no contiguous breeding population...
Timothy Sutter
initial replicating and metabolizing
entity not in evidence.
[imaginary initial organism]
<.>
no contiguous breeding population can be shown
from imagined initial organism to all existing
life on earth.
[imagined contiguous breeding population]
no single "phylogenetic tree of all life" without
similar genetic information and expressed traits
after 'diverging' branches.
[imagined phylogenetic tree of all life]
similar genetic information and expressed traits
do not demand a contiguous breeding population.
contention of a single contiguous breeding poulation
from an imagined initial organism to all contemporary
life on earth is not demanded.
[imaginary initial organism]
[imagined contiguous breeding population]
[imagined phylogenetic tree of all life]
Robert Camp
No logical or evidential support for the leap from:
- a set of possible explanations all with varying levels of empirical
support, to "imaginary initial organism"
- an hypothesis of variation and descent from original organism(s)
which is supported by all available evidence, to "imaginary contiguous
breeding population"
- a theory of common descent overwhelmingly supported by paleontology,
molecular biology, comparative anatomy etc., to "imarginary
phylogenetic tree of all life"
[Imaginary argument]
RLC
John Harshman
perhaps some clue about what you're either claiming or asking about.
bpuharic
<a20...@lycos.com-> wrote:
>no clear demonstration of "autogenesis"
>initial replicating and metabolizing
>entity not in evidence.
>
>[imaginary initial organism]
i'm not an evolutionary biologist, but i am a chemist.
and i say to your post, 'so what?' what's the relevance?
evolution has a demonstrated mechanism that produces descent with
modification. the evolutionary biologists have tested this and
presented the data.
your argument is simply a variation on the 'no one has ever seen a
fish evolve into a man'.
since that's not how science works, i say...
so what?
Timothy Sutter
> > no clear demonstration of "autogenesis"
> > initial replicating and metabolizing
> > entity not in evidence.
> > [imaginary initial organism]
> > <.>
> > no contiguous breeding population can be shown
> > from imagined initial organism to all existing
> > life on earth.
> > [imagined contiguous breeding population]
> > no single "phylogenetic tree of all life" without
> > similar genetic information and expressed traits
> > after 'diverging' branches.
> > [imagined phylogenetic tree of all life]
> > similar genetic information and expressed traits
> > do not demand a contiguous breeding population.
> > contention of a single contiguous breeding poulation
> > from an imagined initial organism to all contemporary
> > life on earth is not demanded.
> > [imaginary initial organism]
> > [imagined contiguous breeding population]
> > [imagined phylogenetic tree of all life]
Robert Camp wrote:
> No logical or evidential support for the leap from:
> - a set of possible explanations all with varying levels of empirical
> support, to "imaginary initial organism"
no preseumed "initial organism" nor fabricated version
of any presumed "initial organism" is present to be
inspected with the empirical senses, therefore,
"imaginary" is an apt description.
==
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/imagined
imagine:
1. to form a mental image of
(something not actually present
to the senses).
==
if you would prefer "speculative" or "conjectural"
that is fine, but, "it", any "initial organism,"
still is not present to be inspected,
and therefore may be categorized as "imaginary"
Robert Camp wrote:
> - an hypothesis of variation and descent from original organism(s)
> which is supported by all available evidence, to "imaginary contiguous
> breeding population"
there is no physical documentation of any
contiguous breeding population from any
supposed "initial organism" to all
life now present on earth.
that such a contiguous breeding population exists
is speculative.
Robert Camp wrote:
> - a theory of common descent overwhelmingly supported by paleontology,
> molecular biology, comparative anatomy etc., to "imarginary
> phylogenetic tree of all life"
there is no single phylogenetic tree,
of all life on earth, without conflict.
the study of 'fossils' does not establish breeding population.
as of right now, the notion of a single phylogenetic tree
of all life on earth is conjectural, and therefore, "imagined"
it is interesting to note that you suggest the possibility
of the appearance of more than one type of "initial organism"
Robert Camp wrote:
"an hypothesis of variation and descent from original organism(s)"
if you are suggesting that there may be more than
one line of contiguous breeding populations from
"initial" sense to all life present on earth now,
you may say so openly at this time.
Timothy Sutter
> > no clear demonstration of "autogenesis"
> > initial replicating and metabolizing
> > entity not in evidence.
> > [imaginary initial organism]
> > <.>
> > no contiguous breeding population can be shown
> > from imagined initial organism to all existing
> > life on earth.
> > [imagined contiguous breeding population]
> > no single "phylogenetic tree of all life" without
> > similar genetic information and expressed traits
> > after 'diverging' branches.
> > [imagined phylogenetic tree of all life]
> > similar genetic information and expressed traits
> > do not demand a contiguous breeding population.
> > contention of a single contiguous breeding poulation
> > from an imagined initial organism to all contemporary
> > life on earth is not demanded.
> > [imaginary initial organism]
> > [imagined contiguous breeding population]
> > [imagined phylogenetic tree of all life]
John Harshman wrote:
> It would help your post if you put in a few complete sentences, and
> perhaps some clue about what you're either claiming or asking about.
there are a few complete sentences, and what i am saying is that
any supposed initial replicating and metabolizing entity is not
in evidence, and that there is no single "phylogenetic tree of
all life" without 'conflicts' and that any contention of a single
contiguous breeding poulation from any presumed or supposed
initial organism to all contemporary life on earth
is not demanded.
that is all i'm saying.
heekster
<a20...@lycos.com-> wrote:
Astonishing. There isn't a single complete sentence, nor a coherent
thought, in this entire laundry list.
John Harshman
common descent is insufficient? That would be incorrect.
Burkhard
So your great great grandfather is imaginary? Where does this leave
you?
Timothy Sutter
> >no clear demonstration of "autogenesis"
> >initial replicating and metabolizing
> >entity not in evidence.
> >[imaginary initial organism]
bpuharic wrote:
> i'm not an evolutionary biologist, but i am a chemist.
> and i say to your post, 'so what?' what's the relevance?
the relevance to "decent with modification" is that
we have no "initial organism" which metabolizes
and replicates from which to decend and modify.
bpuharic wrote:
> evolution has a demonstrated mechanism that produces descent with
> modification. the evolutionary biologists have tested this and
> presented the data.
there is no known contiguous breeding population
which begins from some initial precursor organism
and carries through to all life on earth now.
that such a contiguous breeding population exists
is speculative and non-verifiable.
bpuharic wrote:
> your argument is simply a variation on the 'no one has ever seen a
> fish evolve into a man'.
i would say that no one has shown a contiguous breeding population
which includes both fish and human beings.
that such a contiguous breeding population exists
is speculative and non-verifiable.
bpuharic wrote:
> since that's not how science works, i say...
"science" is said to derive information from what is
available to detect, and, no contiguous breeding
population is avaliable to detect.
bpuharic wrote:
> so what?
you seem to be agreeing that no contiguos breeding population
from some presumed initial organism to all life on earth is
known nor detected, but is speculative, and is non-verifiable.
Timothy Sutter
> >no clear demonstration of "autogenesis"
> >initial replicating and metabolizing
> >entity not in evidence.
> >[imaginary initial organism]
> ><.>
> >no contiguous breeding population can be shown
> >from imagined initial organism to all existing
> >life on earth.
> >[imagined contiguous breeding population]
> >no single "phylogenetic tree of all life" without
> >similar genetic information and expressed traits
> >after 'diverging' branches.
> >[imagined phylogenetic tree of all life]
> >similar genetic information and expressed traits
> >do not demand a contiguous breeding population.
> >contention of a single contiguous breeding poulation
> >from an imagined initial organism to all contemporary
> >life on earth is not demanded.
> >[imaginary initial organism]
> >[imagined contiguous breeding population]
> >[imagined phylogenetic tree of all life]
heekster wrote:
> Astonishing. There isn't a single complete sentence, nor a coherent
> thought, in this entire laundry list.
still no contiguous breeding population...
Vend
The initial organisms were likely asexual, hence they didn't require a
breeding population in order to replicate.
bpuharic
<a20...@lycos.com-> wrote:
>> Timothy Sutter wrote:
>
>> >no clear demonstration of "autogenesis"
>> >initial replicating and metabolizing
>> >entity not in evidence.
>
>> >[imaginary initial organism]
>
>
>
>bpuharic wrote:
>
>> i'm not an evolutionary biologist, but i am a chemist.
>> and i say to your post, 'so what?' what's the relevance?
>
>
>
>the relevance to "decent with modification" is that
>we have no "initial organism" which metabolizes
>and replicates from which to decend and modify.
again, i say, so what? what's the relevance to evolution?
>
>
>
>bpuharic wrote:
>
>> evolution has a demonstrated mechanism that produces descent with
>> modification. the evolutionary biologists have tested this and
>> presented the data.
>
>
>
>there is no known contiguous breeding population
SO WHAT??
>
>which begins from some initial precursor organism
>
>and carries through to all life on earth now.
>
>that such a contiguous breeding population exists
>
>is speculative and non-verifiable.
uh no it's not. since we HAVE a mechanism that DOES produce descent
with modification, we do NOT have to have the initial life form at all
any more than we chemists have to understand where atoms come from to
work with atoms
you guys really DONT understand this science stuff, do you?
>
>
>
>bpuharic wrote:
>
>
>> your argument is simply a variation on the 'no one has ever seen a
>> fish evolve into a man'.
>
>
>i would say that no one has shown a contiguous breeding population
>
>which includes both fish and human beings.
>
>
>that such a contiguous breeding population exists
>
>is speculative and non-verifiable.
let me say this:
SO WHAT?
we can SEE evolution take place. we KNOW it produces
-descent with modification
-speciation
so we see different species AND we see change in populations with time
it's hardly rocket science to say we can extend this back in time,
like ALL sciences do.
>
>
>
>bpuharic wrote:
>
>> since that's not how science works, i say...
>
>
>
>"science" is said to derive information from what is
>
>available to detect, and, no contiguous breeding
>
>population is avaliable to detect.
breeding populations are detectable.
that's all we need to prove evolution exists.
>
>
>
>
>bpuharic wrote:
>
>> so what?
>
>
>
>you seem to be agreeing that no contiguos breeding population
>from some presumed initial organism to all life on earth is
>known nor detected, but is speculative, and is non-verifiable.
which is absolutely as relevant to evolution as the existence of the
first star is to astronomy.
it's not relevant at all.
Timothy Sutter
> > John Harshman wrote:
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > there are a few complete sentences, and what i am saying is that
> > any supposed initial replicating and metabolizing entity is not
> > in evidence, and that there is no single "phylogenetic tree of
> > all life" without 'conflicts' and that any contention of a single
> > contiguous breeding poulation from any presumed or supposed
> > initial organism to all contemporary life on earth
> > is not demanded.
Vend wrote:
> The initial organisms were likely asexual, hence they didn't require a
> breeding population in order to replicate.
these "initial organisms" you speak of could
be said to constitute a breeding population.
you may wish to clarify if you believe that there was
a single initial organism or a multiplex set of initial organisms,
because, as of right now, it is unclear which you believe in.
what is not shown is a contiguous breeding population from
those presumed organisms to any other living organism which
is not those presumed initial organisms.
Frank J
Cut to the chase. Are you trying to say that you find common descent
unconvincing?
Timothy Sutter
> >>> [imaginary initial organism]
> >>> <.>
> >>> [imagined contiguous breeding population]
> > John Harshman wrote:
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > there are a few complete sentences, and what i am saying is that
> > any supposed initial replicating and metabolizing entity is not
> > in evidence, and that there is no single "phylogenetic tree of
> > all life" without 'conflicts' and that any contention of a single
> > contiguous breeding poulation from any presumed or supposed
> > initial organism to all contemporary life on earth
> > is not demanded.
> > that is all i'm saying.
John Harshman wrote:
> OK. What does it mean? Are you perhaps claiming that the evidence for
> common descent is insufficient? That would be incorrect.
right now, i'm saying that no contiguous breeding population
from some presumed initial organism(s) to all organisms
living on earth is shown.
bpuharic
<a20...@lycos.com-> wrote:
>
>
>there are a few complete sentences, and what i am saying is that
>any supposed initial replicating and metabolizing entity is not
>in evidence,
which is irrelevant to evolution. we have a testable mechanism that
produces descent with modification.
we SEE descent with modification in the fossil record
creationists think science stops being science once you pass through
the lab door
science doesn't work that way
and that there is no single "phylogenetic tree of
>all life" with
out 'conflicts' and that any contention of a single
>contiguous breeding poulation from any presumed or supposed
>initial organism to all contemporary life on earth
>is not demanded.
>
>
>that is all i'm saying.
and it's a worthless comment.
so, again, i say
SO WHAT?
bpuharic
<a20...@lycos.com-> wrote:
>> Timothy Sutter said:
>
>
>> - a set of possible explanations all with varying levels of empirical
>> support, to "imaginary initial organism"
>
>
>no preseumed "initial organism" nor fabricated version
>of any presumed "initial organism" is present to be
>inspected with the empirical senses, therefore,
>"imaginary" is an apt description.
well....no. we don't have to have the ORIGINAL population at all to
prove evolution exists.
no science works that way. not physics. not chemistry. not astronomy
did you ever take a science course in college?
>
>Robert Camp wrote:
>
>> - an hypothesis of variation and descent from original organism(s)
>> which is supported by all available evidence, to "imaginary contiguous
>> breeding population"
>
>
>
>there is no physical documentation of any
>contiguous breeding population from any
>supposed "initial organism" to all
>life now present on earth.
>
>
>that such a contiguous breeding population exists
>
>is speculative.
so is the existence of stars.
in fact, if THIS is your criteria for good science
then no science exists at all. not chemistry. not physics. not geology
your point is worthless.
>
>
>Robert Camp wrote:
>
>> - a theory of common descent overwhelmingly supported by paleontology,
>> molecular biology, comparative anatomy etc., to "imarginary
>> phylogenetic tree of all life"
>
>
>
>there is no single phylogenetic tree,
>of all life on earth, without conflict.
>
>
>the study of 'fossils' does not establish breeding population.
sure it does. it does so because we have a
TESTABLE MECHANISM THAT PRODUCES DESCENT WITH MODIFICATION.
it produces EXACTLY what is seen in the fossil record....changing
populations with time
that's why we NEVER seen humans with dinosaurs, for example
Frank J
Can you tell us, without repeating the phrase "contiguous breeding
population", what you think is a better explanation for the diversity
of life? Start with how many years ago you think the first life
originated, and whether you think it lived in the oceans, land, etc.
Timothy Sutter
> > Robert Camp wrote:
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > no preseumed "initial organism" nor fabricated version
> > of any presumed "initial organism" is present to be
> > inspected with the empirical senses, therefore,
> > "imaginary" is an apt description.
Burkhard wrote:
> So your great great grandfather is imaginary?
> Where does this leave you?
well, i'm here, that's for certain.
bpuharic
<a20...@lycos.com-> wrote:
>
>
>right now, i'm saying that no contiguous breeding population
>from some presumed initial organism(s) to all organisms
>living on earth is shown.
no one's ever seen the civil war either.
so what?
Devils Advocaat
If I am understanding this correctly, what you are trying to say is
that you don't accept the theory of evolution, or the hypothesis of
abiogenesis, because you feel that it is all based on imagination and
not evidence.
Timothy Sutter
> >> >no clear demonstration of "autogenesis"
> >> >initial replicating and metabolizing
> >> >entity not in evidence.
> >> >[imaginary initial organism]
> >bpuharic wrote:
> >> i'm not an evolutionary biologist, but i am a chemist.
> >> and i say to your post, 'so what?' what's the relevance?
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> >the relevance to "decent with modification" is that
> >we have no "initial organism" which metabolizes
> >and replicates from which to decend and modify.
bpuharic wrote:
> again, i say, so what? what's the relevance to evolution?
it's a speculative origin.
> >bpuharic wrote:
> >> evolution has a demonstrated mechanism that produces descent with
> >> modification. the evolutionary biologists have tested this and
> >> presented the data.
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> >there is no known contiguous breeding population
bpuharic wrote:
> SO WHAT??
if you would like to claim that there is a contiguous
breeding population, and you cannot do so, then you
are left speculating that there is a contiguous
breeding population, the documentaion for which,
you cannot show anyone.
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> >which begins from some initial precursor organism
> >and carries through to all life on earth now.
> >that such a contiguous breeding population exists
> >is speculative and non-verifiable.
bpuharic wrote:
> uh no it's not. since we HAVE a mechanism that DOES produce descent
> with modification, we do NOT have to have the initial life form at all
> any more than we chemists have to understand where atoms come from to
> work with atoms
what we still do not have is a contiguous breeding population,
and therefore, if the contention is that all organisms on earth
can trace ancestry to a single organism, and you do not have a
single contiguous breeding population to show me, then, the
existence of a single contiguous breeding population
remains speculative.
bpuharic wrote:
> you guys really DONT understand this science stuff, do you?
i understand that you are speculating on the existence
of some contiguous breeding population that is not
here to be shown.
> >bpuharic wrote:
> >> your argument is simply a variation on the 'no one has ever seen a
> >> fish evolve into a man'.
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> >i would say that no one has shown a contiguous breeding population
> >which includes both fish and human beings.
> >that such a contiguous breeding population exists
> >is speculative and non-verifiable.
bpuharic wrote:
> let me say this:
> SO WHAT?
> we can SEE evolution take place. we KNOW it produces
> -descent with modification
> -speciation
> so we see different species AND we see change in populations with time
> it's hardly rocket science to say we can extend this back in time,
> like ALL sciences do.
there is no contiguous breeding population
which includes fish and human beings.
remember that we cannot use fossils
to establish breeding population.
> >bpuharic wrote:
> >> since that's not how science works, i say...
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> >"science" is said to derive information from what is
> >available to detect, and, no contiguous breeding
> >population is avaliable to detect.
bpuharic wrote:
> breeding populations are detectable.
> that's all we need to prove evolution exists.
so, you suggest that breeding populations prove evolution.
all breeding populations show is the existence
of breeding populations and nothing more.
> >bpuharic wrote:
> >> so what?
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> >you seem to be agreeing that no contiguos breeding population
> >from some presumed initial organism to all life on earth is
> >known nor detected, but is speculative, and is non-verifiable.
bpuharic wrote:
> which is absolutely as relevant to evolution as the existence of the
> first star is to astronomy.
if the contention is that all organisms on earth
can trace ancestry to a single organism, and you
do not have a single contiguous breeding population
to show me, then, the existence of a single contiguous
breeding population remains speculative.
bpuharic wrote:
> it's not relevant at all.
it is relevant, there may be
multiplex contiguous breeding populations.
that such a thing as a contiguous breeding
population exists at all, i do not
argue against.
bpuharic
<a20...@lycos.com-> wrote:
>> >> Timothy Sutter wrote:
>
>
>> >the relevance to "decent with modification" is that
>> >we have no "initial organism" which metabolizes
>> >and replicates from which to decend and modify.
>
>
>
>bpuharic wrote:
>
>
>> again, i say, so what? what's the relevance to evolution?
>
>
>
>it's a speculative origin.
no, it's not. it's no more 'speculative' than any other idea in
science. speculation is saying that there are 11 dimensions in the
membrane on which we all live. it's speculative since we can't test it
and determine if the mechanism we're testing does, indeed, generate
an 11 dimension universe
we CAN test the mechanism of evolution and see if it generates the
patterns seen in the fossil record, comparative genetics, the nested
hierarchy, etc
and it does
perhaps you're just not familiar with the concept of 'speculative'.
have you ever taken a course in science? anywhere? at any time?
>
>
>> >bpuharic wrote:
>
>> >> evolution has a demonstrated mechanism that produces descent with
>> >> modification. the evolutionary biologists have tested this and
>> >> presented the data.
>
>
>> Timothy Sutter wrote:
>
>
>> >there is no known contiguous breeding population
>
>
>
>bpuharic wrote:
>
>
>> SO WHAT??
>
>
>
>
>if you would like to claim that there is a contiguous
>breeding population, and you cannot do so, then you
>are left speculating that there is a contiguous
>breeding population, the documentaion for which,
>you cannot show anyone.
uh no. what i'm left with is a testable idea that generates what we
see in nature
and that's just how physics works. i'm a chemist. that's how
chemistry works.
so your use of the term 'speculative' is wrong
>
>> Timothy Sutter wrote:
>
>> >which begins from some initial precursor organism
>> >and carries through to all life on earth now.
>> >that such a contiguous breeding population exists
>> >is speculative and non-verifiable.
>
>
>
>bpuharic wrote:
>
>> uh no it's not. since we HAVE a mechanism that DOES produce descent
>> with modification, we do NOT have to have the initial life form at all
>> any more than we chemists have to understand where atoms come from to
>> work with atoms
>
>
>
>what we still do not have is a contiguous breeding population,
no one cares. it's a worthless comment
>
>and therefore, if the contention is that all organisms on earth
>can trace ancestry to a single organism, and you do not have a
>single contiguous breeding population to show me, then, the
>existence of a single contiguous breeding population
>remains speculative.
which is as useful as saying no one has seen a fish evolve into a man.
you've made 2 comments:
1. evolution is speculative
2. we have never seen a 'fish evolve into a man' (to paraphrase)
the first statement is wrong.
the second is worthless
anything else you want to say?
>
>
>bpuharic wrote:
>
>> breeding populations are detectable.
>
>> that's all we need to prove evolution exists.
>
>
>
>so, you suggest that breeding populations prove evolution.
>
>all breeding populations show is the existence
>
>of breeding populations and nothing more.
uh, no. they establish a TESTABLE RECORD of descent with modification.
you seem to be ignorant of the fact we can OBSERVE populations
changing with time.
AKA evolution.
so, again, you're wrong.
>
>> Timothy Sutter wrote:
>
>> >you seem to be agreeing that no contiguos breeding population
>> >from some presumed initial organism to all life on earth is
>> >known nor detected, but is speculative, and is non-verifiable.
>
>
>
>bpuharic wrote:
>
>> which is absolutely as relevant to evolution as the existence of the
>> first star is to astronomy.
>
>
>if the contention is that all organisms on earth
>can trace ancestry to a single organism, and you
>do not have a single contiguous breeding population
>to show me, then, the existence of a single contiguous
>breeding population remains speculative.
i already proved you're wrong
so either your english is in appropriate
or you're wrong.
care to make your selection?
>
>
>
>bpuharic wrote:
>
>> it's not relevant at all.
>
>
>
>it is relevant, there may be
>
>multiplex contiguous breeding populations.
really? evidence?
>
>that such a thing as a contiguous breeding
>population exists at all, i do not
>argue against.
what you DO argue against is that populations change with time
and THAT argument is WRONG.
Tom McDonald
Can you prove that?
Timothy Sutter
> >> - a set of possible explanations all with varying levels of empirical
> >> support, to "imaginary initial organism"
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> >no presumed "initial organism" nor fabricated version
> >of any presumed "initial organism" is present to be
> >inspected with the empirical senses, therefore,
> >"imaginary" is an apt description.
bpuharic wrote:
> well....no. we don't have to have the ORIGINAL population at all to
> prove evolution exists.
the non-existence of some presumed original organism
is a problem all in itself, and does not support nor
disprove the non-existence of a contiguous breeding population.
there is no such contiguous breeding population and
it is speculative to say that there is one.
science does work this way.
bpuharic wrote:
> no science works that way. not physics. not chemistry. not astronomy
> did you ever take a science course in college?
> >Robert Camp wrote:
> >> - an hypothesis of variation and descent from original organism(s)
> >> which is supported by all available evidence, to "imaginary contiguous
> >> breeding population"
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> >there is no physical documentation of any
> >contiguous breeding population from any
> >supposed "initial organism" to all
> >life now present on earth.
bpuharic wrote:
> >that such a contiguous breeding population exists
> >is speculative.
> so is the existence of stars.
so you suggest that there is no
physical documentation for the sun.
i can't agree with you there.
bpuharic wrote:
> in fact, if THIS is your criteria for good science
> then no science exists at all. not chemistry. not physics. not geology
> your point is worthless.
physical documentation is a criterion for good science, yes.
> >Robert Camp wrote:
> >> - a theory of common descent overwhelmingly supported by paleontology,
> >> molecular biology, comparative anatomy etc., to "imarginary
> >> phylogenetic tree of all life"
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> >there is no single phylogenetic tree,
> >of all life on earth, without conflict.
> >the study of 'fossils' does not establish breeding population.
bpuharic wrote:
> sure it does. it does so because we have a
> TESTABLE MECHANISM THAT PRODUCES DESCENT WITH MODIFICATION.
> it produces EXACTLY what is seen in the fossil record....changing
> populations with time
see, my problem with the so-called 'fossil record'
is this, inability to ascertain breeding population.
so, in essence you have people concluding things about
this so-called 'fossil record' with a very key bit of
information not only missing, but unattainable.
so, for instance, someone concludes that two sets
of boney fragments that look somehwhat alike in form
constitute a similar organism, and that two fragments
that look quite dissimilar, constitute variant organisms
all without any way of establishing absolute breeding population.
meaning, -if- you were to dig up something that looked
like a pekinese, and some other thing that looked like
a great dane, you -could- argue about them as if they
were different 'species' to the exclusion of any opinion
that would suggest that they are the same "species",
by "convention" all without any way of determining if
the two fragments were ever able to mate and produce
viable offspring, which, as it turns out, they can.
and, it's also, quite possible, that two bug varieties,
that look nearly identical may not be able to have
ever produced viable offspring, and, were therefore,
never part of a single contiguous breeding population
and, therefore, not the same 'species' and yet, be
classified -as- the same species with no chance of
fully demonstrating breeding population, based
on outward appearance alone.
now, you find a variety of bugs, and start
trying to hang "extinct" labels on them
all without any idea as to whether one of -them-
could reproduce viable offspring with a bug that
is wandering about today, even if, it's appearance
has changed somewhat and it looks different as
far as one can tell from a 'fossil'
so, you start making up all these stories about
"extinct" species that you have zero method of
determining relationship with present day finds
with regards to breeding potential.
it's not possible to conclude either of these;
"it is possible that a fossil find could have bred
with a contemporary living organism and produce
viable offspring"
or
"it is not possible that a fossil find could have
bred with a contemporary living organism and produce
viable offspring"
or, "it is possible that a fossil find could have
bred with another fossil find to produce viable offspring"
or, "it is not possible that a fossil find could have
bred with another fossil find and produced viable offspring"
and without that very key information,
all statements concerning fossil relationships to
contemporary organisms are rather meaningless.
there's just no way of establishing
a contiguous breeding population
and so, positting that such a contiguous
breeding population exists is speculation.
have to take a break...
Timothy Sutter
> >right now, i'm saying that no contiguous breeding population
> >from some presumed initial organism(s) to all organisms
> >living on earth is shown.
bpuharic wrote:
> no one's ever seen the civil war either.
the existence of a single contiguous breeding population is speculative.
bpuharic
<a20...@lycos.com-> wrote:
>> >> Timothy Sutter said:
>
>> >no presumed "initial organism" nor fabricated version
>> >of any presumed "initial organism" is present to be
>> >inspected with the empirical senses, therefore,
>> >"imaginary" is an apt description.
>
>
>bpuharic wrote:
>
>> well....no. we don't have to have the ORIGINAL population at all to
>> prove evolution exists.
>
>
>the non-existence of some presumed original organism
>is a problem all in itself
in what sense? why is this a problem? i've already proven it's
irrelevant to evolution.
, and does not support nor
>disprove the non-existence of a contiguous breeding population.
>there is no such contiguous breeding population and
>it is speculative to say that there is one.
we don't have to have the original organism to show that populations
change with time.
your point is irrelevant in its former contention and wrong in its
latter.
we can test evolution. therefore it's not 'speculative' at all.
>
>
>> Timothy Sutter wrote:
>
>> >there is no physical documentation of any
>> >contiguous breeding population from any
>> >supposed "initial organism" to all
>> >life now present on earth.
>
>
>
>
>bpuharic wrote:
>
>> >that such a contiguous breeding population exists
>
>> >is speculative.
>
>
>> so is the existence of stars.
>
>
>so you suggest that there is no
>physical documentation for the sun.
there is no physical documentation for changes in the sun over the
course of the last 4.5B years. we don't know what the sun looked like
originally
we DO have a pretty good idea of what G class stars look like when
they form, how much gas collapses to form G class stars, etc.
but we do NOT have that info for OUR star.
so unless you're arguing our star is unique and came out of nowhere,
your point is irrelevant.
>bpuharic wrote:
>
>> in fact, if THIS is your criteria for good science
>
>> then no science exists at all. not chemistry. not physics. not geology
>
>> your point is worthless.>
>
>
>physical documentation is a criterion for good science, yes.
and we have good documentation for evolution. thanks. i already knew
that
>
>
>> Timothy Sutter wrote:
>
>> >there is no single phylogenetic tree,
>> >of all life on earth, without conflict.
>
>> >the study of 'fossils' does not establish breeding population.
>
>bpuharic wrote:
>
>> sure it does. it does so because we have a
>
>> TESTABLE MECHANISM THAT PRODUCES DESCENT WITH MODIFICATION.
>
>> it produces EXACTLY what is seen in the fossil record....changing
>> populations with time
>>
>
>see, my problem with the so-called 'fossil record'
>
>is this, inability to ascertain breeding population.
did you have parents?
if you did, then your existence establishes the existence of breeding
populations. are you arguing that you didn't have parents?
the fossil record establishes a pattern of descent with modification.
we never see humans with dinosaurs for example. homo erectus ALWAYS
precedes the existence of homo sapiens. the mechanism of natural
selection explains this pattern.
so unless you're telling me you don't have parents, and that humans
DID live with dinosaurs
your points are either wrong or worthless.
>
>so, in essence you have people concluding things about
>this so-called 'fossil record' with a very key bit of
>information not only missing, but unattainable.
only if you don't have parents. did you have a mother and father?
>
>
>so, for instance, someone concludes that two sets
>of boney fragments that look somehwhat alike in form
>
>constitute a similar organism, and that two fragments
>that look quite dissimilar, constitute variant organisms
>
>
>all without any way of establishing absolute breeding population.
what does 'establishing an absolute breeding population' mean? the
EXISTENCE of a breeding population? the CHANGE in a breeding
population?
care to try using the english language?
>
>
>
>
>"it is possible that a fossil find could have bred
>with a contemporary living organism and produce
>viable offspring"
fine.
when you find a human and a dinosaur together you let me know
because without evolution...descent with modification...such a PATTERN
is inexplicable.
>
>and without that very key information,
>
>all statements concerning fossil relationships to
>contemporary organisms are rather meaningless.
meaningless? you have failed to account for the patterns seen in the
fossil record. the fact no humans were present in the cambrian
explosion. the fact that mammals came after the explosion.
why this pattern? how did this happen?
evolution explains it. evolution is testable.
so, again, your points are either irrelevant or wrong
bpuharic
the existence of the civil war is speculative
John Harshman
[snip]
>
> right now, i'm saying that no contiguous breeding population
> from some presumed initial organism(s) to all organisms
> living on earth is shown.
Then I agree with you. Everyone in the world agrees with you in that
statement. It's a trivial truism. But I suspect you draw some lesson
from it. What would that be?
chris thompson
Right. If I understand you correctly, it will never be shown.
Why?
Because the last time there was a single, contiguous, interbreeding,
panmictic population stemming from a single common ancestor was about
3 billion years ago, and they were all prokaryotic unicellular
organisms, and most likely, any rock in which they might have been
fossilized was long ago metamorphosed by heat and pressure.
Where is the problem with that?
On the other hand, the OTHER evidence for common descent- anatomical,
biogeographical, comparitive embryological, etc. etc., is
overwhelming.
When we find a dead guy with a bullet in his heart, blood all over the
place, gun powder stains and burn marks on his chest, and a spent
cartridge on the ground next to him- just because we don't have the
gun, is that any reason to conclude he wasn't shot?
Chris
Eric Root
But it's a very reasonable, highly intelligent conclusion that is
superior in every way to any other explanation for the way things are.
Eric Root
raven1
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it
means.
>breeding population...
Eric Root
So what? What possible way would there be for the initial breeding
population to have bread for a while, quit, and then started in
again? Are you suggesting that life started several times, and only
the last continued to now? That _really_ has no evidence or basis
for speculation.
Eric Root
Mitchell Coffey
So is the existence of the American Civil War.
Mitchell Coffey
Mitchell Coffey
How do you know that.
Mitchell Coffey
Mitchell Coffey
> no clear demonstration of "autogenesis"
> initial replicating and metabolizing
> entity not in evidence.
>
> [imaginary initial organism]
>
> <.>
>
> no contiguous breeding population can be shown
> from imagined initial organism to all existing
> life on earth.
>
> [imagined contiguous breeding population]
>
> no single "phylogenetic tree of all life" without
> similar genetic information and expressed traits
> after 'diverging' branches.
>
> [imagined phylogenetic tree of all life]
>
> similar genetic information and expressed traits
> do not demand a contiguous breeding population.
>
> contention of a single contiguous breeding poulation
> from an imagined initial organism to all contemporary
> life on earth is not demanded.
>
> [imaginary initial organism]
> [imagined contiguous breeding population]
> [imagined phylogenetic tree of all life]
I think you would be more likely to have others understand what you
mean if you would stop speaking in tongues while you post.
Mitchell Coffey
R. Baldwin
news:LZydncGYCaM...@giganews.com:
Just as a side note, is it correct to use the word "breeding" with asexual
organisms?
Robert Camp
>>>> Timothy Sutter said:
<snip>
>
>
>
> have to take a break...
While you're taking a break I would urge you to also take some time to
consider the major fallacy in the arguments you're advancing (okay, so
far all you're doing is offering observations that have some minimal,
though entirely labored, connection with reality - but I think we all
know where you're going with this).
Underlying everything you have said so far is the spurious notion that
if we don't have exhaustive, encyclopedic evidence for a phenomenon -
including kinds that strain probability or even possibility - then we
can come to no provisional conclusions as to the nature of the
phenomenon.
The problem is, unless you're a complete nut, this is the one and only
area of life in which you demand such comprehensive documentation
before reaching an evaluation. It is a selective bit of solipsism
revealing a prejudice that is most often prompted by friction with
religious tenets.
Whatever your motivation, the arguments you (appear) to be making are
severely flawed.
RLC
R. Baldwin
@lycos.com-:
> no clear demonstration of "autogenesis"
> initial replicating and metabolizing
> entity not in evidence.
>
> [imaginary initial organism]
>
> <.>
>
> no contiguous breeding population can be shown
> from imagined initial organism to all existing
> life on earth.
>
> [imagined contiguous breeding population]
>
> no single "phylogenetic tree of all life" without
> similar genetic information and expressed traits
> after 'diverging' branches.
>
> [imagined phylogenetic tree of all life]
>
> similar genetic information and expressed traits
> do not demand a contiguous breeding population.
>
> contention of a single contiguous breeding poulation
> from an imagined initial organism to all contemporary
> life on earth is not demanded.
>
>
> [imaginary initial organism]
> [imagined contiguous breeding population]
> [imagined phylogenetic tree of all life]
>
Nothing has ever been truly observed contiguous in time. All time-
varying observations require discrete samples. Your foeval vision, for
example, can only see a few images per second, and your peripheral
vision about 90. Anything changing faster than that cannot be observed
by human vision.
We can use high-speed measurement circuits to make faster observations
and replay more slowly on a display, but the high-speed measurements
ultimately have some discrete resolution in time, and graphing systems
have some discrete resolution in space (pixels, phosphor grains, printed
dots, etc.)
It is the same with the fossil record.
el cid
A rather naive proposition. A coherent presentation is
likely predicated on a coherent concept.
heekster
Except for all those cemeteries, all over the place, like Arlington,
for example.
Timothy Sutter
> > > >right now, i'm saying that no contiguous breeding population
> > > >from some presumed initial organism(s) to all organisms
> > > >living on earth is shown.
> > bpuharic wrote:
> > > no one's ever seen the civil war either.
> > the existence of a single contiguous breeding population is speculative.
Eric Root wrote:
> But it's a very reasonable, highly intelligent conclusion that is
> superior in every way to any other explanation for the way things are.
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
no it is not, the possibility of multiplex
discontiguous breeding populations is far
less constrictive.
-sort- of like trying to force all planetary motion
in to circular orbits and finding that the more
general elliptical orbits fits better.
multiplex discontiguous breeding populations
is more general and therefore, has a greater
degree of probability.
Timothy Sutter
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > right now, i'm saying that no contiguous breeding population
> > from some presumed initial organism(s) to all organisms
> > living on earth is shown.
chris thompson wrote:
> Right. If I understand you correctly, it will never be shown.
> Why?
> Because the last time there was a single, contiguous, interbreeding,
> panmictic population stemming from a single common ancestor was about
> 3 billion years ago, and they were all prokaryotic unicellular
> organisms, and most likely, any rock in which they might have been
> fossilized was long ago metamorphosed by heat and pressure.
this lack of continuity doesn't not stop
at a link between these organisms and
their closest presumed relatives.
you could start at mammals if you like.
still no contiguous breeding population.
chris thompson wrote:
> Where is the problem with that?
the continuity is not established
in other organisms as well.
there are lacks of contiguous breeding populations
throughout the so-called phylogenetic tree of
all life on earth.
chris thompson wrote:
> On the other hand, the OTHER evidence for common descent- anatomical,
> biogeographical, comparitive embryological, etc. etc., is
> overwhelming.
there is no overwhelming evidence which demands that
a single phylogenetic tree of all life on earth
exists at all, and the fact that no such single
phylogentic tree does exist, argues well for
the probability of multiplex discontiguous
breeding populations.
Timothy Sutter
> [snip]
> > right now, i'm saying that no contiguous breeding population
> > from some presumed initial organism(s) to all organisms
> > living on earth is shown.
John Harshman wrote:
> Then I agree with you. Everyone in the world agrees with you in that
> statement. It's a trivial truism. But I suspect you draw some lesson
> from it. What would that be?
for -one- thing, it cannot be established
with any certainty that a single organism,
alone, is the progenitor of all life on earth,
and therefore, no way of firmly establishing
that a single "phylogenetic tree" exists for
all life on earth.
there may very well be several such
"phylogenetic trees," plural, with complete
discontinuity between each,
and finding similar expressed trait structures
and genetic structure does not demand continuity,
inasmuch as such similarities are already found
on disparate 'branches' of the presumed -single-
phylogenetic tree of all life on earth.
meaning, similar structures are already found on dissimilar
'branches' and so, to suggest that the discontinuity is
intrinsic -is- already a plausible explanation that
does not require quibbling over parsimony.
bpuharic
<a20...@lycos.com-> wrote:
>> > > Timothy Sutter wrote:
>> > > >right now, i'm saying that no contiguous breeding population
>> > > >from some presumed initial organism(s) to all organisms
>> > > >living on earth is shown.
>> > bpuharic wrote:
>> > > no one's ever seen the civil war either.
>
>> > the existence of a single contiguous breeding population is speculative.
>
>
>Eric Root wrote:
>
>> But it's a very reasonable, highly intelligent conclusion that is
>> superior in every way to any other explanation for the way things are.
>
>
>> Timothy Sutter wrote:
>
>no it is not, the possibility of multiplex
>discontiguous breeding populations is far
>less constrictive.
whatever this means. it's utterly irrelevant to evolution. we know
that humans have evolved from an ape like ancestor. we didn't drop
out of the sky from a 'discontiguous breeding population'.
>
>multiplex discontiguous breeding populations
>is more general and therefore, has a greater
>degree of probability.
actually it doesn't.
if the first form of life was so successful it destroyed its
competitors then your statement is false.
and it also suffers from the complaint you make about the first single
breeding population:
it's 'speculative'
Timothy Sutter
>
> On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 16:26:43 -0500, Timothy Sutter
> <a20...@lycos.com-> wrote:
> >there are a few complete sentences, and what i am saying is that
> >any supposed initial replicating and metabolizing entity is not
> >in evidence,
> which is irrelevant to evolution. we have a testable mechanism that
> produces descent with modification.
> we SEE descent with modification in the fossil record
teh fossil record fails to establish breeding population.
such is conjectural.
> > and that there is no single "phylogenetic tree of
> >all life" without 'conflicts' and that any contention of a single
> >contiguous breeding poulation from any presumed or supposed
> >initial organism to all contemporary life on earth
> >is not demanded.
> >that is all i'm saying.
> and it's a worthless comment.
> so, again, i say
> SO WHAT?
the distinct probability of multiplex, disparate
breeding populations is plausible.
Timothy Sutter
>
> On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 17:27:52 -0500, Timothy Sutter
> <a20...@lycos.com-> wrote:
>
> >> >> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> >
> >
> >> >the relevance to "decent with modification" is that
> >> >we have no "initial organism" which metabolizes
> >> >and replicates from which to decend and modify.
> >
> >
> >
> >bpuharic wrote:
> >
> >
> >> again, i say, so what? what's the relevance to evolution?
> >
> >
> >
> >it's a speculative origin.
> no, it's not. it's no more 'speculative' than any other idea in
> science. speculation is saying that there are 11 dimensions in the
> membrane on which we all live. it's speculative since we can't test it
> and determine if the mechanism we're testing does, indeed, generate
> an 11 dimension universe
> we CAN test the mechanism of evolution and see if it generates the
> patterns seen in the fossil record, comparative genetics, the nested
> hierarchy, etc
you seem to be operating on pre-conceived notions.
> and it does
>
> perhaps you're just not familiar with the concept of 'speculative'.
>
> have you ever taken a course in science? anywhere? at any time?
>
> >
> >
> >> >bpuharic wrote:
> >
> >> >> evolution has a demonstrated mechanism that produces descent with
> >> >> modification. the evolutionary biologists have tested this and
> >> >> presented the data.
> >
> >
> >> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> >
> >
> >> >there is no known contiguous breeding population
> >
> >
> >
> >bpuharic wrote:
> >
> >
> >> SO WHAT??
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >if you would like to claim that there is a contiguous
> >breeding population, and you cannot do so, then you
> >are left speculating that there is a contiguous
> >breeding population, the documentaion for which,
> >you cannot show anyone.
> uh no. what i'm left with is a testable idea that generates what we
> see in nature
there is no 'test' which will establish
a single contiguous breeding population.
there is speculation to the effect that
such a single contiguous nature exists.
> >> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> >and therefore, if the contention is that all organisms on earth
> >can trace ancestry to a single organism, and you do not have a
> >single contiguous breeding population to show me, then, the
> >existence of a single contiguous breeding population
> >remains speculative.
> which is as useful as saying no one has seen a fish evolve into a man.
> you've made 2 comments:
> 1. evolution is speculative
no, i said a single contiguous breeding
population is speculative.
"evolution" is a somewhat ambiguous term and may
be used to describe phenomenon like dog breeding,
and, i have no problem with the concept of dog breeding.
> >bpuharic wrote:
> >
> >> breeding populations are detectable.
> >
> >> that's all we need to prove evolution exists.
> >so, you suggest that breeding populations prove evolution.
> >all breeding populations show is the existence
> >of breeding populations and nothing more.
> uh, no. they establish a TESTABLE RECORD of descent with modification.
any conclusions drawn from fossil records
do not establish breeding population.
you can -only- speculate on the breeding
potential of a given fossil or set of fossils
and such relation to any other fossil set
of fossils or living organism.
> you seem to be ignorant of the fact we can OBSERVE populations
> changing with time.
no dog has been bred from a bear or
an aligator or a field of wheatgrass.
therefore, you have -not- 'observed' this.
you may -speculate- on similarities between
some dogs and bears and aligators and
wheat grasses living and or dead,
to tie fossil organisms with living organisms
or other fossil organisms in a single contiguous
breeding stream is pure conjecture.
such information is -not- present.
> >bpuharic wrote:
> >> it's not relevant at all.
> >it is relevant, there may be
> >multiplex contiguous breeding populations.
> really? evidence?
the very fact that there are discontiguous
breeding populations, right now, is an evidence
that discontiguous breeding populations
do in fact exist,
and there is no way to actuallly tie all
of these discontiguous populations together
into a single stream without considerable
forcing based on pure conjecture.
> >that such a thing as a contiguous breeding
> >population exists at all, i do not
> >argue against.
> what you DO argue against is that populations change with time
i have made no such statement.
that dog breeding happens is not
at all a problme for me.
Timothy Sutter
>
> On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 17:46:14 -0500, Timothy Sutter
> <a20...@lycos.com-> wrote:
>
> >> >> Timothy Sutter said:
> >
> >> >no presumed "initial organism" nor fabricated version
> >> >of any presumed "initial organism" is present to be
> >> >inspected with the empirical senses, therefore,
> >> >"imaginary" is an apt description.
> >
> >
> >bpuharic wrote:
> >
> >> well....no. we don't have to have the ORIGINAL population at all to
> >> prove evolution exists.
> >
> >
> >the non-existence of some presumed original organism
> >is a problem all in itself
> in what sense? why is this a problem? i've already proven it's
> irrelevant to evolution.
i is a problem inasmuch as it is not in evidence
and such an organism is only speculated upon.
> , and does not support nor
> >disprove the non-existence of a contiguous breeding population.
> >there is no such contiguous breeding population and
> >it is speculative to say that there is one.
> we don't have to have the original organism to show that populations
> change with time.
when a moth population inverts between expressed traits,
this is 'change' but, the genetic structure has not altered.
so, i certainly do not argue against such population inversions.
Timothy Sutter
depends on how "evolution" is defined and described.
some describe "evolution" in terms of population
inversions among expressed traist of single organisms.
which is to say that an organism survives to pass
on its genetics -because- it -already- is in possession
of a genetic diversity which enables trait expressions
which enable a broader environmental range.
bpuharic
<a20...@lycos.com-> wrote:
>> Timothy Sutter wrote:
>> [snip]
>
>> > right now, i'm saying that no contiguous breeding population
>> > from some presumed initial organism(s) to all organisms
>> > living on earth is shown.
>
>John Harshman wrote:
>
>> Then I agree with you. Everyone in the world agrees with you in that
>> statement. It's a trivial truism. But I suspect you draw some lesson
>> from it. What would that be?
>
>
>for -one- thing, it cannot be established
>with any certainty that a single organism,
>alone, is the progenitor of all life on earth,
and, for the 10th time, so what?
>
>and therefore, no way of firmly establishing
>that a single "phylogenetic tree" exists for
>all life on earth.
which is wrong. current life developed from basic life forms that
have been present for hundreds of millions of years. what happened in
single cell life forms prior to the development of basic body plans is
interesting but irrelevant to the fact of evolution.
Timothy Sutter
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> >> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> >> >right now, i'm saying that no contiguous breeding population
> >> >from some presumed initial organism(s) to all organisms
> >> >living on earth is shown.
> >bpuharic wrote:
> >> no one's ever seen the civil war either.
> >the existence of a single contiguous breeding population is speculative.
> the existence of the civil war is speculative
you do comprehend that the existence of a single
contiguous breeding population is speculative,
and non-verifiable.
bpuharic
<a20...@lycos.com-> wrote:
>
>
>this lack of continuity doesn't not stop
>at a link between these organisms and
>their closest presumed relatives.
>
>you could start at mammals if you like.
>
>still no contiguous breeding population.
really?
got proof? because the independent development of mammal populations
would be a miracle. mammals developed in time and space on earth in
definite patterns.
to have these follow such patterns all the while coordinating between
populations would make creationism look like child's play.
so there's no support for YOUR view at all.
in fact there's plenty of evidence AGAINST it.
Timothy Sutter
i am not suggesting that there is
a single contiguous breeding population.
i am suggesting that there are multiplex
discontiguous breeding populations,
and right now we do see discontiguous
breeding populations, plural, and not
a single contiguous breeding population
so, i do not have to go searching
for a precedent of discontinuity
whereas, the contention of a single contiguous
population is lacking entirely such a precedent.
Timothy Sutter
> > any supposed initial replicating and metabolizing entity is not
> > in evidence, and that there is no single "phylogenetic tree of
> > all life" without 'conflicts' and that any contention of a single
> > contiguous breeding poulation from any presumed or supposed
> > initial organism to all contemporary life on earth
> > is not demanded.
> > that is all i'm saying.
> Cut to the chase. Are you trying to say that you find common descent
> unconvincing?
-first- i find the contention of a single contiguous
breeding population to be -forced- and the prospect
of multiplex discontiguous breeding populations
to need no such forcing.
and so, if "common decent" can -only- mean the existence
of a single contiguous breeding population, then, yes,
it -is- unconvincing.
Timothy Sutter
> > > >right now, i'm saying that no contiguous breeding population
> > > >from some presumed initial organism(s) to all organisms
> > > >living on earth is shown.
> > bpuharic wrote:
> > > no one's ever seen the civil war either.
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > the existence of a single contiguous breeding population is speculative.
Mitchell Coffey wrote:
> So is the existence of the American Civil War.
you do comprehend that the existence of a single
contiguous breeding population is speculative,
and non-verifiable.
Timothy Sutter
> > > >no clear demonstration of "autogenesis"
> > > >initial replicating and metabolizing
> > > >entity not in evidence.
> > > >[imaginary initial organism]
> > > i'm not an evolutionary biologist, but i am a chemist.
> > > and i say to your post, 'so what?' what's the relevance?
> >
> > the relevance to "decent with modification" is that
> > we have no "initial organism" which metabolizes
> > and replicates from which to decend and modify.
> >
> > bpuharic wrote:
> > > evolution has a demonstrated mechanism that produces descent with
> > > modification. the evolutionary biologists have tested this and
> > > presented the data.
> >
> >
> >
> > and carries through to all life on earth now.
> >
> > that such a contiguous breeding population exists
> >
> >
> > bpuharic wrote:
> > > your argument is simply a variation on the 'no one has ever seen a
> > > fish evolve into a man'.
> >
> > i would say that no one has shown a contiguous breeding population
> >
> > which includes both fish and human beings.
> >
> > that such a contiguous breeding population exists
> >
> >
> > bpuharic wrote:
> > > since that's not how science works, i say...
> >
> > "science" is said to derive information from what is
> >
> > available to detect, and, no contiguous breeding
> >
> > population is avaliable to detect.
> >
> > bpuharic wrote:
> > > so what?
>
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > you seem to be agreeing that no contiguos breeding population
> > from some presumed initial organism to all life on earth is
> > known nor detected, but is speculative, and is non-verifiable.
Frank J wrote:
> Can you tell us, without repeating the phrase "contiguous breeding
> population", what you think is a better explanation for the diversity
> of life?
for one thing, i find no reason to suggest posit the existence
of a single organism and a single contiguous breeding population.
there are discontinuities now, and as far as anyone can tell,
such discontinuities may have always been present and any
verification of the contention that there -must be- only
a single contiguous breeding population is lacking.
Timothy Sutter
> <snip>
> > have to take a break...
Robert Camp wrote:
> Underlying everything you have said so far is the spurious notion that
> if we don't have exhaustive, encyclopedic evidence for a phenomenon -
not so, the contention that the evidence that is had,
points exclusively to some single contiguious breeding
population is unwarranted.
the existence multiplex discontiguous breeding populations is probable.
Timothy Sutter
>
> On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 20:59:57 -0500, Timothy Sutter
> <a20...@lycos.com-> wrote:
>
> >> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> >> [snip]
> >
> >> > right now, i'm saying that no contiguous breeding population
> >> > from some presumed initial organism(s) to all organisms
> >> > living on earth is shown.
> >
> >John Harshman wrote:
> >
> >> Then I agree with you. Everyone in the world agrees with you in that
> >> statement. It's a trivial truism. But I suspect you draw some lesson
> >> from it. What would that be?
> >for -one- thing, it cannot be established
> >with any certainty that a single organism,
> >alone, is the progenitor of all life on earth,
> and, for the 10th time, so what?
multiplex discontiguous breeding populations, plural, is probable.
> >and therefore, no way of firmly establishing
> >that a single "phylogenetic tree" exists for
> >all life on earth.
> which is wrong. current life developed from basic life forms that
> have been present for hundreds of millions of years. what happened in
> single cell life forms prior to the development of basic body plans is
> interesting but irrelevant to the fact of evolution.
what you say does not support the contention of a single cell line.
multiplex and discontiguous cells lines are probable.
Mitchell Coffey
> On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 16:33:36 -0800 (PST), Mitchell Coffey
>
> >On Feb 14, 5:51 pm, Timothy Sutter <a202...@lycos.com-> wrote:
> >> > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> >> > >right now, i'm saying that no contiguous breeding population
> >> > >from some presumed initial organism(s) to all organisms
> >> > >living on earth is shown.
> >> bpuharic wrote:
> >> > no one's ever seen the civil war either.
>
> >> the existence of a single contiguous breeding population is speculative.
>
> >So is the existence of the American Civil War.
>
> Except for all those cemeteries, all over the place, like Arlington,
> for example.
And your theory is that the connection between these artifacts and
some putative "Civil War" were not implanted in our brain by
mysterious aliens?
Mitchell Coffey
el cid
> > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > right now, i'm saying that no contiguous breeding population
> > > from some presumed initial organism(s) to all organisms
> > > living on earth is shown.
> John Harshman wrote:
> > Then I agree with you. Everyone in the world agrees with you in that
> > statement. It's a trivial truism. But I suspect you draw some lesson
> > from it. What would that be?
>
> for -one- thing, it cannot be established
> with any certainty that a single organism,
> alone, is the progenitor of all life on earth,
Of course, few well educated biologists think there
was a single progenitor cell, so there's not
point to your comment.
> and therefore, no way of firmly establishing
> that a single "phylogenetic tree" exists for
> all life on earth.
And that doesn't follow. Have you considered
a job in advertising?
bpuharic
<a20...@lycos.com-> wrote:
>bpuharic wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 17:46:14 -0500, Timothy Sutter
>> <a20...@lycos.com-> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> Timothy Sutter said:
>> >
>> >> >no presumed "initial organism" nor fabricated version
>> >> >of any presumed "initial organism" is present to be
>> >> >inspected with the empirical senses, therefore,
>> >> >"imaginary" is an apt description.
>> >
>> >
>> >bpuharic wrote:
>> >
>> >> well....no. we don't have to have the ORIGINAL population at all to
>> >> prove evolution exists.
>> >
>> >
>> >the non-existence of some presumed original organism
>> >is a problem all in itself
>
>> in what sense? why is this a problem? i've already proven it's
>> irrelevant to evolution.
>
>
>i is a problem inasmuch as it is not in evidence
>and such an organism is only speculated upon.
again i say so what? if multiple life forms existed at one time they
have not done so for hundreds of millions of years.
and they do not affect evolution at all. it's irrelevant.
you say it's a problem. you haven't proven why. so why is it a
problem? you keep chanting that it is. is this a new mantra?
>
>
>> , and does not support nor
>> >disprove the non-existence of a contiguous breeding population.
>> >there is no such contiguous breeding population and
>> >it is speculative to say that there is one.
>
>
>> we don't have to have the original organism to show that populations
>> change with time.
>
>
>when a moth population inverts between expressed traits,
>this is 'change' but, the genetic structure has not altered.
and how do you know this? there are genetic factors and epigenetic
factors controlling expression. if a population 'inverts' between
expressed traits then the factors controlling this expression will be
passed onto descendent populations in greater number than the parent
population. this is descent with modification. AKA evolution.
>
>so, i certainly do not argue against such population inversions.
nor do you say anything of significance. so far you have no point
Timothy Sutter
>
> On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 21:01:50 -0500, Timothy Sutter
> <a20...@lycos.com-> wrote:
>
> >> > > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> >> > > >right now, i'm saying that no contiguous breeding population
> >> > > >from some presumed initial organism(s) to all organisms
> >> > > >living on earth is shown.
> >> > bpuharic wrote:
> >> > > no one's ever seen the civil war either.
> >
> >> > the existence of a single contiguous breeding population is speculative.
> >
> >
> >Eric Root wrote:
> >
> >> But it's a very reasonable, highly intelligent conclusion that is
> >> superior in every way to any other explanation for the way things are.
> >
> >
> >> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> >
> >no it is not, the possibility of multiplex
> >discontiguous breeding populations is far
> >less constrictive.
> whatever this means. it's utterly irrelevant to evolution. we know
> that humans have evolved from an ape like ancestor. we didn't drop
> out of the sky from a 'discontiguous breeding population'.
there is no contiguous breeding population which
connects "an ape" and human beings.
such is speculative
> >multiplex discontiguous breeding populations
> >is more general and therefore, has a greater
> >degree of probability.
>
> actually it doesn't.
> if the first form of life was so successful it destroyed its
> competitors then your statement is false.
if blue greenalage covered the planet to the exclusion of all else,
we wouldn't be here.
we are here, so blue green algae did not cover the planet
to the exclusion of all else.
multiplex discontiguous cells lines are probable.
> and it also suffers from the complaint you make about the first single
> breeding population:
> it's 'speculative'
and no -experimental- way to distinguish between the two.
bpuharic
which is a meaningless statement. how far back do you want to go? we
have evidence of single populations for hundreds of millions of years.
and what happened billions of years ago when the first life formed is
irrelevant
you keep repeating a trivial point.
example: there is one class of mammals. mammals did not develop
independently several times. they only developed once.
so your point is irrelevant to life today. it may have been relevant a
billion years ago. but it has no effect on evolution
sorry
Mitchell Coffey
It far-and-away fits the facts better than any other explanation,
unless you waive your hands and evoke magic. The fact is that your
existence, to anyone but yourself, is speculative and non-verifiable.
The same goes for virtually all claims about existence. Don't be
tedious.
Mitchell Coffey
bpuharic
<a20...@lycos.com-> wrote:
>>
>
>depends on how "evolution" is defined and described.
>
>some describe "evolution" in terms of population
>inversions among expressed traist of single organisms.
>
>which is to say that an organism survives to pass
>on its genetics -because- it -already- is in possession
>of a genetic diversity which enables trait expressions
>which enable a broader environmental range.
it doesn't matter about a 'broader environmental range' (whatever that
is).
what matter is the differential reproduction rate for the ecological
niche that the organism fills. all organisms are different from each
other because of genetic variation and mutations.
you keep saying nothing at all.
Mitchell Coffey
> On Feb 14, 7:37�pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 14, 3:08�pm, Timothy Sutter <a202...@lycos.com-> wrote:
>
> > > no clear demonstration of "autogenesis"
> > > initial replicating and metabolizing
> > > entity not in evidence.
>
> > > [imaginary initial organism]
>
>
> > > no contiguous breeding population can be shown
> > > from imagined initial organism to all existing
> > > life on earth.
>
> > > [imagined contiguous breeding population]
>
> > > no single "phylogenetic tree of all life" without
> > > similar genetic information and expressed traits
> > > after 'diverging' branches.
>
> > > [imagined phylogenetic tree of all life]
>
> > > similar genetic information and expressed traits
> > > do not demand a contiguous breeding population.
>
> > > contention of a single contiguous breeding poulation
> > > from an imagined initial organism to all contemporary
> > > life on earth is not demanded.
>
> > > [imaginary initial organism]
> > > [imagined contiguous breeding population]
> > > [imagined phylogenetic tree of all life]
> > I think you would be more likely to have others understand what you
> > mean if you would stop speaking in tongues while you post.
>
> A rather naive proposition. A coherent presentation is
> likely predicated on a coherent concept.
"More likely." I said "more likely." A coherent concept is still
incoherent unless presented in some earthly language.
Mitchell Coffey
bpuharic
<a20...@lycos.com-> wrote:
>
>
>-first- i find the contention of a single contiguous
>breeding population to be -forced
no moreso than water is FORCED to run downhill.
- and the prospect
>of multiplex discontiguous breeding populations
>to need no such forcing.
true only if you disregard evidence.
bpuharic
<a20...@lycos.com-> wrote:
>bpuharic wrote:
>>
>
>
>> no, it's not. it's no more 'speculative' than any other idea in
>> science. speculation is saying that there are 11 dimensions in the
>> membrane on which we all live. it's speculative since we can't test it
>> and determine if the mechanism we're testing does, indeed, generate
>> an 11 dimension universe
>
>
>> we CAN test the mechanism of evolution and see if it generates the
>> patterns seen in the fossil record, comparative genetics, the nested
>> hierarchy, etc
>
>
>you seem to be operating on pre-conceived notions.
yeah. i'm a scientist. we tend to go with the evidence rather than
hunches or speculations.
sorry.
>> >
>> >
>> >if you would like to claim that there is a contiguous
>> >breeding population, and you cannot do so, then you
>> >are left speculating that there is a contiguous
>> >breeding population, the documentaion for which,
>> >you cannot show anyone.
>
>
>> uh no. what i'm left with is a testable idea that generates what we
>> see in nature
>
>
>there is no 'test' which will establish
>a single contiguous breeding population.
sure there is. there is the test of a mechanism that produces nested
hierarchies.
there is the test that produces patterns in the fossil record of
classes of organisms appearing at certain times and places, as the
mechanism of evolution predicts
so you're wrong
>
>there is speculation to the effect that
>such a single contiguous nature exists.
only if you did not descend from your parents.
you DO have parents, don't you?
they are a breeding population. do you have grandparents?
>
>
>> >> Timothy Sutter wrote:
>
>> >and therefore, if the contention is that all organisms on earth
>> >can trace ancestry to a single organism, and you do not have a
>> >single contiguous breeding population to show me, then, the
>> >existence of a single contiguous breeding population
>> >remains speculative.
>
>> which is as useful as saying no one has seen a fish evolve into a man.
>
>> you've made 2 comments:
>
>> 1. evolution is speculative
>
>
>no, i said a single contiguous breeding
>population is speculative.
your alternative is that life's diversity appeared by random
appearances of different non related populations
that's exactly saying that evolution is speculative
so you're wrong
>
>"evolution" is a somewhat ambiguous term and may
>be used to describe phenomenon like dog breeding,
>and, i have no problem with the concept of dog breeding.
i'm a chemist, not a biologist. unlike you, however, i do have formal
scientific training. i just dont make up stuff like you do.
and what i see is that biologists have done a good job of defining
what evolution is.
you can't understand it? that's not my problem. sorry
>
>
>> >bpuharic wrote:
>> >
>> >> breeding populations are detectable.
>> >
>> >> that's all we need to prove evolution exists.
>
>
>> >so, you suggest that breeding populations prove evolution.
>> >all breeding populations show is the existence
>> >of breeding populations and nothing more.
>
>
>> uh, no. they establish a TESTABLE RECORD of descent with modification.
>
>
>any conclusions drawn from fossil records
>do not establish breeding population.
what does 'establish a breeding population' mean?
do you have parents? grandparents? that's a breeding population
so unless you can tell me that you were bred in a petri dish on mars,
you yourself are evidence of the existence of breeding populations
and we see the same mechanism in the fossil record. and we see
populations changing with time
AKA evolution
>
>you can -only- speculate on the breeding
>potential of a given fossil or set of fossils
>and such relation to any other fossil set
>of fossils or living organism.
we can test the mechanism that produces changes in population with
time
it's speculative ONLY if there is no testable mechanism
you don't appear to have a deep background in science. we scientists
don't use the term 'speculation' when we can test an idea and the test
supports a theory.
>
>
>
>> you seem to be ignorant of the fact we can OBSERVE populations
>> changing with time.
>
>
>no dog has been bred from a bear or
>an aligator or a field of wheatgrass.
ah. here we have it. FINALLY we have your objection that no one has
ever seen a fish evolve into a man
that's pretty standard creationist distortion.
we have a mechanism. the mechanism is testable. it explains and
produces
-nested hierarchies
-descent with modfication
so, your comment is irrelevant. we can test evolution. and it produces
the patterns we see in nature.
that's how science works.
glad you finally admitted your reliance on a discredited creationist
argument, though
>
>therefore, you have -not- 'observed' this.
i dont have to. science doesn't work this way. you creationists have
your unique, eccentric views of science
we scientists, however, are not beholden to your distorted views of
science.
>
>you may -speculate- on similarities between
>some dogs and bears and aligators and
>wheat grasses living and or dead,
>
>to tie fossil organisms with living organisms
>or other fossil organisms in a single contiguous
>breeding stream is pure conjecture.
>
>such information is -not- present.
go ask your grandma, OK?
>
>> >multiplex contiguous breeding populations.
>
>
>> really? evidence?
>
>
>the very fact that there are discontiguous
>breeding populations, right now, is an evidence
>that discontiguous breeding populations
>do in fact exist,
the fact there are PATTERNS in nature...for example NO humans EVER
appear with dinosaurs....
is explained by evolution and NOT by your view of biology
>
>and there is no way to actuallly tie all
>of these discontiguous populations together
>into a single stream without considerable
>forcing based on pure conjecture.
uh no. where we have genetic information we can test genetic
relationships. genetics are causal...genes determine our physical
structure. and we can correlate changes in gene frequencies to changes
in populations with time. AKA evolution
where genetic info ISNT available, since we KNOW evolution via natural
selection is a testable fact, we can apply this principle to changes
in fossilized populations with time
AKA evolution
bpuharic
<a20...@lycos.com-> wrote:
>
>i am not suggesting that there is
>a single contiguous breeding population.
then why is there only 1 class of mammals? why are there mammals at
all? what is the relationship between them if not CAUSED by evolution?
your statement is meaningless.
>
>i am suggesting that there are multiplex
>discontiguous breeding populations,
and there is NO evidence for this at all. none.
>
>and right now we do see discontiguous
>breeding populations, plural, and not
>a single contiguous breeding population
really? how many classes of mammals are there?
bpuharic
<a20...@lycos.com-> wrote:
>bpuharic wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 16:26:43 -0500, Timothy Sutter
>> <a20...@lycos.com-> wrote:
>
>> >there are a few complete sentences, and what i am saying is that
>> >any supposed initial replicating and metabolizing entity is not
>> >in evidence,
>
>
>> which is irrelevant to evolution. we have a testable mechanism that
>> produces descent with modification.
>
>> we SEE descent with modification in the fossil record
>
>
>teh fossil record fails to establish breeding population.
really? how many classes of mammals are there? there's only 1. how did
the order of DOGS come about if not by evolution from another mammal?
the fact is that evolution can, and does, produce speciation. it does
so by changing populations with time.
if your view was true, then mammals could crop up anywhere in the
fossil record. there would be no causal link between orders of
mammals.
you would need some causal mechanism to explain why this is NEVER
seen. evolution explains this.
your view does not.
>
>
>> > and that there is no single "phylogenetic tree of
>> >all life" without 'conflicts' and that any contention of a single
>> >contiguous breeding poulation from any presumed or supposed
>> >initial organism to all contemporary life on earth
>> >is not demanded.
>
>> >that is all i'm saying.
>
>> and it's a worthless comment.
>
>> so, again, i say
>
>> SO WHAT?
>
>
>the distinct probability of multiplex, disparate
>breeding populations is plausible.
well, no it's not. if it were you'd have evidence for it
when you get that, let me know.
Timothy Sutter
> > no clear demonstration of "autogenesis"
> > entity not in evidence.
> > [imaginary initial organism]
> > [imagined contiguous breeding population]
> > [imagined phylogenetic tree of all life]
Devils Advocaat wrote:
> If I am understanding this correctly, what you are trying to say is
> that you don't accept the theory of evolution, or the hypothesis of
> abiogenesis, because you feel that it is all based on imagination and
> not evidence.
you don't seem to be understanding me correctly
bpuharic
<a20...@lycos.com-> wrote:
>bpuharic wrote:
>>
>
>> >
>> >no it is not, the possibility of multiplex
>> >discontiguous breeding populations is far
>> >less constrictive.
>
>> whatever this means. it's utterly irrelevant to evolution. we know
>> that humans have evolved from an ape like ancestor. we didn't drop
>> out of the sky from a 'discontiguous breeding population'.
>
>
>there is no contiguous breeding population which
>
>connects "an ape" and human beings.
you're arguing for missing links, i see. since this is irrelevant,
your point is irrelevant.
we have a mechanism that does, and can, turn ape like populations into
humans
we see changes in time in various populations that do this.
we dont have to have a continuous line of succession. if humans
appeared in the fossil record before dinosaurs you'd have an argument.
we dont. we appear at very specific times, after ancestor populations
developed characteristics that we inherited.
with your logic, humans could have flippers or gills or wings or
exoskeletons. we don't. there's a causal link between us and our
ancestors. that idea is testable. the fact there's no 'fish to man'
path is an accident of nature, not of fact.
>
>
>> >multiplex discontiguous breeding populations
>> >is more general and therefore, has a greater
>> >degree of probability.
>>
>> actually it doesn't.
>
>> if the first form of life was so successful it destroyed its
>> competitors then your statement is false.
>
>
>if blue greenalage covered the planet to the exclusion of all else,
>
>we wouldn't be here.
>
>we are here, so blue green algae did not cover the planet
>
>to the exclusion of all else.
>
>
>multiplex discontiguous cells lines are probable.
a billion years ago perhaps.
not today. sorry
>
>
>
>>> and it also suffers from the complaint you make about the first single
>> breeding population:
>
>> it's 'speculative'
>
>
>
>and no -experimental- way to distinguish between the two.
siure there is
find a human in the fossl record a billion years ago.
your view of biology would be confirmed.
however, since there are NO humans that early, and evolution explains
why,
your view is wrong
Timothy Sutter
>
> Timothy Sutter <a20...@lycos.com-> wrote in news:4B785828.1439
> @lycos.com-:
>
> > no clear demonstration of "autogenesis"
> > initial replicating and metabolizing
> > entity not in evidence.
> >
> > [imaginary initial organism]
> >
> >
> > no contiguous breeding population can be shown
> > from imagined initial organism to all existing
> > life on earth.
> >
> > [imagined contiguous breeding population]
> >
> > no single "phylogenetic tree of all life" without
> > similar genetic information and expressed traits
> > after 'diverging' branches.
> >
> >
> > do not demand a contiguous breeding population.
> >
> > life on earth is not demanded.
> >
> >
> > [imagined contiguous breeding population]
> > [imagined phylogenetic tree of all life]
> Nothing has ever been truly observed contiguous in time. All time-
> varying observations require discrete samples. Your foeval vision, for
> example, can only see a few images per second, and your peripheral
> vision about 90. Anything changing faster than that cannot be observed
> by human vision.
> We can use high-speed measurement circuits to make faster observations
> and replay more slowly on a display, but the high-speed measurements
> ultimately have some discrete resolution in time, and graphing systems
> have some discrete resolution in space (pixels, phosphor grains, printed
> dots, etc.)
> It is the same with the fossil record.
fossils do not breed
and one cannot show for certain that, for instance,
a "fossil" grouping, can or cannot breed
with a living set of organisms.
el cid
Actually, your comment focused on OPs language selection.
I didn't actually recognize it as Tongues(TM) but as
_gibberish_, and not even the authentic frontier variety.
It is a rather familiar earthly language, very effectively
correlated to the speakers personal perception of profundity.
Now does gibberish inspire this perception or is the
gibberish the result of the --- rather premature ---
perception that a coherent thought has actually occurred?
That is a question I would ask Bertrand Russell.
bpuharic
<a20...@lycos.com-> wrote:
>bpuharic wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 20:59:57 -0500, Timothy Sutter
>> <a20...@lycos.com-> wrote:
>>
>> >for -one- thing, it cannot be established
>> >with any certainty that a single organism,
>> >alone, is the progenitor of all life on earth,
>
>> and, for the 10th time, so what?
>
>
>multiplex discontiguous breeding populations, plural, is probable.
a billion years ago perhaps. but not in the last 600M years. sorry
>
>
>
>> >and therefore, no way of firmly establishing
>> >that a single "phylogenetic tree" exists for
>> >all life on earth.
>
>> which is wrong. current life developed from basic life forms that
>> have been present for hundreds of millions of years. what happened in
>> single cell life forms prior to the development of basic body plans is
>> interesting but irrelevant to the fact of evolution.
>
>
>what you say does not support the contention of a single cell line.
sure it does. single cells have ways of reproducing that complex
mamals, for example, dont
>
> multiplex and discontiguous cells lines are probable.
only if you have evidence.
where is it?
Timothy Sutter
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > [snip]
> > > > right now, i'm saying that no contiguous breeding population
> > > > from some presumed initial organism(s) to all organisms
> > > > living on earth is shown.
> > John Harshman wrote:
> > > Then I agree with you. Everyone in the world agrees with you in that
> > > statement. It's a trivial truism. But I suspect you draw some lesson
> > > from it. What would that be?
> >
> > for -one- thing, it cannot be established
> > with any certainty that a single organism,
> > alone, is the progenitor of all life on earth,
> Of course, few well educated biologists think there
> was a single progenitor cell, so there's not
> point to your comment.
there need not be a single 'colony' of like cells.
as far as you can tell, life on earth has always been disparate.
> > and therefore, no way of firmly establishing
> > that a single "phylogenetic tree" exists for
> > all life on earth.
> And that doesn't follow. Have you considered
> a job in advertising?
it does follow inasmuch as a multiplex origin
leads to a multiplex set of trees and not
a single tree of all life.
bpuharic
<a20...@lycos.com-> wrote:
>
>and one cannot show for certain that, for instance,
>a "fossil" grouping, can or cannot breed
>with a living set of organisms.
you're denying different species exist?
so tell me, how do humans breed with earthworms?
Timothy Sutter
>
> On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 21:05:58 -0500, Timothy Sutter
> <a20...@lycos.com-> wrote:
>
> >bpuharic wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 17:46:14 -0500, Timothy Sutter
> >> <a20...@lycos.com-> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> >> Timothy Sutter said:
> >> >
> >> >> >no presumed "initial organism" nor fabricated version
> >> >> >of any presumed "initial organism" is present to be
> >> >> >inspected with the empirical senses, therefore,
> >> >> >"imaginary" is an apt description.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >bpuharic wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> well....no. we don't have to have the ORIGINAL population at all to
> >> >> prove evolution exists.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >the non-existence of some presumed original organism
> >> >is a problem all in itself
> >
> >> in what sense? why is this a problem? i've already proven it's
> >> irrelevant to evolution.
> >
> >
> >i is a problem inasmuch as it is not in evidence
> >and such an organism is only speculated upon.
>
> again i say so what? if multiple life forms existed at one time they
> have not done so for hundreds of millions of years.
so, you'd like to contend that all life forms on earth
are of a single variety and all could, potentially interbreed.
this doesn't seem to be happening
> and they do not affect evolution at all. it's irrelevant.
>
> you say it's a problem. you haven't proven why. so why is it a
> problem? you keep chanting that it is. is this a new mantra?
it's a problme because it's not known for certain and
that's why some people do experiments to try
and find out.
but, some aspects evade finding out,
and leaves you with speculation.
> >> , and does not support nor
> >> >disprove the non-existence of a contiguous breeding population.
> >> >there is no such contiguous breeding population and
> >> >it is speculative to say that there is one.
> >> we don't have to have the original organism to show that populations
> >> change with time.
> >when a moth population inverts between expressed traits,
> >this is 'change' but, the genetic structure has not altered.
> and how do you know this? there are genetic factors and epigenetic
> factors controlling expression. if a population 'inverts' between
> expressed traits then the factors controlling this expression will be
> passed onto descendent populations in greater number than the parent
> population. this is descent with modification. AKA evolution.
no, with the moths it's just a population
inversion of pre-existing genetic expressions.
Timothy Sutter
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > > > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > > > >right now, i'm saying that no contiguous breeding population
> > > > > >from some presumed initial organism(s) to all organisms
> > > > > >living on earth is shown.
> > > > bpuharic wrote:
> > > > > no one's ever seen the civil war either.
> > > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > > the existence of a single contiguous breeding population is speculative.
> > Mitchell Coffey wrote:
> > > So is the existence of the American Civil War.
> >
> > you do comprehend that the existence of a single
> > contiguous breeding population is speculative,
> > and non-verifiable.
> It far-and-away fits the facts better than any other explanation,
> unless you waive your hands and evoke magic.
i don't know what you mean by "magic"
conscious interference patterns need not be called "magic"
> The fact is that your
> existence, to anyone but yourself, is speculative and non-verifiable.
> The same goes for virtually all claims about existence. Don't be
> tedious.
to conclude that a single breeding population must exist as opposed
to a multiplex set of discontiguous breeding populations, plural,
you don't have enough information to decipher.
Timothy Sutter
>
> On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 21:07:56 -0500, Timothy Sutter
> <a20...@lycos.com-> wrote:
>
> >>
> >
> >depends on how "evolution" is defined and described.
> >
> >some describe "evolution" in terms of population
> >inversions among expressed traist of single organisms.
> >
> >which is to say that an organism survives to pass
> >on its genetics -because- it -already- is in possession
> >of a genetic diversity which enables trait expressions
> >which enable a broader environmental range.
>
> it doesn't matter about a 'broader environmental range' (whatever that
> is).
a wider range of conditions
> what matter is the differential reproduction rate for the ecological
> niche that the organism fills. all organisms are different from each
> other because of genetic variation and mutations.
some differences are intrinsic and some are simply
variant expressions of traist already on the organism.
Timothy Sutter
>
> On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 21:09:47 -0500, Timothy Sutter
> <a20...@lycos.com-> wrote:
>
> >bpuharic wrote:
> >
> >> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> >
> >> >> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> >
> >> >> >right now, i'm saying that no contiguous breeding population
> >> >> >from some presumed initial organism(s) to all organisms
> >> >> >living on earth is shown.
> >
> >> >bpuharic wrote:
> >
> >> >> no one's ever seen the civil war either.
> >
> >> >the existence of a single contiguous breeding population is speculative.
> >> the existence of the civil war is speculative
> >you do comprehend that the existence of a single
> >contiguous breeding population is speculative,
> >and non-verifiable.
> which is a meaningless statement. how far back do you want to go? we
> have evidence of single populations for hundreds of millions of years.
you have evidence of single populations that remain
single populations for hundreds of millions of years,
so you say.
what you do not have is a single contiguous breeding population.
> example: there is one class of mammals. mammals did not develop
> independently several times. they only developed once.
your categorizations do not demand this conclusion.
el cid
> el cid wrote:
> > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > > [snip]
> > > > > right now, i'm saying that no contiguous breeding population
> > > > > from some presumed initial organism(s) to all organisms
> > > > > living on earth is shown.
> > > John Harshman wrote:
> > > > Then I agree with you. Everyone in the world agrees with you in that
> > > > statement. It's a trivial truism. But I suspect you draw some lesson
> > > > from it. What would that be?
>
> > > for -one- thing, it cannot be established
> > > with any certainty that a single organism,
> > > alone, is the progenitor of all life on earth,
> > Of course, few well educated biologists think there
> > was a single progenitor cell, so there's not
> > point to your comment.
>
> there need not be a single 'colony' of like cells.
>
> as far as you can tell, life on earth has always been disparate.
It's hard to be sure what you actually mean given
that you can't compose complete sentences. I take
that as symptomatic of your having incomplete thoughts.
However, if you mean that 'as far as _you_ can tell,
this tells us more about what you know than about
reality. From what I know, life as we observe it
on earth has common origins in an early 'cloud' of
organism that shared their genetic material.
> > > and therefore, no way of firmly establishing
> > > that a single "phylogenetic tree" exists for
> > > all life on earth.
> > And that doesn't follow. Have you considered
> > a job in advertising?
>
> it does follow inasmuch as a multiplex origin
> leads to a multiplex set of trees and not
> a single tree of all life.
Beyond the commonly referenced issue of the
common genetic code and a few other conserved
bits of genetics, there's conservation in some
core biochemistry, for example single methyl
transfer chemistries that makes a very compelling
case for a common origin for all extant cellular
life on Earth.
But before you go and learn something about
biochemistry and genetics, consider either
upgrading your skills in English and in
composition of complete thoughts. Thanks
in advance.
bpuharic
<a20...@lycos.com-> wrote:
>bpuharic wrote:
>>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >the non-existence of some presumed original organism
>> >> >is a problem all in itself
>> >
>> >> in what sense? why is this a problem? i've already proven it's
>> >> irrelevant to evolution.
>> >
>> >
>> >i is a problem inasmuch as it is not in evidence
>> >and such an organism is only speculated upon.
>>
>> again i say so what? if multiple life forms existed at one time they
>> have not done so for hundreds of millions of years.
>
>
>so, you'd like to contend that all life forms on earth
>are of a single variety and all could, potentially interbreed.
uh no. where do you see that? if descent with modification exists,
some modifications will prevent interbreeding.
>
>
>this doesn't seem to be happening
creationists try to distort language. it's no surprise, but it's a
tiresome and not very effective trick.
evolution produces speciation. speciation, by definition, prevents
interbreeding.
try not to put words in my mouth, OK? you're not good at it.
>
>> and they do not affect evolution at all. it's irrelevant.
>>
>> you say it's a problem. you haven't proven why. so why is it a
>> problem? you keep chanting that it is. is this a new mantra?
>
>
>it's a problme because it's not known for certain and
>that's why some people do experiments to try
>and find out.
if it hasnt been an issue for 500,000,000 years, then it's not a
problem.
>
>> >when a moth population inverts between expressed traits,
>> >this is 'change' but, the genetic structure has not altered.
>
>> and how do you know this? there are genetic factors and epigenetic
>> factors controlling expression. if a population 'inverts' between
>> expressed traits then the factors controlling this expression will be
>> passed onto descendent populations in greater number than the parent
>> population. this is descent with modification. AKA evolution.
>
>
>no, with the moths it's just a population
>inversion of pre-existing genetic expressions.
ah. more creationist doubletalk. what is a 'pre existing genetic
expression'?
genes either are or are not expressed. it's like being pregnant. you
can't be slightly pregnant.
bpuharic
<a20...@lycos.com-> wrote:
>bpuharic wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 21:07:56 -0500, Timothy Sutter
>> <a20...@lycos.com-> wrote:
>>
>> >>
>> >
>> >depends on how "evolution" is defined and described.
>> >
>> >some describe "evolution" in terms of population
>> >inversions among expressed traist of single organisms.
>> >
>> >which is to say that an organism survives to pass
>> >on its genetics -because- it -already- is in possession
>> >of a genetic diversity which enables trait expressions
>> >which enable a broader environmental range.
>>
>> it doesn't matter about a 'broader environmental range' (whatever that
>> is).
>
>a wider range of conditions
genes dont care about wider range of conditions because there is no
genetic weatherman telling them about different places.
they only know their immediate ecological niche.
>
>
>> what matter is the differential reproduction rate for the ecological
>> niche that the organism fills. all organisms are different from each
>> other because of genetic variation and mutations.
>
>
>some differences are intrinsic and some are simply
>variant expressions of traist already on the organism.
more doubletalk.
bpuharic
<a20...@lycos.com-> wrote:
>
>to conclude that a single breeding population must exist as opposed
>
>to a multiplex set of discontiguous breeding populations, plural,
>
>you don't have enough information to decipher.
sure we do. where is the evidence, for example, of different classes
of mammals? the independent development of mammals?
there is none.
Timothy Sutter
there is no single phylogenetic tree of all life without conflict.
> there is the test that produces patterns in the fossil record of
> classes of organisms appearing at certain times and places, as the
> mechanism of evolution predicts
fossils do not breed and cannot be successfuly tied
to any other fossil nor to any living organism.
> >> >> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> >
> >> >and therefore, if the contention is that all organisms on earth
> >> >can trace ancestry to a single organism, and you do not have a
> >> >single contiguous breeding population to show me, then, the
> >> >existence of a single contiguous breeding population
> >> >remains speculative.
> >
> >> which is as useful as saying no one has seen a fish evolve into a man.
> >
> >> you've made 2 comments:
> >
> >> 1. evolution is speculative
> >
> >
> >no, i said a single contiguous breeding
> >population is speculative.
> your alternative is that life's diversity appeared by random
> appearances of different non related populations
idont claim that the appearance of life now is
precisely identical to any "original" position.
> that's exactly saying that evolution is speculative
depends on how you define "evolution"
> >> >bpuharic wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> breeding populations are detectable.
> >> >
> >> >> that's all we need to prove evolution exists.
> >
> >
> >> >so, you suggest that breeding populations prove evolution.
> >> >all breeding populations show is the existence
> >> >of breeding populations and nothing more.
> >
> >
> >> uh, no. they establish a TESTABLE RECORD of descent with modification.
> >
> >
> >any conclusions drawn from fossil records
> >do not establish breeding population.
> what does 'establish a breeding population' mean?
a breeding population is a group of organisms that can produce offspring
fossils do not produce offspring
tgherefore, breeding population cannot be established.
> and we see the same mechanism in the fossil record. and we see
> populations changing with time
no you do not, you see disparate fragments of organisms
that may or may not have ever constituted a breeding population
> >you can -only- speculate on the breeding
> >potential of a given fossil or set of fossils
> >and such relation to any other fossil set
> >of fossils or living organism.
> we can test the mechanism that produces changes in population with
> time
finding a fossil and saying;
"we expected to find such a fossil"
is -not- a predictive test.
> >> you seem to be ignorant of the fact we can OBSERVE populations
> >> changing with time.
> >
> >
> >no dog has been bred from a bear or
> >an aligator or a field of wheatgrass.
> ah. here we have it. FINALLY we have your objection that no one has
> ever seen a fish evolve into a man
you hove not bred a dog from a bear, this is fact.
you can now only speculate on the cmparitive anatomies
of dogs and bears and certain creatures whicg you
clain to dig up which do not breed with anything.
you can also compare contemporary dogs and bears
and make some more speculation about similarities.
but, it is known that conflict in phylogenetic trees
poibnt to the fact that traits can "arise" is
disparate organisms without common ancestry.
common ancestry is not necessary to account for such similarities.
> we have a mechanism. the mechanism is testable. it explains and
> produces
> -nested hierarchies
> -descent with modfication
nested hiearchies are not uncommon
and there is no single phylogenetic tree.
> >and there is no way to actuallly tie all
> >of these discontiguous populations together
> >into a single stream without considerable
> >forcing based on pure conjecture.
> uh no. where we have genetic information we can test genetic
> relationships. genetics are causal...genes determine our physical
> structure. and we can correlate changes in gene frequencies to changes
> in populations with time. AKA evolution
and similar gentic traits have been shown
on disparate organisms that do not have a
common ancestor to account for the similarity.
i.e. after a branch in the 'tree'
> where genetic info ISNT available, since we KNOW evolution via natural
> selection is a testable fact, we can apply this principle to changes
> in fossilized populations with time
fossils do not breed and cannot be successfully tied
in a breeding population with any other organisms
nor excluded form a breeding population
with any other organism.
you must speculate on these things
without the required information to verify.
Timothy Sutter
>
> On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 22:02:05 -0500, Timothy Sutter
> <a20...@lycos.com-> wrote:
> >and one cannot show for certain that, for instance,
> >a "fossil" grouping, can or cannot breed
> >with a living set of organisms.
> you're denying different species exist?
no, though "species" is a rather ambiguous term.
> so tell me, how do humans breed with earthworms?
they do not, and have not been shown with certainty
to have ever been part of the same contiguous
breeding population.
Timothy Sutter
>
> On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 21:12:42 -0500, Timothy Sutter
> <a20...@lycos.com-> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >-first- i find the contention of a single contiguous
> >breeding population to be -forced
> no moreso than water is FORCED to run downhill.
yes, quite a bit moreso, and no -single- cell nor even
cell -line- is positted to be an initial form.
> - and the prospect
> >of multiplex discontiguous breeding populations
> >to need no such forcing.
> true only if you disregard evidence.
the evidence -is- the existence right now of
multiple discontiguous breeding populations.
as you seem to comprehend, some "species"
-cannot- breed with other "species"
Timothy Sutter
>
> On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 21:12:13 -0500, Timothy Sutter
> <a20...@lycos.com-> wrote:
>
> >
> >i am not suggesting that there is
> >a single contiguous breeding population.
>
> then why is there only 1 class of mammals?
because you say so, but because you say so
is not a coinvincing certainty.
> what is the relationship between them if not CAUSED by evolution?
there may be no relationship between some of them.
> >i am suggesting that there are multiplex
> >discontiguous breeding populations,
> and there is NO evidence for this at all. none.
as of right now, life on earth -is- multiplex and discontiguous.
that is evidence for a miltiplex and sicontiguous cell line.
bpuharic
<a20...@lycos.com-> wrote:
>bpuharic wrote:
>>
>
>> >> the existence of the civil war is speculative
>
>> >you do comprehend that the existence of a single
>> >contiguous breeding population is speculative,
>> >and non-verifiable.
>
>> which is a meaningless statement. how far back do you want to go? we
>> have evidence of single populations for hundreds of millions of years.
>
>
>you have evidence of single populations that remain
>single populations for hundreds of millions of years,
>so you say.
>
>
>what you do not have is a single contiguous breeding population.
we have different phyla, classes, orders, etc. we can trace the
evolution of populations within these classifications through time.
>
>
>
>> example: there is one class of mammals. mammals did not develop
>> independently several times. they only developed once.
>
>
>your categorizations do not demand this conclusion.
the mechanism of evolution does.
you don't have a mechanism to explain your view.
Timothy Sutter
>
> On Feb 14, 4:09 pm, Timothy Sutter <a202...@lycos.com-> wrote:
> > well, i'm here, that's for certain.
>
> Can you prove that?
to my satisfaction, yes.
Timothy Sutter
>
> On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 16:46:45 -0500, Timothy Sutter
> <a20...@lycos.com-> wrote:
>
> >> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> >
> >> >no clear demonstration of "autogenesis"
> >> >initial replicating and metabolizing
> >> >entity not in evidence.
> >
> >> >[imaginary initial organism]
> >
> >> ><.>
> >
> >> >no contiguous breeding population can be shown
> >> >from imagined initial organism to all existing
> >> >life on earth.
> >
> >> >[imagined contiguous breeding population]
> >
> >> >after 'diverging' branches.
> >
> >> >[imagined phylogenetic tree of all life]
> >
> >> >similar genetic information and expressed traits
> >> >do not demand a contiguous breeding population.
> >
> >> >contention of a single contiguous breeding poulation
> >> >from an imagined initial organism to all contemporary
> >> >life on earth is not demanded.
> >
> >
> >> >[imaginary initial organism]
> >> >[imagined contiguous breeding population]
> >
> >
> >heekster wrote:
> >
> >> Astonishing. There isn't a single complete sentence, nor a coherent
> >> thought, in this entire laundry list.
> >
> >
> >
> >still no contiguous
>
> You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it
> means.
i think i do.
> >breeding population...
Timothy Sutter
>
> On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 21:04:31 -0500, Timothy Sutter
> <a20...@lycos.com-> wrote:
>
> >bpuharic wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 16:26:43 -0500, Timothy Sutter
> >> <a20...@lycos.com-> wrote:
> >
> >> >there are a few complete sentences, and what i am saying is that
> >> >any supposed initial replicating and metabolizing entity is not
> >> >in evidence,
> >
> >
> >> which is irrelevant to evolution. we have a testable mechanism that
> >> produces descent with modification.
> >
> >> we SEE descent with modification in the fossil record
> >
> >
> >teh fossil record fails to establish breeding population.
>
> really? how many classes of mammals are there? there's only 1.
taxonomy does not indicate absolute class assigment.
just becasue you call them all "mammals"
does not mean that all "mammals" have a common ancestor.
> the fact is that evolution can, and does, produce speciation. it does
> so by changing populations with time.
> if your view was true, then mammals could crop up anywhere in the
> fossil record. there would be no causal link between orders of
> mammals.
it depends on what was the cause of fossil
deposition in the first place
as not all animals that die end up as fossilized remains.
som, your fossil record is not telling you but
a minimal fraction of the entire story.
> you would need some causal mechanism to explain why this is NEVER
> seen. evolution explains this.
still depends in large part on the circumstances of depostion.
the 'fossil record' is by far, not a complete record
of earth's history.
> your view does not.
> >> > and that there is no single "phylogenetic tree of
> >> >all life" without 'conflicts' and that any contention of a single
> >> >contiguous breeding poulation from any presumed or supposed
> >> >initial organism to all contemporary life on earth
> >> >is not demanded.
> >
> >> >that is all i'm saying.
> >
> >> and it's a worthless comment.
> >
> >> so, again, i say
> >
> >> SO WHAT?
> >
> >
> >the distinct probability of multiplex, disparate
> >breeding populations is plausible.
> well, no it's not. if it were you'd have evidence for it
> when you get that, let me know.
there are disparate breeding populatioons on earth right now.
that they mau ave always been disparate is probable.
Timothy Sutter
>
> On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 21:00:35 -0500, Timothy Sutter
> <a20...@lycos.com-> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >this lack of continuity doesn't not stop
> >at a link between these organisms and
> >their closest presumed relatives.
> >
> >you could start at mammals if you like.
> >
> >still no contiguous breeding population.
>
> really?
>
> got proof? because the independent development of mammal populations
> would be a miracle. mammals developed in time and space on earth in
> definite patterns.
i don't discount what you may call "miraculous" to be actual,
only that it probably is not miraculous for that which doesg the work.
> to have these follow such patterns all the while coordinating between
> populations would make creationism look like child's play.
> so there's no support for YOUR view at all.
> in fact there's plenty of evidence AGAINST it.
that multiplex discontiguous breeding populations arose is supportable.
Timothy Sutter
>
> On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 22:20:25 -0500, Timothy Sutter
> <a20...@lycos.com-> wrote:
>
> >bpuharic wrote:
> >>
> >
> >> >> the existence of the civil war is speculative
> >
> >> >you do comprehend that the existence of a single
> >> >contiguous breeding population is speculative,
> >> >and non-verifiable.
> >
> >> which is a meaningless statement. how far back do you want to go? we
> >> have evidence of single populations for hundreds of millions of years.
> >
> >
> >you have evidence of single populations that remain
> >single populations for hundreds of millions of years,
> >so you say.
> >
> >
> >what you do not have is a single contiguous breeding population.
>
> we have different phyla, classes, orders, etc. we can trace the
> evolution of populations within these classifications through time.
no, you can speculate on it, as fossils do not breed
and tieing fossils to any othero organism is speculative.
> >> example: there is one class of mammals. mammals did not develop
> >> independently several times. they only developed once.
> >your categorizations do not demand this conclusion.
> the mechanism of evolution does.
no, you demand it.
the 'evidence' does not demand it.
> you don't have a mechanism to explain your view.
sure i do,
i suggest conscious interference patterns provided
the template structures for initial forms
which were genetically rich and =capable= of
expressing multiple outward appearances among
an organism, though not forced to do so.
Timothy Sutter
>
> On Feb 14, 3:08 pm, Timothy Sutter <a202...@lycos.com-> wrote:
> > no clear demonstration of "autogenesis"
> > entity not in evidence.
> >
> > [imaginary initial organism]
> >
> > <.>
> >
> > no contiguous breeding population can be shown
> > from imagined initial organism to all existing
> > life on earth.
> >
> > [imagined contiguous breeding population]
> >
> > after 'diverging' branches.
> >
> > [imagined phylogenetic tree of all life]
> >
> > similar genetic information and expressed traits
> > do not demand a contiguous breeding population.
> >
> > from an imagined initial organism to all contemporary
> > life on earth is not demanded.
> >
> > [imagined contiguous breeding population]
>
> I think you would be more likely to have others understand what you
> mean if you would stop speaking in tongues while you post.
i'll talk slower
bpuharic
<a20...@lycos.com-> wrote:
>bpuharic wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 22:02:05 -0500, Timothy Sutter
>> <a20...@lycos.com-> wrote:
>
>> >and one cannot show for certain that, for instance,
>> >a "fossil" grouping, can or cannot breed
>> >with a living set of organisms.
>
>> you're denying different species exist?
>
>
>no, though "species" is a rather ambiguous term.
which is EXACTLY what we'd expect if evolution is a fact. species do
not just pop into existence. today we have the hawthorne fruitfly
which is undergoing speciation as we speak. it's a transitional form,
as darwin predicted.
so we'd EXPECT, as evolution predicts, that the boundaries between
species can be blurred.
but eventually speciation advances to the point that it's clear.
guppies can not breed with whales.
>
>
>> so tell me, how do humans breed with earthworms?
>
>
>they do not, and have not been shown with certainty
>to have ever been part of the same contiguous
>breeding population.
they do have a common ancestor at some point in time. that much is
certain
bpuharic
<a20...@lycos.com-> wrote:
>bpuharic wrote:
>>
>>
>> >
>> >> uh no. what i'm left with is a testable idea that generates what we
>> >> see in nature
>> >
>> >
>> >there is no 'test' which will establish
>> >a single contiguous breeding population.
>>
>> sure there is. there is the test of a mechanism that produces nested
>> hierarchies.
>
>
>there is no single phylogenetic tree of all life without conflict.
there is no science without a controversy. i'm a chemist. there are
controversies in chemistry.
so your point is irrelevant
>
>> there is the test that produces patterns in the fossil record of
>> classes of organisms appearing at certain times and places, as the
>> mechanism of evolution predicts
>
>
>fossils do not breed and cannot be successfuly tied
irrelevant. the existence of the observed changes in fossils
populations with time is explained by evolution
your view? no evidence at all. none.
>> >
>> >no, i said a single contiguous breeding
>> >population is speculative.
>
>> your alternative is that life's diversity appeared by random
>> appearances of different non related populations
>
>
>idont claim that the appearance of life now is
>precisely identical to any "original" position.
hmmm...another creationist tactic. goalpost moving
FIRST you claimed that an ORIGINAL organism could not be identified.
THEN you MOVED to say that NO organisms were related to any other
organisms even today.
NOW you're back to your original position
care to put a stake in the ground and to be consistent? i realize
creationists manipulate words but you're not gonna get far with that.
people in this NG are used to it.
>> >
>> >
>> >> uh, no. they establish a TESTABLE RECORD of descent with modification.
>> >
>> >
>> >any conclusions drawn from fossil records
>> >do not establish breeding population.
>
>> what does 'establish a breeding population' mean?
>
>
>a breeding population is a group of organisms that can produce offspring
>
>fossils do not produce offspring
fossils show the effects of descent with modification.
>
>tgherefore, breeding population cannot be established.
fine. you show me how a whale breeds with a guppy and i'll believe
you're correct.
you keep trying to make this point but this dog won't hunt.
not unless a guppy female can handle a penis the size of a telephone
pole.
>
>
>
>
>> and we see the same mechanism in the fossil record. and we see
>> populations changing with time
>
>no you do not, you see disparate fragments of organisms
>that may or may not have ever constituted a breeding population
uh huh.
and guppy females can handle telephone pole sized whale penises,
right?
>
>> >you can -only- speculate on the breeding
>> >potential of a given fossil or set of fossils
>> >and such relation to any other fossil set
>> >of fossils or living organism.
>
>> we can test the mechanism that produces changes in population with
>> time
>
>
>finding a fossil and saying;
>
>"we expected to find such a fossil"
>
>is -not- a predictive test.
really? why not?
you merely saying it's not...well, unfortunately i dont believe you.
>> >> you seem to be ignorant of the fact we can OBSERVE populations
>> >> changing with time.
>> >
>> >
>> >no dog has been bred from a bear or
>> >an aligator or a field of wheatgrass.
>
>> ah. here we have it. FINALLY we have your objection that no one has
>> ever seen a fish evolve into a man
>
>
>you hove not bred a dog from a bear, this is fact.
i'm 55 years old. if i did do such a thing, a nobel would follow
shortly
you creationists seem to think the universe can produce only changes
which can be observed in a human lifespan
guess what? the universe doesn't work that way.
>
>you can now only speculate on the cmparitive anatomies
>of dogs and bears and certain creatures whicg you
>clain to dig up which do not breed with anything.
uh huh. i guess that's why bears are so often found with dinosaurs,
right?
you still havent explained why humans are NEVER found with dinosaurs.
you just ignore the facts which treat your argument like a baby treats
a diaper.
>
>
>but, it is known that conflict in phylogenetic trees
>
>poibnt to the fact that traits can "arise" is
>disparate organisms without common ancestry.
ever hear of convergent evolution? the eye has evolved several times
but its structure is different among different organisms.
>
>
>common ancestry is not necessary to account for such similarities.
which has nothing to do with your assertion there is no evidence for
common descent.>
>
>
>> we have a mechanism. the mechanism is testable. it explains and
>> produces
>
>> -nested hierarchies
>> -descent with modfication
>
>
>nested hiearchies are not uncommon
?? you creationists just don't like modern science, do you? so you
excise the notion of TESTABILITY and MECHANISMS
nested hiearchies have to be EXPLAINED and these explanations have to
be TESTED.
biologists have done this. evolution explains nested hierchies. it
produces these as a causal outcome of the evolutionary process
your view? it would produce mammals with gills. fish with wheels.
birds that gave live birth.
but these things are NEVER seen. why not? what's the mechanism that
produces nested hiearchies?
you have NO explanation at all.
>
>> uh no. where we have genetic information we can test genetic
>> relationships. genetics are causal...genes determine our physical
>> structure. and we can correlate changes in gene frequencies to changes
>> in populations with time. AKA evolution
>
>and similar gentic traits have been shown
>on disparate organisms that do not have a
>common ancestor to account for the similarity.
really?
proof?
>
>> where genetic info ISNT available, since we KNOW evolution via natural
>> selection is a testable fact, we can apply this principle to changes
>> in fossilized populations with time
>
>
>fossils do not breed and cannot be successfully tied
>in a breeding population with any other organisms
>nor excluded form a breeding population
>with any other organism.
you keep praying and hoping that fossils dont show a pattern. you're
wrong
when you show me a human mixed with dinosaurs, i'll believe your
argument.
i'm a scientist. i go with evidence
where's yours??
Timothy Sutter
>
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > still no contiguous breeding population...
> How do you know that.
it's a "trivial truism"