If you understood me, you'd agree with me
Bill
>
> Actually I think you two cannot answer the questions that I have been
> asking you so you are trying to blame me for "not understanding
> evolution", for whatever that means.
Ray Martinez also complained that we evolutionists kept insisting that
if he didn't accept evolution it was only because he didn't understand
it. I have some sympathy with this point of view. It must feel to
creationists as though we will keep telling them they don't understand
evolution until they concede that it is true. In general terms "You
don't understand my argument, because if you did understand it you'd
agree with me." I completely agree with Ray that that argument is
unfair. There should be some independent way to make it clear that
you've understood the other guy's argument, even if you do not accept
it.
So, I think it is fair to say that you understand an argument if you
can paraphrase it and present it in your own words, accurately,
without mockery, and in such a way that the other side would recognize
it as being their argument. So that they would say "Yes! That's
exactly what I mean." You don't have to agree, just be able to express
the other side's view clearly and accurately.
So, I'd ask any creationist who is frustrated by repeated claims that
he doesn't understand evolution to challenge himself to write out a
coherent, pro-evolutionary argument, that gets the theory correct and
would be recognized by an evolutionary biologist as a correct
statement of the theory. You don't have to agree with it, just succeed
in articulating it clearly.
Just in case you think that, in principle, it's not possible to
clearly state an argument which you find patently silly or
indefensible, I'll go first. Here is my creationist argument against
the evolution of the mammalian eye. I don't agree in any way with what
I'm about to write, but I really think that a creationist would
recognize the argument and grant that I understood their point of
view.
//"Why the eye cannot have evolved"
Darwin was entirely correct what he wrote that the evolution of such
an intricate, fine-tuned structure as the mammalian eye by natural
selection seemed absurd to the last degree. He was, however, entirely
wrong, when he thought that he had found a way around the absurdity.
The mammalian eye is a complex structure composed of precisely
arranged parts that must work perfectly together for vision to occur.
The lens must be of the correct transparency, the shape not merely
perfect, but perfectly adjustable by the action of tiny muscles in
focusing at different distances, a phenomenal number of neurons must
be arranged in a precise pattern so that an image can be formed on the
retina, then an astounding amount of computation must be done in the
visual pathways in the brain to translate the signals from individual
photoreceptors into a coherent, interpretable image. And all of those
calculations require precise, detailed connections between neurons
within and between different levels of the visual processing system.
The number of things that must go right for an eye to evolve is simply
astounding. It is utterly implausible that random mutations
accumulating over time could specify such a complex and well-designed
structure.
The claim that random mutation and selection could produce the eye is
a positively extraordinary claim. And the evolutionists constantly
tell us that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
But when we ask them for even modest examples of beneficial mutations,
they come up with things like sickle cell trait in malarious areas.
OK, a single mutation damages hemoglobin, but the damage to the
parasite trying to live off the hemoglobin is worse than the
collateral damage to the host. Big deal. That's nothing remotely like
the sort of cumulative, constructive, sequentially beneficially series
of many, many mutations that would be required to turn skin into an
eyeball. At best, they offer examples of rudimentary eyes that they
claim are intermediates. But there are no detailed pathways of the
individual mutations or the individual selective advantages that are
alleged to have accrued because of them along the path from a bit pf
photosensitive skin to the mammalian eye. Remember, extraordinary
claims require extraordinary evidence, and the evolutionists just
don't have it.
Now, you might ask why it is that the evolutionists are willing to
accept such absurdities without the sort of extraordinary evidence
that is required to back it up. It certainly seems that they have a
prior commitment to the world view entailed by Darwinian evolution.
Perhaps they love fruit flies or fungus and their evolutionary
arguments help them convince lawmakers to fund their research hobbies.
Perhaps the atheist world view entailed by evolutionism gives them
license to behave in ways they enjoy, but that would be unacceptable
under a creationist view. They may simply find the idea that there is
a God to whom they are accountable disturbing. It's hard to be sure.
Whatever the reason, it is striking how resolutely they hold to
extraordinary claims for which extraordinary evidence is lacking.
There is simply insufficient evidence to support the prima facie
absurd claim that the eye evolved.//
OK - that's that. I think that the above would pass easily as a real
creationist argument, and that many creationists would agree that I
understood what they had been saying. I think that it's all easily
refutable nonsense, but I think that I stated it correctly, from a
creationist point of view.
The question is, does any creationist here understand the theory of
evolution well enough to make a clear, pro-evolution argument?
Alan
"Bill" <broger...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3a3e26ce-42d1-4360...@a21g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
Alan
Bill
> "Bill" <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Safe bet, I'm sure.
alextangent
Up to this point, that is (almost) a good skeptical viewpoint. OK.
there's the occasional "evilutionist", but by and large I'd go with
this as worthy of discussion.
> Perhaps they love fruit flies or fungus and their evolutionary
> arguments help them convince lawmakers to fund their research hobbies.
> Perhaps the atheist world view entailed by evolutionism gives them
> license to behave in ways they enjoy, but that would be unacceptable
> under a creationist view. They may simply find the idea that there is
> a God to whom they are accountable disturbing. It's hard to be sure.
That paragraph loses it; it make the classic error that "if not A then
B" and conflates all sorts of activities with a moral undertone to the
two camps. It's at this point you see an agenda, and where most
creationists fall down that long black well of righteous ignorance.
This is typical, sans the preceding paragraphs.
> Whatever the reason, it is striking how resolutely they hold to
> extraordinary claims for which extraordinary evidence is lacking.
> There is simply insufficient evidence to support the prima facie
> absurd claim that the eye evolved.//
>
> OK - that's that. I think that the above would pass easily as a real
> creationist argument, and that many creationists would agree that I
> understood what they had been saying. I think that it's all easily
> refutable nonsense, but I think that I stated it correctly, from a
> creationist point of view.
>
> The question is, does any creationist here understand the theory of
> evolution well enough to make a clear, pro-evolution argument?
I haven't seen any recently, and can't think of any candidates either.
(Actually, what strikes me more is the number that have some really
odd ideas about the nature of the physical world; does this go hand in
hand with creationism? Or only a specific variety, such as YEC?).
jillery
You did an excellent job of making a most important point.
Congratulations.
Louann Miller
6d1f2b...@o7g2000prn.googlegroups.com:
>> The question is, does any creationist here understand the theory of
>> evolution well enough to make a clear, pro-evolution argument?
>
>
> You did an excellent job of making a most important point.
> Congratulations.
>
Sadly, his challenge is highly unlikely to be taken up at all, let alone
taken up sucessfully.
Mike Dworetsky
Nominated; it has been getting praise in response.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
jillery
> jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote in news:04c09258-f1ce-4c6a-8478-
> 6d1f2b238...@o7g2000prn.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> The question is, does any creationist here understand the theory of
> >> evolution well enough to make a clear, pro-evolution argument?
>
> > You did an excellent job of making a most important point.
> > Congratulations.
>
> Sadly, his challenge is highly unlikely to be taken up at all, let alone
> taken up sucessfully.
Even though Bill directs his challenge to creationists, his caveat
applies to all sides for any topic.
Charles Brenner
wrote:
> Bill wrote:
> > The question is, does any creationist here understand the theory of
> > evolution well enough to make a clear, pro-evolution argument?
>
> Nominated; it has been getting praise in response.
>
> --
> Mike Dworetsky
Second. It's a clear point and hard to say it's anything but fair.
Will in New Haven
Indeed. I am even now trying to formulate an argument that Roberto
Clemente is the greatest baseball player of all time. I have never
_been_ able to fully understand the argument of the person who says he
is and this little exercise is showing me that I probably never will.
--
Will in New Haven
jillery
In the immortal words of Commander Taggert: Never give up. Never
surrender.
Glen Davidson
> On Mar 3, 1:51 pm, biblearcheol...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > Actually I think you two cannot answer the questions that I have been
> > asking you so you are trying to blame me for "not understanding
> > evolution", for whatever that means.
>
> Ray Martinez also complained that we evolutionists kept insisting that
> if he didn't accept evolution it was only because he didn't understand
> it. I have some sympathy with this point of view. It must feel to
> creationists as though we will keep telling them they don't understand
> evolution until they concede that it is true. In general terms "You
> don't understand my argument, because if you did understand it you'd
> agree with me." I completely agree with Ray that that argument is
> unfair. There should be some independent way to make it clear that
> you've understood the other guy's argument, even if you do not accept
> it.
I haven't seen where Ray understands much of anything, but I've never
made that argument. More like the opposite, that denial of evolution
generally keeps creationists from understanding evolution.
>
> So, I think it is fair to say that you understand an argument if you
> can paraphrase it and present it in your own words, accurately,
> without mockery, and in such a way that the other side would recognize
> it as being their argument.
Yes, but it would have to be in detail, and with indications that they
understand the context. I haven't seen it.
So that they would say "Yes! That's
> exactly what I mean." You don't have to agree, just be able to express
> the other side's view clearly and accurately.
>
> So, I'd ask any creationist who is frustrated by repeated claims that
> he doesn't understand evolution to challenge himself to write out a
> coherent, pro-evolutionary argument, that gets the theory correct and
> would be recognized by an evolutionary biologist as a correct
> statement of the theory. You don't have to agree with it, just succeed
> in articulating it clearly.
Good luck with that.
What's the point of "understanding" such a caricature of the case?
Sure, they think it's hard to imagine how it could happen--and are
required by their religion to think so.
>
> The claim that random mutation and selection could produce the eye is
> a positively extraordinary claim.
This is where it becomes obvious that "extraordinary" has always been
ambiguous. Generally the people who would say "Extraordinary claims
require extraordinary evidence" do not mean that normal processes
claimed to produce the results we see are "extraordinary" in any
manner. They mean that "an alien did it" or "God did it" is an
extraordinary claim. But "extraordinary" hardly tells you much, and
in one sense I would deny that any claim requires "extraordinary
evidence," just repeatability under controlled conditions and/or
observations that can control for fraud, etc. In another sense, I
agree that "extraordinary evidence" is needed, in that I'll accept the
claim that someone saw a beautiful sunset without being skeptical,
while if they say that they saw aliens I will be skeptical. All that
really boils down to, though, is that if phenomena are already
established we don't generally doubt claims as to its being observed,
while if they're not already established we may very well do so
(depending, since some non-established phenomena might appear to be
within physics possibilities, while others do not, and it's the latter
that are given the highly skeptical eye).
Besides which, what's extraordinary about noting the evolutionary
evidence and concluding that evolution was responsible? Creationists
do this, up until the point at which they sense that they are
"forbidden" to do so. What is extraordinary is to accept evidence of
common descent by ordinary reproduction with variation, then to deny
that it occurs at an invisible line that "coincidentally" fits their
prior prejudices.
And the evolutionists constantly
> tell us that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
> But when we ask them for even modest examples of beneficial mutations,
> they come up with things like sickle cell trait in malarious areas.
Or nylon-eating bacteria.
> OK, a single mutation damages hemoglobin, but the damage to the
> parasite trying to live off the hemoglobin is worse than the
> collateral damage to the host. Big deal. That's nothing remotely like
> the sort of cumulative, constructive, sequentially beneficially series
> of many, many mutations that would be required to turn skin into an
> eyeball.
But of course we do, using the evolutionary evidence that they accept
where it's "acceptable." It's their problem that they deny protein
families, and the accumulations of traits in various lines that can
now be shown by comparative genetic studies.
Again, I just don't see what the point of showing that you understand
the bad thinking of creationism is. Of course it's bad, and of course
most of us understand how and why it's bad. Your whole exercise only
indicates that you understand the selective use of evidence that
creationists make, and how defective their understanding of evolution
and of evidence is that they should be so selective.
At best, they offer examples of rudimentary eyes that they
> claim are intermediates. But there are no detailed pathways of the
> individual mutations or the individual selective advantages that are
> alleged to have accrued because of them along the path from a bit pf
> photosensitive skin to the mammalian eye. Remember, extraordinary
> claims require extraordinary evidence, and the evolutionists just
> don't have it.
We have ordinary evidence, of the kind accepted for language evolution
by many IDists and creationists, or somewhat differently for
manuscript families or plagiarism cases. No one knows all of the
details of manuscript changes, language evolution, or plagiarists'
thoughts and actions, but the evidence is accepted by reasonable
people (including many IDists/creationists) without such knowledge.
>
> Now, you might ask why it is that the evolutionists are willing to
> accept such absurdities without the sort of extraordinary evidence
> that is required to back it up. It certainly seems that they have a
> prior commitment to the world view entailed by Darwinian evolution.
Oh come on. That's their claim, that it's a consequence of their line
of thinking, when it's really their prior commitment. That's why
they're impervious to evidence that people across most of the spectra
of religion and cultures can accept the evidence of evolution.
So what's the point of "understanding" their rationalizations of their
previous beliefs? Of course they rationalize.
> Perhaps they love fruit flies or fungus and their evolutionary
> arguments help them convince lawmakers to fund their research hobbies.
> Perhaps the atheist world view entailed by evolutionism gives them
> license to behave in ways they enjoy, but that would be unacceptable
> under a creationist view. They may simply find the idea that there is
> a God to whom they are accountable disturbing. It's hard to be sure.
> Whatever the reason, it is striking how resolutely they hold to
> extraordinary claims for which extraordinary evidence is lacking.
> There is simply insufficient evidence to support the prima facie
> absurd claim that the eye evolved.//
Well, yes, they have a difficult time sticking with one story about
the "biases" of the other side, because at best one "reason" only fits
a subset of those who accept evolution, and not others.
>
> OK - that's that. I think that the above would pass easily as a real
> creationist argument, and that many creationists would agree that I
> understood what they had been saying. I think that it's all easily
> refutable nonsense, but I think that I stated it correctly, from a
> creationist point of view.
The lack of equality here is seen in that all you did was give an anti-
evolutionist position, not a case for creationism or "design." Why
credit such a one-sided attack at all?
The crucial fact is that evolution comes from observation of the
world, and as such has the solidity and coherence to be something that
can be attacked. ID/creationism is of such a nature that it makes
claims that can't be tested, or, especially with YECism and the like,
makes claims that can be tested but refuses to accept refutations
coming from tests.
>
> The question is, does any creationist here understand the theory of
> evolution well enough to make a clear, pro-evolution argument?
As one might infer from what I wrote above, I don't think so. There
are a few elsewhere who understand evolution and deny it purely on
religious grounds. The difference is that these few actually
understand why we accept evolution and don't think that we're just
sticking our fingers in God's eye or something like that.
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Ray Martinez
wrote:
> On Mar 3, 10:05 pm, Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 3, 1:51 pm, biblearcheol...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > Actually I think you two cannot answer the questions that I have been
> > > asking you so you are trying to blame me for "not understanding
> > > evolution", for whatever that means.
>
> > Ray Martinez also complained that we evolutionists kept insisting that
> > if he didn't accept evolution it was only because he didn't understand
> > it. I have some sympathy with this point of view. It must feel to
> > creationists as though we will keep telling them they don't understand
> > evolution until they concede that it is true. In general terms "You
> > don't understand my argument, because if you did understand it you'd
> > agree with me." I completely agree with Ray that that argument is
> > unfair. There should be some independent way to make it clear that
> > you've understood the other guy's argument, even if you do not accept
> > it.
>
> I haven't seen where Ray understands much of anything, but I've never
> made that argument. More like the opposite, that denial of evolution
> generally keeps creationists from understanding evolution.
>
Well, the last time Glen Davidson showed his face around here I
thoroughly manhandled him. Looks like he is still sore.
Ray (anti-evolutionist)
[....]
Alan
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1e06a28c-004d-404c...@18g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
and the mechanics of evolution, to show that you do understand it. Don't
worry. I've made a deal with Odin, Zeus and Wotan. They won't strike you
with thunderbolts while you try. Sorry. Couldn't make a deal with Jehovah.
All I got was an answer phone. And he wouldn't ring back.
Alan
> [....]
>
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:
Channeling Tony? If you've ever manhandled (metaphorically
speaking) anyone here I certainly haven't seen it; of
course, a cite to the thread can easily prove me wrong if I
*am* wrong. Even a cut/paste of the relevant exchange would
be evidence of a sort. Er, you *do* keep copies of all your
posts in your newsreader files, don't you?
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Bruce Stephens
> On Fri, 4 Mar 2011 11:08:42 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
> <pyram...@yahoo.com>:
[...]
>>Well, the last time Glen Davidson showed his face around here I
>>thoroughly manhandled him. Looks like he is still sore.
>
> Channeling Tony? If you've ever manhandled (metaphorically
> speaking) anyone here I certainly haven't seen it; of
> course, a cite to the thread can easily prove me wrong if I
> *am* wrong. Even a cut/paste of the relevant exchange would
> be evidence of a sort. Er, you *do* keep copies of all your
> posts in your newsreader files, don't you?
Presumably this one:
<http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/dd3b76a74eb2c6b2>
It doesn't look a particularly devastating attack to me, but presumably
that's because I'm an Atheist and a Darwinist.
Arkalen
> On Mar 3, 1:51 pm, biblearcheol...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>> Actually I think you two cannot answer the questions that I have been
>> asking you so you are trying to blame me for "not understanding
>> evolution", for whatever that means.
>
> Ray Martinez also complained that we evolutionists kept insisting that
> if he didn't accept evolution it was only because he didn't understand
> it. I have some sympathy with this point of view.
So do I, in theory. In practice there are always several people
answering and using different strategies. Pointing out that the
creationist doesn't understand evolution is one. Another one is
explaining exactly what the creationist got wrong and answering their
questions in scrupulous detail.
The same conversation will often feature both kind of responses, which
is one reason t.o. is a cool place to learn stuff. So when the
creationists respond mainly to the first posters complaining nobody's
explaining anything I get the feeling they're not completely in good faith.
*snip the implausibly articulate and cogent creationist argument*
Frank J
Was thar before of after you "beat" him at chess:
;-)
>
> Ray (anti-evolutionist)
>
> [....]- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Walter Bushell
<7a2da34a-2dbe-44f2...@s18g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
Charles Brenner <cbre...@berkeley.edu> wrote:
Has any evolutionist understood the creationist side enough to make a
clear anti-evolution argument?
Dog nose, I've tried.
--
The Chinese pretend their goods are good and we pretend our money
is good, or is it the reverse?
Richard Clayton
Now, now, be fair. Ray was claiming victory in debates after fleeing
from them long before he and Tony got acquainted.
> If you've ever manhandled (metaphorically
> speaking) anyone here I certainly haven't seen it; of
> course, a cite to the thread can easily prove me wrong if I
> *am* wrong. Even a cut/paste of the relevant exchange would
> be evidence of a sort. Er, you *do* keep copies of all your
> posts in your newsreader files, don't you?
Ray, like all Scottist-Paulist-Paleyist-IDist-Creatorists, rejects
atheist newsreaders.
But *Google* doesn't reliably keep track of Ray's posts. Strangely
enough, the Mysterious Post Deleter keeps erasing all his claimed victories.
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"I keep six honest serving men (they taught me all I knew); their names
are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who." — Rudyard Kipling
T Pagano
wrote:
The problem is that no one clearly understands how progressive,
coherent transformational change occurred since it has NEVER been
observed. The Gouldian Naturalist camp while agreeing that
evolutionary transformational change occurred in prehistory doubts the
darwinian-dawkinsian claim that it occurred by very small
gradualistic, successive steps.
For example Gould's Punc Eq argued that when small founder populations
were stressed by environmental conditions that rapid changes of some
sort might occur. Unfortunately Gould had no idea why this set of
intial conditions would result in rapid change or what mechanism would
result in the rapid change.
The only "observable" thing that Darwin's theory explains is relative
change in allele frequency.
Both Darwin and Dawkins attempted to explain the evolutionary creation
of the eye with the fallacious argument that 5 percent of an eye
results in 5 percent visual acuity. It is not clear how much of the
complex interconnected system of vision is required to be in place
before any vision is possible. If so, why would any emergent system
be selected and progress forward to maturity. No one knows. These
are good reasons to suspect that darwinism is false rather than
absurd.
>
>Now, you might ask why it is that the evolutionists are willing to
>accept such absurdities without the sort of extraordinary evidence
>that is required to back it up.
It is not that Darwin's theory is absurd; it is an unwarranted
extrapolation. Darwin argued that because the Finch beak changed over
the course of several generations due to environmental condtions that
the same process produced the beak in the first place.
However we know this argument is false. We know that the information
for the variations in beak size already existed in the population and
that differential survival and differential reproduction only alters
the relative frequency of expression of what already exists it didn't
create anything.
> It certainly seems that they have a
>prior commitment to the world view entailed by Darwinian evolution.
Dawkins admits that Darwinism implicates naturalism and atheism and
that Darwinism makes him a fullfilled atheist. Provine and others
have admitted the same.
>Perhaps they love fruit flies or fungus and their evolutionary
>arguments help them convince lawmakers to fund their research hobbies.
The frutfly mutation experiments only produced fruitflies with
maladapted and deleterious problems. Like Lenski's experiment
progressive, coherent, transformational change was NEVER observed. So
if darwinistic investigation has not resulted in identifying an
OBSERVABLE mechanism and its OBSERVABLE transformational effects then
it has become little more than a branch of naturalistic and atheistic
philosophy.
>Perhaps the atheist world view entailed by evolutionism gives them
>license to behave in ways they enjoy, but that would be unacceptable
>under a creationist view. They may simply find the idea that there is
>a God to whom they are accountable disturbing. It's hard to be sure.
>Whatever the reason, it is striking how resolutely they hold to
>extraordinary claims for which extraordinary evidence is lacking.
>There is simply insufficient evidence to support the prima facie
>absurd claim that the eye evolved.//
>
>OK - that's that. I think that the above would pass easily as a real
>creationist argument, and that many creationists would agree that I
>understood what they had been saying. I think that it's all easily
>refutable nonsense, but I think that I stated it correctly, from a
>creationist point of view.
>
>The question is, does any creationist here understand the theory of
>evolution well enough to make a clear, pro-evolution argument?
The fact that the Gouldian Naturalists and the Dawkinsian Gradualist
camps have vigorously argued amonst themselves about "how"
transformational change occurs (since the 1970s) is evidence that no
one understands how (or even if) coherent, progressive
transformational change occurred.
I suspect that half of the atheists in the forum have never even
bothered to read Darwin's opus. wf3h-nymShifted-to-bupharic admitted
that he had never read it and didn't think it was necessary. Shortly
thereafter bpuharic left the forum.
Regards,
T Pagano
Ray Martinez
[....]
>
> The problem is that no one clearly understands how progressive,
> coherent transformational change occurred since it has NEVER been
> observed.
Not too long ago you told me that microevolutionary change is
"OBSERVED" (your caps). In response I asked you to produce a YouTube.
(All evolutionary change is inferred, not observed.)
When Darwinists (= Atheists) talk about change they are talking about
the only accepted increment: microevolutionary (and its accumulation
at various rates). It is presupposed that "microevolutionary change"
is transformational or barrierless. If you believe otherwise then the
microevolutionary change that you accept is counterfeit (not
Darwinian). You should stop using the word "microevolution" is any
context where you are expresssing support.
[....]
>
> Dawkins admits that Darwinism implicates naturalism and atheism and
> that Darwinism makes him a fullfilled atheist. [....]
>
Proof positive that microevolution is Atheist "science."
IDists are obligated to call change designed, not evolutionary. The
latter presupposes natural-unintelligent causation, the former
supernatural-Intelligent causation.
[....]
>
> I suspect that half of the atheists in the forum have never even
> bothered to read Darwin's opus. wf3h-nymShifted-to-bupharic admitted
> that he had never read it and didn't think it was necessary. Shortly
> thereafter bpuharic left the forum.
>
Since you have read Darwin 1859 then you must know that prior to 1859
science accepted immutability (Darwin 1859: 6, 310). Mutability is
Atheist "science" based on mere discovery of variation and similarity.
Natural selection is NONSENSE. (It does not exist.) You literally have
no basis whatsoever to accept microevolution.
Ray (species immutabilist)
alextangent
wrote:
> On 04-Mar-11 3:54 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 4 Mar 2011 11:08:42 -0800 (PST), the following
> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
Ray is Scottish??? Whaaat? Tell me it's not so...
>
> But *Google* doesn't reliably keep track of Ray's posts. Strangely
> enough, the Mysterious Post Deleter keeps erasing all his claimed victories.
>
> --
> [The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
> Richard Clayton
> "I keep six honest serving men (they taught me all I knew); their names
> are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who." � Rudyard Kipling
Arkalen
> On Mar 5, 3:26 pm, Richard Clayton<richZIG.e.clayZIG...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On 04-Mar-11 3:54 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> Ray, like all Scottist-Paulist-Paleyist-IDist-Creatorists, rejects
>> atheist newsreaders.
>
> Ray is Scottish??? Whaaat? Tell me it's not so...
No true Scotsman would reject atheist newsreaders !
>>
>> But *Google* doesn't reliably keep track of Ray's posts. Strangely
>> enough, the Mysterious Post Deleter keeps erasing all his claimed victories.
>>
>> --
>> [The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
>> Richard Clayton
>> "I keep six honest serving men (they taught me all I knew); their names
>> are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who." � Rudyard Kipling
>
>
T Pagano
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 5, 10:20 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
>[....]
>
>>
>> The problem is that no one clearly understands how progressive,
>> coherent transformational change occurred since it has NEVER been
>> observed.
>
>Not too long ago you told me that microevolutionary change is
>"OBSERVED" (your caps). In response I asked you to produce a YouTube.
>(All evolutionary change is inferred, not observed.)
Evolution is broadly defined as "any change over time."
"Microevolutionary" changes are broadly defined as minor observable
changes from one generation to the next. I don't like these terms but
I can follow the definitions and determine their limits.
Therefore any "change" from one generation to the next may be
characterized as "evolution." And any minor observable change may
characterized as "microevolutionary." So the simple example of
microevolutionary changes are the differences in my children from my
wife and I. They are observable and minor. This is merely a matter
of definition. And it is non controversial.
However, evolutionists have never shown that these microevolutionary
changes ever result in transformational change or that they are the
result of anything-but information that already exists.
>
>When Darwinists (= Atheists) talk about change they are talking about
>the only accepted increment: microevolutionary (and its accumulation
>at various rates). It is presupposed that "microevolutionary change"
>is transformational or barrierless.
This was darwin's theory. He thought that one kind of creature
gradually transmogrified into another seemlessly in linear-like,
successive steps. This is why Darwin placed no great importance in
the concept of species. For him species were NEVER fixed.
According to his concept each predecessor species overlapped (in terms
of classification criteria) with its descendent species and so on
along the evolutionary path. Yet what we discover is that there is no
overlap whatsoever in any of the Linnaeus classification schemes. The
pictorial representations all show hierarchical and discrete
groupings. Species appear to be the only real and unchanging entity
on the planet from the beginning of time.
There are certainly minor variations within species, but these
variations all appear to be programmed in from the beginnning and NOT
created by any naturalistic process. Atheists have never produced
observational evidence of a single new system, structure or creature
forming where it did not already exist. In other words genetics is a
more fruitful avenue of investigation than darwinism.
>If you believe otherwise then the
>microevolutionary change that you accept is counterfeit (not
>Darwinian). You should stop using the word "microevolution" is any
>context where you are expresssing support.
Simply because I can understand and apply evolutionist terms doesn't
mean I agree to the unwarranted atheist extrapolations. By their
definition "microevolution" occurs and is observable. However,
Microevolution is nothing more than the expression of imformation that
was created in the Beginning. There is no observational evidence
whatsoever that microevolution leads to coherent, progressive,
transformational change.
>
>[....]
>
>>
>> Dawkins admits that Darwinism implicates naturalism and atheism and
>> that Darwinism makes him a fullfilled atheist. [....]
Dawkins is one of the few intellectually honest enough to admit this.
Most of the riff raff here have no intellectual honesty.
>
>Proof positive that microevolution is Atheist "science."
Microevolution is merely "minor observable change over time." The
information for these minor changes already exists and existed from
the Beginning. Microevolutionary change is indisputable yet it never
accumulates coherently or progressively to result in transformational
change.
The term "evolution" is misleading and so is "microevolutionary" but
in order to have a discussion we have use the terms consistently with
our enemies.
>IDists are obligated to call change designed, not evolutionary.
This is not correct. ID theory is not a historical claim about the
creation of biological novelty or change. It does not concern itself
with the causal history of an object under examination and doesn't
need to know the object's causal history. It examines an object as
it exists at some point in time.
>The
>latter presupposes natural-unintelligent causation, the former
>supernatural-Intelligent causation.
>
>[....]
Even Paley didn't go this far. IDists do not presume that every event
and object is the result of supernatural causation. Natural processes
do occur on the earth which can explain some limited observations.
Furthermore ID theory attempts to test whether an object or event
contains a signature from which design can be inferred.
>
>>
>> I suspect that half of the atheists in the forum have never even
>> bothered to read Darwin's opus. wf3h-nymShifted-to-bupharic admitted
>> that he had never read it and didn't think it was necessary. Shortly
>> thereafter bpuharic left the forum.
>>
>
>Since you have read Darwin 1859 then you must know that prior to 1859
>science accepted immutability (Darwin 1859: 6, 310). Mutability is
>Atheist "science" based on mere discovery of variation and similarity.
>Natural selection is NONSENSE. (It does not exist.) You literally have
>no basis whatsoever to accept microevolution.
>
>Ray (species immutabilist)
Just as you object to the word "microevolutionary" because of its
connotations your use of the label "immutable" conjures up
connotations that makes everyone scratch their heads in disbelief.
"Immutable" conotes "no change whatsoever." The "dog" species is so
variable (in terms of size, shape, behavior, hair type, etc) as to
render your use of the word "immutable" ridiculous. Yet even with
that great variability they are all still dogs and nothing but dogs.
And will never be anything but dogs. So I get what you mean but the
term "immutable" is confusing and inappropriate.
Perhaps you should consider the term generally used prior to 1859:
"fixity" of species. It meant simply that a dog would always be a dog
and nothing else. It made no claim about minor variations of a
particular species. Drop the term "immutable" and you will likely be
better understood by friend and foe alike.
Regards,
T Pagano
Frank J
> On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 11:54:35 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
>
Should he drop the heliocentric, old Earth thing too? Or do you just
want him to drop the claims that most evolution-deniers don't buy?
chris thompson
>
I was going to make a snide comment, but on reflection, it is really
illuminating to see two creationists discuss their views. I want to
thank you both (NO sarcasm intended) and I hope you continue your
discussion. It adds to the community.
Chris
Randy C
> When Darwinists (= Atheists)...
Ray has very strange definitions.
Most people say "atheism" is equivalent to not believing in God.
Ray defines "atheism" as equivalent to not believing as he does.
Actually Ray is the atheist.
He doesn't worship God. Instead he worships the Bible.
But the Bible and God are different things.
One is a book.
The other is a supernatural being.
Bill
>
> >The question is, does any creationist here understand the theory of
> >evolution well enough to make a clear, pro-evolution argument?
>
> The fact that the Gouldian Naturalists and the Dawkinsian Gradualist
> camps have vigorously argued amonst themselves about "how"
> transformational change occurs (since the 1970s) is evidence that no
> one understands how (or even if) coherent, progressive
> transformational change occurred.
So the short answer, Tony, is that you do not understand the
evolutionist position well enough to summarize it. No surprise there.
Steven L.
"T Pagano" <not....@address.net> wrote in message
news:apagano-mmf5n65vs2icl...@4ax.com:
I'm actually glad to see two critics of evolution, yourself and Ray,
debating your own alternatives. We need to do more of that.
-- Steven L.
Dana Tweedy
>> On Mar 5, 10:20 am, T Pagano<not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
> [....]
>
>>
>> The problem is that no one clearly understands how progressive,
>> coherent transformational change occurred since it has NEVER been
>> observed.
>
> Not too long ago you told me that microevolutionary change is
> "OBSERVED" (your caps). In response I asked you to produce a YouTube.
> (All evolutionary change is inferred, not observed.)
Ray, all observation requires inference. Evolutionary change is
directly observed, through inferring change as it happens.
>
> When Darwinists (= Atheists)
Not all atheist are "Darwinists", and not all that accept evolution are
atheist.
> talk about change they are talking about
> the only accepted increment: microevolutionary (and its accumulation
> at various rates).
Yes, changes are accumulated, and the "increment" is the generation.
> It is presupposed that "microevolutionary change"
> is transformational or barrierless.
Not 'presupposed' but directly observed. No one has seen any barriers,
and of course change is "transformational", as that's what "change" means.
> If you believe otherwise then the
> microevolutionary change that you accept is counterfeit (not
> Darwinian).
Ray, change is change, and as long as the change is inheritable, it's
"Darwinian". It doesn't matter to science what the ultimate cause of
the change might be.
> You should stop using the word "microevolution" is any
> context where you are expresssing support.
Why? Just because you can't admit that microevolution happens doesn't
mean everyone must refrain from using the term.
>
> [....]
>
>>
>> Dawkins admits that Darwinism implicates naturalism and atheism and
>> that Darwinism makes him a fullfilled atheist. [....]
>>
>
> Proof positive that microevolution is Atheist "science."
How is that "proof positive" of any such thing? Dawkins is entitled to
his opinion, but science itself is open to anyone. One doesn't have to
be an atheist to use science, nor does science make atheism mandatory.
>
> IDists are obligated to call change designed, not evolutionary.
Whatever "IDist" call the change, it's still evolution. There's no
evidence that change by mutation and selection is designed. If you have
any such evidence, please present it.
> The
> latter presupposes natural-unintelligent causation, the former
> supernatural-Intelligent causation.
No, "causation" is not presupposed to be "natural-unintelligent", it's
observed to be that. If you wish to present any evidence that a
supernatural being was involved, you are welcome to do so. Otherwise
there's no reason to assume a supernatural being involved. You can
believe that God is involved in evolution, but there's no evidence.
>
> [....]
>
>>
>> I suspect that half of the atheists in the forum have never even
>> bothered to read Darwin's opus. wf3h-nymShifted-to-bupharic admitted
>> that he had never read it and didn't think it was necessary. Shortly
>> thereafter bpuharic left the forum.
>>
>
> Since you have read Darwin 1859 then you must know that prior to 1859
> science accepted immutability (Darwin 1859: 6, 310).
Ray, fixity of species was found to be wrong. It was already on it's
way out when Darwin published.
> Mutability is
> Atheist "science" based on mere discovery of variation and similarity.
No, Ray. "Mutability" is an observation. It's based on the discovery
that species do change over time. Variation and similarity are
evidence for evolution, but not the only evidence. Even in Darwin's
time, there was much more evidence available.
> Natural selection is NONSENSE. (It does not exist.)
Ray, "natural selection" is another observed process. Saying it's
"nonsense" or that it "doesn't exist" is purely denial. As long as all
organisms don't have an equal chance at reproduction, natural selection
is in force.
> You literally have
> no basis whatsoever to accept microevolution.
Except for the massive amount of evidence, including direct observation
of microevolution in action....
DJT
Ray Martinez
> On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 11:54:35 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
>
> >> On Mar 5, 10:20 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
> >[....]
>
> >> The problem is that no one clearly understands how progressive,
> >> coherent transformational change occurred since it has NEVER been
> >> observed.
>
> >Not too long ago you told me that microevolutionary change is
> >"OBSERVED" (your caps). In response I asked you to produce a YouTube.
> >(All evolutionary change is inferred, not observed.)
Your response----BELOW----is an evasion and/or non-sequitur. You said
evolution is "OBSERVED" (your caps). If true, then you should be able
to produce a YouTube so everyone can see it. In rebuttal I said that
all evolution is inferred, not observed. Perhaps the fact of inference
is the reason why you cannot produce a YouTube?
> Evolution is broadly defined as "any change over time."
Since species were held immutable before 1859, evolution is defined as
"any change over time accomplished by natural-unintelligent
causation." Prior to 1859 science rejected the concept of evolution to
exist in nature.
> "Microevolutionary" changes are broadly defined as minor observable
> changes from one generation to the next. I don't like these terms but
> I can follow the definitions and determine their limits.
>
Doesn't follow, since you use these terms you do indeed like them. And
again, microevolution or basic mutability was NOT accepted prior to
1859. Therefore these changes were accepted as being caused by natural-
unintelligent causation (which wasn't accepted prior to Darwin
either). Your arguments concerning microevolution and the general
concept of evolution assume a disentanglement from Darwin, as if
microevolution or the general concept experienced any scientific
acceptance before Darwin 1859. (I know this is true based on a comment
that you are about to make.)
And again, your claim that **these** changes are "observable
changes" (T. Pagano) is error. All evolution is ascertained by
inference, not observation. The vast majority occurring before any of
us were born.
> Therefore any "change" from one generation to the next may be
> characterized as "evolution."
Since evolution was accepted as being caused by natural-unintelligent-
unguided causation, this is not true. You have given away the store.
Historic IDism (British & American Natural Theology) says all
biological production is designed (originates vertically from God).
Darwinism says all biological production is evolutionary (originates
horizontally from the closed system of nature).
IF God is involved with biological production, then nothing in nature
can be described as reflecting evolution. IF God is not involved with
biological production, then nothing in nature can be described as
reflecting design.
> And any minor observable change may
> characterized as "microevolutionary." So the simple example of
> microevolutionary changes are the differences in my children from my
> wife and I. They are observable and minor. This is merely a matter
> of definition. And it is non controversial.
>
No, the differences between parents and children are not
microevolutionary. Inheritance itself is not evolutionary. And I have
been attempting to get you to see that by using any word with
evolution in it the same means accomplished by "Darwinian
unintelligent causation." IDists do not acccept the concept of
unintelligence to exist in nature. Evolutionists do not accept the
concept of Intelligence to exist in nature.
> However, evolutionists have never shown that these microevolutionary
> changes ever result in transformational change or that they are the
> result of anything-but information that already exists.
>
And again here is what you do not understand. ALL change has the
potential to be transformational based on the fact that species were
held immutable before Darwin published. Once mutability was accepted,
that is, once the concept of evolution was accepted to explain nature,
all species became transitional----automatically. At no time before
1900 was evolution accepted as being inhibited. The microevolution you
continually allude to does not exist in any scientific publication.
And 20th century Creationism is pseudo-science.
>
>
> >When Darwinists (= Atheists) talk about change they are talking about
> >the only accepted increment: microevolutionary (and its accumulation
> >at various rates). It is presupposed that "microevolutionary change"
> >is transformational or barrierless.
>
> This was darwin's theory.
And we finally come to the comment that proves you have been thinking
of evolution and microevolution apart from Darwin. I urge anyone to
open a new window and read your message minus my rebuttals so they can
see that everytime you mentioned evolution or microevolution up to
this point you were assuming disentanglement from Darwin.
AGAIN: SCIENCE ACCEPTED MUTABILITY BASED ON DARWIN 1859.
Microevolution was accepted as being caused by natural selection OR
unknown natural-unintelligent causation. Therefore your previous
arguments, definitions and explanations asserting evolution and
microevolution existing in a general or generic state apart from
Darwin 1859, are subjective, unsupported, false.
> He thought that one kind of creature
> gradually transmogrified into another seemlessly in linear-like,
> successive steps.
The concept of "kind" did not exist in Darwin's thought. He thought
species did as you describe.
> This is why Darwin placed no great importance in
> the concept of species. For him species were NEVER fixed.
>
Of course, he was arguing for mutability.
> According to his concept each predecessor species overlapped (in terms
> of classification criteria) with its descendent species and so on
> along the evolutionary path. Yet what we discover is that there is no
> overlap whatsoever in any of the Linnaeus classification schemes. The
> pictorial representations all show hierarchical and discrete
> groupings. Species appear to be the only real and unchanging entity
> on the planet from the beginning of time.
>
I completely agree. Species are immutable.
> There are certainly minor variations within species, but these
> variations all appear to be programmed in from the beginnning and NOT
> created by any naturalistic process.
I completely agree.
Ray
(I intend to reply to the remainder ASAP.)
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Arkalen <ski...@yahoo.com>:
Ya think?
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Bruce Stephens
<bruce+...@cenderis.demon.co.uk>:
>Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> writes:
>
>> On Fri, 4 Mar 2011 11:08:42 -0800 (PST), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>> <pyram...@yahoo.com>:
>
>[...]
>
>>>Well, the last time Glen Davidson showed his face around here I
>>>thoroughly manhandled him. Looks like he is still sore.
>>
>> Channeling Tony? If you've ever manhandled (metaphorically
>> speaking) anyone here I certainly haven't seen it; of
>> course, a cite to the thread can easily prove me wrong if I
>> *am* wrong. Even a cut/paste of the relevant exchange would
>> be evidence of a sort. Er, you *do* keep copies of all your
>> posts in your newsreader files, don't you?
>
>Presumably this one:
><http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/dd3b76a74eb2c6b2>
Wow, Ray really did "manhandle" Glen! Ray's response to a
fairly long and well-thought-out (to me, anyway) post by
Glen:
"Since you are a Darwinist your opinion of Meyer's ID
argument (or any ID argument) is, of course, predetermined."
Ray sure showed *him* where to get off!
>It doesn't look a particularly devastating attack to me, but presumably
>that's because I'm an Atheist and a Darwinist.
Or because you're capable of rational thought; those always
get by Ray.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Richard Clayton
<richZIG.e....@gmail.com>:
And he's been known to claim that Google *is* the Internet;
one of those "not even wrong" statements.
>But *Google* doesn't reliably keep track of Ray's posts. Strangely
>enough, the Mysterious Post Deleter keeps erasing all his claimed victories.
A dark conspiracy indeed...
Dana Tweedy
> On Mar 5, 3:51 pm, T Pagano<not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 11:54:35 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
>>
>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mar 5, 10:20 am, T Pagano<not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>>
>>> [....]
>>
>>>> The problem is that no one clearly understands how progressive,
>>>> coherent transformational change occurred since it has NEVER been
>>>> observed.
>>
>>> Not too long ago you told me that microevolutionary change is
>>> "OBSERVED" (your caps). In response I asked you to produce a YouTube.
>>> (All evolutionary change is inferred, not observed.)
>
> Your response----BELOW----is an evasion and/or non-sequitur. You said
> evolution is "OBSERVED" (your caps).
Evolution is observed, Ray.
> If true, then you should be able
> to produce a YouTube so everyone can see it.
Youtube is not a scientific paper, Ray. You can read thousands of
scientific papers that show evolution under observation.
> In rebuttal I said that
> all evolution is inferred, not observed.
All observation requires inference. Evolution is both inferred, and
observed.
> Perhaps the fact of inference
> is the reason why you cannot produce a YouTube?
Ray, "youtube" is not a scientific source. If you reject Wikipedia,
you should also consider youtube to be suspect.
>
>> Evolution is broadly defined as "any change over time."
>
> Since species were held immutable before 1859, evolution is defined as
> "any change over time accomplished by natural-unintelligent
> causation."
Wrong again, Ray. No one ever defined evolution as change "accomplished
by natural unintelligent causation". Evolution is change over time.
"Causation" is irrelevant.
> Prior to 1859 science rejected the concept of evolution to
> exist in nature.
Wrong again. Scientists prior to 1859 were beginning to accept that
species changed. Darwin's evidence, and proposed mechanism quelled any
doubts.
>
>> "Microevolutionary" changes are broadly defined as minor observable
>> changes from one generation to the next. I don't like these terms but
>> I can follow the definitions and determine their limits.
>>
>
> Doesn't follow, since you use these terms you do indeed like them. And
> again, microevolution or basic mutability was NOT accepted prior to
> 1859.
Actually, it was, just not by the majority of scientists.
> Therefore these changes were accepted as being caused by natural-
> unintelligent causation (which wasn't accepted prior to Darwin
> either).
Irrelevant, as that's never been part of the definition. "Natural
unintelligent causation" is a default position of science. Unless you
can provide some evidence to the contrary, all processes are considered
to be natural.
> Your arguments concerning microevolution and the general
> concept of evolution assume a disentanglement from Darwin, as if
> microevolution or the general concept experienced any scientific
> acceptance before Darwin 1859. (I know this is true based on a comment
> that you are about to make.)
Wrong again, Ray. It's heartening to see you misunderstand
creationists as well as reasonable people.
>
> And again, your claim that **these** changes are "observable
> changes" (T. Pagano) is error. All evolution is ascertained by
> inference, not observation. The vast majority occurring before any of
> us were born.
All observations are ascertained by inference. And no, the observations
of evolution are occurring now, not in the past.
>
>> Therefore any "change" from one generation to the next may be
>> characterized as "evolution."
>
> Since evolution was accepted as being caused by natural-unintelligent-
> unguided causation, this is not true. You have given away the store.
Again, Ray, evolution is accepted as happening, regardless of the
'cause'. Your obsession with "natural unintelligent" is your undoing.
>
> Historic IDism (British& American Natural Theology) says all
> biological production is designed (originates vertically from God).
And why can't evolution be designed by God?
>
> Darwinism says all biological production is evolutionary (originates
> horizontally from the closed system of nature).
"horizontally" doesn't seem to make sense in this context. Evolution
explains the diversity of life, not "all biological production". You
appear to be confused here.
>
> IF God is involved with biological production, then nothing in nature
> can be described as reflecting evolution.
Why not, Ray? Why can't God make use of evolution?
> IF God is not involved with
> biological production, then nothing in nature can be described as
> reflecting design.
Why not, Ray? As you've been explained to before, the appearance of
design is often the result of natural processes. Your own assumptions
and misconceptions are not applicable to reality.
>
>> And any minor observable change may
>> characterized as "microevolutionary." So the simple example of
>> microevolutionary changes are the differences in my children from my
>> wife and I. They are observable and minor. This is merely a matter
>> of definition. And it is non controversial.
>>
>
> No, the differences between parents and children are not
> microevolutionary.
Why not? Please explain why you think this.
> Inheritance itself is not evolutionary.
Why not? Again, it would be helpful if you'd explain your belief.
> And I have
> been attempting to get you to see that by using any word with
> evolution in it the same means accomplished by "Darwinian
> unintelligent causation."
That's not what the word means, Ray.
> IDists do not acccept the concept of
> unintelligence to exist in nature.
Some do, obviously. Your own misconceptions, bizarre fantasies, and
weird assertions don't apply to other people.
> Evolutionists do not accept the
> concept of Intelligence to exist in nature.
Again, that's wrong. Many "evolutionists" do believe that "the
concept of intelligence" exists. When you consider that your own
misunderstanding of the "concept of intelligence" is "order and
complexity", all scientists accept that those exist in nature.
Your mistake is in assuming that order and complexity are always the
result of "intelligence".
>
>> However, evolutionists have never shown that these microevolutionary
>> changes ever result in transformational change or that they are the
>> result of anything-but information that already exists.
>>
>
> And again here is what you do not understand. ALL change has the
> potential to be transformational based on the fact that species were
> held immutable before Darwin published.
Again, while fixity of species was a very popular belief, it wasn't
universal among scientists, and by the time Darwin published, it was
very much open to debate. It also doesn't follow that "all change has
the potential to be transformational" is based on the widespread
adoption of fixity of species before Darwin. That all change may
produce transformation in species is based on the fact that change in
species may lead to a "transformation" of that species over time.
Darwin's publication, and the mistaken belief in fixity of species have
little, or nothing to do with the idea that small scale change can lead
to large scale change.
> Once mutability was accepted,
> that is, once the concept of evolution was accepted to explain nature,
"Mutability" is an observation. The concept of evolution explains the
diversity of nature, not all of it.
> all species became transitional----automatically.
Unless a species goes extinct, which is a very common occurrence. Not
all species will produce a successor species, so not all are transitional.
> At no time before
> 1900 was evolution accepted as being inhibited.
Nor after 1900. There's no observation of limitation of evoluiton.
> The microevolution you
> continually allude to does not exist in any scientific publication.
Actually, it exists in thousands of scientific publication. Creationism
is what doesn't exist in science.
> And 20th century Creationism is pseudo-science.
So is yours, Ray.
>
>>
>>
>>> When Darwinists (= Atheists) talk about change they are talking about
>>> the only accepted increment: microevolutionary (and its accumulation
>>> at various rates). It is presupposed that "microevolutionary change"
>>> is transformational or barrierless.
>>
>> This was darwin's theory.
>
> And we finally come to the comment that proves you have been thinking
> of evolution and microevolution apart from Darwin. I urge anyone to
> open a new window and read your message minus my rebuttals so they can
> see that everytime you mentioned evolution or microevolution up to
> this point you were assuming disentanglement from Darwin.
Ray, evolution does not depend on Darwin. Darwin never used the term
"microevolution", and if Darwin had never lived, the idea of evolution
would probably be the same today, just known under a different name.
(Wallaceism?)
>
> AGAIN: SCIENCE ACCEPTED MUTABILITY BASED ON DARWIN 1859.
Again, that's wrong. Scientists were beginning to accept species
change before Darwin, and if Darwin had never published, species would
still be known to change. Darwin's work did hasten the acceptance of
evolution, but without Darwin it still would have been accepted.
>
> Microevolution was accepted as being caused by natural selection OR
> unknown natural-unintelligent causation.
Like any scientific theory. No science permits appeal to the
supernatural.
> Therefore your previous
> arguments, definitions and explanations asserting evolution and
> microevolution existing in a general or generic state apart from
> Darwin 1859, are subjective, unsupported, false.
Once again, Ray, you are mistaken. Change in species was in the
process of being accepted before Darwin, and even if Darwin had never
existed, the idea would still have been accepted. Wallace might have
gotten sole credit, or some other scientist would be famous for the
concept. Your idea that the acceptance of evolution depended on Darwin
is false.
>
>> He thought that one kind of creature
>> gradually transmogrified into another seemlessly in linear-like,
>> successive steps.
>
> The concept of "kind" did not exist in Darwin's thought. He thought
> species did as you describe.
>
>> This is why Darwin placed no great importance in
>> the concept of species. For him species were NEVER fixed.
>>
>
> Of course, he was arguing for mutability.
Yes, because he observed the evidence of change.
>
>> According to his concept each predecessor species overlapped (in terms
>> of classification criteria) with its descendent species and so on
>> along the evolutionary path. Yet what we discover is that there is no
>> overlap whatsoever in any of the Linnaeus classification schemes. The
>> pictorial representations all show hierarchical and discrete
>> groupings. Species appear to be the only real and unchanging entity
>> on the planet from the beginning of time.
>>
>
> I completely agree. Species are immutable.
Which is wrong. Species do change. The evidence that species change
is too well established to deny.
>
>> There are certainly minor variations within species, but these
>> variations all appear to be programmed in from the beginnning and NOT
>> created by any naturalistic process.
>
> I completely agree.
There's no evidence that variations are programmed "from the beginning".
If they were, one would not expect species to go extinct.
DJT
John Harshman
You are wrong about that. But you've always been wrong about that.
Failed the challenge in the first paragraph.
> For example Gould's Punc Eq argued that when small founder populations
> were stressed by environmental conditions that rapid changes of some
> sort might occur. Unfortunately Gould had no idea why this set of
> intial conditions would result in rapid change or what mechanism would
> result in the rapid change.
More failure in the second. The cause of the rapid change was natural
selection. The question is about stasis: what prevents natural selection
from producing change at other times. Gould's theories were, I think,
wrong in many ways. But you don't describe them properly.
> The only "observable" thing that Darwin's theory explains is relative
> change in allele frequency.
Is relative change different from change?
These are good reasons to suspect that you have no idea what you're
talking about. The starting position of these things is generally
considered to be an eye spot: a patch of light-receptive cells. There
are plenty of animals with such patches, so I don't see that as a
problem. Nilsson & Pelger (1994) showed a continuously advantageous
pathway from there to a camera eye.
(Nilsson, D., and S. Pelger. 1994. A pessimistic estimate of the time
required for an eye to evolve. Proceedings of the Royal Society of
London, Series B 256:53-58.)
>> Now, you might ask why it is that the evolutionists are willing to
>> accept such absurdities without the sort of extraordinary evidence
>> that is required to back it up.
>
> It is not that Darwin's theory is absurd; it is an unwarranted
> extrapolation. Darwin argued that because the Finch beak changed over
> the course of several generations due to environmental condtions that
> the same process produced the beak in the first place.
>
> However we know this argument is false. We know that the information
> for the variations in beak size already existed in the population and
> that differential survival and differential reproduction only alters
> the relative frequency of expression of what already exists it didn't
> create anything.
You're denying that mutations happen? Or are you denying that they can
produce variation?
>> It certainly seems that they have a
>> prior commitment to the world view entailed by Darwinian evolution.
>
> Dawkins admits that Darwinism implicates naturalism and atheism and
> that Darwinism makes him a fullfilled atheist. Provine and others
> have admitted the same.
How is that relevant?
>> Perhaps they love fruit flies or fungus and their evolutionary
>> arguments help them convince lawmakers to fund their research hobbies.
>
> The frutfly mutation experiments only produced fruitflies with
> maladapted and deleterious problems. Like Lenski's experiment
> progressive, coherent, transformational change was NEVER observed. So
> if darwinistic investigation has not resulted in identifying an
> OBSERVABLE mechanism and its OBSERVABLE transformational effects then
> it has become little more than a branch of naturalistic and atheistic
> philosophy.
This is because you define progressive, coherent, transformation change
out of existence. By the way, is there any evidence for creation?
>> Perhaps the atheist world view entailed by evolutionism gives them
>> license to behave in ways they enjoy, but that would be unacceptable
>> under a creationist view. They may simply find the idea that there is
>> a God to whom they are accountable disturbing. It's hard to be sure.
>> Whatever the reason, it is striking how resolutely they hold to
>> extraordinary claims for which extraordinary evidence is lacking.
>> There is simply insufficient evidence to support the prima facie
>> absurd claim that the eye evolved.//
>>
>> OK - that's that. I think that the above would pass easily as a real
>> creationist argument, and that many creationists would agree that I
>> understood what they had been saying. I think that it's all easily
>> refutable nonsense, but I think that I stated it correctly, from a
>> creationist point of view.
>>
>> The question is, does any creationist here understand the theory of
>> evolution well enough to make a clear, pro-evolution argument?
>
> The fact that the Gouldian Naturalists and the Dawkinsian Gradualist
> camps have vigorously argued amonst themselves about "how"
> transformational change occurs (since the 1970s) is evidence that no
> one understands how (or even if) coherent, progressive
> transformational change occurred.
You have no idea what the argument is. Seriously. The argument between
Gould and Dawkins is, if anything, about the proper unit of selection.
> I suspect that half of the atheists in the forum have never even
> bothered to read Darwin's opus. wf3h-nymShifted-to-bupharic admitted
> that he had never read it and didn't think it was necessary. Shortly
> thereafter bpuharic left the forum.
Which is worse: not to have read it or to have read it and understood
nothing of it?
T Pagano
wrote:
Some things are apparently too difficulty for Frank J to comprehend.
The issue with regard to "microevolution" was clarity in the use of
words. "Heliocentric" and "old earth" are clear enough. Whether Ray
can prove that the earth travels at 30 km/sec around the sun and 400
km/sec aroung the Milky Way is another story. If he could he would
be the first.
>Or do you just
>want him to drop the claims that most evolution-deniers don't buy?
Sadly for Frank J we don't simply deny evolution we repeatedly show
that there is NO evidence whatsoever of coherent, progressive
transformational change. That's a good indication that we don't
merely deny evolution but claim that it is clearly false.
Regards,
T Pagano
Ernest Major
Pagano <not....@address.net> writes
You claim (to have shown) that there is no evidence of coherent,
progressive, transformational change. The implication of your
qualification of the type of change of which there is (alleged to be) no
evidence is that you think that there is evidence of other types of
change. Please indicate which types of change you think there is
evidence of.
>
>
>Regards,
>T Pagano
>
--
alias Ernest Major
Frank J
> On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 15:59:51 -0800 (PST), Frank J <f...@verizon.net>
If that were the case then you evolution deniers would either:
1. Converge on a consensus as to where (species, genus, order, etc.)
the different "kinds" can be divided, and whether the divisions are in-
vivo process (as Behe thinks), or whether each "kind" required its own
separare origin-of-life event, and *when* those in-vivo and/or origin-
of-life events occurred.
or
2. Have vigorous, healthy debates among each other on their radically
different conclusions.
Outside of an occasional half-hearted attempt at 2, usually by AiG or
RTB, you people avoid both like the plague.
> That's a good indication that we don't
> merely deny evolution but claim that it is clearly false.
Says the one who thinks that helocentric YEC and Ray's OEC are
"clearly false too." That you put 1000x as much effort into singling
out evolution among the alternatives that you think are just as false
strongly hints that your real objection has nothing to do with the
evidence.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano- Hide quoted text -
Frank J
Given the reply on another thread, I'll try to make this so clear that
any evolution-denier who is not possessed by Morton's Demon or in-on-
the-scam will understand:
I *do not* mean to "converge on a consensus" because they *want* to,
as the early "scientific" YECs apparently did by trying to find a
compromise that was palatable to the largest audience, and then
picking and choosing evidence to "validate" it. Rather, I mean,
following the evidence - all of it, resisting any attempt to "play
favorites" - where it leads. Even if it means reluctantly agreeing
with someone whom you'd love to put out of business. That's what
"Darwinists" have been doing with each other for 150+ years. And what
anti-evolution activists have been actively *avoiding* for most of
that time, and more intensely with each passing day.
> or
>
> 2. Have vigorous, healthy debates among each other on their radically
> different conclusions.
>
> Outside of an occasional half-hearted attempt at 2, usually by AiG or
> RTB, you people avoid both like the plague.
>
> > That's a good indication that we don't
> > merely deny evolution but claim that it is clearly false.
>
> Says the one who thinks that helocentric YEC and Ray's OEC are
> "clearly false too." That you put 1000x as much effort into singling
> out evolution among the alternatives that you think are just as false
> strongly hints that your real objection has nothing to do with the
> evidence.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Regards,
> > T Pagano- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
RAM
> On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 15:59:51 -0800 (PST), Frank J <f...@verizon.net>
Where have you shown there is no evidence for evolution. You have not
idea about the actual meaning of induction.
The following statement by you clearly indicates profound ignorance of
induction and what evidence means: Pags "I said that technology does
not rely on induction which is a foundation of sand."
Since evidence is based on a foundation of sand why would you bother
anyway?
Your religious induced idiocy makes the above statements and the one
below at least understandable for their lack of evidence for your
evolution assertions.
T Pagano
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
snip
Best run to save your buddy Burkhard, he's gonna need it.
RAM
> On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 15:36:46 +0000, Ernest Major
>
>
> snip
>
> Best run to save your buddy Burkhard, he's gonna need it.
What an idiot.
Ernest Major
Pagano <not....@address.net> writesThe snipped material was
"You claim (to have shown) that there is no evidence of coherent,
progressive, transformational change. The implication of your
qualification of the type of change of which there is (alleged to be) no
evidence is that you think that there is evidence of other types of
change. Please indicate which types of change you think there is
evidence of."
>
>Best run to save your buddy Burkhard, he's gonna need it.
>
Why are you scared to answer a perfectly reasonable question?
--
alias Ernest Major
Ray Martinez
[snip material addressed previously....]
> Atheists have never produced
> observational evidence of a single new system, structure or creature
> forming where it did not already exist. In other words genetics is a
> more fruitful avenue of investigation than darwinism.
>
> >If you believe otherwise then the
> >microevolutionary change that you accept is counterfeit (not
> >Darwinian). You should stop using the word "microevolution" in any
> >context where you are expresssing support.
>
> Simply because I can understand and apply evolutionist terms doesn't
> mean I agree to the unwarranted atheist extrapolations. By their
> definition "microevolution" occurs and is observable. However,
> Microevolution is nothing more than the expression of information that
> was created in the Beginning. There is no observational evidence
> whatsoever that microevolution leads to coherent, progressive,
> transformational change.
>
>
>
> >[....]
>
> >> Dawkins admits that Darwinism implicates naturalism and atheism and
> >> that Darwinism makes him a fullfilled atheist. [....]
>
> Dawkins is one of the few intellectually honest enough to admit this.
> Most of the riff raff here have no intellectual honesty.
>
>
>
> >Proof positive that microevolution is Atheist "science."
>
> Microevolution is merely "minor observable change over time." The
> information for these minor changes already exists and existed from
> the Beginning. Microevolutionary change is indisputable yet it never
> accumulates coherently or progressively to result in transformational
> change.
>
> The term "evolution" is misleading and so is "microevolutionary" but
> in order to have a discussion we have use the terms consistently with
> our enemies.
>
Completely false.
Both Creationism-ID and Darwinism-ToE have their own set of exclusive
terms to describe their view of nature. Since microevolution/
mutability had no scientific acceptance prior to 1859, and since
microevolution/mutability was accepted as being caused by unguided
natural/material/unintelligent causation; "evolution" /
"microevolution" / "mutability" are terms describing unguided natural/
material/unintelligent causation. Thus these terms belong to Darwinism-
ToE, exclusively.
> >IDists are obligated to call change designed, not evolutionary.
>
> This is not correct. ID theory is not a historical claim about the
> creation of biological novelty or change. It does not concern itself
> with the causal history of an object under examination and doesn't
> need to know the object's causal history. It examines an object as
> it exists at some point in time.
>
The *DI* Wedge strategy at work.
Recently there was some topic over at UncommonDescent that was
attempting to discuss a debate between Behe and Coyne. I jumped in and
made a rhetorical point: Since both men accept human evolution,
macroevolution and microevolution, what are they arguing about?
Very quickly an answer came nonetheless: they are arguing about
agency, whether evolution is caused by Intelligent or unintelligent
agency.
The objective facts of the history of biology: IF Intelligence is
involved with biological production then phenomena cannot be called
evolutionary. IF unintelligence is involved with biological production
then phenomena cannot be called designed. When terms are conflated,
confusion is perpetuated.
> >The
> >latter presupposes natural-unintelligent causation, the former
> >supernatural-Intelligent causation.
>
> >[....]
>
> Even Paley didn't go this far. IDists do not presume that every event
> and object is the result of supernatural causation. Natural processes
> do occur on the earth which can explain some limited observations.
In Paley's time and day "natural" meant "caused by supernatural power
and Divine intelligence." Since Darwin 1859 "natural" means
"unintelligent agency" or the underlying principle "produced by nature
itself" (= Naturalism-Materialism). Paradigm change occurred
1859-1872.
Did you know that Newton argued that our solar system and its
arrangement was the work of God's intervening Hand? From the invention
of the printing press, until 1859-1872, science accepted Intelligent
agency (Theism). "Natural processes," as we understand the phrase
since the rise of Darwinism, was not only unheard of, but illegal to
propagate. This is why Deism was so popular.
> Furthermore ID theory attempts to test whether an object or event
> contains a signature from which design can be inferred.
>
>
>
> >> I suspect that half of the atheists in the forum have never even
> >> bothered to read Darwin's opus. wf3h-nymShifted-to-bupharic admitted
> >> that he had never read it and didn't think it was necessary. Shortly
> >> thereafter bpuharic left the forum.
>
> >Since you have read Darwin 1859 then you must know that prior to 1859
> >science accepted immutability (Darwin 1859: 6, 310). Mutability is
> >Atheist "science" based on mere discovery of variation and similarity.
> >Natural selection is NONSENSE. (It does not exist.) You literally have
> >no basis whatsoever to accept microevolution.
>
> >Ray (species immutabilist)
>
> Just as you object to the word "microevolutionary" because of its
> connotations your use of the label "immutable" conjures up
> connotations that makes everyone scratch their heads in disbelief.
> "Immutable" conotes "no change whatsoever"....
....by non-existent natural processes.
> The "dog" species is so
> variable (in terms of size, shape, behavior, hair type, etc) as to
> render your use of the word "immutable" ridiculous.
Variation is not microevolution.
> Yet even with
> that great variability they are all still dogs and nothing but dogs.
> And will never be anything but dogs. So I get what you mean but the
> term "immutable" is confusing and inappropriate.
>
> Perhaps you should consider the term generally used prior to 1859:
> "fixity" of species. It meant simply that a dog would always be a dog
> and nothing else. It made no claim about minor variations of a
> particular species. Drop the term "immutable" and you will likely be
> better understood by friend and foe alike.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
Ray
Randy C
> The objective facts of the history of biology: IF Intelligence is
> involved with biological production then phenomena cannot be called
> evolutionary. IF unintelligence is involved with biological production
> then phenomena cannot be called designed. When terms are conflated,
> confusion is perpetuated.
From past experience I know that dictionary definitions are very
awkward for you, but you might want to check the dictionary definition
of "evolution". At www.dictionary.com we see the very first
definition is this one:
any process of formation or growth; development: the evolution of a
language; the evolution of the airplane.
No one would dispute that the airplane has "evolved" through the work
of intelligent designers. But it has evolved - changed over time.
Why doesn't that very useful word also apply to biology?
Even your history is wrong. Immutability was doubted long before
1859. According to Wikipedia, the first "naturalistic thinking in
biology can be dated to at least the 6th century BCE, with the Greek
philosopher Anaximander". Lamarck was famously a strong advocate of
evolution decades before Darwin. Even Darwin's grandfather wrote
about evolution.
Ray Martinez
[....]
>
> >IDists are obligated to call change designed, not evolutionary.
>
> This is not correct. ID theory is not a historical claim about the
> creation of biological novelty or change. It does not concern itself
> with the causal history of an object under examination and doesn't
> need to know the object's causal history. It examines an object as
> it exists at some point in time.
>
Imagine that; Tony is arguing for evolution and against design.
Savor the moment, Darwinists.
Tony: If you can explain how my observation is unfair or inaccurate, I
will promptly retract.
Variation itself is not microevolution since it presupposes
"accomplished by unintelligent agency."
Immutability is talking about species, not variation within species.
Again, your thinking has been corrupted by Atheist "science."
Microevolution (species mutability) is the most extraordinary claim of
all time. Simply provide any evidence of a natural process causing
slight change in species, then I will concede the point.
The predominant scenario seen in the paleontological crust of the
Earth, that which Gould called "the literal signal," is abrupt
appearance of fully formed species, enduring in changelessness or
changing slightly [= variation] followed by abrupt disappearance.
Genesis independent creation verified spectacularly.
Ray (anti-evolutionist)
Ray Martinez
> > Ray:
> > The objective facts of the history of biology: IF Intelligence is
> > involved with biological production then phenomena cannot be called
> > evolutionary. IF unintelligence is involved with biological production
> > then phenomena cannot be called designed. When terms are conflated,
> > confusion is perpetuated.
>
> From past experience I know that dictionary definitions are very
> awkward for you, but you might want to check the dictionary definition
> definition is this one:
>
> any process of formation or growth; development: the evolution of a
> language; the evolution of the airplane.
>
> No one would dispute that the airplane has "evolved" through the work
> of intelligent designers. But it has evolved - changed over time.
>
Biology (and the topic of this newsgroup) is about Darwinian
evolution, and not any generic application of the concept outside of
the Creationism-ID v. Evolution debate. The reason this is so is
because it was Darwin's evolution that science accepted, and still
accepts today, Einstein.
Darwin's definition of evolution ("descent with modification") is
still accepted.
Your ignorance is appalling.
> Why doesn't that very useful word also apply to biology?
>
> Even your history is wrong. Immutability was doubted long before
> 1859. According to Wikipedia, the first "naturalistic thinking in
> biology can be dated to at least the 6th century BCE, with the Greek
> philosopher Anaximander". Lamarck was famously a strong advocate of
> evolution decades before Darwin. Even Darwin's grandfather wrote
> about evolution.
Comments assume existence of mere doubt and 2 people who rejected
immutability somehow negates the hundreds of scientists who accepted
immutability.
Your lack of comprehension is shocking, Einstein.
Before 1859 (do you know what happened in 1859) mutability was
rejected by science (Darwin 1859:310).
Ray
John Harshman
I'm not sure about the difference between "variation" and "slight change
in species". Are you claiming that all changes within species are
directly caused by divine intervention? Are you claiming that the change
of peppered moth populations from white to black and back to white again
was caused by God? That the changes in finch beaks recorded by the
Grants were caused by God? That seasonal changes in inversion frequency
of Drosophila pseudoobscura are caused by God?
If this is true, what prevents pure chance from causing changes in
allele frequency in finite populations?
> The predominant scenario seen in the paleontological crust of the
> Earth, that which Gould called "the literal signal," is abrupt
> appearance of fully formed species, enduring in changelessness or
> changing slightly [= variation] followed by abrupt disappearance.
> Genesis independent creation verified spectacularly.
Well, it isn't Genesis independent creation, is it? According to
Genesis, all those species should have been created within a single
week, not scattered throughout millions of years.
Dana Tweedy
> On Mar 5, 3:51 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
snip
>
> > information for these minor changes already exists and existed from
> > the Beginning. Microevolutionary change is indisputable yet it never
> > accumulates coherently or progressively to result in transformational
> > change.
>
> > The term "evolution" is misleading and so is "microevolutionary" but
> > in order to have a discussion we have use the terms consistently with
> > our enemies.
>
> Completely false.
Or, maybe you are mistaken, Ray.
>
> Both Creationism-ID and Darwinism-ToE have their own set of exclusive
> terms to describe their view of nature.
There's no evidence to suggest that genuine scientists have any set of
"excusive terms". All scientists do use some jargon, but it's well
understood within the scientific community. What terms creationists
use is irrelevant to what scientists do.
> Since microevolution/
> mutability had no scientific acceptance prior to 1859,
Which is not true. The term "microevolution" hadn't been coined at
that time, but the idea that species changed did have scientific
acceptance prior to 1859. It wasn't the majority view, but it was
accepted by a number of scientists.
> and since
> microevolution/mutability was accepted as being caused by unguided
> natural/material/unintelligent causation;
Again, Ray, it doesn't matter to science if the "causation" is
intelligent or not. The evidence doesn't show any kind of
"intelligence" or "guidance" outside of human selective breeding, but
if it did, scientists would not reject evolution simply because the
"causation" was guided.
> "evolution" /
> "microevolution" / "mutability" are terms describing unguided natural/
> material/unintelligent causation. Thus these terms belong to Darwinism-
> ToE, exclusively.
Actually, the terms are in general use throughout science, and the
theory of evolution doesn't have exclusive rights to the terms. Ray
is also mistaking the way science in general works for "Darwinism".
>
> > >IDists are obligated to call change designed, not evolutionary.
>
> > This is not correct. ID theory is not a historical claim about the
> > creation of biological novelty or change. It does not concern itself
> > with the causal history of an object under examination and doesn't
> > need to know the object's causal history. It examines an object as
> > it exists at some point in time.
>
> The *DI* Wedge strategy at work.
Or, again, Ray, you are just wrong.
>
> Recently there was some topic over at UncommonDescent that was
> attempting to discuss a debate between Behe and Coyne. I jumped in and
> made a rhetorical point: Since both men accept human evolution,
> macroevolution and microevolution, what are they arguing about?
And I bet you won everyone over to your side.... right? Or more
likely, everyone told you that you were wrong.
>
> Very quickly an answer came nonetheless: they are arguing about
> agency, whether evolution is caused by Intelligent or unintelligent
> agency.
It doesn't matter to science what the "agency" might be. Science
deals in evidence, and it can't tell if there is a supernatural
"intelligence" behind natural events.
>
> The objective facts of the history of biology:
Ray, your own bizarre fantasies are not "objective facts". Please
stop confusing the two.
> IF Intelligence is
> involved with biological production then phenomena cannot be called
> evolutionary.
Sure it can. No one is limited to using your own bizarre and
unfounded assertions.
> IF unintelligence is involved with biological production
> then phenomena cannot be called designed. When terms are conflated,
> confusion is perpetuated.
The only one confused here, Ray is you. Everyone else seems to be
able to accept the terms just fine. Have you considered the
possibility that you are wrong?
>
> > >The
> > >latter presupposes natural-unintelligent causation, the former
> > >supernatural-Intelligent causation.
>
> > >[....]
>
> > Even Paley didn't go this far. IDists do not presume that every event
> > and object is the result of supernatural causation. Natural processes
> > do occur on the earth which can explain some limited observations.
>
> In Paley's time and day "natural" meant "caused by supernatural power
> and Divine intelligence."
Evidence for this assertion, please.
> Since Darwin 1859 "natural" means
> "unintelligent agency" or the underlying principle "produced by nature
> itself" (= Naturalism-Materialism). Paradigm change occurred
> 1859-1872.
There was no such paradigm change. Religious beliefs were always
religious beliefs. Science was always the study of natural causes
for natural events. Science makes use of methodological naturalism,
but doesn't invoke strong naturalism.
>
> Did you know that Newton argued that our solar system and its
> arrangement was the work of God's intervening Hand?
But Newton never claimed that God pushed each planet about.
Likewise there were, and still are scientists who believe that
evolution is God's way of creating.
> From the invention
> of the printing press, until 1859-1872, science accepted Intelligent
> agency (Theism).
Wrong again, Ray. Science and religion are two different things.
Individual scientists may have believed "intelligent agency" but they
knew that science doesn't operate without methodological natualism.
> "Natural processes," as we understand the phrase
> since the rise of Darwinism, was not only unheard of, but illegal to
> propagate. This is why Deism was so popular.
It was never illegal for a scientist to propose that natural events
were caused by natural means. The popularity of deism had nothing to
do with it.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Furthermore ID theory attempts to test whether an object or event
> > contains a signature from which design can be inferred.
>
> > >> I suspect that half of the atheists in the forum have never even
> > >> bothered to read Darwin's opus. wf3h-nymShifted-to-bupharic admitted
> > >> that he had never read it and didn't think it was necessary. Shortly
> > >> thereafter bpuharic left the forum.
>
> > >Since you have read Darwin 1859 then you must know that prior to 1859
> > >science accepted immutability (Darwin 1859: 6, 310). Mutability is
> > >Atheist "science" based on mere discovery of variation and similarity.
> > >Natural selection is NONSENSE. (It does not exist.) You literally have
> > >no basis whatsoever to accept microevolution.
>
> > >Ray (species immutabilist)
>
> > Just as you object to the word "microevolutionary" because of its
> > connotations your use of the label "immutable" conjures up
> > connotations that makes everyone scratch their heads in disbelief.
> > "Immutable" conotes "no change whatsoever"....
>
> ....by non-existent natural processes.
>
> > The "dog" species is so
> > variable (in terms of size, shape, behavior, hair type, etc) as to
> > render your use of the word "immutable" ridiculous.
>
> Variation is not microevolution.
Variation is the result of microevolution, Ray. How do you think
variants happen?
DJT
Dana Tweedy
> On Mar 7, 12:21 pm, Randy C <randyec...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Ray:
> > > The objective facts of the history of biology: IF Intelligence is
> > > involved with biological production then phenomena cannot be called
> > > evolutionary. IF unintelligence is involved with biological production
> > > then phenomena cannot be called designed. When terms are conflated,
> > > confusion is perpetuated.
>
> > From past experience I know that dictionary definitions are very
> > awkward for you, but you might want to check the dictionary definition
> > definition is this one:
>
> > any process of formation or growth; development: the evolution of a
> > language; the evolution of the airplane.
>
> > No one would dispute that the airplane has "evolved" through the work
> > of intelligent designers. But it has evolved - changed over time.
>
> Biology (and the topic of this newsgroup) is about Darwinian
> evolution, and not any generic application of the concept outside of
> the Creationism-ID v. Evolution debate.
Wrong again, Ray. This newsgroup often discusses matters beyond
biology.
> The reason this is so is
> because it was Darwin's evolution that science accepted, and still
> accepts today, Einstein.
Ray, "Darwinian" evolution is just the same as "Wallaceian" evolution,
or "Huxleyian" , or any other scientist of the time who wrote about
evolution. Darwin may have been the first to recognize the concept
of natural selection acting on variations, but evolution doesn't
depend on Darwin.
>
> Darwin's definition of evolution ("descent with modification") is
> still accepted.
Actually, the definition of evolution used by biologists today is
"change in allele frequencies in populations over time".
>
> Your ignorance is appalling.
Your own ignorance, Ray is simply par for the course. There's a
massive amount of irony for you to call anyone else ignorant.
>
> > Why doesn't that very useful word also apply to biology?
>
> > Even your history is wrong. Immutability was doubted long before
> > 1859. According to Wikipedia, the first "naturalistic thinking in
> > biology can be dated to at least the 6th century BCE, with the Greek
> > philosopher Anaximander". Lamarck was famously a strong advocate of
> > evolution decades before Darwin. Even Darwin's grandfather wrote
> > about evolution.
>
> Comments assume existence of mere doubt and 2 people who rejected
> immutability somehow negates the hundreds of scientists who accepted
> immutability.
There were more than two persons, Ray, as you know. Those "hundreds"
of scientists who accepted immutability did so largely for religious
reasons. The evidence showed they were wrong.
>
> Your lack of comprehension is shocking, Einstein.
Again, a massive amount of irony here, Ray.
>
> Before 1859 (do you know what happened in 1859) mutability was
> rejected by science (Darwin 1859:310).
Darwin never said that "mutablity" was rejected by science. In the
historical sketch in most editions of Origin of Species, Darwin gives
a list of scientists who accepted the idea that species changed.
Apparently you have misunderstood what Darwin wrote.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
> On Mar 5, 3:51 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
> [....]
>
>
>
> > >IDists are obligated to call change designed, not evolutionary.
>
> > This is not correct. ID theory is not a historical claim about the
> > creation of biological novelty or change. It does not concern itself
> > with the causal history of an object under examination and doesn't
> > need to know the object's causal history. It examines an object as
> > it exists at some point in time.
>
> Imagine that; Tony is arguing for evolution and against design.
If he is, it would be one of the few times Tony is correct.
>
> Savor the moment, Darwinists.
>
> Tony: If you can explain how my observation is unfair or inaccurate, I
> will promptly retract.
Or, you won't.
snip
>
> Variation itself is not microevolution since it presupposes
> "accomplished by unintelligent agency."
Ray, there's no such "presupposition". Even if variation is produced
by an intelligent being, such as humans breeding dogs for specific
traits, it's still evolution. You've been shown wrong numerous
times, why don't you admit your error?
>
> Immutability is talking about species, not variation within species.
> Again, your thinking has been corrupted by Atheist "science."
The definition of "microevolution" is change within species. Also,
there is no "atheist science", just science. Small scale changes
within a species is what leads to change into a new species.
>
> Microevolution (species mutability) is the most extraordinary claim of
> all time.
Ray, you are more confused than normal here. Microevolution is
change within a species. "species mutablity" would be
macroevolution. Also, it's hardly an extraordinary claim, as it's
been observed directly for hundreds of years.
> Simply provide any evidence of a natural process causing
> slight change in species, then I will concede the point.
What evidence will you accept, Ray? There's massive amounts of
evidence showing that natural processes cause slight changes in
populations. Any farmer, or stock breeder will be happy to show
you.
>
> The predominant scenario seen in the paleontological crust of the
> Earth, that which Gould called "the literal signal," is abrupt
> appearance of fully formed species,
Since half formed species don't survive. Of course, the progression
of species over time shows change. The first species of what are
considered vertebrates look nothing like modern ones. The first
appearance of tetrapods are quite different from their later
descendants. The first bird species have teeth, and bony tails,
something their descendants lack.
> enduring in changelessness or
> changing slightly [= variation]
it's called "evolution", Ray.
> followed by abrupt disappearance.
Why would God cause "abrupt disappearance" of species, Ray?
> Genesis independent creation verified spectacularly.
Except that Genesis doesn't suggest that pattern. Genesis creation
stories have all modern species appearing as they are today, and no
mention of them disappearing suddenly. In Genesis there's no
mention of dinosarus, trilobites, ammonites, and other life forms that
were at one time very common, and today are extinct. The fossil
record shows a branching pattern of descent, and nested heirarchy of
life, which Genesis doesn't mention, or predict.
DJT
John Thompson
> On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 15:36:46 +0000, Ernest Major
>
>
> snip
>
> Best run to save your buddy Burkhard, he's gonna need it.
In other words you have nothing to say in response, so you are going
to disappear and start another thread in which you declare victory.
Randy C
> Biology (and the topic of this newsgroup) is about Darwinian
> evolution, and not any generic application of the concept outside of
> the Creationism-ID v. Evolution debate.
Darwinian is indeed one type of evolution. That's different from the
belief of people like the Raellians who believe that life on Earth has
changed over time - i.e. evolved - through the intervention of
aliens. That's a different type of evolution.
But they are both "evolution" since they both involve change over
time.
> The reason this is so is
> because it was Darwin's evolution that science accepted, and still
> accepts today, Einstein.
> Darwin's definition of evolution ("descent with modification") is
> still accepted.
>
> Your ignorance is appalling.
No. Your inability to understand the English language is rather
appalling.
"Evolution" is defined as "change over time". ANY English dictionary
will confirm that.
Moreover "descent with modification" was believed before Darwin. So,
in addition to your ignorance of English, your ignorance of history is
great.
Lamarck, for example, believed in "descent with modification". He
believed that genetic characteristics were acquired. But he still
believed that descendents were modified from their ancestors.
What Darwin contributed was natural selection. He did NOT contribute
the idea of evolution. Neither did he contribute "descent with
modification". He believed in those things, but he was not the first
person to do so.
But he (along with Russell) were the first to believe in natural
selection.
> > Why doesn't that very useful word also apply to biology?
>
> > Even your history is wrong. Immutability was doubted long before
> > 1859. According to Wikipedia, the first "naturalistic thinking in
> > biology can be dated to at least the 6th century BCE, with the Greek
> > philosopher Anaximander". Lamarck was famously a strong advocate of
> > evolution decades before Darwin. Even Darwin's grandfather wrote
> > about evolution.
> Comments assume existence of mere doubt and 2 people who rejected
> immutability somehow negates the hundreds of scientists who accepted
> immutability.
OF COURSE IT DOES!
But there were many more than two people who believed in evolution
before Darwin. Those were just some examples.
There is a book titled "Before Darwin" by Dr. Keith Stewart Thomson
that lists people who promoted the idea of evolution BEFORE Darwin.
It runs to 280 pages. It talks about many more than two people.
You'll find it in the history section of your local library. You've
never visited that section before, so you will undoubtedly need to ask
directions.
> Your lack of comprehension is shocking, Einstein.
Looking in a mirror when you said that, I take it?
> Before 1859 (do you know what happened in 1859) mutability was
> rejected by science (Darwin 1859:310).
Many scientists believed in evolution before Darwin. They just didn't
know about natural selection.
Read a little history. You could also help yourself by opening up a
dictionary every now and again.
Frank J
Ray knows all that and pretends not to. Just by saying "Creationism-ID
v. Evolution debate" he is allowing (leading?) many readers to think
that he means the DI's ID strategy, suggesting that it is something
that he favors. But elsewhere he defines "ID" very differently than we
or the DI do, and strongly objects to what he calls "DI - ID." He is
very aware that its proponents either concede "common descent with
modification" (e.g. Behe) or at best offer only vague doubt or
uncertainty about it, and that offends him deeply. Even the
"creationism" part is something that Ray often criticizes when it is
not spun his way. When that happens he dismisses those creationism
peddlers as being in our ("Darwinist") camp.
Like any pseudoscience peddler, though, he tries to have everything
both ways.
half...@bfe.inc
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Big snip
>> >Since you have read Darwin 1859 then you must know that prior to 1859
>> >science accepted immutability (Darwin 1859: 6, 310). Mutability is
>> >Atheist "science" based on mere discovery of variation and similarity.
>> >Natural selection is NONSENSE. (It does not exist.) You literally have
>> >no basis whatsoever to accept microevolution.
>>
Snip again.
Jean-Baptiste Lamarck lived from 1744–1829. He proposed a theory of
evolution that I believed was fairly well received at the time. He had
the mechanism wrong but he clearly believed that evolution was
possible.
Doesn't this falsify your contention that science accepted only
immutability before 1859?
Just curious.
Halfstop
Ray Martinez
> On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 17:57:41 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
>
Lamarck's theory was completely rejected by his scientific peers.
If you still believe otherwise then produce some references.
Again, we have ordinary evolutionists here at Talk.Origins implying
that two or three naturalists who accepted transmutation before the
rise of Darwinism to somehow negate the hundreds who accepted Natural
Theology-Divine creation-species immutability.
See Darwin 1859:6, 310.
Ray
Dana Tweedy
> On Mar 12, 10:44 am, halfs...@bfe.inc wrote:
>> On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 17:57:41 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
>>
>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> Big snip
>>
>>>>> Since you have read Darwin 1859 then you must know that prior to 1859
>>>>> science accepted immutability (Darwin 1859: 6, 310). Mutability is
>>>>> Atheist "science" based on mere discovery of variation and similarity.
>>>>> Natural selection is NONSENSE. (It does not exist.) You literally have
>>>>> no basis whatsoever to accept microevolution.
>>
>> Snip again.
>>
>> Jean-Baptiste Lamarck lived from 1744 1829. He proposed a theory of
>> evolution that I believed was fairly well received at the time. He had
>> the mechanism wrong but he clearly believed that evolution was
>> possible.
>>
>> Doesn't this falsify your contention that science accepted only
>> immutability before 1859?
>>
>> Just curious.
>>
>> Halfstop
>
> Lamarck's theory was completely rejected by his scientific peers.
No, it wasn't. While many contemporary scientists ignored, or attacked
Lamarck's ideas, it wasn't totally rejected. Geoffroy Saint Hilaire
remained as one of his supporters.
>
> If you still believe otherwise then produce some references.
As if Ray ever produced references.....
http://www.victorianweb.org/science/lamarck1.html
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/lamarck.html
>
> Again, we have ordinary evolutionists here at Talk.Origins implying
> that two or three naturalists who accepted transmutation before the
> rise of Darwinism to somehow negate the hundreds who accepted Natural
> Theology-Divine creation-species immutability.
Ray, no one is claiming that fixity of species wasn't a widely held
belief at the time. "Divine creation" was a popular religious belief,
but not your own personal belief of ongoing special creation, with no
possibility of species change once created.
No one is claiming that the presence of scientists who accepted that
species changed "negated" the majority (and religiously motivated) view
of fixity. The point is that your assertion that no one, or even "one
or two" scientists accepted species change is wrong.
Why not just admit you were wrong?
>
> See Darwin 1859:6, 310.
Darwin didn't claim that "Divine creation" was scientific, or that
"mutability" had no support in science. This is what Darwin wrote:
"A few naturalists, endowed with much flexibility of mind, and who
have already begun to doubt on the immutability of species, may be
influenced by this volume; but I look with confidence to the future, to
young and rising naturalists, who will be able to view both sides of the
question with impartiality. Whoever is led to believe that species are
mutable will do good service by conscientiously expressing his
conviction; for only thus can the load of prejudice by which this
subject is overwhelmed be removed."
later passage says:
"The day will come when this will be given as a curious illustration of
the blindness of preconceived opinion. These authors seem no more
startled at a miraculous act of creation than at an ordinary birth. But
do they really believe that at innumerable periods in the earth's
history certain elemental atoms have been commanded suddenly to flash
into living tissues? Do they believe that at each supposed act of
creation one individual or many were produced? Were all the infinitely
numerous kinds of animals and plants created as eggs or seed, or as full
grown? and in the case of mammals, were they created bearing the false
marks of nourishment from the mother's womb? Although naturalists very
properly demand a full explanation of every difficulty from those who
believe in the mutability of species, on their own side they ignore the
whole subject of the first appearance of species in what they consider
reverent silence."
http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/chapter-14.html
Once again, Ray is wrong.
DJT
Ray Martinez
From the first link:
"Lamarck's theory was not generally accepted in his lifetime, and
Cuvier, his colleague at the Museum, appears to have done as much as
he could to undermine Lamarck and any ideas about transformism. For
whatever reason, perhaps owing to an unwillingness to accept
scientific innovations, Lamarck found little respect among his peers."
Like I said: "Lamarck's theory was completely rejected by his
scientific peers."
Dana wants the support of one other person to somehow defeat my quote.
Again, Dana's dishonesty is transparent. No need to address the
remainder of Dana's post. More of the same is evident.
Ray
> http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-specie...
>
> Once again, Ray is wrong.
>
> DJT- Hide quoted text -
Dana Tweedy
Which is wrong, as the link above shows. He may have found "little
respect" it's not the same as saying "completely rejected".
>
> Dana wants the support of one other person to somehow defeat my quote.
Ray, I don't need the "support of one other person". The evidence
speaks for itself.
First of all, you didn't quote anyone, you just asserted, and second,
your assertion was wrong. Lamarck may not have won many converts, but
saying he was "completely rejected" was false.
> Again, Dana's dishonesty is transparent. No need to address the
> remainder of Dana's post. More of the same is evident.
Of course, Ray only shows his own dishonesty. Claiming "self evident"
is Ray's way of refusing to support his mistaken assertions.
See for yourself below.
DJT
Burkhard
Yes, because you as always overstate your case. Replace "completely
rejected" by "largely rejected" and you get closer to historical
reality.
And to Dana's example one could add the then Regius Professor of
Natural History at the University of Edinburgh, Robert Jameson, who
had a considerable number of followers in Scotland, as did Robert
Chalmers, another influential Lamarckist.
> Again, Dana's dishonesty is transparent.
That or your inability to express yourself with precision.
John S. Wilkins
Even if it hadn't been, just *one* evolutionist like Lamarck falsifies
Ray's stupid claim that nobody was a transmutationist before Charles
Darwin.
> >
> > > > If you still believe otherwise then produce some references.
> >
> > > As if Ray ever produced references.....
> >
> > >http://www.victorianweb.org/science/lamarck1.html
> > >http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/lamarck.html
> >
> > From the first link:
> >
> > "Lamarck's theory was not generally accepted in his lifetime, and
> > Cuvier, his colleague at the Museum, appears to have done as much as
> > he could to undermine Lamarck and any ideas about transformism. For
> > whatever reason, perhaps owing to an unwillingness to accept
> > scientific innovations, Lamarck found little respect among his peers."
> >
> > Like I said: "Lamarck's theory was completely rejected by his
> > scientific peers."
> >
> > Dana wants the support of one other person to somehow defeat my quote.
>
>
> Yes, because you as always overstate your case. Replace "completely
> rejected" by "largely rejected" and you get closer to historical
> reality.
> And to Dana's example one could add the then Regius Professor of
> Natural History at the University of Edinburgh, Robert Jameson, who
> had a considerable number of followers in Scotland, as did Robert
> Chalmers, another influential Lamarckist.
Grant too? ISTR that he taught and had a falling out with one Charles
Darwin.
--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
half...@bfe.inc
Snip
There is a big difference between "not generally accepted" and
"completely rejected"
I was mostly interested in how you would handle this and your response
was, as expected, confused.
Of interest, at least to me, is this from the Barkley reference on
Lamarck from above:
"Lamarck's scientific theories were largely ignored or attacked during
his lifetime; Lamarck never won the acceptance and esteem of his
colleagues Buffon and Cuvier, and he died in poverty and obscurity.
Today, the name of Lamarck is associated merely with a discredited
theory of heredity, the "inheritance of acquired traits." However,
Charles Darwin, Lyell, Haeckel, and other early evolutionists
acknowledged him as a great zoologist and as a forerunner of
evolution. Charles Darwin wrote in 1861:
Lamarck was the first man whose conclusions on the subject excited
much attention. This justly celebrated naturalist first published his
views in 1801. . . he first did the eminent service of arousing
attention to the probability of all changes in the organic, as well as
in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous
interposition. "
So much for "completely rejected".
Halfstop