
evolution that I have been posting is as follows:
These fossils illustrate the step by step evolution of the
human brain over the past 2.5 million years from about 450cc
to it's present size of about 1350cc:
STS 5
Mrs. Ples
Species: Australopithecus africanus
Age: 2.6 million years
Brain Size: 485cc
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/sts5.html
STS 71
Species: Australopithecus africanus
Age: 2.5 million years
Brain Size: 428cc
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/sts71.html
KNM ER 1813
Species: Homo habilis
Age: 1.9 million years
Brain Size: 510cc
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/ER1813.html
KNM ER 1470
Species: Homo rudolfensis
Age: 1.8 million years
Brain Size: 775cc
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/er1470.html
KNM ER 3733
Species: Homo ergaster
Age: 1.75 million years
Brain Size: 850 cc
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/ER3733.html
KNM WT 15000
"The Turkana Boy"
Species: Homo ergaster
Age: 1.6 million years
Brain Size: 880cc
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/WT15k.html
rotatable skull here:
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/qt/wt15kmov.html
Peking Man
Species: Homo erectus
Age: 500-230 thousand years
Brain Size: 1043cc (average of 5 skulls)
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/weid2.htm
"Rhodesian Man"
Species: Homo heidelbergensis
Age: 300-125 thousand years
Brain Size: 1300 cc
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/brokenhill.htm
Skhul V
Species: Homo sapiens
Age: ~90,000 years
Brain Size: modern (~1350cc)
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/skhul.html
Cro-Magnon 1
Species: Homo sapiens
Age: ~30,000 years
Brain Size: modern (~1350cc)
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/cromagnon.html
Can you tell me why this group of fossils doesn't qualify as
"evidence for evolution"?
Sonofagunzel
I'd no idea that cancellations/removals might not be honoured. Noted
for the future, and thanks for the tips.
Ye Old One
<pyram...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Mar 16, 5:01 pm, Friar Broccoli <Elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 16, 5:59 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 16, 11:08 am, Friar Broccoli <Elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > (4) From: Mark Isaak (17 Nov 2006)
>> > > Design as an evolutionary process that includes chance,
>> > > selection, and compromise.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a07f2fed4dd7c1c4news:...
>>
>> > > Note that I got 9 votes for this and 9 for all others.
>> > > I had no votes by private email. Feel free to double check
>> > > my count.
>>
>> > > I will be a bit slow getting these things up since I need to take
>> > > some time figuring out how to automate the process.
>>
>> > > Thanks to all those who voted.
>>
>> > Does not the Creationist-ID response get posted with the winner?
>>
>> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/ea362a19adb124f9
>>
>> As already noted, I could not make such a decision on my own,
>> even were I so inclined, and as you may suspect I am not at all
>> so inclined,
>
>Why not?
>
>If roles were reversed I would be very much inclined because it would
>contrast the degree to which the evolutionist response fails. Your
>position is based on fear and censorship
Don't be so bloody stupid.
> whether you admit (and of
>course, you won't) or not. Over at Uncommon Descent they have a list
>of arguments not to make or the Atheist dunce who fronts for Dembski
>will not post your message. This list shows fear - fear of an argument
>that they, whether they admit or not, cannot refute.
Dishonest Ray, you know very well that every single argument you have
ever made has been refuted.
>That is why they
>have such a list even though the reason they provide for the existence
>of the list says the banned arguments are PRATTs. If I was an
>evolutionist I would never fail, day or night, to bring this list to
>the attention of the world. Banning your opponents arguments for any
>reason is because you cannot refute.
I would guess they do it to save space. Why keep arguing things that
have long been disproved?
> While the point here is entirely
>hypothetical, the point is that your position is the same:
No it is not. Not even similar.
> you are not
>inclined because you cannot refute and perceive a response would harm
>the evolutionary view.
It is a POST OF THE MONTH - not a "reply of the month". If you want to
start a new RotM or even a Creation Post of the Month then go ahead.
>
>> even though I very much appreciate your
>> participation in the votes.
>>
>
>I only vote so I can also post my reason for voting, otherwise my
>participation would make no sense. I realize that my reason has no
>chance of being heard outside this medium, but like I said: I wouldn't
>hesitate if our roles were reversed. When my paper is released
The Sun will be long gone and most black holes will have evaporated.
> I will
>be actively looking for debates to post on my own website forever so
>the world can see how evolution fails.
Hohohohohoho!!!
[snip more crap.]
--
Bob.
Ray Martinez
> >> On Mar 16, 5:59 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Ray,
>
> I snipped almost all of what both of us wrote in the preceding
In other words you received a spanking.
> ....and believe
Homo-erectus is a child, does not cranial capacity increase when
adulthood is reached? And what happened to Neanderthal Man?
In any case, you have no mechanism to accomplish this miracle (= apes
morphing into men) which is based on rejection of Genesis miracles. In
other words, you have no choice. Evolution is a one horse race since
it rejects Creationism as a competitor. Nobody has ever provided a
satisfactory reply to these points that places the ball back into my
court.
Waiting....
Ray
John Vreeland
<pyram...@yahoo.com> opined:
Homo Erectus is a child? Upon what do you base that bizarre claim?
Claiming that a species "is a child" makes no sense to me.
No one places the late neandertals in our ancestry any more, so it
would make no sense to mention them.
Apes morphing into men? If it ever happened it would certainly
disprove biological evolution.
--
Two Creation Scientists can hold an intelligent conversation, if one of them is a sock puppet.
---John Vreeland(IEEE.org)
Elmer
Black knights r' us
Steven J.
paleoanthropologists to _H. erectus_ (although others prefer _H.
ergaster_) is the Turkana Boy/Narikotome Youth (WT 15000), which is
the remains of a roughly 12-year-old adolescent. This specimen has
been mentioned many times to Ray; I'm not sure he realizes that there
are other specimens of _H. erectus_.
>
> No one places the late neandertals in our ancestry any more, so it
> would make no sense to mention them.
>
> Apes morphing into men? If it ever happened it would certainly
> disprove biological evolution.
> --
> Two Creation Scientists can hold an intelligent conversation, if one of them is a sock puppet.
> ---John Vreeland(IEEE.org)
-- Steven J.
hersheyh
No. Whatever gave you the idea that Homo erectus was a child?
> does not cranial capacity increase when
> adulthood is reached?
Actually, the ratio of brain weight to body weight for modern humans
follows a curve that is essentially identical to that of other
primates *until* birth. All primates show a slope of this curve which
is higher than other animals through the prenatal period. After
birth, the ratio also *decreases* through childhood of all these
species. That is, the body gets progressively larger with a much
slower (to eventually no) change in brain size. This is why, when you
draw an adult human to a newborn at the same same scale, the head of
the newborn looks huge. The difference between humans and the other
apes is that the positive increase in brain size to body size seen
only prenatally in the other primates continues postnatally in humans.
Read "Ontogeny and Phylogeny" Steven J. Gould, Belknap Press of
Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, London, England, 1977 pp.
372,374,386. for Figs. 64, 65,67. The first two show the ratios of
brain weight to body weight. The last figure shows the allometric
changes in chimps and humans during development. It clearly shows
that modern humans *retain* a more infantile (child-like) skull
structure than does the chimpanzee. H. erectus shows a *less*
infantile skull structure than modern human adults do.
> And what happened to Neanderthal Man?
They are a side-show.
> In any case, you have no mechanism to accomplish this miracle (= apes
> morphing into men) which is based on rejection of Genesis miracles.
Morphing the human skull from an H. erectus skull is far less dramatic
than morphing a bulldog's skull from a wolf's. There are mechanisms
that have accomplished the latter in far less time than nature used
for the former.
> In
> other words, you have no choice. Evolution is a one horse race since
> it rejects Creationism as a competitor.
Science rejects a mechanism for which there is no empirical evidence
whatsoever in favor of one that clearly is able to change a chimp
genome to a human genome in the time science says is alloted to it.
Big surprise. Magical poofing is not a scientific mechanism.
Ye Old One
>On Mar 17, 6:06 pm, Friar Broccoli <Elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Mar 16, 5:59 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Ray,
>>
>> I snipped almost all of what both of us wrote in the preceding
>> posts because I like focusing on central issues....
>
>In other words you received a spanking.
Hohohohohohahahahahahaha!!!!! You really are a very stupid person if
you think that.
>
[snip brain size figures]
>>
>> --------- I consider ALL arguments in support of my views ---------
>
>Homo-erectus is a child,
A species of children Dishonest Ray? You must be kidding.
> does not cranial capacity increase when
>adulthood is reached? And what happened to Neanderthal Man?
>
>In any case, you have no mechanism to accomplish this miracle (= apes
>morphing into men)
Men are apes Dishonest Ray, trying to ignore that fact of nature will
not make it go away.
> which is based on rejection of Genesis miracles.
Genesis is a collection of bronze age fairy stories - of course
science rejects it.
> In
>other words, you have no choice. Evolution is a one horse race since
>it rejects Creationism as a competitor.
Because creationism is NOT science.
> Nobody has ever provided a
>satisfactory reply to these points that places the ball back into my
>court.
>
>Waiting....
We are - so bog off, stop posting and start writing that "paper" you
keep on about.
>
>Ray
>
--
Bob.
Ray Martinez
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/15000.html
"This is an almost complete skeleton of an 11 or 12 year old boy...."
> > does not cranial capacity increase when
> > adulthood is reached?
>
> Actually, the ratio of brain weight to body weight for modern humans
> follows a curve that is essentially identical to that of other
> primates *until* birth. All primates show a slope of this curve which
> is higher than other animals through the prenatal period. After
> birth, the ratio also *decreases* through childhood of all these
> species. That is, the body gets progressively larger with a much
> slower (to eventually no) change in brain size. This is why, when you
> draw an adult human to a newborn at the same same scale, the head of
> the newborn looks huge. The difference between humans and the other
> apes is that the positive increase in brain size to body size seen
> only prenatally in the other primates continues postnatally in humans.
>
So you are saying brain size at 11 or 12 years of age is the same in
adulthood?
> Read "Ontogeny and Phylogeny" Steven J. Gould, Belknap Press of
> Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, London, England, 1977 pp.
> 372,374,386. for Figs. 64, 65,67. The first two show the ratios of
> brain weight to body weight. The last figure shows the allometric
> changes in chimps and humans during development. It clearly shows
> that modern humans *retain* a more infantile (child-like) skull
> structure than does the chimpanzee. H. erectus shows a *less*
> infantile skull structure than modern human adults do.
>
> > And what happened to Neanderthal Man?
>
> They are a side-show.
>
That is no an answer.
How does evolutionary anthropology explain "Altantean" cranial
capacity?
> > In any case, you have no mechanism to accomplish this miracle (= apes
> > morphing into men) which is based on rejection of Genesis miracles.
>
> Morphing the human skull from an H. erectus skull is far less dramatic
> than morphing a bulldog's skull from a wolf's. There are mechanisms
> that have accomplished the latter in far less time than nature used
> for the former.
>
Like I said, you have no mechanism (but need).
> > In
> > other words, you have no choice. Evolution is a one horse race since
> > it rejects Creationism as a competitor.
>
> Science rejects a mechanism for which there is no empirical evidence
> whatsoever in favor of one that clearly is able to change a chimp
> genome to a human genome in the time science says is alloted to it.
> Big surprise. Magical poofing is not a scientific mechanism.
>
>
>
> > Nobody has ever provided a
> > satisfactory reply to these points that places the ball back into my
> > court.
>
> > Waiting....
>
> > Ray- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Ray Martinez
For Keith: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/15000.html
"It is the most complete known specimen of H. erectus, and also one of
the oldest, at 1.6 million years. The brain size was 880 cc, and it is
estimated that it would have been 910 cc at adulthood (a modern human
of comparable size would be expected to have a brain size of about
1350 cc)."
Your increase progression implication is ruined.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/15000.html
"It is the most complete known specimen of H. erectus, and also one of
the oldest, at 1.6 million years. The brain size was 880 cc, and it is
estimated that it would have been 910 cc at adulthood (a modern human
of comparable size would be expected to have a brain size of about
1350 cc)."
> > Ray- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Howard: I have some other issues that have suddenly come up and I was
wondering if you would address them since what Steven J and other
evolutionists are saying seems insane to say the least.
We know that Young Earth Creationists accept an age of Earth under
10,000 years. Many YECs also accept microevolution (which, by the way,
Steven J suddenly admits to not knowing anything about). How could
persons accept microevolution to have produced the nature we see today
in 10,000 years, or 5 thousand years since a great Flood, which
corresponds to slight modifications accomplished at a very slow or
gradual rate? This is impossible. Of course to accept microevolution
or macroevolution within kinds (whatever that means) in a time scale
measured in single digit thousands of years, is postulating a
modification rate that exceeds the average lap speed at the Indy 500.
The point is: this is not Darwinian evolution of any kind, do you
agree? If so, what is YEC microevolution?
Ray
Ernest Major
<828121ad-3707-415c...@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Ray
Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes
a rate far faster than non-creationists would accept - which is why I
refer to that group of YECs as Young Earth Hyperevolutionists. However I
suspect that the term is flawed - as the same could be adopted by OECs,
whether because they're Young Life Creationists, or for the same reason
as YECs, that is to avoid the problem of packing 100 million species on
the Noah's Ark. What most in these groups reject is universal common
descent, and the common descent of man and any other living species.
You should not confuse rejecting Young Earth Hyperevolutionism with
rejecting microevolution, or even rejected macroevolution - both
microevolution and macroevolution (speciation) have been directly enough
to satisfy even most nihilists.
--
alias Ernest Major
Ray Martinez
> In message
> <828121ad-3707-415c-b325-142f3ac66...@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Ray
> Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> writes
Yes, I am aware of YECs accepting macro. And I love your term YEH or
hyperevolutionists!
But lets get back to reality: there is no such thing as
hyperevolution.
Ray
> However I
> suspect that the term is flawed - as the same could be adopted by OECs,
> whether because they're Young Life Creationists, or for the same reason
> as YECs, that is to avoid the problem of packing 100 million species on
> the Noah's Ark. What most in these groups reject is universal common
> descent, and the common descent of man and any other living species.
>
> You should not confuse rejecting Young Earth Hyperevolutionism with
> rejecting microevolution, or even rejected macroevolution - both
> microevolution and macroevolution (speciation) have been directly enough
> to satisfy even most nihilists.
> --
> alias Ernest Major- Hide quoted text -
Ray Martinez
> In message
> <828121ad-3707-415c-b325-142f3ac66...@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Ray
So they are "Theistic evolutionists": God causing evolution but
introducing the kind via miracle?
> You should not confuse rejecting Young Earth Hyperevolutionism with
> rejecting microevolution, or even rejected macroevolution - both
> microevolution and macroevolution (speciation) have been directly enough
> to satisfy even most nihilists.
> --
> alias Ernest Major- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Evolution has never be observed in real time as it allegedly happens -
it is too slow - remember?
Ray
DJT
> On Mar 18, 1:34 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > What you've missed is that many YECs also accept macroevolution - and at
> > a rate far faster than non-creationists would accept - which is why I
> > refer to that group of YECs as Young Earth Hyperevolutionists.
>
> Yes, I am aware of YECs accepting macro. And I love your term YEH or
> hyperevolutionists!
>
> But lets get back to reality: there is no such thing as
> hyperevolution.
There is, however, evolution. The YECs have to propose evolution at
much faster rate than is observed, in order to make the Noah's Ark
legends fit. Evolution does not have one set rate, it is sometimes
faster, sometimes slower.
DJT
DJT
> On Mar 18, 1:34 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > What you've missed is that many YECs also accept macroevolution - and at
> > a rate far faster than non-creationists would accept - which is why I
> > refer to that group of YECs as Young Earth Hyperevolutionists. However I
> > suspect that the term is flawed - as the same could be adopted by OECs,
> > whether because they're Young Life Creationists, or for the same reason
> > as YECs, that is to avoid the problem of packing 100 million species on
> > the Noah's Ark. What most in these groups reject is universal common
> > descent, and the common descent of man and any other living species.
>
> So they are "Theistic evolutionists": God causing evolution but
> introducing the kind via miracle?
YECs would deny that, but essentially it's correct. As I've seen,
YECs claim that change seen is "degeneration" rather than evolution.
Of course they don't explain what the difference is.
>
> > You should not confuse rejecting Young Earth Hyperevolutionism with
> > rejecting microevolution, or even rejected macroevolution - both
> > microevolution and macroevolution (speciation) have been directly enough
> > to satisfy even most nihilists.
> > --
> > alias Ernest Major- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Evolution has never be observed in real time as it allegedly happens -
> it is too slow - remember?
You've already been shown that is wrong. Evolution has been
observed in real time. In some species it's hard to observe in human
lifetimes, but in other species, which breed more quickly, evolution
can be seen in real time.
DJT
DJT
Homo erectus (no hyphen, as it's a species name) is known from many
fossils. The best preserved example was of an adolescent. The
cranial capacity of adolescents is almost the same as in adults.
> And what happened to Neanderthal Man?
Neanderthals are considered to be a cousin species of human, not a
direct ancestor.
>
> In any case, you have no mechanism to accomplish this miracle (= apes
> morphing into men)
The mechanism is well known. It's variation (mostly by mutation) and
selection over generations. How is it that you don't know this?
>which is based on rejection of Genesis miracles.
"Genesis miracles" are not science. There's no reason why any
scientist would assume them to be factual.
>In
> other words, you have no choice
Of course, there are many choices open to science. However this is
the one which best explains the evidence. "Genesis miracles" are not
the only choice open to science, and indeed is not a scientific option
at all.
.> Evolution is a one horse race since
> it rejects Creationism as a competitor.
Creationism is not a "competitor" as far as science is concerned.
It's a religious belief. Evolution is not the only possible
"competitor" but it's the only one that's earned a place at the
"starting gate". If you want a second "horse" in the race, it too
has to be a scientific theory, not a religious opinion.
> Nobody has ever provided a
> satisfactory reply to these points that places the ball back into my
> court.
Ray, the "points" you have been trying to make are false.
>
> Waiting....
And ignoring the evidence, yet again.
DJT
Ernest Major
<a13e248a-4a10-4148...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Ray
Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes
been directly enough to satisfy even most nihilists - that is in real
time.
--
alias Ernest Major
DJT
snip
> > > Homo-erectus is a child,
>
> > No. Whatever gave you the idea that Homo erectus was a child?
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/15000.html
>
> "This is an almost complete skeleton of an 11 or 12 year old boy...."
However that's just one individual of the species. H. erectus is a
species, not a child. Many other H. erectus fossils have been
found.
>
> > > does not cranial capacity increase when
> > > adulthood is reached?
>
> > Actually, the ratio of brain weight to body weight for modern humans
> > follows a curve that is essentially identical to that of other
> > primates *until* birth. All primates show a slope of this curve which
> > is higher than other animals through the prenatal period. After
> > birth, the ratio also *decreases* through childhood of all these
> > species. That is, the body gets progressively larger with a much
> > slower (to eventually no) change in brain size. This is why, when you
> > draw an adult human to a newborn at the same same scale, the head of
> > the newborn looks huge. The difference between humans and the other
> > apes is that the positive increase in brain size to body size seen
> > only prenatally in the other primates continues postnatally in humans.
>
> So you are saying brain size at 11 or 12 years of age is the same in
> adulthood?
Actually, it's fairly close. In children heads tend to grow
proportionally faster than the rest of the body. By the time a child
is 10- 15, their head is just about as large as it's going to get.
See:
http://www.appstate.edu/~Robbinsgm/hrweek14.pdf
pg 5 for the chart.
>
> > Read "Ontogeny and Phylogeny" Steven J. Gould, Belknap Press of
> > Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, London, England, 1977 pp.
> > 372,374,386. for Figs. 64, 65,67. The first two show the ratios of
> > brain weight to body weight. The last figure shows the allometric
> > changes in chimps and humans during development. It clearly shows
> > that modern humans *retain* a more infantile (child-like) skull
> > structure than does the chimpanzee. H. erectus shows a *less*
> > infantile skull structure than modern human adults do.
>
> > > And what happened to Neanderthal Man?
>
> > They are a side-show.
>
> That is no an answer.
What he's saying is that Neanderthals are not considered to be in the
direct line of human ancestory. They are a side branch of humans.
>
> How does evolutionary anthropology explain "Altantean" cranial
> capacity?
By reminding you that 'Atlantis" is a myth. Although some
Neanderthals had larger cranial capacity than modern humans, there
isn't any evidence to suggest they were more intelligent, or had a
higher level of culture than modern humans. There's also no evidence
linking Neanderthals with the Atlantis myth.
>
> > > In any case, you have no mechanism to accomplish this miracle (= apes
> > > morphing into men) which is based on rejection of Genesis miracles.
>
> > Morphing the human skull from an H. erectus skull is far less dramatic
> > than morphing a bulldog's skull from a wolf's. There are mechanisms
> > that have accomplished the latter in far less time than nature used
> > for the former.
>
> Like I said, you have no mechanism (but need).
What you said was wrong. The mechanism is variation and selection.
That's how dogs were bred from wolves to the hundreds of known breeds
today, in just a few thousand years.
DJT
DJT
> On Mar 18, 11:05 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> For Keith:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/15000.html
>
> "It is the most complete known specimen of H. erectus, and also one of
> the oldest, at 1.6 million years. The brain size was 880 cc, and it is
> estimated that it would have been 910 cc at adulthood (a modern human
> of comparable size would be expected to have a brain size of about
> 1350 cc)."
>
> Your increase progression implication is ruined.
Actually, Ray, it's not. If you look at the "progression" the brain
size at adulthood, (910 cc) still fits in the "progression". It's no
wonder you've been running away from discussing the evidence. It's
clear you have no idea what the evidence really is.
How does this contradict what Howard was saying? The difference
between 880 and 910cc is not that great. It's only 30cc. That's
about 1 fluid ounce.
>
snip
>
> Howard: I have some other issues that have suddenly come up and I was
> wondering if you would address them since what Steven J and other
> evolutionists are saying seems insane to say the least.
Ray, what you would consider "insane" is not what others would.
>
> We know that Young Earth Creationists accept an age of Earth under
> 10,000 years. Many YECs also accept microevolution (which, by the way,
> Steven J suddenly admits to not knowing anything about).
That's not true at all. Steven did not "admit" anything of the
sort.
> How could
> persons accept microevolution to have produced the nature we see today
> in 10,000 years, or 5 thousand years since a great Flood, which
> corresponds to slight modifications accomplished at a very slow or
> gradual rate?
Well, first of all, they are YECs, and reasonable explanations and
creationists rarely go together. Second, they need rapid
microevolution in order to make the Noah's Ark stories work. Third,
there is too much evidence of microevolution for even YECs to deny.
>This is impossible.
White Queen hypothesis, they believe 6 impossible things before
breakfast.
>Of course to accept microevolution
> or macroevolution within kinds (whatever that means) in a time scale
> measured in single digit thousands of years, is postulating a
> modification rate that exceeds the average lap speed at the Indy 500.
Actually, evolution rates have been observed that are quite fast, in
some rapidly reproducing species.
> The point is: this is not Darwinian evolution of any kind, do you
> agree? If so, what is YEC microevolution?
Ray, it's quite obvious you don't understand "Darwinian" evolution.
Why not learn about it before you try to understand the creationist
parody?
DJT
Ray Martinez
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
You have no idea as to what you are talking about. You are now
officially demoted to alt.Talk.Atheism.
Ray
Ray Martinez
Talk about dismissing the evidence that refutes your position without
batting an eye!
The evo way. This is why evolution is evil: evidence don't mean a
thing when it hurts their cause.
There is no point in discussing anything with you. We have cranial
capacity that exceeds our own then you dismiss the logical deduction;
but retain the same deduction in FB's list of lower to higher.
Very "objective," Dana.
Ray
SNIP....
Ray Martinez
> On Mar 18, 1:58 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Mar 18, 11:05 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> snip
>
>
>
> > For Keith:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/15000.html
>
> > "It is the most complete known specimen of H. erectus, and also one of
> > the oldest, at 1.6 million years. The brain size was 880 cc, and it is
> > estimated that it would have been 910 cc at adulthood (a modern human
> > of comparable size would be expected to have a brain size of about
> > 1350 cc)."
>
> > Your increase progression implication is ruined.
>
> Actually, Ray, it's not. If you look at the "progression" the brain
> size at adulthood, (910 cc) still fits in the "progression". It's no
> wonder you've been running away from discussing the evidence. It's
> clear you have no idea what the evidence really is.
>
This says a hole poked in the evidence is not a hole. I cannot force
you to recognize valid criticism.
IF Howard is arguing that no increase occurs, which appears to be the
case since he made the "enlarged appearance of a baby's head"
argument, then it does contradict. Again, since you never concede
anything what's the point with discussing anything with you?
>
>
> snip
>
>
>
> > Howard: I have some other issues that have suddenly come up and I was
> > wondering if you would address them since what Steven J and other
> > evolutionists are saying seems insane to say the least.
>
> Ray, what you would consider "insane" is not what others would.
>
>
>
> > We know that Young Earth Creationists accept an age of Earth under
> > 10,000 years. Many YECs also accept microevolution (which, by the way,
> > Steven J suddenly admits to not knowing anything about).
>
> That's not true at all. Steven did not "admit" anything of the
> sort.
>
Maybe I misunderstood him. Something that you are incapable of like
most self-righteous hypocrites.
> > How could
> > persons accept microevolution to have produced the nature we see today
> > in 10,000 years, or 5 thousand years since a great Flood, which
> > corresponds to slight modifications accomplished at a very slow or
> > gradual rate?
>
> Well, first of all, they are YECs, and reasonable explanations and
> creationists rarely go together. Second, they need rapid
> microevolution in order to make the Noah's Ark stories work. Third,
> there is too much evidence of microevolution for even YECs to deny.
>
> >This is impossible.
>
> White Queen hypothesis, they believe 6 impossible things before
> breakfast.
>
The irony here is that evolutionists think they are not Alice when
they claim their theory makes predictions.
> >Of course to accept microevolution
>
> > or macroevolution within kinds (whatever that means) in a time scale
> > measured in single digit thousands of years, is postulating a
> > modification rate that exceeds the average lap speed at the Indy 500.
>
> Actually, evolution rates have been observed that are quite fast, in
> some rapidly reproducing species.
>
There is no such thing as "hyperevolution". Stop defending you
Fundamentalist brothers.
> > The point is: this is not Darwinian evolution of any kind, do you
> > agree? If so, what is YEC microevolution?
>
> Ray, it's quite obvious you don't understand "Darwinian" evolution.
> Why not learn about it before you try to understand the creationist
> parody?
>
> DJT- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Its quite obvious that you are the one who does not understand
evolution since 1859.
Ray
DJT
> On Mar 18, 3:15 pm, DJT <mousede...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > How does evolutionary anthropology explain "Altantean" cranial
> > > capacity?
>
> > By reminding you that 'Atlantis" is a myth. Although some
> > Neanderthals had larger cranial capacity than modern humans, there
> > isn't any evidence to suggest they were more intelligent,
>
> Talk about dismissing the evidence that refutes your position without
> batting an eye!
What about the Neanderthals do you think 'refutes' my position? Do
you have any evidence that Neanderthals were more intelligent than
modern humans? Note that brain size is only weakly correlated with
higher intelligence.
>
> The evo way. This is why evolution is evil: evidence don't mean a
> thing when it hurts their cause.
What 'hurts' the case for evolution about this? Do you have any
actual evidence to talk about?
>
> There is no point in discussing anything with you.
When you run away from the evidence like you do, there isn't much
point. Why not learn something about evolution?
>We have cranial
> capacity that exceeds our own then you dismiss the logical deduction;
The "logical deduction" is that Neanderthals had larger cranial
capacity, not necessarily higher intelligence. The two features are
only weakly correlated. A larger brain does not always mean more
intelligence. Neanderthal fossils are not found with artifacts that
would indicate higher intelligence, or more sophisticated cultures.
There certainly isn't anything that suggests Neanderthals were from
"Atlantis".
> but retain the same deduction in FB's list of lower to higher.
What is 'lower to higher" in Friar Broccoli's list is cranial
capacity, which shows a clear sequence leading from smaller brained
primates to modern humans.
>
> Very "objective," Dana.
Ray, you are picking just one feature, brain size, and assuming that
it always means higher intelligence. Modern human brains are
slightly smaller than Neanderthal brains, but they are more complex
than Neanderthals. Modern humans show capacity for language, and
abstract thought that Neanderthals seem to have lacked.
Since brains themselves don't normally fossilize, it's impossible to
determine, just by brain size, how intelligent a species may have
been. Modern humans appear to have been more intelligent, due to the
cultural artifacts left behind by modern humans, as compared to what
Neanderthals left behind.
Again, you have no evidence that Neanderthals were "Atlantians", or
that Atlantis even existed. When it comes to objectivity, get the
log out of your own eye before you pick specks out of mine.
DJT
DJT
> On Mar 18, 2:57 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> > To reiterate, both microevolution and macroevolution (speciation) have
> > been directly enough to satisfy even most ...
>
> > read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> You have no idea as to what you are talking about.
Why do you make that assumption, Ray? He's right, and you are
wrong.
>You are now
> officially demoted to alt.Talk.Atheism.
On your say so? Sorry, Ray, but if not knowing what one was talking
about was reason to "demote" someone to Alt. atheism, you'd be there
long ago.
DJT
DJT
> On Mar 18, 3:31 pm, DJT <mousede...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > Your increase progression implication is ruined.
>
> > Actually, Ray, it's not. If you look at the "progression" the brain
> > size at adulthood, (910 cc) still fits in the "progression". It's no
> > wonder you've been running away from discussing the evidence. It's
> > clear you have no idea what the evidence really is.
>
> This says a hole poked in the evidence is not a hole.
It's not a "hole". The cranial size still fits in the continuum
> I cannot force
> you to recognize valid criticism.
I can recognize valid criticism, which is why I know yours is not.
You were claiming that the "progression" is invalidated because one
cranial size is estimated to be 30 cc lower than the adult form, in
one fossil. How does this invalidate either the fossil, or the
sequence?
snip
> > > "It is the most complete known specimen of H. erectus, and also one of
> > > the oldest, at 1.6 million years. The brain size was 880 cc, and it is
> > > estimated that it would have been 910 cc at adulthood (a modern human
> > > of comparable size would be expected to have a brain size of about
> > > 1350 cc)."
>
> > How does this contradict what Howard was saying? The difference
> > between 880 and 910cc is not that great. It's only 30cc. That's
> > about 1 fluid ounce.
>
> IF Howard is arguing that no increase occurs, which appears to be the
> case since he made the "enlarged appearance of a baby's head"
Howard was not arguing that "no increase occurs", but that the
increase is small. Also, the fossil in question was not a baby, but
a adolescent.
> argument, then it does contradict. Again, since you never concede
> anything what's the point with discussing anything with you?
Ray, I concede things when *I* am wrong, not when you are shown to be
wrong. When you are wrong about things, it's not my duty to
concede.
Note you still haven't admitted that you did indeed claim that non
human apes raped human females.
snip
> > > We know that Young Earth Creationists accept an age of Earth under
> > > 10,000 years. Many YECs also accept microevolution (which, by the way,
> > > Steven J suddenly admits to not knowing anything about).
>
> > That's not true at all. Steven did not "admit" anything of the
> > sort.
>
> Maybe I misunderstood him. Something that you are incapable of like
> most self-righteous hypocrites.
Again, Ray, I am quite capable of admitting when I am wrong. I won't
however admit that I'm wrong when it's YOU who is wrong. Steven did
not say he knew nothing about microevolution. Your statement was
false.
>
>
>
> > > How could
> > > persons accept microevolution to have produced the nature we see today
> > > in 10,000 years, or 5 thousand years since a great Flood, which
> > > corresponds to slight modifications accomplished at a very slow or
> > > gradual rate?
>
> > Well, first of all, they are YECs, and reasonable explanations and
> > creationists rarely go together. Second, they need rapid
> > microevolution in order to make the Noah's Ark stories work. Third,
> > there is too much evidence of microevolution for even YECs to deny.
>
> > >This is impossible.
>
> > White Queen hypothesis, they believe 6 impossible things before
> > breakfast.
>
> The irony here is that evolutionists think they are not Alice when
> they claim their theory makes predictions.
It wasn't Alice who said that. Also, evolution does make testable
predictions. Many of those predictions have been borne out by the
evidence. Why isn't the prediction that genetic evidence would
match the anatomical similarity between humans and other apes a
prediction?
>
> > >Of course to accept microevolution
>
> > > or macroevolution within kinds (whatever that means) in a time scale
> > > measured in single digit thousands of years, is postulating a
> > > modification rate that exceeds the average lap speed at the Indy 500.
>
> > Actually, evolution rates have been observed that are quite fast, in
> > some rapidly reproducing species.
>
> There is no such thing as "hyperevolution". Stop defending you
> Fundamentalist brothers.
Again, Ray, I'm not advocating "hyperevolution". I'm pointing out to
you that evolution does not operate on a fixed schedule. Evolution
varies in rate, depending a number of factors. As for
"fundamentalism", you don't seem to realize that 1. you are a
fundamentalist, and 2. "fundamentalist" is not an insult.
>
> > > The point is: this is not Darwinian evolution of any kind, do you
> > > agree? If so, what is YEC microevolution?
>
> > Ray, it's quite obvious you don't understand "Darwinian" evolution.
> > Why not learn about it before you try to understand the creationist
> > parody?
>
> > DJT- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Its quite obvious that you are the one who does not understand
> evolution since 1859.
Ray, evolution, as a theory, since 1859 has undergone a lot of
changes, and updates. There isn't a single "Darwinian" evolution
anymore than there is a single "Newtonian" gravity. Your claims are
simply mistaken. If you don't understand evolution, you will never
be considered a credible source of criticism of it.
DJT
Tom McDonald
> On Mar 17, 6:06 pm, Friar Broccoli <Elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mar 16, 5:59 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Hi Ray,
>>
>> I snipped almost all of what both of us wrote in the preceding
>> posts because I like focusing on central issues....
>
> In other words
In other words, you cannot win without making people say things
they didn't say.
> you received a spanking.
Keep telling yourself that, Ray. No one else believes it.
Homo erectus (no hyphen) is known from a number of individuals.
> does not cranial capacity increase when
> adulthood is reached?
Didn't you notice that the H.e. cranial capacity was given as the
average of 5 individuals?
> And what happened to Neanderthal Man?
Why? Do you want to have another real Homo genus to ignore, just
as you have ignored all of the others?
> In any case, you have no mechanism to accomplish this miracle (= apes
> morphing into men) which is based on rejection of Genesis miracles. In
> other words, you have no choice. Evolution is a one horse race since
> it rejects Creationism as a competitor. Nobody has ever provided a
> satisfactory reply to these points that places the ball back into my
> court.
>
> Waiting....
In other words, you are running away as you always do.
Your intellectual cowardice is noted.
Ray Martinez
> Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Mar 17, 6:06 pm, Friar Broccoli <Elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Mar 16, 5:59 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Hi Ray,
>
> >> I snipped almost all of what both of us wrote in the preceding
> >> posts because I like focusing on central issues....
>
> > In other words
>
> In other words, you cannot win without making people say things
> they didn't say.
>
Keith evaded. That is a fact.
FB has multiple entries for one species in a ascending list. Did you
notice that, Tom?
> > And what happened to Neanderthal Man?
>
> Why? Do you want to have another real Homo genus to ignore, just
> as you have ignored all of the others?
>
NM is ignored because he wrecks the scheme. That is the only reason.
Again, like scholars have pointed out: the ToE does not stand up under
scrutiny....the devil is in the details. You do not seem to understand
the issue here.
At any rate, Tom, what is the current explanation for Neanderthal Man?
I am asking for the explanation of these specimens found in the
Neander Valley? How is cranial size larger than ours explained? Of
course the explanation must be satisfying.
> > In any case, you have no mechanism to accomplish this miracle (= apes
> > morphing into men) which is based on rejection of Genesis miracles. In
> > other words, you have no choice. Evolution is a one horse race since
> > it rejects Creationism as a competitor. Nobody has ever provided a
> > satisfactory reply to these points that places the ball back into my
> > court.
>
> > Waiting....
>
> In other words, you are running away as you always do.
>
> Your intellectual cowardice is noted.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Tom: I am right here. Stop wishing I wasn't and answer the god-damn
questions in a satisfactory manner.
Ray
Tom McDonald
> On Mar 18, 7:24 pm, Tom McDonald <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> On Mar 17, 6:06 pm, Friar Broccoli <Elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Mar 16, 5:59 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi Ray,
>>>> I snipped almost all of what both of us wrote in the preceding
>>>> posts because I like focusing on central issues....
>>> In other words
>> In other words, you cannot win without making people say things
>> they didn't say.
>
> Keith evaded. That is a fact.
What did he evade? In this part of the thread, you have been
doing the evading.
<snip>
What do you mean? There is only one entry for the species Homo
erectus.
Or do you think that all of the listings are of one species? They
are not, you know.
>>> And what happened to Neanderthal Man?
>> Why? Do you want to have another real Homo genus to ignore, just
>> as you have ignored all of the others?
>>
>
> NM is ignored because he wrecks the scheme. That is the only reason.
How does Neandertal wreck the scheme? The scheme in the good
Friar's list is to show the evolution of the human brain, which I
took to mean to show the direct line to us. Neandertal does not
appear to be in the direct line of our ancestry (although, to be
fair, the entire lineage is still under study, and Neandertal
might yet have something to do with us'ns, while some of the
other listed species might not).
Neandertals appear to have had brains somewhat larger than ours,
on average; though they were arranged a little differently from
ours. But if you want to add H.n. into the mix, go right ahead.
It doesn't pose the problem you think it does, at least partially
because Neandertals, though generally shorter than H.s. at the
same time range, tended to have somewhat more massive bodies.
BTW, in what way is Neandertal ignored? No one denies they
existed, and were human (well, Homo, anyway). No one denies that
their average brain size appears to have been somewhat larger
than ours. What exactly do you assert is ignored about
Neandertal, that is in any way relevant to this discussion?
> Again, like scholars have pointed out: the ToE does not stand up under
> scrutiny....the devil is in the details. You do not seem to understand
> the issue here.
I think I do. I've actually studied human skeletal remains,
including holding actual Neandertal bones in my hands, as well as
high-quality casts made from actual Neandertal remains. Measured
them, weighed and massed them, identified which bones they were,
from which side of the individual, estimated age at death, and
occasionally identified which sex the bones came from.
I've studied archaeology at the graduate level, Ray, which
includes human evolution. One of my prof worked at Koobi Fora,
and showed us what they'd discovered.
So please, Ray, explain to me what I do not understand about the
evolutionary history of the genus Australopithecus and the genus
Homo, but that you do?
> At any rate, Tom, what is the current explanation for Neanderthal Man?
> I am asking for the explanation of these specimens found in the
> Neander Valley? How is cranial size larger than ours explained?
Are you asking specifically about the single specimen (single
individual, that is) that was found in the Neander Valley? That
is only one specimen.
I think you mean to ask about what we know based on sum of the
relatively large number of Neandertal remains we know about.
After all, that's the only way we could be discussing an average
difference in brain size.
There are a couple of explanations that come to mind off-hand.
One is as I noted above: Neandertal bodies were, on average, more
massive than ours. A more massive body could use a more massive
brain, whether or not it did anything else with it.
Another possible explanation is that Neandertal seems to have
adapted to cold environment more via physical adaptation than
through, for instance, cultural adaptations such as sewn
clothing. A larger brain, a wide nose, and a compact, massive
body would have been useful in keeping the body warm in the cold.
It may be that the larger brain was also used for cultural
activities that we don't know about. After all, while they were
much like us, the were *not* us; and we can only speculate as to
what use they may have put their thinking caps.
> Of
> course the explanation must be satisfying.
You keep leaving off words from your sentences. To whom must the
explanation(s) be "satisfying"? You? Scientists? Me?
I will tell you frankly that I am always interested in improved
explanations for all manner of archaeological and evolutionary
data. So I am not absolutely satisfied with the explanations I've
given. But they are OK to be going on with, and they pose no
problems for evolutionary biology.
>>> In any case, you have no mechanism to accomplish this miracle (= apes
>>> morphing into men) which is based on rejection of Genesis miracles. In
>>> other words, you have no choice. Evolution is a one horse race since
>>> it rejects Creationism as a competitor. Nobody has ever provided a
>>> satisfactory reply to these points that places the ball back into my
>>> court.
>>> Waiting....
>> In other words, you are running away as you always do.
>>
>> Your intellectual cowardice is noted.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Tom: I am right here. Stop wishing I wasn't
I don't wish you weren't here. I do wish you'd answer more of the
questions put to you. As, for instance, the actual evidence the
good Friar posted, and you have evaded like crazy. Even to the
point of posting a red herring (which, to be fair, a lot of
intelligent folks went haring after).
> and answer the god-damn
> questions
But Ray--how can I ever know when your questions are
not-to-be-answered rhetorical questions, or rhetorical questions
for which you demand answers anyway; or when you are actually
asking non-rhetorical questions for which you, and regular
people, would expect an answer? :-)
> in a satisfactory manner.
Ah. That, my dear Ray, is up to you to decide. If you get into a
'no true Scotsman' kick, no answer, by definition, would satisfy
you except your own.
But please, Ray, don't think that our answering the questions,
even the god-damned ones, lets you off the hook for answering
those posed to you.