Evolution's nervous breakdown.
All-seeing-I
The Case of the Missing Mechanism
There are five critical areas where Darwinism and evolutionary theory
in general are failing. They are:
The unsubstantiation of a Darwinian mechanism of evolution
The total failure of origin of life studies to produce a workable
model
The inability of evolutionary mechanism to explain the origin of
complex adaptations
The bankruptcy of the blind watchmaker hypothesis
The biological evidence that the rule in nature is morphological
stability over time and not constant change.
To read why, go here:
http://www.origins.org/articles/bohlinray_5crises.html
_________________________________________
Perhaps a nervous breakdown would be more appropriate for the
evolutionist!
--
The All Seeing I
raven1
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>Ok kids. Here are some facts:
>
>The Case of the Missing Mechanism
>
>There are five critical areas where Darwinism and evolutionary theory
>in general are failing. They are:
>
>The unsubstantiation of a Darwinian mechanism of evolution
The mechanism of mutation plus natural selection is trivial to
observe. Strike one.
>The total failure of origin of life studies to produce a workable
>model
This has nothing to do with evolution. Strike two.
>The inability of evolutionary mechanism to explain the origin of
>complex adaptations
In what way is it unable to do so? Strike three.
>The bankruptcy of the blind watchmaker hypothesis
It's not a hypothesis, it's a metaphor. Strike four.
>The biological evidence that the rule in nature is morphological
>stability over time and not constant change.
Change accumulates over time. Strike five. Yer out.
Friar Broccoli
> Ok kids. Here are some facts:
>
> The Case of the Missing Mechanism
>
> There are five critical areas where Darwinism and evolutionary theory
> in general are failing. They are:
>
> The unsubstantiation of a Darwinian mechanism of evolution
In Natural selection is unsubstantiated, why do Pepper moths change
color when the trees they stay on change color?
> The total failure of origin of life studies to produce a workable
> model
Even if this was true, the creation of the first bacteria 3 billion
years
ago by God, would in no way conflict with evolution.
> The inability of evolutionary mechanism to explain the origin of
> complex adaptations
Why do you think that lots of tiny adaptations cannot add up to
major/complex adaptations over time, as indicated by the fossil
record?
> The bankruptcy of the blind watchmaker hypothesis
Agreed, this creationist straw man is bankrupt.
> The biological evidence that the rule in nature is morphological
> stability over time and not constant change.
Does this evidence include the "morphological stability" of Dogs?
Davej
Yeah, Goddidit, but he wasn't smart enough to use a continuous process
like natural selection. Instead he has to remember to "poof" a new
critter into existence every few years, and most of them are just
germs or bacteria.
VoiceOfReason
All-seeing-I wrote:
> Ok kids. Here are some facts:
>
> The Case of the Missing Mechanism
>
> There are five critical areas where Darwinism and evolutionary theory
> in general are failing. They are:
>
> The unsubstantiation of a Darwinian mechanism of evolution
Wrong. Natural selection is observed in the lab and in the wild.
> The total failure of origin of life studies to produce a workable
> model
Wrong. Abiogenesis is not part of evolution.
> The inability of evolutionary mechanism to explain the origin of
> complex adaptations
Wrong. They evolve, just like any adaptation.
> The bankruptcy of the blind watchmaker hypothesis
"Bankrupt" in the sense that biblical literalists reject anything that
threatens their religious beliefs.
> The biological evidence that the rule in nature is morphological
> stability over time and not constant change.
Wrong. The evidence shows exactly the opposite of what you claim.
> To read why, go here:
>
> http://www.origins.org/articles/bohlinray_5crises.html
Let's see what they say about themselves: "Origins.org focuses
primarily on the scientific theory known as Intelligent Design and
reaches one logical conclusion: that the universe and life show
verifiable signs of intelligent creation because there is an
intelligent Creator."
Since ID was shown in Kitzmiller v. Dover to be a re-branding of
creationism, it's obvious from their own words that these people
reject science on religious grounds. All the science-denial claims
they make are the same tired old creationist lies.
> Perhaps a nervous breakdown would be more appropriate for the
> evolutionist!
Get back to us if you ever discovery the concept of honesty.
Boikat
> All-seeing-I wrote:
> > Ok kids. Here are some facts:
It would have been interesting if you had presetned any.
<snip>
> > Perhaps a nervous breakdown would be more appropriate for the
> > evolutionist!
>
> Get back to us if you ever discovery the concept of honesty.
Like that'll ever happen? Pttt!
Boikat
Boikat
> Ok kids. Here are some facts:
>
> The Case of the Missing Mechanism
>
> There are five critical areas where Darwinism and evolutionary theory
> in general are failing. They are:
>
> The unsubstantiation of a Darwinian mechanism of evolution
That would be "Natural Selection on variations within a population in
a given environment".
> The total failure of origin of life studies to produce a workable
> model
As pointed out to you bedore, you dishonest little shit, the origin of
life is not a concern of how life diversified once it appeared on
earth.
> The inability of evolutionary mechanism to explain the origin of
> complex adaptations
Variations through time and natural selection.
> The bankruptcy of the blind watchmaker hypothesis
Says who? Sounds like a moral judgement based upon prejudicial anti
evolution attitudes, and no science.
> The biological evidence that the rule in nature is morphological
> stability over time and not constant change.
No such "rule' exists. As long as there is varioation within the
population, and the environment, there is change. If the environment
is stable, so is the morphology of the species that inhabit that
environment, to some extent.(There is always some minor adaptive
chages, due to preditor/prey competition, and sexual selection, and a
few other factors).
>
> To read why, go here:
>
> http://www.origins.org/articles/bohlinray_5crises.html
> _________________________________________
Sorry, but where is these five supposed "critical areas" where
"Darwinism is failing"? Both you, and the author of the linked
article, seems to have omitted them.
>
> Perhaps a nervous breakdown would be more appropriate for the
> evolutionist!
All I saw in that article was a list of false claims and a grand
display of ignorance.
>
> --
> The Null Thinking I(diot)
Boikat
wf3h
> Ok kids. Here are some facts:
>
> The Case of the Missing Mechanism
>
> There are five critical areas where Darwinism and evolutionary theory
> in general are failing. They are:
>
> The unsubstantiation of a Darwinian mechanism of evolution
the mechanism of evolution is differential reproduction by natural
selection
it's observable AND testable. why do you lie about this when it's
easily provable you're lying?
oh. you're a creationist. you're used to lying.
> The total failure of origin of life studies to produce a workable
> model
origin of life has nothing to do with the evolution of life. you
creationists are very, very uneducated about evolution
> The inability of evolutionary mechanism to explain the origin of
> complex adaptations
the origin of complex adaptations is genetics...discovered by
scientists...not creationists who didn't even know genes existed.
> The bankruptcy of the blind watchmaker hypothesis
> The biological evidence that the rule in nature is morphological
> stability over time and not constant change.
really? then why do we see fossil populations changing with time?
again and again you lie. your lies are easily shown to be lies
what is demonstrated is that creationism is a lie. it is a failure
you request information about evolution you can not produce for
creationism
you lie about what evidence supports evolution
in short, you're just another religious fanatic
All-seeing-I
>
> Change accumulates over time. Strike five. Yer out.
Well. If the changes are going to accumulate where are your fossils of
a creature developing the new attribute such as a wing. There should
be plenty of evidence in the fossil record of creatures slowly
changing.
All-seeing-I
So. You are suggesting that natural selection is a guided process to
make it continuous.
All-seeing-I
> On Nov 2, 10:10 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > The biological evidence that the rule in nature is morphological
> > stability over time and not constant change.
>
> Does this evidence include the "morphological stability" of Dogs?
It says "constant change". Which would be necessary for evolution.
Variation from say, a wolf to a dog would not require the slow gradual
steps that evolution needs to be true. You can achieve variation
within a human life time with selective breeding, for instance.
wf3h
check the development of the inner ear from the jaws of reptiles.
plenty of evidence...
oh...and where's the evidence for creationism? you still haven't said.
double standard
Friar Broccoli
Well, here's evidence of a creature's brain trippling in size
over a 2.5 million year period. Does that count?
STS 5
Mrs. Ples
Species: Australopithecus africanus
Age: 2.6 million years
Brain Size: 485cc
http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/sts5.html
STS 71
Species: Australopithecus africanus
Age: 2.5 million years
Brain Size: 428cc
http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/sts71.html
KNM ER 1813
Species: Homo habilis
Age: 1.9 million years
Brain Size: 510cc
http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/ER1813.html
KNM ER 1470
Species: Homo rudolfensis
Age: 1.8 million years
Brain Size: 775cc
http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/er1470.html
KNM ER 3733
Species: Homo ergaster
Age: 1.75 million years
Brain Size: 850 cc
http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/ER3733.html
KNM WT 15000
"The Turkana Boy"
Species: Homo ergaster
Age: 1.6 million years
Brain Size: 880cc/910cc
http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/WT15k.html
[A link to a rotatable skull is at the bottom of the page]
Peking Man
Species: Homo erectus
Age: 500-230 thousand years
Brain Size: 1043cc (average of 5 skulls)
http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/weid.html
"Rhodesian Man"
Species: Homo heidelbergensis
Age: 300-125 thousand years
Brain Size: 1300 cc
http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/brokenhill.htm
Skhul V
Species: Homo sapiens
Age: ~90,000 years
Brain Size: modern (~1350cc)
http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/skhul.html
Cro-Magnon 1
Species: Homo sapiens
Age: ~30,000 years
Brain Size: modern (~1350cc)
http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/cromagnon.html
Friar Broccoli
But as living equids illustrate, nothing prevents the change from
continuing. The same is illustrated by lions and tigers two different
species that can still breed to produce viable offspring.
Ye Old One
There is - vast amounts.
>
>
Madman (aka Mudbrain) is on record as claiming:-
That 3.5% actually means 25%...
That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...
That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...
That wars have been fought because some scientific finding discredited
some facet of some religion...
To have a "higher education" than most posters to this news group...
To understand how geologists determine the age of any given sample of
rock...
That trilobites were Cambrian mammals... [that one still makes me
laugh]
And that he has "created genes" and not evolved ape genes...
That linguists have traced all the world's languages to the Middle
East region and back to around the same time as the bible claims Noah
and his sons rebuilt mankind.
Claimed that talk.origin's moderator was a troll.
Claimed cigarettes do not cause cancer.
Now, I ask you, is this the sort of guy you would give an credence to?
Certainly I don't.
--
Bob.
Sapient Fridge
<63861e7c-a8e4-4f56...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> writes
>On Nov 2, 10:16�am, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 2, 10:10�am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>[]
>>
>> > The biological evidence that the rule in nature is morphological
>> > stability over time and not constant change.
>>
>> Does this evidence include the "morphological stability" of Dogs?
>
>It says "constant change". Which would be necessary for evolution.
Nope, not true. The change does not have to be constant. It can be
fast, slow, or not happen at all for long periods of time if the
environment doesn't change.
The whole point of theory of punctuated equilibrium is that change can
happen relatively quickly with intervening periods of relative stasis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium
>Variation from say, a wolf to a dog would not require the slow gradual
>steps that evolution needs to be true.
Cite where the ToE says that change needs to be slow and gradual.
>You can achieve variation
>within a human life time with selective breeding, for instance.
Yep, and evolution can work quickly as well if the environment supports
it.
For example look at cane toads spreading over Australia:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4716252.stm
> The front toads also have much longer legs than the older populations
in
> Queensland.
> The researchers believe their findings indicate evolution is favouring
> longer-legged toads which can travel further, quicker, meaning they
can
> encroach on new territories faster than ever before.
Big changes need a large amount of time to build up, but small changes
can happen quickly. Quite obvious really.
--
sapient_...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
Grok: http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org * nuke a spammer *
Find: http://www.samspade.org http://www.netdemon.net * today *
Kill: http://mail-abuse.com http://au.sorbs.net http://spamhaus.org
MAB
Thanks for posting a link to 16 year old drivel. Maybe you could post
more recent drivel next time.
Davej
No, I'm asking why your Gawd doesn't need to interfere with gravity to
make it work but needs to constantly interfere with natural selection.
JohnN
All of this on top of the Banana Nightmare. How can evolution
survive? Oh the humanity!
JohnN
Mark Isaak
There's one at the British Museum in London. Go look. We'll return to
the subject after you have done so.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
Ye Old One
True, but then that is selective breeding controlled by humans on a
creature that has a relatively short breeding generation. Natural
selection, on the other hand, takes a bit longer.
Remember that domestic dogs have evolved from wolves, members of the
Canis genus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canis_species_and_subspecies
However, keep in mind (if you have one) that all of these are fairly
recent in the evolutionary story. The family Canidae go back about 50
million years to the split with the cat group.
--
Bob.
You have not been charged for this lesson - learn from it rather than
continuing to make a fool of yourself.
VoiceOfReason
Point taken.
Kermit
Well, here's three pages worth:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html#bird
Biplane! "Four-winged" bird transitional:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090928205415.htm
Brains are important, too:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090127165505.htm
Everybody's favorite was more dino than bird:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091009090436.htm
Bird fingers, the precursor to wings:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090617171816.htm
More...
http://www.bsu.edu/web/00cyfisher/
Kermit
All-Seeing-I
hahah.. ONE eh?
YoYo comes up with a brain, wf3h the god hater comes up with an inner
ear and you come up with ONE to represent millions of years and
billions of species?
Maybe Noah's flood destroyed all of your fossil evidence!
MeGa Byted of LauGhter!! You have NOTHING for the case of evolution.
Nadda.
All-Seeing-I
Just THAT to represent millions of years and billions of species?
umm.. No K.
THAT ain't reality
Dana Tweedy
No, that's to answer your specific question about "the new attribute such as
a wing". There are thousands of other examples of transitional fossils
showing "new" features.
>
> umm.. No K.
>
> THAT ain't reality
Actually, that is reality, which just squashed your fantasy.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
> On Nov 2, 4:00 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 09:33:26 -0800, All-seeing-I wrote:
>>> On Nov 2, 10:02 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>>>> Change accumulates over time. Strike five. Yer out.
>>
>>> Well. If the changes are going to accumulate where are your fossils
>>> of a creature developing the new attribute such as a wing. There
>>> should be plenty of evidence in the fossil record of creatures
>>> slowly changing.
>>
>> There's one at the British Museum in London. Go look. We'll return to
>> the subject after you have done so.
>>
>> --
>> Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
>> "It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
>> honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the
>> most pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." -
>> D. Hume
>
> hahah.. ONE eh?
Yep, one out of thousands.
> YoYo comes up with a brain, wf3h the god hater comes up with an inner
> ear and you come up with ONE to represent millions of years and
> billions of species?
Even one contradicts your claim, and as the others have pointed out, there
are many more.
>
> Maybe Noah's flood destroyed all of your fossil evidence!
Why would a flood destroy fossil evidence? Also, there's no evidence of a
global flood.
>
> MeGa Byted of LauGhter!! You have NOTHING for the case of evolution.
> Nadda.
Keep whistling, and ignoring the evidence. Maybe you'll convince yourself
someday.
DJT
wf3h
>
> hahah.. ONE eh?
> YoYo comes up with a brain, wf3h the god hater comes up with an inner
> ear and you come up with ONE to represent millions of years and
> billions of species?
ROFLMAO!! the creationist asks for evidence of evolution
when it's given he says he's not gonna accept it because it's evidence
of evolution; creationism is therefore true
such is creationist logic
>
> Maybe Noah's flood destroyed all of your fossil evidence!
maybe the fossil evidence destroyed evidence of noah's flood!
2000 years of failure and still whiffing it...the story of
creationism. a loser's ideology
Sox
"All-Seeing-I" <allse...@usa.com> wrote in message
news:40deb104-df1f-4da6...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
umm.. No K.
THAT ain't reality
-----------------------------------------------------
Clumsily done, indeed. You obviously have no idea how preposterous you are
(again). You start by objecting to the exhibit at the British Museum. Rather
than taking the time to refute that evidence, or even to discuss it, you
instead dismiss it out of hand with the lame comment "just one?".
Kermit obliges by presenting multiple references with multiple examples,
each presented with links to ample evidence should you care to actually look
at it. And again you do not attempt to refute the evidence and instead fall
back on the childish "is that all there is." Very sad. What is obvious to
any rational person is that you present yourself as one whose mind has
slammed shut so hard it refuses to even acknowledge the evidence presented
to it, let alone to come up with any cogent argument against it. Hint:
shrilly sceaming "Just THAT..." is not a credible argument, it is only
another indication of how desperate you are to ignore the evidence.
VoiceOfReason
Remain ignorant. You're more amusing that way.
Ron O
>
> There are five critical areas where Darwinism and evolutionary theory
> in general are failing. They are:
>
> The unsubstantiation of a Darwinian mechanism of evolution
> The total failure of origin of life studies to produce a workable
> model
> The inability of evolutionary mechanism to explain the origin of
> complex adaptations
> The bankruptcy of the blind watchmaker hypothesis
> stability over time and not constant change.
>
>
> http://www.origins.org/articles/bohlinray_5crises.html
> _________________________________________
>
> evolutionist!
>
heekster
Son, you and reality are mutually exclusive sets.
I'm certain that you do not know what that means.
Now, come on, say something really stupid.
Again.
All-seeing-I
Who said natural selection is a valid method or even a valid method
God would use?
wf3h
>
> Who said natural selection is a valid method or even a valid method
> God would use?-
god did. he left plenty of evidence he did.
no evidence, however, for creationism
Desertphile
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
> On Nov 2, 4:29 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 2, 9:33 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 2, 10:02 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> > > > Change accumulates over time. Strike five. Yer out.
> > > Well. If the changes are going to accumulate where are your fossils of
> > > a creature developing the new attribute such as a wing. There should
> > > be plenty of evidence in the fossil record of creatures slowly
> > > changing.
>> Well, here's three pages worth:
>> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html#bird
>>
>> Biplane! "Four-winged" bird transitional:
>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090928205415.htm
>>
>> Brains are important, too:
>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090127165505.htm
>>
>> Everybody's favorite was more dino than bird:
>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091009090436.htm
>>
>> Bird fingers, the precursor to wings:
>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090617171816.htm
>>
>> More... http://www.bsu.edu/web/00cyfisher/
>>
>> Kermit
> Just THAT to represent millions of years and billions of species?
Good gods that's hilarious! It's like being punched in the face by
Muhammad Ali (Cassius Marcellus Clay Jr) until one drops dead, and
the corpse saying "He dinna lay uh fing'r on me!"
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Boikat
> On Nov 2, 4:00 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 09:33:26 -0800, All-seeing-I wrote:
> > > On Nov 2, 10:02 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> > >> Change accumulates over time. Strike five. Yer out.
>
> > > Well. If the changes are going to accumulate where are your fossils of
> > > a creature developing the new attribute such as a wing. There should be
> > > plenty of evidence in the fossil record of creatures slowly changing.
>
> > There's one at the British Museum in London. Go look. We'll return to
> > the subject after you have done so.
>
> > --
> > Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
> > "It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
> > honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
> > pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
>
> hahah.. ONE eh?
> YoYo comes up with a brain, wf3h the god hater comes up with an inner
> ear and you come up with ONE to represent millions of years and
> billions of species?
There are also the fossils showing the development of the legs from
fins.
>
> Maybe Noah's flood destroyed all of your fossil evidence!
No flood, remember?
>
> MeGa Byted of LauGhter!! You have NOTHING for the case of evolution.
> Nadda.
You are an ignorant liar.
Boikat
>
> - Show quoted text -
Boikat
That's all that's needed, Mr. Cambrian Mammal = Trilobite. But what
makes you look even more stupid, is the fact that every years, more
fossils that illustrate transiotions are discovered. So, every year,
you are made to look even more stupid and ignorant.
Boikat
Boikat
> On Nov 2, 10:16 am, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 2, 10:10 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> []
>
> > > The biological evidence that the rule in nature is morphological
> > > stability over time and not constant change.
>
>
> It says "constant change". Which would be necessary for evolution.
Wrong.
>
> Variation from say, a wolf to a dog would not require the slow gradual
> steps that evolution needs to be true. You can achieve variation
> within a human life time with selective breeding, for instance.
And there is no real difference between "selective" breeding and
natural selection, other than the time involved, and the selective
agent.
Damn, you are stupid.
Boikat
hersheyh
I, for one, say that natural selection occurs and is a valid mechanism
that exists in the real world that everyone but you lives in.
Which of the requisite assumptions of natural selection do you think
is untrue?
1) Natural selection requires variation. If there were no mechanism
for generating new variation, random processes in the absence of
selection would eventually lead to the loss of all variation. So if
you can prove that mutation, which generates variation is impossible,
then you could disprove natural selection.
2) Natural selection could not occur if there were no such thing as
*genetic* variation. So, do you think that living populations are
genetically invariant or do you think they vary? If you could
demonstrate that all species lack genetic variation, then natural
selection could not occur.
2) Natural selection could not occur even if there were genetic
variation if these genetic variations did not affect an organism's
phenotype. So if you could demonstrate that genes have no effect, not
even a partial effect, on what an organism looks like or acts, you
could disprove natural selection.
3) Assuming that there is genetic variation that affected phenotypes,
natural selection could not occur if local environments did not impact
on the reproductive success of organisms with different phenotypes
*differentially*. So, if you could prove that no matter what an
organism's phenotype, it has an equal chance of producing offspring
relative to any other organism, then there would be no natural
selection. Instead, there would be neutral drift. Selection, by
definition, requires that the change in frequency each generation be
significantly larger than that expected for chance alone.
4) Even with all that, if it were magically the case that the
*differential* reproduction caused by the interaction of local
environments on genetically and phenotypically distinguishable
organisms did not result in a *differential* transfer of different
alleles into the next generation, there would be no natural selection.
So tell me which of the above statements allows you to claim evidence
for the falsity of the mechanism or process we call "natural
selection"?
[In fact, there *are* cases where genetic difference has no phenotypic
effect and some where phenotypic difference makes no difference in
reproductive success. Those cases are where we have neutral drift.
But for there to be no natural selection, that has to be true in *all*
cases.]
> or even a valid method
> God would use?
If there is a God, it is necessary that he uses natural selection
because natural selection exists in the real world.
Baron Bodissey
> On Nov 2, 12:33 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 2, 10:02 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>
> > > Change accumulates over time. Strike five. Yer out.
>
> > Well. If the changes are going to accumulate where are your fossils of
> > a creature developing the new attribute such as a wing. There should
> > be plenty of evidence in the fossil record of creatures slowly
> > changing.
>
> over a 2.5 million year period. Does that count?
>
> STS 5
> Mrs. Ples
> Species: Australopithecus africanus
> Age: 2.6 million years
> Brain Size: 485cchttp://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/sts5.html
>
> STS 71
> Species: Australopithecus africanus
> Age: 2.5 million years
> Brain Size: 428cchttp://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/sts71.html
>
> KNM ER 1813
> Species: Homo habilis
> Age: 1.9 million years
> Brain Size: 510cchttp://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/ER1813.html
>
> KNM ER 1470
> Species: Homo rudolfensis
> Age: 1.8 million years
> Brain Size: 775cchttp://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/er1470.html
>
> KNM ER 3733
> Species: Homo ergaster
> Age: 1.75 million years
> Brain Size: 850 cchttp://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/ER3733.html
>
> KNM WT 15000
> "The Turkana Boy"
> Species: Homo ergaster
> Age: 1.6 million years
> Brain Size: 880cc/910cchttp://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/WT15k.html
> [A link to a rotatable skull is at the bottom of the page]
>
> Peking Man
> Species: Homo erectus
> Age: 500-230 thousand years
> Brain Size: 1043cc (average of 5 skulls)http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/weid.html
>
> "Rhodesian Man"
> Species: Homo heidelbergensis
> Age: 300-125 thousand years
> Brain Size: 1300 cchttp://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/brokenhill.htm
>
> Skhul V
> Species: Homo sapiens
> Age: ~90,000 years
> Brain Size: modern (~1350cc)http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/skhul.html
>
> Cro-Magnon 1
> Species: Homo sapiens
> Age: ~30,000 years
> Brain Size: modern (~1350cc)http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/cromagnon.html
Yes, but it already had a brain.
As opposed to Madman.
Baron Bodissey
[A] belief is not considered delusional if it is accepted by other
members of an individual’s culture or subculture.
– Vila-Rodriguez and MacEwan, 2008. Am J Psychiatry 165: 1612.
All-seeing-I
> "All-Seeing-I" <allseei...@usa.com> wrote in message
>
Kermit can be quite the dog and pony show at times.
My mind is not closed. I have actively looked for bonafied evidence
that supports the ToE. (and i still do) As of now though, every bit of
the ToE has either more then one interpretation or is incomplete.
Furthermore, the ToE does not have a working testable model that
complies with the scientific method. It is all circumstantial evidence
with more then one interpretation. Dawkins himself says evolution is
all circumstancial. Darwin himself said there should be tons of fossil
evidence. There is not.
Now the critical part seems to be the circumstancial evidence. Al long
as the circumstancial evidence has more then a single interpretation
the ToE will remain inconclusive. So why present it in the media as a
fact?
What ramifications does this have? This means it takes the same kind
of "faith" to believe the circumstancial evidence that man evolved
from an ape as it takes to believe man was created by God. Anyone
with .05 percent of a working brain can see this.
On the one side there are ancient texts, recorded eye witness
accounts, and anecdotal evidences that are believed by millions for
thousands of years. There is no evidence to remotely suggest these
ancient documents (that span many cultures over many years) are one
big lie.
On the other side we have a mere 150 year old theory that, for the
most part, is circumstantial. The evidences around the theory itself
conflict with other evidences. If that were not enough, there is
infact a motivation for the ToE to be used by a small group of people
as a lie to deceive the masses.
So using deduction, which belief is the most viable ATM? "Man was
created" of course.
Now, if it were not abundantly clear that atheism has influenced the
ToE, I would be more inclined to give the ToE's circumstantial
evidence a benefit of the doubt..
But as long as their is an agenda behind the ToE it will require more
then circumstantial evidence to get any thinking person to believe it.
In fact, I would venture to say the ToE would be accepted by more
people right now if there were no ties to atheism.
The bottom line is the ToE is circumstancial and not conclusive while
the belief in God does in fact have eye witness accounts of
supernatural events associated with it.
No one has ever witnessed divergence speciation.
wf3h
>
> Kermit can be quite the dog and pony show at times.
>
> My mind is not closed.
theres's not a single person here...other than creationists...who
agrees with that. you're one of the most close minded people here. in
addition to your inability to think clearly you, like most other
creationists here, support terrorism. that's hardly 'open minded.'
I have actively looked for bonafied evidence
> that supports the ToE.
i haven't seen any evidence of that. what i HAVE seen is your:
-goalpost moving (eg when evidence was given of 'divergence' that you
yourself requested, you changed your mind and asked for evidence of
speciation.)
-comic book view of science (like most creationists you seem to think
science has to test EVERY idea under ALL possible conditions for a
theory to be valid.)
that's not science. it's creationism on the attack against knowledge
in addition, you REFUSE to be consistent. you REFUSE to subject
creationism to the same set of rules you use to attack science.
(and i still do) As of now though, every bit of
> the ToE has either more then one interpretation or is incomplete.
meaningless
> Furthermore, the ToE does not have a working testable model that
> complies with the scientific method.
i'm a scientist. you're not. you're a terrorist-supporting religious
fanatic.
when i look at evolution...even though i'm a chemist, i see the
scientific method at work. evolution HAS a testable mechanism. it HAS
been tested. it HAS been supported
thus your comic book view of science. you're in no position whatsoever
to tell us what is/isn't science at all.
It is all circumstantial evidence
> with more then one interpretation. Dawkins himself says evolution is
> all circumstancial. Darwin himself said there should be tons of fossil
> evidence. There is not.
you have been given evidence of
-speciation in diatoms over millions of years observed in the fossil
record
-the evolution of the inner ear from the jaws of reptiles
-the evolution of the horse
you completely ignore this evidence and pat yourself on the back for
being 'open minded' for replacing it with religion.
THEN you lie about the evidence saying you've never been given any
>
> Now the critical part seems to be the circumstancial evidence. Al long
> as the circumstancial evidence has more then a single interpretation
> the ToE will remain inconclusive. So why present it in the media as a
> fact?
no scientist...none...thinks the evidence is 'inconclusive'. and the
reasons are exactly those i've outlined above. YOU have a definition
of science which NO scientist uses THEN you say evolution isn't
science
your argument is circular. it's creationist in the extreme. it's a
failure. for 2000 years your idea has failed to explain nature yet
you BEG and PLEAD that it be considered science.
wrong.
>
> What ramifications does this have? This means it takes the same kind
> of "faith" to believe the circumstancial evidence that man evolved
> from an ape as it takes to believe man was created by God. Anyone
> with .05 percent of a working brain can see this.
meaningless cliche.
>
> On the one side there are ancient texts, recorded eye witness
> accounts
there are no photographs. there are no drawings of dinosaurs. there
are no descriptions from ancient text of dinosaurs
there is NO reason to think the ancient writers were accurately
describing dinosaurs. none.
, and anecdotal evidences that are believed by millions for
> thousands of years. There is no evidence to remotely suggest these
> ancient documents (that span many cultures over many years) are one
> big lie.
anecdotal evidence is no evidence at all compared to science. that's
one reason creationism is a failure. it has NO consistent view of
evidence. that's ANOTHER reason you have a comic-book view of science
anyone who considers gossip and hearsay to be as good evidence as a
TESTABLE model of evolution isn't practicing science. he's doing ouija
board theology.
>
> On the other side we have a mere 150 year old theory that, for the
> most part, is circumstantial.
it's not circumstantial at all. and quantum theory is only 100 years
old yet it's explained more about the atom in 100 years than
creationism did in 2000
where's the creationist computer? there is none
where's the creationist model of DNA? there is none
where's the creationist model of disease? there is none
again and again and again creationism has been a failure. your model
is a FAILURE. read it and weep. your view of nature has failed. it's
wrong. it's useless.
The evidences around the theory itself
> conflict with other evidences. If that were not enough, there is
> infact a motivation for the ToE to be used by a small group of people
> as a lie to deceive the masses.
gee. aren't we fortunate enough to have someone.. believing an idea
that's been used to dupe the masses for 2000 years...tell us of an
idea to dupe the masses.
i guess you're an expert on that!
>
> So using deduction, which belief is the most viable ATM? "Man was
> created" of course.
deduction? logic? if you used logic you wouldnt be a creationist.
>
> Now, if it were not abundantly clear that atheism has influenced the
> ToE, I would be more inclined to give the ToE's circumstantial
> evidence a benefit of the doubt..
paranoia. creationism causes paranoia. there's no reason a japanese
scientist would agree with a canadia and an indian and french
scientist about evolution if it were due to atheism.
but the creationist model of reality...based SOLELY on
religion...leads to paranoia.
>
> But as long as their is an agenda behind the ToE it will require more
> then circumstantial evidence to get any thinking person to believe it.
> In fact, I would venture to say the ToE would be accepted by more
> people right now if there were no ties to atheism.
YOU define as atheism because your argument is that 'god did it'. your
idea is a failure because you yourself tried to frame it in a way that
led to conclusions about the natural world
and those conclusions are wrong. your argument is circular.
>
> The bottom line is the ToE is circumstancial and not conclusive while
> the belief in God does in fact have eye witness accounts of
> supernatural events associated with it.
evolution has eyewitnesses. it's testable.
'belief in god' is meaninless. there are 38,000 christian
denominations. which has the 'true' view of god. there are dozens of
schools of islam. which has the 'true' view of god?
belief in god is circumstantial. and 'supernatural'? there's ANOTHER
failed idea. in the entire history of humanity, EVERYTHING at one time
or another was supernatural. mountains. clouds. stars, cats, dogs,
rain, rivers, oceans, rocks, trees, bulls, fertility, earth, the sun,
the moon...
and yet after ALL of these have failed...you still say the
supernatural is right and OBSERVABLE scientific facts are wrong
no wonder young people are turning away from religion. no wonder 'non
believers' are the fastest growing group in the US. creationism is
partly to blame.
>
> No one has ever witnessed divergence speciation
'divergence speciation' is ANOTHER meaningless term. creationists have
a comic book view of science.
richardal...@googlemail.com
FALSEHOOD #1
The evidence of you posts shows quite clearly that it is.
> I have actively looked for bonafied evidence
> that supports the ToE.
FALSEHOOD #2
The evidence of you posts shows quite clearly that you don't.
> (and i still do)
FALSEHOOD #3
The evidence of you posts shows quite clearly that you don't
> As of now though, every bit of
> the ToE has either more then one interpretation or is incomplete.
FALSEHOOD #4
As it is clear that you know little of evolutionary theory, such an
assertion is at best ignorant, at worst an outright lie.
> Furthermore, the ToE does not have a working testable model that
> complies with the scientific method.
FALSEHOOD #5
As it is clear that you know little of evolutionary theory, such an
assertion is at best ignorant, at worst an outright lie.
> It is all circumstantial evidence
FALSEHOOD #6
It includes observations and measurements of the processes of
evolution in action both in natural populations and in the laboratory.
> with more then one interpretation.
FALSEHOOD #7
There is no honest interpretation which does not conclude that
evolution happens and is responsible for the diversity of life on this
planet.
> Dawkins himself says evolution is
> all circumstancial.
FALSEHOOD #8
Dawkins says nothing of the sort, and even if he had he would be
wrong.
> Darwin himself said there should be tons of fossil
> evidence. There is not.
FALSEHOOD #9
The discovery of Archaeopteryx only a few years after Darwin published
"Origin of species" presented exactly the sort of transitional form
his theory predicted. Since then we have discovered many more such
forms.
>
> Now the critical part seems to be the circumstancial evidence.
FALSEHOOD #10
No, the critical part is the direct evidence from observation and
measurement of evolution in action in populations of organisms.
> Al long
> as the circumstancial evidence has more then a single interpretation
> the ToE will remain inconclusive. So why present it in the media as a
> fact?
Because it is a fact that evolution happens.
>
> What ramifications does this have?
None, because your whole argument is built on a series of falsehoods.
>This means it takes the same kind
> of "faith" to believe the circumstancial evidence that man evolved
> from an ape as it takes to believe man was created by God.
FALSEHOOD #11
It does not take any faith whatsoever to accept the findings of
science in respect of man's origins, only the honesty to address the
evidence.
You are also presenting a false dichotomy. One can believe that God
used the process of evolution to create man. That is a position of
faith.
> Anyone
> with .05 percent of a working brain can see this.
I suggest that anyone with a working brain can see how utterly facile
and dishonest your arguments are.
>
> On the one side there are ancient texts, recorded eye witness
> accounts, and anecdotal evidences that are believed by millions for
> thousands of years.
So what? People believed that thunder was caused by Gods for thousands
of years.
> There is no evidence to remotely suggest these
> ancient documents (that span many cultures over many years) are one
> big lie.
FALSEHOOD #12
There is, however, extensive evidence which shows that one cannot read
the numerous different (and contradictory) accounts of creation in all
those different documents as a scientific account of the history of
life on this planet.
>
> On the other side we have a mere 150 year old theory that, for the
> most part, is circumstantial.
FALSEHOOD #13
The evidence for evolution by natural selection is *not*
circumstantial.
> The evidences around the theory itself
> conflict with other evidences.
FALSEHOOD #14
There is no scientific evidence which conflicts with the conclusion
that evolution is the process which produced the diversity of life on
this planet.
> If that were not enough, there is
> infact a motivation for the ToE to be used by a small group of people
> as a lie to deceive the masses.
FALSEHOOD #15
...and an outrageous slur on the honesty of evolutionary scientists.
There *is* however extensive evidence that creationists rely on the
ignorance of people to promote their claim for the scientific
legitimacy of their religious beliefs.
Here is some of that evidence:
http://www.plesiosaur.com/creationism/index.php
If you can demonstrate that I am wrong in my conclusion that
creationist sources are guilty of systematic dishonesty, please
provide a link to an honest creationist source. I've asked this
question many times of creationists, but none have provided such a
link.
I have also asked creationists to provide a link to any "evolutionist"
web site they think is dishonest. None has responded to that request
either.
I can see no other conclusion but that creationists are systematically
dishonest, accept that they are systematically dishonest, and don't
care that they are systematically dishonest.
What other conclusion can you draw from this evidence?
>
> So using deduction, which belief is the most viable ATM? "Man was
> created" of course.
...which tells us nothing whatsoever about *how* man was created, and
is therefore utterly useless as a scientific proposition.
>
> Now, if it were not abundantly clear that atheism has influenced the
> ToE,
FALSEHOOD #16
There is no evidence that atheism has influence evolutionary theory
any more that it has influenced any other theory in any other field of
science.
> I would be more inclined to give the ToE's circumstantial
> evidence a benefit of the doubt..
FALSEHOOD #17
It is perfectly clear from your posts that you know little of science
in general and evolutionary theory in particular, and have neither the
desire not the intention to educate yourself in the subject.
>
> But as long as their is an agenda behind the ToE
FALSEHOOD #18
There is no evidence that atheism has influence evolutionary theory
any more that it has influenced any other theory in any other field of
science.
> it will require more
> then circumstantial evidence to get any thinking person to believe it.
> In fact, I would venture to say the ToE would be accepted by more
> people right now if there were no ties to atheism.
FALSEHOOD #19
There is no evidence that atheism has influence evolutionary theory
any more that it has influenced any other theory in any other field of
science.
>
> The bottom line is the ToE is circumstancial
FALSEHOOD #20
> and not conclusive while
> the belief in God does in fact have eye witness accounts of
> supernatural events associated with it.
...none of which stand up to scientific scrutiny.
>
> No one has ever witnessed divergence speciation.
FALSEHOOD #21
There are literally hundreds of instance of speciation recorded in the
scientific literature.
So, 21 outright falsehoods in one post.
Are you in competition with Pagano?
RF
Friar Broccoli
Too bad All-seeing-I won't be able to understand it.
Burkhard
Ye Old One
<ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Science has showen it to be so.
>or even a valid method
>God would use?
Nobody.
Ye Old One
<ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
I don't believe you have one.
> I have actively looked for bonafied evidence
>that supports the ToE. (and i still do) As of now though, every bit of
>the ToE has either more then one interpretation or is incomplete.
Oh dear, misreading things again.
>Furthermore, the ToE does not have a working testable model that
>complies with the scientific method.
Liar!
> It is all circumstantial evidence
>with more then one interpretation. Dawkins himself says evolution is
>all circumstancial. Darwin himself said there should be tons of fossil
>evidence. There is not.
Liar!
>
>Now the critical part seems to be the circumstancial evidence. Al long
>as the circumstancial evidence has more then a single interpretation
>the ToE will remain inconclusive. So why present it in the media as a
>fact?
Because evolution is a fact.
>
>What ramifications does this have? This means it takes the same kind
>of "faith" to believe the circumstancial evidence that man evolved
>from an ape
Man is an ape you moron!
> as it takes to believe man was created by God. Anyone
>with .05 percent of a working brain can see this.
When you get yourself a whole brain, plus an education, you will see
how stupid you have been.
>
>On the one side there are ancient texts,
Largely fiction.
> recorded eye witness
>accounts,
Prove it.
> and anecdotal evidences that are believed by millions for
>thousands of years.
So a lot of people are gullible. So what?
> There is no evidence to remotely suggest these
>ancient documents (that span many cultures over many years) are one
>big lie.
No, they are large collections of very small lies. Just like your
usenet posts.
>
>On the other side we have a mere 150 year old theory that, for the
>most part, is circumstantial.
What do you claim is circumstantial?
> The evidences around the theory itself
>conflict with other evidences.
No, that is another of your inventions.
> If that were not enough, there is
>infact a motivation for the ToE to be used by a small group of people
>as a lie to deceive the masses.
Liar!
>
>So using deduction, which belief is the most viable ATM? "Man was
>created" of course.
Find one bit of evidence for that.
>
>Now, if it were not abundantly clear that atheism has influenced the
>ToE, I would be more inclined to give the ToE's circumstantial
>evidence a benefit of the doubt..
>
>But as long as their is an agenda behind the ToE it will require more
>then circumstantial evidence to get any thinking person to believe it.
And yet the vast majority of thinking people do believe it - mainly
because evolution is a fact.
>In fact, I would venture to say the ToE would be accepted by more
>people right now if there were no ties to atheism.
It has no ties. It is science.
>
>The bottom line is the ToE is circumstancial and not conclusive while
>the belief in God does in fact have eye witness accounts of
>supernatural events associated with it.
Then find one that holds up to examination.
>
>No one has ever witnessed divergence speciation.
Liar!
Madman (aka Mudbrain) is on record as claiming:-
That 3.5% actually means 25%...
That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...
That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...
That wars have been fought because some scientific finding discredited
some facet of some religion...
To have a "higher education" than most posters to this news group...
To understand how geologists determine the age of any given sample of
rock...
That trilobites were Cambrian mammals... [that one still makes me
laugh]
And that he has "created genes" and not evolved ape genes...
That linguists have traced all the world's languages to the Middle
East region and back to around the same time as the bible claims Noah
and his sons rebuilt mankind.
Claimed that talk.origin's moderator was a troll.
Claimed cigarettes do not cause cancer.
Now, I ask you, is this the sort of guy you would give an credence to?
Certainly I don't.
--
Bob.
VoiceOfReason
Your posts prove otherwise.
> I have actively looked for bonafied evidence
> that supports the ToE. (and i still do)
Nonsense. The only thing you look for is science-denial. Your posts
are also proof of that.
> As of now though, every bit of
> the ToE has either more then one interpretation or is incomplete.
As it should be in science. Science is never "complete," else there'd
be no reason to do science.
> Furthermore, the ToE does not have a working testable model that
> complies with the scientific method.
This you know to be a lie.
> It is all circumstantial evidence
> with more then one interpretation. Dawkins himself says evolution is
> all circumstancial. Darwin himself said there should be tons of fossil
> evidence. There is not.
Counting the many fossils of large dinosaurs found to date, there
actually are literally "tons" of evidence.
> Now the critical part seems to be the circumstancial evidence. Al long
> as the circumstancial evidence has more then a single interpretation
> the ToE will remain inconclusive. So why present it in the media as a
> fact?
Evolution *is* a fact. It's directly observed, both in the lab and in
the wild. You know this, as it's been demonstrated to you time and
again. Why lie about it?
> What ramifications does this have? This means it takes the same kind
> of "faith" to believe the circumstancial evidence that man evolved
> from an ape as it takes to believe man was created by God. Anyone
> with .05 percent of a working brain can see this.
It takes no faith. It takes intelligence supplemented with education.
> On the one side there are ancient texts, recorded eye witness
> accounts, and anecdotal evidences that are believed by millions for
> thousands of years. There is no evidence to remotely suggest these
> ancient documents (that span many cultures over many years) are one
> big lie.
So you believe in the Greek Gods then? In Odin? Baal? Okeus?
> On the other side we have a mere 150 year old theory that, for the
> most part, is circumstantial. The evidences around the theory itself
> conflict with other evidences. If that were not enough, there is
> infact a motivation for the ToE to be used by a small group of people
> as a lie to deceive the masses.
Lame conspiracy theories are for the gullible.
> So using deduction, which belief is the most viable ATM? "Man was
> created" of course.
Most viable for toddlers. Educated adults are capable of more complex
understanding.
> Now, if it were not abundantly clear that atheism has influenced the
> ToE, I would be more inclined to give the ToE's circumstantial
> evidence a benefit of the doubt..
Most of the important discoveries of science, including evolution,
were made by theists. Science is not atheistic, as you well know.
Most theists accept the facts of science. It is mostly poorly
educated fundamentalists, insecure about their faith, who reject
reality.
> But as long as their is an agenda behind the ToE it will require more
> then circumstantial evidence to get any thinking person to believe it.
> In fact, I would venture to say the ToE would be accepted by more
> people right now if there were no ties to atheism.
The only people who tie evolution to atheism are dishonest
creationists.
> The bottom line is the ToE is circumstancial and not conclusive while
> the belief in God does in fact have eye witness accounts of
> supernatural events associated with it.
False dichotomy. Evolution and theism are not mutually exclusive,
regardless of creationist disinformation to the contrary. It is quite
revealing that creationism depends on such lies. Such is the moral
bankruptcy of the creationist movement.
> No one has ever witnessed divergence speciation.
Which you know to be a lie.
All-Seeing-I
DO IT SOON!
YOU NEED MEDICATION BEFORE YOU HURT YOURSELF
GET A STRAIT JACKET AND SOME MEDICATION FROM A COMPETENT MENTAL HEALTH
CARE PROVIDER
DO IT SOON!!!
All-Seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
oh lookie here! The one trick pony is doing his show.
wf3h
> SEEK PROFESSIONAL HELP!
>
> DO IT SOON!
>
> YOU NEED MEDICATION BEFORE YOU HURT YOURSELF
>
the creationist, lacking a viable defense, reaches into his bag of
cliches and pulls out the above....
no surprise. with fanatics like him blowing up girls' schools in the
middle east, all they have left are their cliches.
Erwin Moller
> I've never seen this argument so well presented.
> Too bad All-seeing-I won't be able to understand it.
Agree. Very clearly written.
A worthy POTM nomination.
And I too expect Madman/All-seeing-I simply won't understand it, nor
will he care he doesn't get it.
Regards,
Erwin Moller
--
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult."
-- C.A.R. Hoare
raven1
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
Your behavior indicates exactly the opposite.
> I have actively looked for bonafied evidence
>that supports the ToE. (and i still do)
Yet when presented with it, you ignore it, and ask "is that all there
is?". Very, very dishonest on your part.
Mike Lyle
> SEEK PROFESSIONAL HELP!
[...etc...]
Yes, yes. But, Adman, why _don't_ you, as Richard suggests, point us to
an "evolutionist" website which supports its case with lies, and a
"creationist" site which doesn't use discredited evidence? As you know,
his claim is that you can't actually do it.
--
Mike.
Steven L.
No, the more militant atheists have tied them together too:
"The more you understand the significance of evolution, the more you are
pushed away from the agnostic position and towards atheism."
-- Richard Dawkins, in "The New Humanist"
"Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin,
Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."
-- Richard Dawkins, "The Blind Watchmaker"
P.Z. Myers and the Discovery Institute disagree on nearly everything
except one thing: Science and religion are epistemologically incompatible.
So the dismissal of the ToE by the creationists is mirrored in the
dismissal of religion by the atheists who claim to be upholding the
banner of science.
>> The bottom line is the ToE is circumstancial and not conclusive while
>> the belief in God does in fact have eye witness accounts of
>> supernatural events associated with it.
>
> False dichotomy. Evolution and theism are not mutually exclusive,
Sometime, you should try telling that to P.Z. Myers or Jerry Coyne or
"Ye Old One" here on this NG, instead of just telling that to creationists.
They'll answer you right back.
I notice that the defenders of the ToE here on this NG are so quick to
claim that there is no conflict between the ToE and Christianity, when
they are trying to debate *creationists*--but they never try to foist
this particular claim on the *atheists* here, or on blogs like
"Pharyngula." Because they know that the atheists don't accept it either.
Sounds duplicitous to me.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
raven1
Your inability to address any of his points is duly noted.
raven1
<sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> False dichotomy. Evolution and theism are not mutually exclusive,
>
>Sometime, you should try telling that to P.Z. Myers or Jerry Coyne or
>"Ye Old One"
Do they speak for all atheists?
> here on this NG, instead of just telling that to creationists.
>
>They'll answer you right back.
Try telling the Pope that they *are* mutually exclusive, and I suspect
he'll answer you right back as well.
>I notice that the defenders of the ToE here on this NG are so quick to
>claim that there is no conflict between the ToE and Christianity,
Those goalposts must be heavy. The original statement referenced
theism, not Christianity.
> when
>they are trying to debate *creationists*--but they never try to foist
>this particular claim on the *atheists* here, or on blogs like
>"Pharyngula." Because they know that the atheists don't accept it either.
I'm an atheist who sees no conflict between the ToE and theism. Nor
between the ToE and Christianity, for that matter. It does conflict
with Biblical Literalism, but that's not representative of mainstream
Christian belief.
>Sounds duplicitous to me.
Not at all.
Kent Paul Dolan
Evolution's nervous breakdown.
but retitled to highlight a different aspect of what
was achieved in hershryh's excellent News article.
hersheyh wrote:
> Some self-absorbed moron wrote:
>> Who said natural selection is a valid method
> I, for one, say that natural selection occurs and
> is a valid mechanism that exists in the real world
> that everyone but you lives in.
> Which of the requisite assumptions of natural
> selection do you think is untrue?
> 1) Natural selection requires variation. If there
> were no mechanism for generating new variation,
> random processes in the absence of selection would
> eventually lead to the loss of all variation. So
> if you can prove that mutation, which generates
> variation is impossible, then you could disprove
> natural selection.
> 2) Natural selection could not occur if there were
> no such thing as *genetic* variation. So, do you
> think that living populations are genetically
> invariant or do you think they vary? If you could
> demonstrate that all species lack genetic
> variation, then natural selection could not occur.
> 3) Natural selection could not occur even if there
> were genetic variation if these genetic variations
> did not affect an organism's phenotype. So if you
> could demonstrate that genes have no effect, not
> even a partial effect, on what an organism looks
> like or acts, you could disprove natural
> selection.
> 4) Assuming that there is genetic variation that
> affected phenotypes, natural selection could not
> occur if local environments did not impact on the
> reproductive success of organisms with different
> phenotypes *differentially*. So, if you could
> prove that no matter what an organism's phenotype,
> it has an equal chance of producing offspring
> relative to any other organism, then there would
> be no natural selection. Instead, there would be
> neutral drift. Selection, by definition, requires
> that the change in frequency each generation be
> significantly larger than that expected for chance
> alone.
> 5) Even with all that, if it were magically the
> case that the *differential* reproduction caused
> by the interaction of local environments on
> genetically and phenotypically distinguishable
> organisms did not result in a *differential*
> transfer of different alleles into the next
> generation, there would be no natural selection.
> So tell me which of the above statements allows
> you to claim evidence for the falsity of the
> mechanism or process we call "natural selection"?
> [In fact, there *are* cases where genetic
> difference has no phenotypic effect and some where
> phenotypic difference makes no difference in
> reproductive success. Those cases are where we
> have neutral drift. But for there to be no
> natural selection, that has to be true in *all*
> cases.]
>> or even a valid method God would use?
> If there is a God, it is necessary that he uses
> natural selection because natural selection exists
> in the real world.
[I fixed up your item numbering.]
Besides earning you a well deserved POTM nomination,
it is well worth noting that you have _also_
provided _five_ ways to falsify the Theory of
Evolution, thus completely debunking the frequent
mendacious creationist claim that the ToE is somehow
"unfalsifiable".
Well done.
xanthian.
LT
I would expect nothing more from you after being so utterly and
soundly dismantled. wf3h summed you up very well, and you respond with
the above. It's funny, but it's also creepy, the way you behave.
LT
John Harshman
Actually, those are five ways to falsify the theory of natural
selection. Don't confuse that with the theory of evolution.
LT
Madman, do you somehow get off on being made a fool of? Is that why
you do this? Or are you sincerely as ignorant and impervious to reason
as you appear to be? Either way, I pity you.
And then I laugh at you. Thanks for the entertainment. :)
LT
hersheyh
I would only say that I have tossed off a few ways to falsify the
possibility of natural selection. That would rule out evolution by
the mechanism of natural selection, but would not rule out other
possible mechanisms. It also would not rule out the unlikely
possiblity that natural selection cannot, even in principle, lead to
speciation. I haven't seen any creationist ever demonstrate that
impossibility nor provide any reason why it should exist. If natural
selection could not lead to speciation, that would only mean that
there would have to be other mechanisms to generate new species. [A
reminder to creationists, species formation is NOT the strawman
argument of either a chimp -- another modern species -- nor even the
common ancestor to chimps and humans magically giving birth to modern
humans directly. In the human lineage we know that there were at
least 5-6 different speciation events. Speciation is more like a late
H.erectus population generating, over a number of generations, a
population of primitive H. sapiens, with intermediate stages of
population variability in which it is hard to tell which species a
specimen belongs to.]
The key event in descent with modification is speciation. Demonstrate
that speciation is impossible, that there is some barrier to
speciation, and you will have demonstrated that descent with
modification (aka, evolution) is impossible. Some other explanation
would be needed for the clear patterns found in nature (the nested
hierarchies). The first step, however, a creationist would have to
start with a clear, operational definition of 'species' as opposed to
kindergarten taxonomy. They could read Wilkins' book. But that is
probably over their heads. In fact, books that do not devote more
page space to cartoon drawings than to text is probably over their
heads.
>
> Well done.
>
> xanthian.
Burkhard
Really? I remember rather torturous exchanges involving me, Gramond,
Bob Casanova and several others arguing with snex about just that,
and I'm also on record that I think PZ Myers brings academia into
disrepute.
And on another thread, I'm at present trying to disabuse YOO of the
idea that religious scientists are of necessity "second rate",
pointing out in particular that this claim is as evidence free as the
creationists at their worst.
Because they know that the atheists don't accept it either.
>
> Sounds duplicitous to me.
>
> --
> Steven L.
> Email: sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
VoiceOfReason
As Dawkins is one voice among many, I hardly think he's a truly
representative case. OTOH, tying evolution to atheism can be found on
just about any creationist site you can find.
> P.Z. Myers and the Discovery Institute disagree on nearly everything
> except one thing: Science and religion are epistemologically incompatible.
Bully for them, but most theists feel differently.
> So the dismissal of the ToE by the creationists is mirrored in the
> dismissal of religion by the atheists who claim to be upholding the
> banner of science.
Fanatic creationists attack science, and fanatic atheists attack
religion. They are two sides to the same coin of intolerance. Most
people are not so extreme.
> >> The bottom line is the ToE is circumstancial and not conclusive while
> >> the belief in God does in fact have eye witness accounts of
> >> supernatural events associated with it.
> >
> > False dichotomy. Evolution and theism are not mutually exclusive,
>
> Sometime, you should try telling that to P.Z. Myers or Jerry Coyne or
> "Ye Old One" here on this NG, instead of just telling that to creationists.
>
> They'll answer you right back.
Again, bully for them, but they are only a few voices among millions.
The fact remains that many millions (perhaps billions) of theists
accept both science and faith. That extremists on both ends don't
like it is their own problem.
> I notice that the defenders of the ToE here on this NG are so quick to
> claim that there is no conflict between the ToE and Christianity, when
> they are trying to debate *creationists*-- but they never try to foist
> this particular claim on the *atheists* here,
Creationist lies are irritating, and I do tend to call them on it. In
my own experience, atheists here lie far less frequently, and tend to
be more tolerant of different views.
> or on blogs like
> "Pharyngula." Because they know that the atheists don't accept it either.
Why should I pester people on a web site run by an atheist? I'm not
out to convert anybody.
> Sounds duplicitous to me.
Mote, beam, etc.
I like science. I'm against anything that misrepresents science. In
most cases, that means attacking the lies of creationists. As far as
the atheists are concerned, I find it unfortunate that some of the
stronger supporters of science are atheists, since that plays into
creationist propaganda.
John Harshman
>
> The key event in descent with modification is speciation. Demonstrate
> that speciation is impossible, that there is some barrier to
> speciation, and you will have demonstrated that descent with
> modification (aka, evolution) is impossible.
I have to disagree. The key events in descent with modification are a)
descent and b) modification. Speciation is vital for branching
evolution, diversity, and such. But you can have as much evolution as
you like in a single lineage without any speciation at all.
> Some other explanation
> would be needed for the clear patterns found in nature (the nested
> hierarchies). The first step, however, a creationist would have to
> start with a clear, operational definition of 'species' as opposed to
> kindergarten taxonomy. They could read Wilkins' book. But that is
> probably over their heads. In fact, books that do not devote more
> page space to cartoon drawings than to text is probably over their
> heads.
Creationists aren't stupid. They just wear those special glasses that
become opaque whenever they're in danger of seeing anything that might
inform them.
hersheyh
> hersheyh wrote:
>
> > The key event in descent with modification is speciation. Demonstrate
> > that speciation is impossible, that there is some barrier to
> > speciation, and you will have demonstrated that descent with
> > modification (aka, evolution) is impossible.
>
> I have to disagree. The key events in descent with modification are a)
> descent and b) modification. Speciation is vital for branching
> evolution, diversity, and such. But you can have as much evolution as
> you like in a single lineage without any speciation at all.
Yes. But evolution without branching would, as you point out, not
produce a variety of organisms. Merely one twig that changed over
time. And there is the definitional problem with such an unbranched
change. At what point is the *modern* population so different from
the *ancestral* one that it really should be considered a new
species. [And it may be that H. erectus and H. sapiens might be an
example.] I would argue that at some point the *modern* population
must be considered a new species distinct from the *ancestral* one.
But it is hard to say exactly where that boundary would be. Fuzzy
boundaries during the *process* of speciation (whether branching or
not) are to be expected, aren't they? Which is why subspecies and
ring species and variable interspecies hybridization are supporting
evidence for a speciation process.
Kalkidas
8909ab...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 2, 12:33�pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 2, 10:02�am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > Change accumulates over time. Strike five. Yer out.
>>
>> Well. If the changes are going to accumulate where are your fossils of
>> a creature developing the new attribute such as a wing. There should
>> be plenty of evidence in the fossil record of creatures slowly
>> changing.
>
> Well, here's evidence of a creature's brain trippling in size
> over a 2.5 million year period. Does that count?
>
> STS 5
> Mrs. Ples
> Species: Australopithecus africanus
> Age: 2.6 million years
> Brain Size: 485cc
> http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/sts5.html
>
>
> STS 71
> Species: Australopithecus africanus
> Age: 2.5 million years
> Brain Size: 428cc
> http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/sts71.html
>
>
> KNM ER 1813
> Species: Homo habilis
> Age: 1.9 million years
> Brain Size: 510cc
> http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/ER1813.html
>
>
> KNM ER 1470
> Species: Homo rudolfensis
> Age: 1.8 million years
> Brain Size: 775cc
> http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/er1470.html
>
>
> KNM ER 3733
> Species: Homo ergaster
> Age: 1.75 million years
> Brain Size: 850 cc
> http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/ER3733.html
>
>
> KNM WT 15000
> "The Turkana Boy"
> Species: Homo ergaster
> Age: 1.6 million years
> Brain Size: 880cc/910cc
> http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/WT15k.html
> [A link to a rotatable skull is at the bottom of the page]
>
>
> Peking Man
> Species: Homo erectus
> Age: 500-230 thousand years
> Brain Size: 1043cc (average of 5 skulls)
> http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/weid.html
>
>
> "Rhodesian Man"
> Species: Homo heidelbergensis
> Age: 300-125 thousand years
> Brain Size: 1300 cc
> http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/brokenhill.htm
>
>
> Skhul V
> Species: Homo sapiens
> Age: ~90,000 years
> Brain Size: modern (~1350cc)
> http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/skhul.html
>
>
> Cro-Magnon 1
> Species: Homo sapiens
> Age: ~30,000 years
> Brain Size: modern (~1350cc)
> http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/cromagnon.html
These are not instances of "a creature" like you said. They are different
species.
No "creature's brain" tripled in size. Different creatures have different
brain sizes. That's all.
Mark Isaak
> On Nov 2, 4:00 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 09:33:26 -0800, All-seeing-I wrote:
>> > On Nov 2, 10:02 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>> >> Change accumulates over time. Strike five. Yer out.
>>
>> > Well. If the changes are going to accumulate where are your fossils of
>> > a creature developing the new attribute such as a wing. There should
>> > be plenty of evidence in the fossil record of creatures slowly
>> > changing.
>>
>> There's one at the British Museum in London. Go look. We'll return
>> to the subject after you have done so.
>>
> hahah.. ONE eh?
Back already? What did you think of it? After you talk about it a bit,
I'll tell you where in Nairobi you can find the next few.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
Ray Martinez
Creationists point out ToE's unfalsifiability based on starting
assumptions. Once the concept of evolution is accepted to explain
nature it is not falsifiable, only modifiable.
Ray
> > xanthian.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Dan Listermann
"Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote in message
news:Xns9CB88E22C8...@202.177.16.121...
What an asinine dodge? Do tell us where the Cro-Magnon fossils from 2.5
million years ago are . . .
.
Dan Listermann
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:61b9040e-8928-437d...@h40g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 3, 11:37 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 3, 2:05 pm, Kent Paul Dolan <xanth...@well.com> wrote:
>
<Creationists point out ToE's unfalsifiability based on starting
assumptions. Once the concept of evolution is accepted to explain
nature it is not falsifiable, only modifiable.
<
Scientists point out Creationisms unfaulseability based onstarting
assumptions. Once the concept of Creation is accepted to explain nature, it
is not falsifiable or open to question.
.
John Harshman
> On Nov 3, 2:46 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> hersheyh wrote:
>>
>>> The key event in descent with modification is speciation. Demonstrate
>>> that speciation is impossible, that there is some barrier to
>>> speciation, and you will have demonstrated that descent with
>>> modification (aka, evolution) is impossible.
>> I have to disagree. The key events in descent with modification are a)
>> descent and b) modification. Speciation is vital for branching
>> evolution, diversity, and such. But you can have as much evolution as
>> you like in a single lineage without any speciation at all.
>
> Yes. But evolution without branching would, as you point out, not
> produce a variety of organisms. Merely one twig that changed over
> time. And there is the definitional problem with such an unbranched
> change. At what point is the *modern* population so different from
> the *ancestral* one that it really should be considered a new
> species.
I would consider that a meaningless question, as would many.
Chronospecies are not useful.
> [And it may be that H. erectus and H. sapiens might be an
> example.] I would argue that at some point the *modern* population
> must be considered a new species distinct from the *ancestral* one.
Why? The concept of "species" really can't be profitably extended much
in time. It's even difficult to extend it in space.
> But it is hard to say exactly where that boundary would be. Fuzzy
> boundaries during the *process* of speciation (whether branching or
> not) are to be expected, aren't they? Which is why subspecies and
> ring species and variable interspecies hybridization are supporting
> evidence for a speciation process.
Agreed.
Bruce Stephens
> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:00:07 -0800, All-Seeing-I wrote:
>
>> On Nov 2, 4:00 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 09:33:26 -0800, All-seeing-I wrote:
>>> > On Nov 2, 10:02 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>>> >> Change accumulates over time. Strike five. Yer out.
[...]
>>> There's one at the British Museum in London. Go look. We'll return
>>> to the subject after you have done so.
>>>
>> hahah.. ONE eh?
>
> Back already? What did you think of it? After you talk about it a
> bit, I'll tell you where in Nairobi you can find the next few.
And if he did see it, I'd be curious to know where, exactly.
(As far as I know there's nothing particularly relevant in the British
Museum. The Natural History Museum (some way away from the British
Museum, though within walking distance (depending on one's tolerance for
walking)) has the majority of the fossils (unsurprisingly, though the
name "British Museum" is confusingly generic).)
hersheyh
> hersheyh wrote:
> > On Nov 3, 2:46 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> hersheyh wrote:
>
> >>> The key event in descent with modification is speciation. Demonstrate
> >>> that speciation is impossible, that there is some barrier to
> >>> speciation, and you will have demonstrated that descent with
> >>> modification (aka, evolution) is impossible.
> >> I have to disagree. The key events in descent with modification are a)
> >> descent and b) modification. Speciation is vital for branching
> >> evolution, diversity, and such. But you can have as much evolution as
> >> you like in a single lineage without any speciation at all.
>
> > Yes. But evolution without branching would, as you point out, not
> > produce a variety of organisms. Merely one twig that changed over
> > time. And there is the definitional problem with such an unbranched
> > change. At what point is the *modern* population so different from
> > the *ancestral* one that it really should be considered a new
> > species.
>
> I would consider that a meaningless question, as would many.
> Chronospecies are not useful.
Yet, given the sporadic nature of most fossil records, there
undoubtedly have been chronospecies named as different species. Given
the 'lumpers' and 'splitters' in paleontological studies (again, a
consequence of only having, say, one incomplete fossil every 10,000
years or more), naming chronospecies can, indeed probably must, be
being done.
>
> > [And it may be that H. erectus and H. sapiens might be an
> > example.] I would argue that at some point the *modern* population
> > must be considered a new species distinct from the *ancestral* one.
>
> Why? The concept of "species" really can't be profitably extended much
> in time. It's even difficult to extend it in space.
Well, not the biological species concept involving reproductive
isolation. But even among living organisms, the biological species
definition is often never actually tested and morphological
differences are used as a surrogate.
wf3h
>
> Creationists point out ToE's unfalsifiability based on starting
> assumptions. Once the concept of evolution is accepted to explain
> nature it is not falsifiable, only modifiable.
>
ray, this is incomprehensible by any definition of evolution.
try learning about evolution OR learnin creationspeak.
Ye Old One
>SEEK PROFESSIONAL HELP!
>
>DO IT SOON!
>
>YOU NEED MEDICATION BEFORE YOU HURT YOURSELF
>
>GET A STRAIT JACKET AND SOME MEDICATION FROM A COMPETENT MENTAL HEALTH
>CARE PROVIDER
>
>DO IT SOON!!!
>
>
Says Mudbrain shouting at himself in the mirror.
--
Bob.
People may not always remember exactly what you said, but they will
always remember just how bright you made them feel.
Ye Old One
<allse...@usa.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Nov 3, 7:40 am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 04:21:24 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
>> <ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Nov 2, 5:53 pm, "Sox" <luke...@live.com> wrote:
>> >> "All-Seeing-I" <allseei...@usa.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:40deb104-df1f-4da6...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
>> >> On Nov 2, 4:29 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Nov 2, 9:33 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > On Nov 2, 10:02 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > > Change accumulates over time. Strike five. Yer out.
>>
>> >> > > Well. If the changes are going to accumulate where are your fossils of
>> >> > > a creature developing the new attribute such as a wing. There should
>> >> > > be plenty of evidence in the fossil record of creatures slowly
>> >> > > changing.
>>
>> I don't believe you have one.
>>
>> > I have actively looked for bonafied evidence
>> >that supports the ToE. (and i still do) As of now though, every bit of
>> >the ToE has either more then one interpretation or is incomplete.
>>
>> Oh dear, misreading things again.
>>
>> >Furthermore, the ToE does not have a working testable model that
>> >complies with the scientific method.
>>
>> Liar!
>>
>> > It is all circumstantial evidence
>> >with more then one interpretation. Dawkins himself says evolution is
>> >all circumstancial. Darwin himself said there should be tons of fossil
>> >evidence. There is not.
>>
>> Liar!
>>
>>
>>
>> >Now the critical part seems to be the circumstancial evidence. Al long
>> >as the circumstancial evidence has more then a single interpretation
>> >the ToE will remain inconclusive. So why present it in the media as a
>> >fact?
>>
>> Because evolution is a fact.
>>
>>
>>
>> >What ramifications does this have? This means it takes the same kind
>> >of "faith" to believe the circumstancial evidence that man evolved
>> >from an ape
>>
>> Man is an ape you moron!
>>
>> > as it takes to believe man was created by God. Anyone
>> >with .05 percent of a working brain can see this.
>>
>> When you get yourself a whole brain, plus an education, you will see
>> how stupid you have been.
>>
>>
>>
>> >On the one side there are ancient texts,
>>
>> Largely fiction.
>>
>> > recorded eye witness
>> >accounts,
>>
>> Prove it.
>>
>> > and anecdotal evidences that are believed by millions for
>> >thousands of years.
>>
>> So a lot of people are gullible. So what?
>>
>> > There is no evidence to remotely suggest these
>> >ancient documents (that span many cultures over many years) are one
>> >big lie.
>>
>> No, they are large collections of very small lies. Just like your
>> usenet posts.
>>
>>
>>
>> >On the other side we have a mere 150 year old theory that, for the
>> >most part, is circumstantial.
>>
>> What do you claim is circumstantial?
>>
>> > The evidences around the theory itself
>> >conflict with other evidences.
>>
>> No, that is another of your inventions.
>>
>> > If that were not enough, there is
>> >infact a motivation for the ToE to be used by a small group of people
>> >as a lie to deceive the masses.
>>
>> Liar!
>>
>>
>>
>> >So using deduction, which belief is the most viable ATM? "Man was
>> >created" of course.
>>
>> Find one bit of evidence for that.
>>
>>
>>
>> >Now, if it were not abundantly clear that atheism has influenced the
>> >ToE, I would be more inclined to give the ToE's circumstantial
>> >evidence a benefit of the doubt..
>>
>> >But as long as their is an agenda behind the ToE it will require more
>> >then circumstantial evidence to get any thinking person to believe it.
>>
>> And yet the vast majority of thinking people do believe it - mainly
>> because evolution is a fact.
>>
>> >In fact, I would venture to say the ToE would be accepted by more
>> >people right now if there were no ties to atheism.
>>
>> It has no ties. It is science.
>>
>>
>>
>> >The bottom line is the ToE is circumstancial and not conclusive while
>> >the belief in God does in fact have eye witness accounts of
>> >supernatural events associated with it.
>>
>> Then find one that holds up to examination.
>>
>>
>>
>> >No one has ever witnessed divergence speciation.
>>
>> Liar!
>>
>> Madman (aka Mudbrain) is on record as claiming:-
>>
>> That 3.5% actually means 25%...
>>
>> That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...
>>
>> That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...
>>
>> That wars have been fought because some scientific finding discredited
>> some facet of some religion...
>>
>> To have a "higher education" than most posters to this news group...
>>
>> To understand how geologists determine the age of any given sample of
>> rock...
>>
>> That trilobites were Cambrian mammals... [that one still makes me
>> laugh]
>>
>> And that he has "created genes" and not evolved ape genes...
>>
>> That linguists have traced all the world's languages to the Middle
>> East region and back to around the same time as the bible claims Noah
>> and his sons rebuilt mankind.
>>
>> Claimed that talk.origin's moderator was a troll.
>>
>> Claimed cigarettes do not cause cancer.
>>
>> Now, I ask you, is this the sort of guy you would give an credence to?
>> Certainly I don't.
>>
>> --
>> Bob.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>oh lookie here! The one trick pony is doing his show.
Oh look, the little trollslob still can't find the evidence to back up
even one of his claims.
--
Bob.
Bozone (n.): The substance surrounding stupid people that stops bright
ideas from penetrating. Your bozone layer, unfortunately, shows little
sign of breaking down in the near future.
Ye Old One
<quotht...@nevermore.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 12:39:51 -0500, "Steven L."
><sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>>> False dichotomy. Evolution and theism are not mutually exclusive,
>>
>>Sometime, you should try telling that to P.Z. Myers or Jerry Coyne or
>>"Ye Old One"
>
>Do they speak for all atheists?
Certainly not.
>
>> here on this NG, instead of just telling that to creationists.
>>
>>They'll answer you right back.
>
>Try telling the Pope that they *are* mutually exclusive, and I suspect
>he'll answer you right back as well.
I don't think that is a good example.
>
>>I notice that the defenders of the ToE here on this NG are so quick to
>>claim that there is no conflict between the ToE and Christianity,
>
>Those goalposts must be heavy. The original statement referenced
>theism, not Christianity.
That is a valid point. However, since most of the creationists here
are of the xtian variety...
>
>> when
>>they are trying to debate *creationists*--but they never try to foist
>>this particular claim on the *atheists* here, or on blogs like
>>"Pharyngula." Because they know that the atheists don't accept it either.
>
>I'm an atheist who sees no conflict between the ToE and theism.
No conflict, sure. It is science, it looks for answers. There is no
place in science for theism.
> Nor
>between the ToE and Christianity, for that matter. It does conflict
>with Biblical Literalism, but that's not representative of mainstream
>Christian belief.
True, to the extent that the ToE is only about life evolving. It is
not about abiogenesis of the birth of the universe - those are
different subjects. However, that said, the ToE forms one of the
cornerstones of our scientific understanding of the universe and, as
such, is at the forefront of the push against the ignorance that
breeds superstition and creationism.
>
>>Sounds duplicitous to me.
>
>Not at all.
--
Bob.
Kermit
> On Nov 2, 4:29 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 2, 9:33 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 2, 10:02 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Change accumulates over time. Strike five. Yer out.
>
> > > Well. If the changes are going to accumulate where are your fossils of
> > > a creature developing the new attribute such as a wing. There should
> > > be plenty of evidence in the fossil record of creatures slowly
> > > changing.
>
> > Well, here's three pages worth:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html#bird
>
> > Biplane! "Four-winged" bird transitional:http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090928205415.htm
>
> > Brains are important, too:http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090127165505.htm
>
> > Everybody's favorite was more dino than bird:http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091009090436.htm
>
> > Bird fingers, the precursor to wings:http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090617171816.htm
>
> > More...http://www.bsu.edu/web/00cyfisher/
>
> > Kermit
>
> Just THAT to represent millions of years and billions of species?
>
> umm.. No K.
>
> THAT ain't reality
No, no - for birds, a hundred million years or so and just thousands
of species.
[...]
You didn't read any of the links, did you?
Perhaps you could explain how many fossils there *should be. You've
mentioned large dogs and a chicken coop; you must be rural. How many
fossilized birds have you found on your property? There must be
hundreds, surely - after all, on even a small country lot there must
be several birds, and it's been 4000 years since the Flood®. Say one
bird a year on the average, there should be 4000 fossils or
thereabouts (just of birds! How about bison and wolves?). Probably
also a nice transition series from the progenitor bird kind and the
subsequent hyper-evolution of modern, local species.
Send a few pics, OK?
Kermit
Kermit
<rapidly thumbs through pages>
I have a Creationist-Science dictionary at hand, but these sentences
don't parse. Is it a significant dialect variant, or a different
language altogether?
Kermit
hersheyh
Scientists point out that the ToE has not been falsified despite being
falsifiable *because* its testable assumptions are not false. The
assumptions I presented are testable assumptions. Moreover, I
specifically pointed out conditions where natural selection does not
work and stated that such states do exist in the real world.
It is creationism, which is vague (at best) about anything testable,
that is unfalsifiable. How do you falsify an explanation that says
that an invisible undetectable something did something at some time
that somehow produced whatever we see? When creationism actually
makes testable claims (as YEC does), those claims are demonstrably
false.
> Once the concept of evolution is accepted to explain
> nature it is not falsifiable, only modifiable.
I have, above, described in detail how to falsify the very existence
of 'natural selection'. I note that you have not presented any
evidence to falsify natural selection.
John Wilkins
<a3969c5f-3b35-441d...@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
hersheyh <hers...@yahoo.com> wrote:
The challenges to the biological species definition (points for not
calling it a "concept") arose back in the early nineteenth century, in,
among other places, Darwin's notebooks.
Morphology is, as it always has been, a diagnostic criterion only. That
is the same if you are using molecular data as much as if you use
phenotypic data, only you have orders of magnitude more data points.
Reasonable
> On Nov 2, 4:29 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 2, 9:33 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 2, 10:02 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Change accumulates over time. Strike five. Yer out.
>
> > > Well. If the changes are going to accumulate where are your fossils of
> > > a creature developing the new attribute such as a wing. There should
> > > be plenty of evidence in the fossil record of creatures slowly
> > > changing.
>
> > Well, here's three pages worth:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html#bird
>
> > Biplane! "Four-winged" bird transitional:http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090928205415.htm
>
> > Brains are important, too:http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090127165505.htm
>
> > Everybody's favorite was more dino than bird:http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091009090436.htm
>
> > Bird fingers, the precursor to wings:http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090617171816.htm
>
> > More...http://www.bsu.edu/web/00cyfisher/
>
> > Kermit
>
> Just THAT to represent millions of years and billions of species?
>
> umm.. No K.
>
> THAT ain't reality
Here is an interesting link that proves undoubtedly that Evolution is
not mathematically possible. This article shows that using a dense
bacterial colony that covers the entire earth surface and extending to
outer space and is mutating at the maximum rate for a 150 codon gene
(small gene) with every cell division in this colony since the
beginning of the earth 4.5 billions years ago, could not produce
randomly a functional bacterial protein molecule of 150 amino acids.
Therefore Evolution is not a viable theory.
http://ezinearticles.com/?Evolution---The-Unsubstantiated-Theory&id=3112384
hersheyh
> In article
> <a3969c5f-3b35-441d-bbed-efcf25c74...@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Actually I used both "species concept" and "species definition" in the
same paragraph. A foolish consistency being no hobgoblin of my small
mind.
Ray Martinez
The assumption that nature somehow produced itself (Naturalism), which
then requires some kind of transmutation hypothesis, is not
falsifiable (only modifiable)----that was the only assumption that I
was talking about, Howard. Once transmutation is accepted it is NOT
falsifiable. Phenomena is always explained as supporting the
assumption and its explanatory concept.
> Moreover, I
> specifically pointed out conditions where natural selection does not
> work and stated that such states do exist in the real world.
>
So did Darwin. That's why he repeatedly said natural selection was the
main but not the exclusive means of evolutionary change. The
underlying *premise* that nature produced itself is not falsifiable.
Once *that* assumption is accepted it is not subject to falsification.
The same is true with Creationism: once the premise of ID is
postulated to explain nature it is not subject to falsification.
> It is creationism, which is vague (at best) about anything testable,
> that is unfalsifiable. How do you falsify an explanation that says
> that an invisible undetectable something did something at some time
> that somehow produced whatever we see?
You can't UNLESS you are well versed in the historic claims of natural
theology. These claims are virtually lost to the neo-Darwinian
mindset. But Darwin knew them. He attacked them in the Origin.
> When creationism actually
> makes testable claims (as YEC does), those claims are demonstrably
> false.
>
YECism is pseudoscience.
Ray
John Wilkins
<52939d05-07ac-48bd...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
hersheyh <hers...@yahoo.com> wrote:
You can recover from Creeping Mayrism, you know. It takes a while...
wf3h
>
> The assumption that nature somehow produced itself (Naturalism), which
> then requires some kind of transmutation hypothesis, is not
> falsifiable
no one knows what this means. what is a 'transmutation' hypothesis?
there is no such thing.
(only modifiable)----that was the only assumption that I
> was talking about, Howard. Once transmutation is accepted it is NOT
> falsifiable. Phenomena is always explained as supporting the
> assumption and its explanatory concept.
are you talking descent with modification, which can be seen in many
bio labs in the world and can be tested?
you know, the more desperate you creationists become, the more baroque
your language becomes. you're attempting to create a new language
that's content-free.
>
> > Moreover, I
> > specifically pointed out conditions where natural selection does not
> > work and stated that such states do exist in the real world.
>
> So did Darwin. That's why he repeatedly said natural selection was the
> main but not the exclusive means of evolutionary change. The
> underlying *premise* that nature produced itself is not falsifiable.
what does 'produced itself' mean? again, this is linguistic garbage
> Once *that* assumption is accepted it is not subject to falsification.
> The same is true with Creationism: once the premise of ID is
> postulated to explain nature it is not subject to falsification.
well we KNOW creationism is garbage...
>
> > It is creationism, which is vague (at best) about anything testable,
> > that is unfalsifiable. How do you falsify an explanation that says
> > that an invisible undetectable something did something at some time
> > that somehow produced whatever we see?
>
> You can't UNLESS you are well versed in the historic claims of natural
> theology
which is useless. natural theology:
-did not discover the atom
-did not discover quantum physics
-did not discover relativity
-did not discover bacteria
etc etc. so why does someone need to be 'well versed' in an idea which
is useless?
ray, like the other creationists here, is starting to adopt a defense
mechanism...quite unconscious, of course...of making a language which
has no relationship to science at all, but enables them to defend a
view of nature which is incomprehensibly plastic enough to be
compatible with religion.
it's useless
heekster
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>On Nov 2, 5:53�pm, "Sox" <luke...@live.com> wrote:
>> "All-Seeing-I" <allseei...@usa.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:40deb104-df1f-4da6...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
>> On Nov 2, 4:29 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Nov 2, 9:33 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Nov 2, 10:02 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > Change accumulates over time. Strike five. Yer out.
>>
>> > > Well. If the changes are going to accumulate where are your fossils of
>> > > a creature developing the new attribute such as a wing. There should
>> > > be plenty of evidence in the fossil record of creatures slowly
>> > > changing.
>>
>> > Well, here's three pages
>> > worth:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html#bird
>>
>> > Biplane! "Four-winged" bird
>> > transitional:http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090928205415.htm
>>
>> > Brains are important,
>> > too:http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090127165505.htm
>>
>> > Everybody's favorite was more dino than
>> > bird:http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091009090436.htm
>>
>> > Bird fingers, the precursor to
>> > wings:http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090617171816.htm
>>
>> > More...http://www.bsu.edu/web/00cyfisher/
>>
>> > Kermit
>>
>> Just THAT to represent millions of years and billions of species?
>>
>> umm.. No K.
>>
>> THAT ain't reality
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------
>> Clumsily done, indeed. You obviously have no idea how preposterous you are
>> (again). You start by objecting to the exhibit at the British Museum. Rather
>> than taking the time to refute that evidence, or even to discuss it, you
>> instead dismiss it out of hand with the lame comment "just one?".
>>
>> Kermit obliges by presenting multiple references with multiple examples,
>> each presented with links to ample evidence should you care to actually look
>> at it. And again you do not attempt to refute the evidence and instead fall
>> back on the childish "is that all there is." �Very sad. What is obvious to
>> any rational person is that you present yourself as one whose mind has
>> slammed shut so hard it refuses to even acknowledge the evidence presented
>> to it, let alone to come up with any cogent argument against it. Hint:
>> shrilly sceaming "Just THAT..." is not a credible argument, it is only
>> another indication of how desperate you are to ignore the evidence.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>
>Kermit can be quite the dog and pony show at times.
>
>My mind is not closed.
Oh, bullshit. Your mind makes a locked bank vault look like a sally
port.
Burkhard
I think you mix up two valid but distinct points into one problematic
one, and then draw the wrong conclusions from it.
You are right that naturalism is not falsifiable - it is a
methodological choice. Scientists will stick with it as long as it
produces results. What counts as "naturalist" at any given point in time
however can change considerably, Newton's "action at a distance" was
seen by some of his contemporaries as insufficient naturalistic, today
we accept it without raising an eyebrow. So we still have the
possibility that either naturalism is modified beyond something today
would recognise as naturalistic, and (less likely) the possibility to
abandon the concept for something that works better altogether.
Your next inference is unsupported. Naturalism is a general
methodological commitment for all branches of science, and no specific
content from any of the disciplines follows from it. There is no
necessity that leads from naturalism as a methodology to the ToE or a
theory of transformation. The ToE has empirical content which
methodological naturalism does not have.
You are however right that once you have a well supported and successful
(in terms of problem solving) web of theories such as the ToE,
falsifying the entire thing becomes very difficult. You can easily
falsify specific subtheories of the ToE (say the aquatic ape theory)but
that does not result in abandoning the overall theoretical framework,
only in adjustments. In that sense, the ToE is less a theory as a full
blown paradigm in the sense of Kuhn. However, from the work of Kuhn
we also know that paradigms too can be overturned, it just is not a
straightforward process of falsification. If the ToE failed to generate
for instance successful specific theories, and people spend more time
adjusting for failures than to solve new problems and make new exciting
discoveries, the project would be abandoned. Having an alternative
theory that explains the available data better is another way ion which
a theory can be overturned without falsifying it, you woudl just need
something that does the job better - and for scientific theories, that
ultimately means being better at firs generating and then solving the
smaller puzzles (e.g questiosn of the form: why did this species look
like this?)
Finally, the ToE is now connected to an entire field of related
theories, and changes in any one of them woudl have repercussions on the
ToE - if geneticists for instance had to re-evaluate substantially what
we think about the relation between genotype and phenotype, or if our
data about genetic variations woudl throw up new and inexplicable
patterns, that too woudl cast serious doubts on the ToE - it has tied
itself pretty much to genetics, for better or worse.
>
>
Dana Tweedy
snip
>>
>>> Besides earning you a well deserved POTM nomination,
>>> it is well worth noting that you have _also_
>>> provided _five_ ways to falsify the Theory of
>>> Evolution, thus completely debunking the frequent
>>> mendacious creationist claim that the ToE is somehow
>>> "unfalsifiable".
>>
>
> Creationists point out ToE's unfalsifiability based on starting
> assumptions.
Ray, you are mistaking yourself for all Creationists again. You only speak
for yourself, and you get that wrong too. The "starting assumptions" of
evolution are no different from any other science.
> Once the concept of evolution is accepted to explain
> nature it is not falsifiable, only modifiable.
The concept of evolution is just another scientific theory, and can be
falsified like any other theory. That evolution has not been falsified
means that it's well established.
snipping more Ray ignores
DJT
Burkhard
by Antonie Philips van Leeuwenhoek in the 17th century, at the heydays
of natural philosophy/theology. But he was lacking a university
education, so it is more difficult to categorise him - he was however a
Dutch Reformed Calvinist, and the way he wrote about his discovery
puts it very clearly into the tradition of natural theology:
"The preceding kinds of experiments I have repeated many times with the
same success, and in particular with some of the sediment which had been
kept in my study for about five months. . . From all these
observations, we discern most plainly the incomprehensible perfection,
the exact order, and the inscrutable providential care with which the
most wise Creator and Lord of the Universe had formed the bodies of
these animalcules, which are so minute as to escape our sight, to the
end that different species of them may be preserved in existence"
Btw when the Royal Society had doubts about his research they send not
only a couple of doctors (who would have been all technically speaking
natural philosophers)but also a lawyer and a vicar - only when they gave
the all clear where his findings published in the Philosophical
Transactions.
see A. Schierbeek: Measuring the Invisible World: The Life and Works of
Antoni van Leeuwenhoek. Abelard-Schuman: London 1959
All-Seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
pffft!
You got nothing.
And yes, I read the links.
Over all, you got nothing to represent millions of years and billions
of species
All-Seeing-I
wrote:
> All-Seeing-I wrote:
> > SEEK PROFESSIONAL HELP!
>
> [...etc...]
>
> Yes, yes. But, Adman, why _don't_ you, as Richard suggests, point us to
> an "evolutionist" website which supports its case with lies, and a
> "creationist" site which doesn't use discredited evidence? As you know,
> his claim is that you can't actually do it.
>
> --
> Mike.
OMG. I have another stalker.
I only replied to you ONCE
All-Seeing-I
Correct. For one thing they assume divergence speciation happens.
It does not.
There is not a single shred of evidence for that unless one smokes all
of the local herb in Mexico and begins to hallucinates.
Dana Tweedy
>>> Creationists point out ToE's unfalsifiability based on starting
>>> assumptions.
>>
>> Scientists point out that the ToE has not been falsified despite
>> being falsifiable *because* its testable assumptions are not false.
>> The assumptions I presented are testable assumptions.
>
> The assumption that nature somehow produced itself (Naturalism),
Nature is not a process, Ray. Nature was produced by a set of known
processes, all of which are testable.
> which
> then requires some kind of transmutation hypothesis,
That species change over times is a trivially true observation. The theory
that explains that 'transformation" is well established.
> is not
> falsifiable (only modifiable)
If it were observed that species did not vary, and that populations showed
no sign of changing over time, evolution would be falsified.
>----that was the only assumption that I
> was talking about, Howard.
Then you are wrong again, Ray. Evolution is falsifiable.
> Once transmutation is accepted it is NOT
> falsifiable.
If you could show that species don't ever change, then that would falsify
the concept.
> Phenomena is always explained as supporting the
> assumption and its explanatory concept.
If that phenomenon is change in populations over time, then yes, it supports
the concept. You are confusing what's actually observed for what possibly
could be observed.
>
>> Moreover, I
>> specifically pointed out conditions where natural selection does not
>> work and stated that such states do exist in the real world.
>>
>
> So did Darwin. That's why he repeatedly said natural selection was the
> main but not the exclusive means of evolutionary change.
Another indication that you are wrong, Ray. It also should be noted that
natural selection is part of the mechanism, and is what produces adaptive
change in populations.
>The
> underlying *premise* that nature produced itself is not falsifiable.
Again, Ray, you are mistaking the basics of science for a premise of
evolution. Again, "nature" is not a process, but what is seen all about
us. There are known processes (and many more unknown processe) that have
produced nature. There isn't any other testable option. If you want to
believe that a supernatural being produced everything, then you need to
either show evidence of such a being, or accept that such a belief is
religious, not scientific.
> Once *that* assumption is accepted it is not subject to falsification.
> The same is true with Creationism: once the premise of ID is
> postulated to explain nature it is not subject to falsification.
Remember that Creationism is a religious belief, not science. A scientific
theory must be falsifiable. A religious belief usually cannot be.
>
>> It is creationism, which is vague (at best) about anything testable,
>> that is unfalsifiable. How do you falsify an explanation that says
>> that an invisible undetectable something did something at some time
>> that somehow produced whatever we see?
>
> You can't UNLESS you are well versed in the historic claims of natural
> theology.
Something that you, Ray are not. You've got some mashed up and mixed up
ideas about the concept, but no real knowledge. Note also you didn't
answer Howard's question.
> These claims are virtually lost to the neo-Darwinian
> mindset. But Darwin knew them. He attacked them in the Origin.
Darwin was proposing a scientific theory. He was not attacking religious
beliefs of the "natural theologians". .
>
>> When creationism actually
>> makes testable claims (as YEC does), those claims are demonstrably
>> false.
>>
>
> YECism is pseudoscience.
Again, Ray, your own ideas aren't even bad enough to be pseudoscience. They
are just your own delusions and misunderstandings. They aren't science,
and they aren't Biblical.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
snip
> Correct. For one thing they assume divergence speciation happens.
Actually, "divergence speciation" (is there any other kind?) is directly
observed.
>
> It does not.
Yet it's been observed to happen many times.
>
> There is not a single shred of evidence for that unless one smokes all
> of the local herb in Mexico and begins to hallucinates.
Or, instead of your prefered 'research' method outlined above, one actually
observes populations over time. If you do that, one does observed
divergence.
DJT
heekster
Noi loon, you don't.
You are a , how do you say,... "drama queen".
>I only replied to you ONCE
So you admit that you cannot answer even the above reasonable
challenge.
Figures.
Coward.
John Harshman
There's no way to tell. There's really no way to identify biological
species in the fossil record, at all.
>>> [And it may be that H. erectus and H. sapiens might be an
>>> example.] I would argue that at some point the *modern* population
>>> must be considered a new species distinct from the *ancestral* one.
>> Why? The concept of "species" really can't be profitably extended much
>> in time. It's even difficult to extend it in space.
>
> Well, not the biological species concept involving reproductive
> isolation. But even among living organisms, the biological species
> definition is often never actually tested and morphological
> differences are used as a surrogate.
Yes, but we recognize that it's a surrogate, and an imperfect one. When
better data become available, we revise species boundaries. For fossils,
better data will almost certainly not become available.
I think, contrary I believe to Wilkins, that morphospecies and
biological species are not commensurable, and a great deal of damage can
be done by pretending they are. Punctuated equilibria, for example.
heekster
wrote:
>In article
><52939d05-07ac-48bd...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
>hersheyh <hers...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Nov 3, 6:30锟絧m, John Wilkins <j...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
>> > In article
>> > <a3969c5f-3b35-441d-bbed-efcf25c74...@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > > On Nov 3, 4:16锟絧m, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> > > > hersheyh wrote:
>> > > > > On Nov 3, 2:46 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> > > > >> hersheyh wrote:
>> >
>> > > > >>> The key event in descent with modification is speciation.
>> > > > >>> 锟紻emonstrate
>> > > > >>> that speciation is impossible, that there is some barrier to
>> > > > >>> speciation, and you will have demonstrated that descent with
>> > > > >>> modification (aka, evolution) is impossible.
>> > > > >> I have to disagree. The key events in descent with modification are
>> > > > >> a)
>> > > > >> descent and b) modification. Speciation is vital for branching
>> > > > >> evolution, diversity, and such. But you can have as much evolution as
>> > > > >> you like in a single lineage without any speciation at all.
>> >
>> > > > > Yes. 锟紹ut evolution without branching would, as you point out, not
>> > > > > produce a variety of organisms. 锟組erely one twig that changed over
>> > > > > time. 锟紸nd there is the definitional problem with such an unbranched
>> > > > > change. 锟紸t what point is the *modern* population so different from
>> > > > > the *ancestral* one that it really should be considered a new
>> > > > > species.
>> >
>> > > > I would consider that a meaningless question, as would many.
>> > > > Chronospecies are not useful.
>> >
>> > > Yet, given the sporadic nature of most fossil records, there
>> > > undoubtedly have been chronospecies named as different species. 锟紾iven
>> > > the 'lumpers' and 'splitters' in paleontological studies (again, a
>> > > consequence of only having, say, one incomplete fossil every 10,000
>> > > years or more), naming chronospecies can, indeed probably must, be
>> > > being done.
>> >
>> > > > > [And it may be that H. erectus and H. sapiens might be an
>> > > > > example.] 锟絀 would argue that at some point the *modern* population
>> > > > > must be considered a new species distinct from the *ancestral* one.
>> >
>> > > > Why? The concept of "species" really can't be profitably extended much
>> > > > in time. It's even difficult to extend it in space.
>> >
>> > > Well, not the biological species concept involving reproductive
>> > > isolation. 锟紹ut even among living organisms, the biological species
>> > > definition is often never actually tested and morphological
>> > > differences are used as a surrogate.
>> >
>> > The challenges to the biological species definition (points for not
>> > calling it a "concept") arose back in the early nineteenth century, in,
>> > among other places, Darwin's notebooks.
>>
>> Actually I used both "species concept" and "species definition" in the
>> same paragraph. A foolish consistency being no hobgoblin of my small
>> mind.
>
>You can recover from Creeping Mayrism, you know. It takes a while...
Ernstly?
wf3h
>
>
> Correct. For one thing they assume divergence speciation happens.
no one knows what 'divergence speciation' is.
>
> It does not.
>
> There is not a single shred of evidence for that unless one smokes all
> of the local herb in Mexico and begins to hallucinates.-
that's true. it's hard to find evidence for an idea that is
meaningless