Brief transitional fossil challenge for Tony Pagano
John Harshman
transitional fossil? Knock yourself out.
jillery
> Sure. Here's a challenge for you. Why is Archaeopteryx not a
> transitional fossil? Knock yourself out.
ISTM you have drawn first blood in this duel.
Darwin123
> Sure. Here's a challenge for you. Why is Archaeopteryx not a
> transitional fossil? Knock yourself out.
1) It's still a duhh-bird, duhh-theropod, -duhh dinosaur, -duhh
reptile, -duhh fowl.
2) It has a wishbone, just like a theropod. Therefore, it is still a
theropod.
3) The feathers were drawn in on both sides of the limestone.
Therefore, it is fake.
Steven L.
"John Harshman" <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:PN6dnUHgC7q...@giganews.com:
> Sure. Here's a challenge for you. Why is Archaeopteryx not a
> transitional fossil? Knock yourself out.
Could I take a crack at it?
To be a transitional fossil implies that it's a transition between some
predecessor species and some successor species in the so-called
evolutionary tree.
Have those been identified in the case of Archaeopteryx?
Isn't it possible that Archaeopteryx represents some kind of
evolutionary dead end that left no avian descendants? The actual
transitional species between reptiles and birds--the common ancestor of
all birds--might still be some other species than Archaeopteryx.
As dinosaurs began to evolve feathers, there may have appeared a number
of different species that started to look more bird-like. But how can
we know which one is the common ancestor of all birds?
-- Steven L.
richardal...@gmail.com
> Sure. Here's a challenge for you. Why is Archaeopteryx not a
> transitional fossil? Knock yourself out.
Take your pick:
1. Because it exists.
Therefore it can't be transitional.
It can only be transitional if it doesn't exist.
2. Because it's a 100% modern bird, and if it's a bird it can't be a
dinosaur. Any differences between archaeopteryx and a modern bird are
either
a) frauds perpetuated by atheists or
b) irrelevant because it's a 100% modern bird
3. A true transitional would be a fossil with only half a wing
(presumably the distal end) and archaeopteryx has fully formed wings
like a modern bird.
4. One of the 'dino-bird' fossils found in China in the 1990s turned
out to be a fake, and therefore *all* fossils showing characters of
dinosaurs are birds must be a fake.
5. You are only claiming it's transitional because you are a rabid
atheist intent on undermining True Christianity (TM) and it supports
your evilutionist faith.
6. MMMMMMMMMMM I CAN'T HEAR YOU MY FINGERS ARE JAMMED INTO MY EARS
(AND PROBABLY MEETING IN THE MIDDLE) AND I'M HUMMING LOUDLY SO I CAN'T
HEAR YOU GO AWAY AND DON'T ASK ME DIFFICULT QUESTIONS
John Harshman
That all depends on your definition of "transitional". The true purpose
of this challenge is to probe Tony's definition. Now, I will agree that
by your definition we are unable to identify any transitional fossils,
since we can't determine ancestry. It's impossible to distinguish an
ancestor from the ancestor's cousin, whether at the individual or
species level. And that's why to me, "transitional" doesn't imply direct
ancestry, merely an intermediate condition that shows us what the
ancestor was like. Given the paucity of theropod fossils relative to
their true historical diversity, we are unlikely to have found any
particular ancestor, and perhaps any ancestors at all. Nevertheless, we
have many transitional fossils.
Frank J
> Sure. Here's a challenge for you. Why is Archaeopteryx not a
> transitional fossil? Knock yourself out.
Can he use Ray Martinez' dictionary to answer that?
Frank J
Ooh, I like that game. Here's more:
Pope John Paul was misintepreted as accepting evolution...no wait...he
really did accept it but was "bullied" into it...no wait...
jillery
"transitional fossils", or more recently transitional forms, simply
represent fossils whose characteristics are a mix between one kind of
animal and another. They suggest an evolutionary association but not
necessarily one of direct ancestry, which is of course impossible to
prove from the fossil record alone.
T Pagano
"richardal...@googlemail.com" <richardal...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Forrest has already taken the challenge and like Elsberry offered
scientific reports for which he didn't read beyond the abstract. And
likewise Forrest was terribly embarassed. Need links to relive this
sad part of t.o history?
Perhaps this is why Forrest doesn't risk embarassment with producing
more useless scientific reports which show nothing and instead
produces this grammar school drivel.
Regards,
T Pagano
Darwinism is finished. The majority of the scientific community knows
it. It is hanging on only by inertia.
John Harshman
can you back up your previous claim? How many of the "majority of the
scientific community" are named Steve?
John Harshman
jillery
> On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 06:29:33 -0700 (PDT),
Whether or not any one person misinterpreted any one report, which
itself is questionable, is no evidence for your claim that ToE is
false.
> Perhaps this is why Forrest doesn't risk embarassment with producing
> more useless scientific reports which show nothing and instead
> produces this grammar school drivel.
I consider his reply to reflect the spirit of your arguments.
> Regards,
> T Pagano
>
> Darwinism is finished. The majority of the scientific community knows
> it. It is hanging on only by inertia.
Yet another lie.
Glen Davidson
> "John Harshman" <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>
> news:PN6dnUHgC7q...@giganews.com:
>
> > Sure. Here's a challenge for you. Why is Archaeopteryx not a
> > transitional fossil? Knock yourself out.
>
> Could I take a crack at it?
>
> To be a transitional fossil implies that it's a transition between some
> predecessor species and some successor species in the so-called
> evolutionary tree.
Yes, but it needn't be ancestral to any currently living species.
Archaeopteryx is considered to be transitional in the sense that it
marks a stage in the transition from non-flying theropod dinosaurs to
modern birds, not that it is an ancestor of the latter.
>
> Have those been identified in the case of Archaeopteryx?
>
> Isn't it possible that Archaeopteryx represents some kind of
> evolutionary dead end that left no avian descendants?
Cladistic analysis shows that it was an evolutionary dead-end. Most
likely, at least according to one study (that I read about maybe 10
years ago), it is three nodes away from the ancestor of modern birds.
But since we can learn a lot from the cousins of the ancestors in a
"transitional radiation," and because it has a host of the traits of
the ancestor of modern birds, it is considered to be transitional.
The actual
> transitional species between reptiles and birds--the common ancestor of
> all birds--might still be some other species than Archaeopteryx.
Not only is that considered to be likely based simply on the odds, the
evidence shows that this is so.
Of course, it would make no sense to recognize that Archaeopteryx has
been shown to have branched off from the ancestor of modern birds
without also recognizing the fact that the same sort of evidence
demonstrates that it is indeed closely related to a species of an
early in the stage of bird evolution.
>
> As dinosaurs began to evolve feathers, there may have appeared a number
> of different species that started to look more bird-like. But how can
> we know which one is the common ancestor of all birds?
Cladistic analysis could show that a specimen has no obvious traits
showing it to branch off to a dead end, but it couldn't really
demonstrate that we had the exact ancestral species (especially not
because the bones of what might be today considered different species
might not reveal any meaningful deviations at all). However, we learn
a lot about evolution from "cousins," both those living and those
representing extinct lines.
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
>
> -- Steven L.
T Pagano
Excellent. Harshman has begun the New Transitional Fossil Challenge
Since we all wish to see evidence of neoDarwinism's most contentious
claim----that is, we wish to see evidence of gradual, successive,
progressive development of a structure that did not exist in
predecessor populations. The theory predicts that such gradual,
successive, progressive changes must have been ubiquitous to explain
all of biological diversity from a self replicating entity.
So in order to discuss this Harshman has to identify what structure of
the Archaeopteryx did not exist in predecessor populations, is in a
non mature state and is progressing towards maturity. Otherwise the
Archaeopteryx is nonthing more than an interesting mosaic with fully
formed, mature structures. Such mossaics exist in the living world.
Regards,
T Pagano
The question is: How did the fossil record capture the fine
gradations of the EXISTING foram shell in Elsberry's "proof" over the
space of 15 million years but capture not a single NOVEL structure
developing to maturity where it did not exist in predecessor
populations? The foram shell existed in the starting population under
examination and remained a foram shell at the end of 15 million years.
Darwin knew the fossil record was damning in 1859, Gould knew it was
damning 1973, and everyone knows it is still damning today.
Evolutionists string together end nodes in the fossil record and
merely "conceive" of a lineal connection. There is no genuine,
observable connection.
richardal...@gmail.com
> On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 06:29:33 -0700 (PDT),
You seem to be confusing me with someone else.
I was amused, and grateful for the support you have provided for my
goal of demonstrating the deep and systematic dishonesty of
creationists. Thank you for your help.
> Need links to relive this
> sad part of t.o history?
>
> Perhaps this is why Forrest doesn't risk embarassment with producing
> more useless scientific reports which show nothing and instead
> produces this grammar school drivel.
...which is just the sort of drivel creationists produce when asked
why Archaeopteyx is not a transitional. Thank you for confirming that
you also consider it to be drivel.
Now, how about explaining to us in non-drivel why any rational human
being should *not* consider Archaeopteryx to a transitional? Or will
you run away again like the moral and intellectual coward you have
demonstrated yourself to be so many times in the past?
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
>
> Darwinism is finished. The majority of the scientific community knows
> it. It is hanging on only by inertia.
Wishful thinking is no substitute for education, Tony.
RF
gdgu...@gmail.com
> On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 20:24:43 -0800, John Harshman
>
> >Sure. Here's a challenge for you. Why is Archaeopteryx not a
> >transitional fossil? Knock yourself out.
>...is in a non mature state and is progressing towards maturity.
Can you please explain what you mean by "maturity"? Because it sounds
like a fundamental misunderstanding of evolutionary biology; perhaps
you imagine creatures with some sort of formless bump wondering when
an arm might appear?
Every species, by virtue of being alive and reproducing, has "parts
that work". Those features are indeed mature, for that creature. Is a
fin a "mature" appendage, or is it an immature leg? Is a paw mature,
or is it an immature hand, hoof, or in the case of bats, wing?
In short, mature structures, if such a term were to mean anything,
generally evolve from other mature (i.e. functional) structures.
Greg Guarino
jillery
Great minds think alike?
Seriously, I thought I had clicked on Steve's post. My bad
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Darwin123
<drose...@yahoo.com>:
I think you covered many of the false statements Tony might
make, but I'd really like to hear from him. Preferably
without changing the subject field.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
John Harshman
> On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 20:24:43 -0800, John Harshman
> <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> Sure. Here's a challenge for you. Why is Archaeopteryx not a
>> transitional fossil? Knock yourself out.
>
> Excellent. Harshman has begun the New Transitional Fossil Challenge
>
> Since we all wish to see evidence of neoDarwinism's most contentious
> claim----that is, we wish to see evidence of gradual, successive,
> progressive development of a structure that did not exist in
> predecessor populations. The theory predicts that such gradual,
> successive, progressive changes must have been ubiquitous to explain
> all of biological diversity from a self replicating entity.
>
> So in order to discuss this Harshman has to identify what structure of
> the Archaeopteryx did not exist in predecessor populations, is in a
> non mature state and is progressing towards maturity. Otherwise the
> Archaeopteryx is nonthing more than an interesting mosaic with fully
> formed, mature structures. Such mossaics exist in the living world.
OK. I would say that the wing itself is such a structure. It's clearly
partly formed. It has flight feathers, and therefore is a wing. Yet it's
pretty much identical to any other theropod forelimb, except for being a
bit longer than most, and it lacks a great many of the important
features of a real bird's wing: there is no carpometacarpus, merely
unfused bones. Similarly, the planalges are unfused. There is no allula.
There is no triosseal canal, and therefore the coracoideus muscles would
be unable to power the upstroke as in living birds. This is clearly a
primitive and incomplete wing.
And of course we have a fine series of fossils showing the gradual
development of all these structures, including even the feathers, which
I would be happy to explain to you.
> The question is: How did the fossil record capture the fine
> gradations of the EXISTING foram shell in Elsberry's "proof" over the
> space of 15 million years but capture not a single NOVEL structure
> developing to maturity where it did not exist in predecessor
> populations?
The other question is: Why is the sky orange? Or how does a pig fly?
> The foram shell existed in the starting population under
> examination and remained a foram shell at the end of 15 million years.
>
> Darwin knew the fossil record was damning in 1859, Gould knew it was
> damning 1973, and everyone knows it is still damning today.
Actually, you are confused. Darwin liked to raise objections for the
purpose of disposing of them, which he did handily immediately
thereafter. Gould, of course, agreed that transitional forms were
plentiful in the fossil record. Even you should be able to find a quote
to that effect.
> Evolutionists string together end nodes in the fossil record and
> merely "conceive" of a lineal connection. There is no genuine,
> observable connection.
I think you are confused about what "observable" means.
Bill
.
>
> So in order to discuss this Harshman has to identify what structure of
> the Archaeopteryx did not exist in predecessor populations, is in a
> non mature state and is progressing towards maturity. Otherwise the
> Archaeopteryx is nonthing more than an interesting mosaic with fully
> formed, mature structures. Such mossaics exist in the living world.
I love this paragraph. It encapsulates so many misunderstanding in
such a small space that it's truly a work of art.
It's hard to know where to start.
1. You imagine that evolution has a goal, specifically the goal of
producing the set of species of living things that now exist on the
earth.
2. You think that this particular brief moment in geological time is
special and, by chance, happens to hold in it the long sought goal of
biological evolution.
3. You think that plants and animals living at other times must look
"immature" or less than "fully formed" if evolution is correct.
4. You fail to recognize that any currently living species may well be
"immature" or "not fully formed" if measured against its descendants a
few million years hence.
5. You think that evolution progresses towards goals.
6. You imagine that the theory of evolution predicts that the fossil
record will be full of animals with functionless, immature "not yet
wings" or eyeballs which have not yet developed retinas, or some such
fantasies.
You are generally prolix with words, so that there's relatively little
substance per word, but you've outdone yourself here in the density of
errors.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
>
John Harshman
> On Mar 13, 11:43 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> .
>> So in order to discuss this Harshman has to identify what structure of
>> the Archaeopteryx did not exist in predecessor populations, is in a
>> non mature state and is progressing towards maturity. Otherwise the
>> Archaeopteryx is nonthing more than an interesting mosaic with fully
>> formed, mature structures. Such mossaics exist in the living world.
>
> I love this paragraph. It encapsulates so many misunderstanding in
> such a small space that it's truly a work of art.
>
> It's hard to know where to start.
>
> 1. You imagine that evolution has a goal, specifically the goal of
> producing the set of species of living things that now exist on the
> earth.
No problem. Goals can be set in retrospect, and we have such a goal in
the anatomy of extant birds.
> 2. You think that this particular brief moment in geological time is
> special and, by chance, happens to hold in it the long sought goal of
> biological evolution.
Again, no problem.
> 3. You think that plants and animals living at other times must look
> "immature" or less than "fully formed" if evolution is correct.
Well, they at least might look different, and lack some features of
modern ones.
> 4. You fail to recognize that any currently living species may well be
> "immature" or "not fully formed" if measured against its descendants a
> few million years hence.
I'm sure some of them are, but that doesn't help us find the intermediates.
> 5. You think that evolution progresses towards goals.
Of course Tony thinks that evolution doesn't happen at all. What you're
talking about here is Tony's caricature of what he thinks we think.
> 6. You imagine that the theory of evolution predicts that the fossil
> record will be full of animals with functionless, immature "not yet
> wings" or eyeballs which have not yet developed retinas, or some such
> fantasies.
Now, be fair. He hasn't yet demanded that intermediates be functionless.
If he's going that route, let him do it himself.
> You are generally prolix with words, so that there's relatively little
> substance per word, but you've outdone yourself here in the density of
> errors.
And let's note that Tony has not so far addressed the challenge at all.
He's playing for time, perhaps. The challenge was to show why
Archaeopteryx isn't transitional, and he has attempted to turn the
tables with a counter-challenge for me to show why it is. Of course I've
obliged him anyway.
John Harshman
> On Mar 12, 8:24 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> Sure. Here's a challenge for you. Why is Archaeopteryx not a
>> transitional fossil? Knock yourself out.
>
> be transitional if it were halfway between one species
> and another.
>
> If Archaeopteryx were transitional between two other
> different species that doesn't count.
>
> Charles Darwin wrote 'The Origin of Species'. He
> did not write 'The Origin of Varieties'.
>
Before I try to deal with this, I first have to be assured that you are
actually serious. Are you?
John Harshman
> it comes to classical Darwinianism versus Punctuated
> Equilibrium.
>
> I was mostly not serious with the post, however it
> seems reasonable to me that it could potentially
> be construed as such.
>
OK, then I won't respond.
johnetho...@yahoo.com
> On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 06:29:33 -0700 (PDT),
Translation: I can't answer the question so I'll just lie and throw
out insults like always.
Randy C
> troll wrote:
> > On Mar 12, 8:24 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> Sure. Here's a challenge for you. Why is Archaeopteryx not a
> >> transitional fossil? Knock yourself out.
>
> > Because Archaeopteryx is a species. It would only
> > be transitional if it were halfway between one species
> > and another.
Ring species then give contemporary evidence of transitions between
species.
Wikipedia has an article on ring species at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species.
Fundamentally with ring species you have something like:
Population A can mate with population B.
Population B can mate with population C.
Population C can mate with population D.
But Population A cannot mate with population D.
Therefore populations B and C are partway between populations A and D.
The Wikipedia article goes into some detail about populations of
gulls. There are other examples.
John Harshman
> Sure. Here's a challenge for you. Why is Archaeopteryx not a
> transitional fossil? Knock yourself out.
Tony?
John Harshman
Wikipedia needs updating.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net>:
It was also my understanding that they are; it's even in the
t.o FAQ:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html
From the section "Prediction 5.5: Stages of Speciation":
"Another example of a ring species is the gull genus Larus.
L. argentatus and L. fuscus were originally identified as
distinct species in England. However, there is a continuous
ring of Larus hybrids extending to the east and west all the
way round the North Pole. Only in England are they incapable
of interbreeding."
Can you give a bit more detail about your objection to this?
Thanks.
John Harshman
Lievers, D., P. de Knijff, and A. J. Helbig. 2004. The herring gull
complex is not a ring species. Proceedings of the Royal Society of
London, Series B 271:893-901.
Oddly enough, the Wikipedia article cites that paper but doesn't seem to
grasp its takehome message.
_Arthur
<richardalanforr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...which is just the sort of drivel creationists produce when asked
> why Archaeopteyx is not a transitional. Thank you for confirming that
> you also consider it to be drivel.
Hey, I can play that drivel game too !
7. Because dinosaurs and modern birds lived at the same time, and, at
some point maited to produce a bizarre hybid, the Archaeoptery bird.
Therefore the Archaeopteryx is not a true transitional, just a mere
hybrid, just like the well-know crocoduck.
What do I win ?
Randy C
Key points:
1. Ring species do exist evenif these gulls are not an example.
2. The existence of ring species would demonstrate the existence of
transitional species since the challenge given is this one:
> > Because Archaeopteryx is a species. It would only
> > be transitional if it were halfway between one species
> > and another.
The intermediates between the ends of ring species are partway
"between one species and another". Therefore they meet this
definition.
Burkhard
A designer crocoduck handbag of course.
John Harshman
>> Fortunately so, since the gulls are not a ring species. Perhaps
>> Wikipedia needs updating.
>
>
> 1. Ring species do exist evenif these gulls are not an example.
That's why I said "Fortunately so", in response to "There are other
examples". Snipping context leads to needless repetition.
The Ensatina complex is a true ring species, and the Phylloscopus
complex probably is.
> 2. The existence of ring species would demonstrate the existence of
> transitional species since the challenge given is this one:
>
>>> Because Archaeopteryx is a species. It would only
>>> be transitional if it were halfway between one species
>>> and another.
>
> The intermediates between the ends of ring species are partway
> "between one species and another". Therefore they meet this
> definition.
If you accept the silly definition in that challenge.
Randy C
> > "between one species and another". Therefore they meet this
> > definition.
> If you accept the silly definition in that challenge.
Tony - I believe that's who 'troll' is - was asked to provide a
definition of what would constitute a transitional. That's the
definition that was provided.
By that definition, transitionals exist, as demonstrated by ring
species.
Q.E.D.
Bob Casanova
Thanks! For others interested in this there's a pdf
available:
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/271/1542/893.full.pdf+html
If I'm reading this correctly, it looks as though while the
gulls aren't a classic ring species yet, they may become one
in the future. From the synopsis:
"Contrary to the ring-species model, we find no genetic
evidence for a closure of the circumpolar ring through
colonization of Europe by North American herring gulls.
However, closure of the ring in the opposite direction may
be imminent, with lesser black-backed gulls about to
colonize North America."
....and from the text:
"It will be interesting to see whether graellsii will turn
out to be reproductively isolated from North American
smithsonianus. If so, the circumpolar ring of interbreeding
taxa might yet close to form a classic ring species, not by
an invasion of herring gulls from North America to Europe as
postulated earlier (Geyr von Schweppenburg 1938; Mayr 1942),
but by expansion of lesser black-backed gulls in the
opposite direction."
Do you agree with this interpretation?
>Oddly enough, the Wikipedia article cites that paper but doesn't seem to
>grasp its takehome message.
Or maybe the author was anticipating the closure of the
ring; if so it should have been noted, both in the Wiki
article and in the t.o FAQ.
Anyway, thanks again.
John Harshman
There is no reason to believe that troll is Tony.
John Harshman
It doesn't seem to be an interpretation. It's a hypothesis about what
might happen. But sure; what's not to agree with?
>> Oddly enough, the Wikipedia article cites that paper but doesn't seem to
>> grasp its takehome message.
>
> Or maybe the author was anticipating the closure of the
> ring; if so it should have been noted, both in the Wiki
> article and in the t.o FAQ.
The discussion of the article, as written, is just gibberish.
> Anyway, thanks again.
Anthony022071
> Sure. Here's a challenge for you. Why is Archaeopteryx not a
> transitional fossil? Knock yourself out.
There is no way to know that it is a transitional species because
there is no way to demonstrate a reproductive link with another
species. It is called a transitional species because paleontologists
use it to make a transition from dinosaurs to birds in the model of
evolution. But scientific models are not natural reality and they do
not reflect what really happened in natural history.
John Harshman
Could you define "transitional fossil" for me?
And you seem to be saying that science is not a valid method of arriving
at knowledge of the world. Is that actually your claim?
Nashton
> On Mar 13, 2:09 pm, T Pagano<not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 06:29:33 -0700 (PDT),
>> "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"<richardalanforr...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Sure. Here's a challenge for you. Why is Archaeopteryx not a
>>>> transitional fossil? Knock yourself out.
>>
>>
>>> 1. Because it exists.
>>> Therefore it can't be transitional.
>>> It can only be transitional if it doesn't exist.
>>
>>> 2. Because it's a 100% modern bird, and if it's a bird it can't be a
>>> dinosaur. Any differences between archaeopteryx and a modern bird are
>>> either
>>> a) frauds perpetuated by atheists or
>>> b) irrelevant because it's a 100% modern bird
>>
>>> 3. A true transitional would be a fossil with only half a wing
>>> (presumably the distal end) and archaeopteryx has fully formed wings
>>> like a modern bird.
>>
>>> 4. One of the 'dino-bird' fossils found in China in the 1990s turned
>>> out to be a fake, and therefore *all* fossils showing characters of
>>> dinosaurs are birds must be a fake.
>>
>>> 5. You are only claiming it's transitional because you are a rabid
>>> atheist intent on undermining True Christianity (TM) and it supports
>>> your evilutionist faith.
>>
>>> 6. MMMMMMMMMMM I CAN'T HEAR YOU MY FINGERS ARE JAMMED INTO MY EARS
>>> (AND PROBABLY MEETING IN THE MIDDLE) AND I'M HUMMING LOUDLY SO I CAN'T
>>> HEAR YOU GO AWAY AND DON'T ASK ME DIFFICULT QUESTIONS
>>
>> Forrest has already taken the challenge and like Elsberry offered
>> scientific reports for which he didn't read beyond the abstract. And
>> likewise Forrest was terribly embarassed.
>
> I was amused, and grateful for the support you have provided for my
> goal of demonstrating the deep and systematic dishonesty of
> creationists. Thank you for your help.
I'd rather be a "dishonest creationist" than an arch-hypocrite calling
for prayers for the victims of the earthquake in Japan.
Find another hobby, you're certainly not very good at pretending to be a
goon.
Desertphile
wrote:
> On Mar 12, 8:24 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > Sure. Here's a challenge for you. Why is Archaeopteryx not a
> > transitional fossil? Knock yourself out.
> Because Archaeopteryx is a species. It would only
> be transitional if it were halfway between one species
> and another.
Like the still-missing crockoduck.
> If Archaeopteryx were transitional between two other
> different species that doesn't count.
>
> Charles Darwin wrote 'The Origin of Species'. He
> did not write 'The Origin of Varieties'.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Desertphile
<sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "John Harshman" <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:PN6dnUHgC7q...@giganews.com:
> > Sure. Here's a challenge for you. Why is Archaeopteryx not a
> > transitional fossil? Knock yourself out.
> Could I take a crack at it?
>
> To be a transitional fossil implies that it's a transition between some
> predecessor species and some successor species in the so-called
> evolutionary tree.
>
> Have those been identified in the case of Archaeopteryx?
>
> Isn't it possible that Archaeopteryx represents some kind of
> evolutionary dead end that left no avian descendants? The actual
> transitional species between reptiles and birds--the common ancestor of
> all birds--might still be some other species than Archaeopteryx.
>
> As dinosaurs began to evolve feathers, there may have appeared a number
> of different species that started to look more bird-like. But how can
> we know which one is the common ancestor of all birds?
Yes, if Archaeopteryx never speciated then it was not transitional
but it would still be intermediate between reptile and bird.
T Pagano
A tad impatient are we? Unfortunately work and family compete with my
limited time.
T Pagano
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>T Pagano wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 20:24:43 -0800, John Harshman
>> <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Sure. Here's a challenge for you. Why is Archaeopteryx not a
>>> transitional fossil? Knock yourself out.
>>
>> Excellent. Harshman has begun the New Transitional Fossil Challenge
>>
>> Since we all wish to see evidence of neoDarwinism's most contentious
>> claim----that is, we wish to see evidence of gradual, successive,
>> progressive development of a structure that did not exist in
>> predecessor populations. The theory predicts that such gradual,
>> successive, progressive changes must have been ubiquitous to explain
>> all of biological diversity from a self replicating entity.
>>
>> So in order to discuss this Harshman has to identify what structure of
>> the Archaeopteryx did not exist in predecessor populations, is in a
>> non mature state and is progressing towards maturity. Otherwise the
>> Archaeopteryx is nonthing more than an interesting mosaic with fully
>> formed, mature structures. Such mossaics exist in the living world.
>
>OK. I would say that the wing itself is such a structure. It's clearly
>partly formed. It has flight feathers, and therefore is a wing. Yet it's
>pretty much identical to any other theropod forelimb, except for being a
>bit longer than most, and it lacks a great many of the important
>features of a real bird's wing: there is no carpometacarpus, merely
>unfused bones. Similarly, the planalges are unfused. There is no allula.
>There is no triosseal canal, and therefore the coracoideus muscles would
>be unable to power the upstroke as in living birds. This is clearly a
>primitive and incomplete wing.
On the other hand if one looks at all the archeopteryx's specimens:
1. it has perching feet,
2. possessed the basic pattern and proportions of the avian wing with
modern-like feathers; the primary fearthers of non flying birds are
distinctly different. there is little reason to suppose that the
Archeopteryx was not capable of and engaged in powered flight.
3. a robust furcula,
4. its cranium was essentially avian in all important aspects (which
might imply the possession of an avian nervous system and circulatory
system).
5. the quadrate of the Eichastatt specimen of the Archeopteryx was
double-headed and thus similar in condition to that of the modern
bird.
6. it has been asserted that Archaeopteryx shares 21 specialized
characters with coelurosaurian dinosaurs. Research on various
anatomical features of Archaeopteryx in the last ten years or so,
however, has shown, in every case, that the characteristic in question
is bird-like, not reptile-like.
7. it has been reasonably established that neither the teeth nor the
ankle of Archaeopteryx could have been derived from theropod
dinosaurs—the teeth being those typical of other (presumably later)
toothed birds, and the ankle bones showing no homology with those of
dinosaurs.
8. the pubis of Archaeopteryx was oriented in a bird-like position.
9. recent examinations of the ear region of Archaeopteryx shows,
contrary to previous studies, that this region is very similar to the
otic region of modern birds.
10. no one hypothesizes due to recent discoveries that the
Archeopteryx is the predecessor of any modern birds. As such the
absence of the alula is irrelevent to the issue of neoDarwinian
transformism. Furthermore the alula is not necessary for flight and
is important depending upon the size and camber of the wing.
11. there have been discoveries of fossil birds which predate the
Archeopteryx
>And of course we have a fine series of fossils showing the gradual
>development of all these structures, including even the feathers, which
>I would be happy to explain to you.
As I point out above there is at least as much evidence that the
Archeopteryx is a fully-formed, mature bird capable of fully powered
flight with not the slightest hint of a structure in some stage of
development.
Yet if Darwin's theory is correct we should see more structures in the
fossil record in varying stages of development than mature ones. This
is why Darwin placed little importance in the "species"----they were
rarely fixed. He expected to see a significant number of developing
nascent structures and overlap between "adjacent" species along the
continuum of evolutionary transformation. Yet we see absolutely no
unambigous examples of this.
>
>> The question is: How did the fossil record capture the fine
>> gradations of the EXISTING foram shell in Elsberry's "proof" over the
>> space of 15 million years but capture not a single NOVEL structure
>> developing to maturity where it did not exist in predecessor
>> populations?
>
>The other question is: Why is the sky orange? Or how does a pig fly?
Notice that Harshman makes light of this significant problem. Minor
changes of EXISTING structures abounds in both the living AND the
fossil world. Yet there is not a single example of an unambiguous
nascent structure or its develpment to maturity in either the living
or the fossil one.
>> The foram shell existed in the starting population under
>> examination and remained a foram shell at the end of 15 million years.
>>
>> Darwin knew the fossil record was damning in 1859, Gould knew it was
>> damning 1973, and everyone knows it is still damning today.
>
>Actually, you are confused. Darwin liked to raise objections for the
>purpose of disposing of them, which he did handily immediately
>thereafter. Gould, of course, agreed that transitional forms were
>plentiful in the fossil record. Even you should be able to find a quote
>to that effect.
>
Darwin was honest enough to admit that the absence of genuine
transitional forms was a significant problem for his theory. And
while he did give good reasons why the fossil record would never be
completely adequate, he under no circumstances explained away their
absence. He fully expected the discovery of nascent structures in
various stages of development as time marched on. No such structures
have ever materialized. NEVER. NEVER. Darwin admitted that this
was a significant problem.
Gould was an admitted atheist and he likewise never produced any
genuine evidence of neoDarwinian transformism. He likewise took fully
formed mature forms and strung them together in a conceived sequence.
He spent from 1973 on trying to explain stasis and disputing Darwin's
gradualism.
>> Evolutionists string together end nodes in the fossil record and
>> merely "conceive" of a lineal connection. There is no genuine,
>> observable connection.
>
>I think you are confused about what "observable" means.
Sadly I'm not. However, for the atheist in the historical sciences
"observable" has grown to mean whatever the atheist can conceive.
Nice try.
Regards,
T Pagano
John Harshman
> On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 13:27:17 +0000, "Steven L."
> <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> "John Harshman" <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>> news:PN6dnUHgC7q...@giganews.com:
>
>>> Sure. Here's a challenge for you. Why is Archaeopteryx not a
>>> transitional fossil? Knock yourself out.
>
>> Could I take a crack at it?
>>
>> To be a transitional fossil implies that it's a transition between some
>> predecessor species and some successor species in the so-called
>> evolutionary tree.
>>
>> Have those been identified in the case of Archaeopteryx?
>>
>> Isn't it possible that Archaeopteryx represents some kind of
>> evolutionary dead end that left no avian descendants? The actual
>> transitional species between reptiles and birds--the common ancestor of
>> all birds--might still be some other species than Archaeopteryx.
>>
>> As dinosaurs began to evolve feathers, there may have appeared a number
>> of different species that started to look more bird-like. But how can
>> we know which one is the common ancestor of all birds?
>
> Yes, if Archaeopteryx never speciated then it was not transitional
> but it would still be intermediate between reptile and bird.
>
would indeed be no transitional fossils, or at least we would have no
way to recognize them.
John Harshman
One finds that you have taken some nonsense of some creationist web
site, none of which is relevant to the question of whether Archaeopteryx
is a transitional fossil. You list some derived characters, but that
would be expected in a transitional form, in addition to the primitive
and intermediate characters I mentioned, none of which you have even
attempted to refute.
> 1. it has perching feet,
Sort of. Not, however, the sort that is meant when talking about
"perching birds", which are highly specialized.
> 2. possessed the basic pattern and proportions of the avian wing with
> modern-like feathers; the primary fearthers of non flying birds are
> distinctly different. there is little reason to suppose that the
> Archeopteryx was not capable of and engaged in powered flight.
True.
> 3. a robust furcula,
As did many other prior theropods. A furcula isn't a bird
characteristic, just as feathers are not.
> 4. its cranium was essentially avian in all important aspects (which
> might imply the possession of an avian nervous system and circulatory
> system).
Not sure what you mean by either of those. But there were features of
the cranium that are more like birds than like most theropods. Most of
these features are however shared with troodonts.
> 5. the quadrate of the Eichastatt specimen of the Archeopteryx was
> double-headed and thus similar in condition to that of the modern
> bird.
Some modern birds. The character is variable. Most neognaths have it,
but paleognaths lack it. And oviraptoriosaurs and some crocodylomorphs
have it too.
> 6. it has been asserted that Archaeopteryx shares 21 specialized
> characters with coelurosaurian dinosaurs. Research on various
> anatomical features of Archaeopteryx in the last ten years or so,
> however, has shown, in every case, that the characteristic in question
> is bird-like, not reptile-like.
I'm afraid you're going to have to provide more detail on that one. I
have no idea what characters you're talking about. I bet you don't either.
> 7. it has been reasonably established that neither the teeth nor the
> ankle of Archaeopteryx could have been derived from theropod
> dinosaurs—the teeth being those typical of other (presumably later)
> toothed birds, and the ankle bones showing no homology with those of
> dinosaurs.
Oh dear. You've been paying attention to Alan Feduccia. Neither of these
is true. And in fact Feduccia has reversed his position on the ankle. He
was previously claiming that bird ankles are not homologous to
dromaeosaur ankles, but now he thinks that dromaeosaurs are birds.
> 8. the pubis of Archaeopteryx was oriented in a bird-like position.
Sort of. It's really intermediate in position.
> 9. recent examinations of the ear region of Archaeopteryx shows,
> contrary to previous studies, that this region is very similar to the
> otic region of modern birds.
That's true, more or less.
> 10. no one hypothesizes due to recent discoveries that the
> Archeopteryx is the predecessor of any modern birds. As such the
> absence of the alula is irrelevent to the issue of neoDarwinian
> transformism. Furthermore the alula is not necessary for flight and
> is important depending upon the size and camber of the wing.
Of course nobody hypothesizes that Archaeopteryx is the ancestor of
modern birds. It's impossible to show that any species is ancestral to
any others. What the alula has to do with that is beyond me.
> 11. there have been discoveries of fossil birds which predate the
> Archeopteryx
No there haven't. There have been alleged discoveries, but none of them
can be backed up. Further, that's irrelevant to the question.
>> And of course we have a fine series of fossils showing the gradual
>> development of all these structures, including even the feathers, which
>> I would be happy to explain to you.
>
> As I point out above there is at least as much evidence that the
> Archeopteryx is a fully-formed, mature bird capable of fully powered
> flight with not the slightest hint of a structure in some stage of
> development.
If Archaeopteryx is fully formed, why does it have all those primitive
characters that I mentioned? Why is the wing not a structure in some
stage of development, since it lacks many of the features of modern
birds? Are you saying that because Archaeopteryx could fly, its wings
were therefore fully formed? If so, then all I have to do is bring up,
say, Sinosauropteryx, which couldn't fly. It seems that you have a
Catch-22 for me here. If an animal can fly, you say its wings are fully
formed. If it can't, you will just deny they are wings.
> Yet if Darwin's theory is correct we should see more structures in the
> fossil record in varying stages of development than mature ones.
That's exactly what Archaeopteryx is. It has a partially formed wing.
You haven't even addressed the wing; you've just tried to distract
attention by talking about some other parts of the body.
> This
> is why Darwin placed little importance in the "species"----they were
> rarely fixed. He expected to see a significant number of developing
> nascent structures and overlap between "adjacent" species along the
> continuum of evolutionary transformation. Yet we see absolutely no
> unambigous examples of this.
You have yet to show that Archaeoptery is not such an example. Try again.
>>> The question is: How did the fossil record capture the fine
>>> gradations of the EXISTING foram shell in Elsberry's "proof" over the
>>> space of 15 million years but capture not a single NOVEL structure
>>> developing to maturity where it did not exist in predecessor
>>> populations?
>> The other question is: Why is the sky orange? Or how does a pig fly?
>
> Notice that Harshman makes light of this significant problem. Minor
> changes of EXISTING structures abounds in both the living AND the
> fossil world. Yet there is not a single example of an unambiguous
> nascent structure or its develpment to maturity in either the living
> or the fossil one.
How can we recognize a nascent structure? I contend that Archaeopteryx
has nascent wings, since it lacks several features shared by all modern
birds.
>>> The foram shell existed in the starting population under
>>> examination and remained a foram shell at the end of 15 million years.
>>>
>>> Darwin knew the fossil record was damning in 1859, Gould knew it was
>>> damning 1973, and everyone knows it is still damning today.
>> Actually, you are confused. Darwin liked to raise objections for the
>> purpose of disposing of them, which he did handily immediately
>> thereafter. Gould, of course, agreed that transitional forms were
>> plentiful in the fossil record. Even you should be able to find a quote
>> to that effect.
>
> Darwin was honest enough to admit that the absence of genuine
> transitional forms was a significant problem for his theory. And
> while he did give good reasons why the fossil record would never be
> completely adequate, he under no circumstances explained away their
> absence. He fully expected the discovery of nascent structures in
> various stages of development as time marched on. No such structures
> have ever materialized. NEVER. NEVER. Darwin admitted that this
> was a significant problem.
But there are many nascent structures in the fossil record. Darwin was
right. Even if you say "never" in all caps; even if you say it more than
once. I have mentioned one. There seems no reason to mention another
until we have settled this one.
> Gould was an admitted atheist and he likewise never produced any
> genuine evidence of neoDarwinian transformism. He likewise took fully
> formed mature forms and strung them together in a conceived sequence.
> He spent from 1973 on trying to explain stasis and disputing Darwin's
> gradualism.
Oddly enough, Gould thought he had such genuine evidence. He thought
transitional forms were plentiful. But you knew that, didn't you?
>>> Evolutionists string together end nodes in the fossil record and
>>> merely "conceive" of a lineal connection. There is no genuine,
>>> observable connection.
>> I think you are confused about what "observable" means.
>
> Sadly I'm not. However, for the atheist in the historical sciences
> "observable" has grown to mean whatever the atheist can conceive.
>
> Nice try.
Thanks. I'm afraid I can't return the compliment, since your attempt was
pathetic. Now the way we observe these connections is that they display
a very nice nested hierarchy, for which the only reasonable explanation
is a branching tree of descent. You have another explanation,
presumably, but you have never bothered to provide it.
John Harshman
Of course. That's why you had the time to start several trash-talking,
victory-claiming, boasting threads before responding to the challenge.
What color are your eyes? Bet I can guess.
Ilas
> T Pagano wrote:
>> On the other hand if one looks at all the archeopteryx's specimens:
>
> One finds that you have taken some nonsense of some creationist web
> site,
Duane Gish, ICR. Almost straight cut and paste:
http://www.icr.org/article/transitional-form-archaeopteryx-wont-fly/
jillery
> John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote innews:36KdneP7Kcc...@giganews.com:
>
> > T Pagano wrote:
> >> On the other hand if one looks at all the archeopteryx's specimens:
>
> > One finds that you have taken some nonsense of some creationist web
> > site,
>
> Duane Gish, ICR. Almost straight cut and paste:
>
> http://www.icr.org/article/transitional-form-archaeopteryx-wont-fly/
I held my nose and waded through your cite. IIUC it makes the point
there's no evidence Archaeopteryx is ancestral to all birds and so it
isn't a transitional fossil. This is the same wrong-headed comic-book
argument made against all transistional forms. Possible ancestry has
nothing to with whether fossils display transitional features and so
properly qualify as transitional forms.
Not surprisingly, the TO archives include a pretty good article about
Archaeopteryx and the questions it raises:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html
Rather than focus exclusively on avian features, Chris Nedin
reasonably identified both avian and theropod features. Perhaps
surprisingly, Archaeopteryx is morphologically closer to theropods
than to modern birds. IIRC I read where Huxley said if it wasn't for
the feather impressions, he likely wouldn't have given it a second
look. Nevertheless, its asymmetric wing feathers and flat sternum are
good evidence that Archaeopteryx was a weak flier.
John Harshman
even as well as Gish did?
John Harshman
lack (or near lack?) of a keel argues that it wasn't a good one. Two
separate things.
jillery
A nice paraphrase.
Ilas
What I find strange is Tony felt the need to alter bits here and there.
Nothing that changes the meaning, but just the odd word. He could have just
pointed you to the above link - it's essentially the same - but obviously
felt the urge to pass it off as his own work.
richardal...@gmail.com
Well bully for you.
As I have not called for prayers for the victims of the Japan
earthquake, of what possible relevance has that to creationist
dishonesty?
>
> Find another hobby, you're certainly not very good at pretending to be a
> goon.
As a matter of idle curiosity, do you honestly (a term with which you
evidently have only a passing acquaintance) think that I give a flying
fuck for the views of a poisonous ignoramus whose only contribution to
any debate is snide comments which reveal only your ignorance and
dishonesty?
RF
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <not....@address.net>:
....and yet you managed at least 2 other posts, with dozens
of your lines each, at the same time you were whining in
this one about "limited time". Methinks the Tony doth
protest too much...
John Harshman
> On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 21:08:36 -0400, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <not....@address.net>:
>
>> On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 12:54:33 -0700, John Harshman
>> <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>> John Harshman wrote:
>>>> Sure. Here's a challenge for you. Why is Archaeopteryx not a
>>>> transitional fossil? Knock yourself out.
>>> Tony?
>> A tad impatient are we? Unfortunately work and family compete with my
>> limited time.
>
> ....and yet you managed at least 2 other posts, with dozens
> of your lines each, at the same time you were whining in
> this one about "limited time". Methinks the Tony doth
> protest too much...
Methinks he is like a weasel.
John Harshman
Self-spelling flame: I hope nobody was seriously confused, but I see
weird errors. "Planalges"(!) means "phalanges"; "allula" for "alula";
"coracoideus" for "supracoracoideus".
>>> carpometacarpus, merely unfused bones. Similarly, the planalges are
>>> unfused. There is no allula. There is no triosseal canal, and
>>> therefore the coracoideus muscles would be unable to power the
>>> upstroke as in living birds. This is clearly a primitive and
>>> incomplete wing.
"Oviraptoriosaurs" for "oviraptorosaurs".
> Some modern birds. The character is variable. Most neognaths have it,
> but paleognaths lack it. And oviraptoriosaurs and some crocodylomorphs
> have it too.
I swear I know how to spell lots of words. Really.
RAM
> On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 06:29:33 -0700 (PDT),
> "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com" <richardalanforr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Sure. Here's a challenge for you. Why is Archaeopteryx not a
> >> transitional fossil? Knock yourself out.
>
>
> >1. Because it exists.
> >Therefore it can't be transitional.
> >It can only be transitional if it doesn't exist.
>
> >2. Because it's a 100% modern bird, and if it's a bird it can't be a
> >dinosaur. Any differences between archaeopteryx and a modern bird are
> >either
> > a) frauds perpetuated by atheists or
> > b) irrelevant because it's a 100% modern bird
>
> >3. A true transitional would be a fossil with only half a wing
> >(presumably the distal end) and archaeopteryx has fully formed wings
> >like a modern bird.
>
> >4. One of the 'dino-bird' fossils found in China in the 1990s turned
> >out to be a fake, and therefore *all* fossils showing characters of
> >dinosaurs are birds must be a fake.
>
> >5. You are only claiming it's transitional because you are a rabid
> >atheist intent on undermining True Christianity (TM) and it supports
> >your evilutionist faith.
>
> >6. MMMMMMMMMMM I CAN'T HEAR YOU MY FINGERS ARE JAMMED INTO MY EARS
> >(AND PROBABLY MEETING IN THE MIDDLE) AND I'M HUMMING LOUDLY SO I CAN'T
> >HEAR YOU GO AWAY AND DON'T ASK ME DIFFICULT QUESTIONS
>
> Forrest has already taken the challenge and like Elsberry offered
> scientific reports for which he didn't read beyond the abstract.
You know this just like you know the earth stopped, there was a global
flood and the earth is only several thousands years old.
Please, please cite the scientific reports (called by scientist
empirical research in peer reviewed professional journals) that
supports any of your religious insanity.
Pure bloviation and bluster from the insane person who claims but can
not demonstrate he knows Hume or science after years of crowing about
defeating/vanquishing his TO adversaries.
Elsewhere Pags wrote: "I said that technology does not rely on
induction which is a foundation of sand."
This is abject stupidity about Hume and technology (most of which grew
out of science).
No one with an once of scientific training would write such an idiotic
sentence unless his head is the foundation of sand.
Yet he persists in making a complete fool of himself by asserting all
kinds of crap that must be addressed less the naive creationist think
he has some truth value.
>�And
> likewise Forrest was terribly embarassed. �Need links to relive this
> sad part of t.o history?
>
> Perhaps this is why Forrest doesn't risk embarassment with producing
> more useless scientific reports which show nothing and instead
> produces this grammar school drivel.
What could be more embarrassing (to the Catholic Church) than a
philosophically and scientifically incompetent prancing peacock named
Pagano who crows about his ignorance (see above) and debates like the
proverbial pigeon playing chess; yet claiming in a New Years
resolution he is now taking the high road.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
>
> Darwinism is finished. �The majority of the scientific community knows
> it. � It is hanging on only by inertia.
You are intellectually molting.
John S. Wilkins
You biologists! So many technical terms. Philosophy is so much simpler.
--
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
John S. Wilkins
RAM
> John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > Bob Casanova wrote:
> > > On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 21:08:36 -0400, the following appeared
>
> > >> On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 12:54:33 -0700, John Harshman
> > >> <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > >>> John Harshman wrote:
> > >>>> Sure. Here's a challenge for you. Why is Archaeopteryx not a
> > >>>> transitional fossil? Knock yourself out.
> > >>> Tony?
> > >> A tad impatient are we? Unfortunately work and family compete with my
> > >> limited time.
>
> > > ....and yet you managed at least 2 other posts, with dozens
> > > of your lines each, at the same time you were whining in
> > > this one about "limited time". Methinks the Tony doth
> > > protest too much...
>
> > Methinks he is like a weasel.
>
> Very like a weasel.
Then a weasel he is.
> --
> John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydneyhttp://evolvingthoughts.net
RAM
> > John Harshman wrote:
>
> > Self-spelling flame: I hope nobody was seriously confused, but I see
> > weird errors. "Planalges"(!) means "phalanges"; "allula" for "alula";
> > "coracoideus" for "supracoracoideus".
>
> > >>> carpometacarpus, merely unfused bones. Similarly, the planalges are
> > >>> unfused. There is no allula. There is no triosseal canal, and
> > >>> therefore the coracoideus muscles would be unable to power the
> > >>> upstroke as in living birds. This is clearly a primitive and
> > >>> incomplete wing.
>
> > "Oviraptoriosaurs" for "oviraptorosaurs".
>
> > > Some modern birds. The character is variable. Most neognaths have it,
> > > but paleognaths lack it. And oviraptoriosaurs and some crocodylomorphs
> > > have it too.
>
> > I swear I know how to spell lots of words. Really.
>
> You biologists! So many technical terms. Philosophy is so much simpler.
That's one reason I'm not a biologist. I can't spell shitt.
> --
> John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydneyhttp://evolvingthoughts.net
John S. Wilkins
> On Mar 17, 11:15 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> > John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > John Harshman wrote:
> >
> > > Self-spelling flame: I hope nobody was seriously confused, but I see
> > > weird errors. "Planalges"(!) means "phalanges"; "allula" for "alula";
> > > "coracoideus" for "supracoracoideus".
> >
> > > >>> carpometacarpus, merely unfused bones. Similarly, the planalges are
> > > >>> unfused. There is no allula. There is no triosseal canal, and
> > > >>> therefore the coracoideus muscles would be unable to power the
> > > >>> upstroke as in living birds. This is clearly a primitive and
> > > >>> incomplete wing.
> >
> > > "Oviraptoriosaurs" for "oviraptorosaurs".
> >
> > > > Some modern birds. The character is variable. Most neognaths have it,
> > > > but paleognaths lack it. And oviraptoriosaurs and some crocodylomorphs
> > > > have it too.
> >
> > > I swear I know how to spell lots of words. Really.
> >
> > You biologists! So many technical terms. Philosophy is so much simpler.
>
> That's one reason I'm not a biologist. I can't spell shitt.
>
That's one reason why *I* am not a biologist. I can't *stand* shit. Or
blood. Or other wet gooey stuff.
jillery
Me too. And most of them are real words :)
jillery
> On Mar 17, 11:15 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > Bob Casanova wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 21:08:36 -0400, the following appeared
> > > > in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <not.va...@address.net>:
>
> > > >> On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 12:54:33 -0700, John Harshman
> > > >> <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > > >>> John Harshman wrote:
> > > >>>> Sure. Here's a challenge for you. Why is Archaeopteryx not a
> > > >>>> transitional fossil? Knock yourself out.
> > > >>> Tony?
> > > >> A tad impatient are we? Unfortunately work and family compete with my
> > > >> limited time.
>
> > > > ....and yet you managed at least 2 other posts, with dozens
> > > > of your lines each, at the same time you were whining in
> > > > this one about "limited time". Methinks the Tony doth
> > > > protest too much...
>
> > > Methinks he is like a weasel.
>
> > Very like a weasel.
>
> Then a weasel he is.
That's an insult to weasels.
Walter Bushell
<810d3bbc-ef01-401c...@a12g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
RAM <ramat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That's one reason I'm not a biologist. I can't spell shitt.
>
That's gneiss to know.
--
The Chinese pretend their goods are good and we pretend our money
is good, or is it the reverse?
jillery
> In article
> <810d3bbc-ef01-401c-87c9-703a2f888...@a12g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
>
> RAM <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > That's one reason I'm not a biologist. I can't spell shitt.
>
> That's gneiss to know.
Rather igneous of you to say so.
Steven L.
"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:19b19a92-bb99-4092...@i39g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
You're just hopelessly sedimentary and emotional.
-- Steven L.
Padmar Mushkin
Oh god. Yet another metamorphosis of a perfectly good thread into a
pun cascade.
RAM
You are of course right. My apologies to the Mustelidae family.
Mitchell Coffey
Or like a whale.
Mitchell Coffey
Mitchell Coffey
Yet many a good thread is an aggregate of types.
Mitchell Coffey
Mike Lyle
That's one of your boulder clayms.
--
Mike.
Matthew Bladen
Yes, I'd like a whale. Do you happen to have one on you?
(Any Peter Cook fans in the house?)
--
Matthew
Mitchell Coffey
I'm a Peter Cook fan, but I don't know the reference.
Mitchell Coffey
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
>On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 21:08:36 -0400, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <not....@address.net>:
>
>>On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 12:54:33 -0700, John Harshman
>><jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>>John Harshman wrote:
>>>> Sure. Here's a challenge for you. Why is Archaeopteryx not a
>>>> transitional fossil? Knock yourself out.
>>>
>>>Tony?
>>
>>A tad impatient are we? Unfortunately work and family compete with my
>>limited time.
>
>....and yet you managed at least 2 other posts, with dozens
>of your lines each, at the same time you were whining in
>this one about "limited time". Methinks the Tony doth
>protest too much...
15 more posts by Tony; still no answer. False claims that
the answer was already provided "in the context of my
posts", but zero actual answers.
Bravo, Sir Tony! You still have it! You might want to try
therapy...
Mike Lyle
<trib...@gmail.com> wrote:
>In article <im02rd$ghg$2...@news.eternal-september.org>, Mitchell Coffey
><mitchel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 3/18/2011 12:51 PM, RAM wrote:
>> > On Mar 18, 8:07 am, jillery<69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Mar 18, 12:41 am, RAM<ramather...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> On Mar 17, 11:15 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>> John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> >>>>> Bob Casanova wrote:
[...]
>> >>>>>> Methinks the Tony doth
>> >>>>>> protest too much...
>> >>
>> >>>>> Methinks he is like a weasel.
>> >>
>> >>>> Very like a weasel.
>> >>
>> >>> Then a weasel he is.
>> >>
>> >> That's an insult to weasels.
>> >
>> > You are of course right. My apologies to the Mustelidae family.
>>
>> Or like a whale.
>
>Yes, I'd like a whale. Do you happen to have one on you?
>
I'm sorry: I've given them up. Have a photograph of Queen Victoria.
(Any Goons fans in the house?)
>(Any Peter Cook fans in the house?)
--
Mike.
Ray Martinez
> Sure. Here's a challenge for you. Why is Archaeopteryx not a
> transitional fossil? Knock yourself out.
Until you can show how the transition occurred (cause) the appearance
(effect) is not real, but an illusion. We don't see it. We see each
species reflecting ID (supernatural agency).
In your debates with Kleinman I noticed that your entire case for the
cause of human evolution came down to a one word assertion
"drift." (In other words it all happened by chance and luck.) Neither
the founder of drift theory or any prominent evolutionist of the 20th
century would say such a ridiculous thing. Drift was and is not
offered to challenge or replace Darwinian selection. Your assertion
tells us that you are ignorant of historical scientific context.
Therefore your view concerning cause of human evolution is subjective,
non-mainstream and un-supportable.
Ray
Dana Tweedy
> On Mar 12, 9:24 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> Sure. Here's a challenge for you. Why is Archaeopteryx not a
>> transitional fossil? Knock yourself out.
>
> Until you can show how the transition occurred (cause) the appearance
> (effect) is not real, but an illusion.
Ray, as has been explained to you over and over, the cause has already
been shown. It's the natural process called "evolution".
> We don't see it. We see each
> species reflecting ID (supernatural agency).
You don't "see" it because you refuse to look, as you admitted yourself.
You don't see each "species reflecting ID" because you don't know
what does, or does not reflect "ID", which you idiosyncratically define
as "supernatural agency". You are making an assumption that order
and symmetry are only produced by "supernatural agency", when there are
many counter examples.
Also, Ray, you didn't make an attempt to answer this either.
>
> In your debates with Kleinman I noticed that your entire case for the
> cause of human evolution came down to a one word assertion
> "drift."
Another thing Ray has misunderstood. Obviously John's entire case
doesn't depend on the process of genetic drift.
>(In other words it all happened by chance and luck.)
There is an element of chance in evolution, but the process itself is
not mere chance.
> Neither
> the founder of drift theory or any prominent evolutionist of the 20th
> century would say such a ridiculous thing.
And John didn't say it either. You've made another mistake, Ray.
> Drift was and is not
> offered to challenge or replace Darwinian selection.
No one claims it was. Drift is part of the mechanism of evolution, not
a replacement for Darwin's mechanism.
> Your assertion
> tells us that you are ignorant of historical scientific context.
Once again, Ray tries to insult John, and ends up exposing his own
ignorance.
> Therefore your view concerning cause of human evolution is subjective,
> non-mainstream and un-supportable.
Oh, the irony.......
DJT
John Harshman
> On Mar 12, 9:24 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> Sure. Here's a challenge for you. Why is Archaeopteryx not a
>> transitional fossil? Knock yourself out.
>
> Until you can show how the transition occurred (cause) the appearance
> (effect) is not real, but an illusion. We don't see it. We see each
> species reflecting ID (supernatural agency).
So your response is "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."
Hey, even Tony did better than that.
> In your debates with Kleinman I noticed that your entire case for the
> cause of human evolution came down to a one word assertion "drift."
> (In other words it all happened by chance and luck.) Neither the
> founder of drift theory or any prominent evolutionist of the 20th
> century would say such a ridiculous thing. Drift was and is not
> offered to challenge or replace Darwinian selection. Your assertion
> tells us that you are ignorant of historical scientific context.
> Therefore your view concerning cause of human evolution is
> subjective, non-mainstream and un-supportable.
Not quite. Drift (neutral evolution) is clearly responsible for the
great majority of differences between the human and chimp genomes. But
of course the interesting and important ones are the comparatively few
exceptions. No biologist that I know of would contest this.
You are as ignorant of comparative genomics as you are of the history of
biology and, come to think of it, just about everything else.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
>On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 18:38:00 -0700, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
>
>>On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 21:08:36 -0400, the following appeared
>>in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <not....@address.net>:
>>
>>>On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 12:54:33 -0700, John Harshman
>>><jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>John Harshman wrote:
>>>>> Sure. Here's a challenge for you. Why is Archaeopteryx not a
>>>>> transitional fossil? Knock yourself out.
>>>>
>>>>Tony?
>>>
>>>A tad impatient are we? Unfortunately work and family compete with my
>>>limited time.
>>
>>....and yet you managed at least 2 other posts, with dozens
>>of your lines each, at the same time you were whining in
>>this one about "limited time". Methinks the Tony doth
>>protest too much...
>
>15 more posts by Tony; still no answer. False claims that
>the answer was already provided "in the context of my
>posts", but zero actual answers.
>
>Bravo, Sir Tony! You still have it! You might want to try
>therapy...
10 more posts by Tony the Time-Constrained; still no answer.
I take it back; therapy is only valuable for those who
desire to be helped.
paleobarbie
> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 20:32:42 -0000, Matthew Bladen
>
>
>
> >In article <im02rd$gh...@news.eternal-september.org>, Mitchell Coffey
> ><mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> On 3/18/2011 12:51 PM, RAM wrote:
> >> > On Mar 18, 8:07 am, jillery<69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Mar 18, 12:41 am, RAM<ramather...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >>> On Mar 17, 11:15 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>
> >> >>>> John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> >>>>> Bob Casanova wrote:
> [...]
> >> >>>>>> Methinks the Tony doth
> >> >>>>>> protest too much...
>
> >> >>>>> Methinks he is like a weasel.
>
> >> >>>> Very like a weasel.
>
> >> >>> Then a weasel he is.
>
> >> >> That's an insult to weasels.
>
> >> > You are of course right. My apologies to the Mustelidae family.
>
> >> Or like a whale.
>
> >Yes, I'd like a whale. Do you happen to have one on you?
>
> I'm sorry: I've given them up. Have a photograph of Queen Victoria.
>
> (Any Goons fans in the house?)
>
Ray Martinez
Your only response to a specific charge of ignorance is to claim that
your accuser is generally ignorant?
John, the ToE remains Darwinian; your causation claims are non-
Darwinian. You are ignorant of everything worked for and accomplished
by Darwin's successors. You really need to log-off and read what
evolutionary authorities have published this year and every year
preceding going back to 1950. Your thoughtless causation claims are,
like I said, subjective, non-mainstream and un-supportable.
Accomplished Darwinists like Dawkins, Gould and Mayr exist within an
established foundation and framework (Darwin's). You may have skimmed
through Gould 2002 but you obviously haven't understood anything he
has said. The entire book carefully documents the three-fold claim
made by Darwinian selection; how each claim was verified; and how each
claim defeated all falsification attempts up until c.2000. If you
understood this history you wouldn't be asserting drift alone as
causing human evolution. What makes your particular brand of ignorance
so appalling is the fact that you don't even see the need to exist
within an established foundation and framework. Again, your drift
claim in behalf of human evolution is without foundation and
structure.
Ray
John S. Wilkins
Strikes pose and waits for applause. Not a sausinge.
>
> > >(Any Peter Cook fans in the house?)
> >
> > --
> > Mike.
John Harshman
Well, you are. Just sayin'.
> John, the ToE remains Darwinian; your causation claims are non-
> Darwinian. You are ignorant of everything worked for and accomplished
> by Darwin's successors. You really need to log-off and read what
> evolutionary authorities have published this year and every year
> preceding going back to 1950. Your thoughtless causation claims are,
> like I said, subjective, non-mainstream and un-supportable.
> Accomplished Darwinists like Dawkins, Gould and Mayr exist within an
> established foundation and framework (Darwin's). You may have skimmed
> through Gould 2002 but you obviously haven't understood anything he
> has said. The entire book carefully documents the three-fold claim
> made by Darwinian selection; how each claim was verified; and how each
> claim defeated all falsification attempts up until c.2000. If you
> understood this history you wouldn't be asserting drift alone as
> causing human evolution.
I see your problem here. You are confused. I made no such assertion. I
was talking about the genome. 3 billion bases. You may have heard that
about 95% of the genome is "junk DNA". Junk DNA evolves neutrally, i.e.
through drift alone. Large parts of that non-junk 5% also evolve
neutrally. So like I said, drift is clearly responsible for the great
majority of differences between the human and chimp genomes. But of
course the interesting and important ones are the comparatively few
exceptions. This is not just my story. Any biologist would tell you the
same.
> What makes your particular brand of ignorance
> so appalling is the fact that you don't even see the need to exist
> within an established foundation and framework. Again, your drift
> claim in behalf of human evolution is without foundation and
> structure.
Since you don't even understand my claim, I doubt your ability to put it
in historical context.
Ernest Major
<883864bc-6075-4824...@a11g2000pro.googlegroups.com>, Ray
Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes
majority of genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees are the
result of drift is the mainstream position. If you wish to refute the
theory of evolution you ought to learn what it entails.
Where there is dispute is to what degree the morphological and
behavioural differences between humans and chimpanzees are the result of
adaptive change, and to what degree they are the result of drift.
--
alias Ernest Major
Burkhard
and you really ought to read, oh, Kimura, M. (1983). The Neutral
Theory of Molecular Evolution. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
or ibid: DNA and the Neutral Theory; Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 29
January 1986 vol. 312 no. 1154 343-354 :
"The neutral theory claims that the great majority of evolutionary
changes at the molecular (DNA) level are caused not by Darwinian
selection but by random fixation of selectively neutral or nearly
neutral mutants."
For evolution on the _molecular_ level, nothing John has said seems
particularly controversial Some neutralists push that approach so far
(especially when it gets beyond the molecular level) that they might
be called non-mainstream (but by no means "un-supportable", their
position is taken very serious even by those who ultimately reject it,
as a valid contender - with several compromise solutions on the table,
see e.g. Ohta, Tomoko; John H. Gillespie (1996-04). "Development of
Neutral and Nearly Neutral Theories". Theoretical Population Biology
49 (2): 128�42 ). But nothing in John's post as it is puts him outside
the mainstream, I'd say and only commits him to the degree of
neutralism that is generally accepted.
Steven L.
"Padmar Mushkin" <x@y.z> wrote in message
news:p067o6p45eq65kgiu...@4ax.com:
Sorry, it's my fault.
-- Steven L.
Dana Tweedy
Well, Ray, when you ARE ignorant, it's a fair statement.
>
> John, the ToE remains Darwinian; your causation claims are non-
> Darwinian.
Ray, "Darwinian" evolution still involves mechanisms that Darwin
himself wasn't aware of. Drift is one of those mechanisms. Darwin
didn't know about it, because he didn't know about genetics.
> You are ignorant of everything worked for and accomplished
> by Darwin's successors.
Severe irony alert.
> You really need to log-off and read what
> evolutionary authorities have published this year and every year
> preceding going back to 1950.
John, I'm sure is quite a bit more educated on matters of evolutionary
theory than you are, Ray. You also should remember that
"authorities" aren't what counts in science. It's evidence.
> Your thoughtless causation claims are,
> like I said, subjective, non-mainstream and un-supportable.
Ray, can you cite any mainstream scientific position about evolution
that does not mention drift as one of the mechanisms of evolution?
You are making yourself look even sillier than usual.
> Accomplished Darwinists like Dawkins, Gould and Mayr exist within an
> established foundation and framework (Darwin's).
And every one of them acknowledged that drift was part of the
mechanism of evolution.
Gould says:
"Populations are finite in size, and the isolated populations that
form the first step in the speciation process are often founded by a
very small number of individuals. As a result of this restriction in
population size, frequencies of allele change by genetic drift, a kind
of random genetic sampling error.
From "The Spandrels of San Marco" The Richness of Life, the Essential
Stephen Jay Gould P 433.
Dawkins says: (Dawkins terms it "Neutral Theory")
"When the neutral theory of molecular evolution was first proposed
by, among others, the great Japanese geneticist Motoo Kimura, it was
controversial. Some version of it is now widely accepted and, without
going into the detailed evidence here, I am going to accept it in this
book. Since I have a reputation as an arch-“adaptationist” (allegedly
obsessed with natural selection as the major or even the only driving
force of evolution) you can have some confidence that if even I
support the neutral theory it is unlikely that many other biologists
will oppose it!"
The Greatest Show on Earth (2009, pages 332 and 333).
Mayr says about drift (nearly 60 years ago!)
"For such a striking dissimilarity of peripherally isolated
populations two reasons are usually cited: difference of physical and
biotic environments, or genetic drift. It seems to me that neither
of these factors nor a combination of the two can provide a full
explanation, even though both may be involved.
Note too that Dawkins, Gould, and Mayr are only three, out of
thousands of biologists who acknowledge genetic drift.
>You may have skimmed
> through Gould 2002 but you obviously haven't understood anything he
> has said.
another massive irony moment..... Gould's book isn't nearly as
influential as Ray seems to imagine, and it's Ray who has shown he has
seriously misunderstood what Gould was writing about.
> The entire book carefully documents the three-fold claim
> made by Darwinian selection; how each claim was verified; and how each
> claim defeated all falsification attempts up until c.2000.
Odd then that you'd make the silly claim that natural selection
doesn't exist.
> If you
> understood this history you wouldn't be asserting drift alone as
> causing human evolution.
John didn't say that drift alone caused human evolution. Where do you
get the idea he did?
>What makes your particular brand of ignorance
> so appalling is the fact that you don't even see the need to exist
> within an established foundation and framework. Again, your drift
> claim in behalf of human evolution is without foundation and
> structure.
Ray, you are making another big mistake here, and you really owe John
one huge apology.
DJT
Ray Martinez
According to Gould (2002) Kimura told him in a face to face
conversation that his theory exists within the Darwinian framework. I
doubt you have the ability to understand the preceding sentence in its
entirety.
Ray
> For evolution on the _molecular_ level, nothing John has said seems
> particularly controversial Some neutralists push that approach so far
> (especially when it gets beyond the molecular level) that they might
> be called non-mainstream (but by no means "un-supportable", their
> position is taken very serious even by those who ultimately reject it,
> as a valid contender - with several compromise solutions on the table,
> see e.g. Ohta, Tomoko; John H. Gillespie (1996-04). "Development of
> Neutral and Nearly Neutral Theories". Theoretical Population Biology
> 49 (2): 128 42 ). But nothing in John's post as it is puts him outside
> the mainstream, I'd say and only commits him to the degree of
> neutralism that is generally accepted.
>
>
>
> > Accomplished Darwinists like Dawkins, Gould and Mayr exist within an
> > established foundation and framework (Darwin's). You may have skimmed
> > through Gould 2002 but you obviously haven't understood anything he
> > has said. The entire book carefully documents the three-fold claim
> > made by Darwinian selection; how each claim was verified; and how each
> > claim defeated all falsification attempts up until c.2000. If you
> > understood this history you wouldn't be asserting drift alone as
> > causing human evolution. What makes your particular brand of ignorance
> > so appalling is the fact that you don't even see the need to exist
> > within an established foundation and framework. Again, your drift
> > claim in behalf of human evolution is without foundation and
> > structure.
>
> > Ray- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dana Tweedy
How does that negate the fact that Kimura, Gould, Mayr, and Dawkins
all accept netural drift as a mechanism of evolution?
No one is saying that natural selection is not a mechanism of
evolution, and John never claimed that drift was the only mechanism
accounting for the differences between humans and chimps. Those
accusations are entirely your own misunderstanding.
> I
> doubt you have the ability to understand the preceding sentence in its
> entirety.
It's very clear, Ray, that you've made a very large, very embarassing
mistake. Why not just admit you were wrong?
DJT
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
Harshman's Mommy weighs in.
Ray
Ray Martinez
I know exactly what you said to Kleinman ((paraphrase): drift caused
human evolution). Your input here is long-winded repetition plus an
invisible asterisk.
Are we or are we not the products of Darwinian evolution? Any
mainstream biologist will answer in the affirmative.
> > What makes your particular brand of ignorance
> > so appalling is the fact that you don't even see the need to exist
> > within an established foundation and framework. Again, your drift
> > claim in behalf of human evolution is without foundation and
> > structure.
>
> Since you don't even understand my claim, I doubt your ability to put it
> in historical context.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Evasion.
If you knew what you were talking about you would have answered the
charge and placed your drift claim (= Materialism) in historical
scientific context. Kimura, by his own admissions, does not exist
outside of Darwin, but within. You did not and have not accounted for
this fact. In fact, in a matter of factly tone, you told Kleinman
that drift is responsible for all of human evolution.
Ray
Kleuskes & Moos
Projecting your Oedipus-complex again?
Tom McDonald
--
Tom
Dana Tweedy
One doesn't need to be a "Mommy" for one to realize that you are
wrong. Your best bet is to admit you are wrong, and slink off in
disgrace again.
DJT