Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex
david ford
Systems_ (London, New York, etc.: Cambridge University
Press), 151pp. Darlington was a Fellow of the Royal
Society, and Director of the John Inns Horticultural
Institution. This book was part of the "Cambridge Biological
Studies" series, general editor C.H. Waddington. Three
paragraphs on 125:
The second step was the adoption of sexual
reproduction. It depended on the invention of meiosis
as a modification of mitosis. The fusion of cells and
nuclei is such a commonplace accident wherever mitosis
occurs that the introduction of fertilisation involves no
novelty. Meiosis on the other hand is an abrupt and
revolutionary change which permits of no half-way
house. The chromosomes must either reduce or fail to
reduce if they are to keep their genetic character.
Anything intermediate upsets the whole apple-cart.
Likewise organisms, cells, and nuclei either copulate or
they do not. The origin of meiosis and sexual
reproduction therefore shows the most violent
discontinuity in the whole of evolution. It demands not
merely a sudden change but a revolution. It is
impossible to imagine it as the result of a gradual
accumulation of changes each one of which had a value
as an adaptation either Lamarckian or Darwinian. If the
material processes underlying sexual reproduction had
been understood at the time neither Lamarck nor Darwin
could ever have thought of evolution as depending on
the adaptive accumulation of entirely continuous
variations.
In all sexual species of organisms, so far as we know,
from _Amoeba_ to man, meiosis shows an extraordinary
uniformity. It follows a standard course consisting of
two divisions and demanding crossing-over between
paired chromosomes as a condition of this segregation.
There is one other course that meiosis could conceivably
have followed and that is in fact a simpler one. If
chromosomes entirely failed to divide in the first
division they would pair and separate very much as they
do in meiosis in the male _Drosophila_. There seems no
mechanical difficulty about such a system and it may
indeed be found to occur some time in one sex in an
animal. The reason why it has not provided the basis of
sexual reproduction is clear. It does not allow of
crossing-over, which depends on the division of threads
while they are paired and coiled. And without
crossing-over recombination is limited to whole
chromosomes. Without crossing-over indeed sexual
reproduction is meaningless.
AC
david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
> Darlington, C.D. 1939. _The Evolution of Genetic
<snip>
Simply pathetic, David.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
Lilith
David, I imagine you are posting this with the intended purpose of
somehow throwing doubt on evolutionary theory, if I'm to assume your
purpose based on past actions.
Darlington's objections arise from an incomplete molecular biological
picture in 1939, coupled with a demand for a gradualist-Darwinian
picture for the evolution of meiosis.
Darlington is objecting to gradualism when it comes to meiosis, not
realizing that crossing-over (for instance) is a natural consequence
of DNA hybridization. They didn't even know the structure of DNA until
1953, for goodness sakes.
When are you going to stop digging up old, moldy references and try to
actually concentrate on current knowledge? Darlington's objections are
born out of (necessary for the time) ignorance.
Yours, however, has no excuse.
Dave
> Systems_ (London, New York, etc.: Cambridge University
> Press), 151pp.
1939. Wow. So impressed.
david ford
> On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 03:49:05 +0000 (UTC),
> david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
> > Darlington, C.D. 1939. _The Evolution of Genetic
> ^^^^
> <snip>
>
> Simply pathetic, David.
In 1939, was the theory of NS well-supported by the experimental
evidence then available?
In 1939, was there a detailed Darwinian account for how exactly
meiosis and sex arose in a gradual/ step-by-tiny-step fashion?
Today, in 2004, is there a detailed Darwinian account for how exactly
meiosis and sex arose in a gradual/ step-by-tiny-step fashion?
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank
david ford wrote:
> Darlington, C.D. 1939
1939, huh . . . . .
. _The Evolution of Genetic
> Systems_ (London, New York, etc.: Cambridge University
> Press), 151pp. Darlington was a Fellow of the Royal
> Society, and Director of the John Inns Horticultural
> Institution. This book was part of the "Cambridge Biological
> Studies" series, general editor C.H. Waddington. Three
> paragraphs on 125:
How dreadful.
What, if anything, is the scientific theory of creation. How, if any
way, can we test it using the scientific method. Why, if any reason,
won't Ford answer those two simple questions?
===============================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation Email list:
http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Frank Reichenbacher
"david ford" <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.04032...@posting.google.com...
> Darlington, C.D. 1939.
You do realize we are now in the 21st century, don't you?
Frank
<snip pathetic waste of time>
quibbler
@gl.umbc.edu says...
> Darlington, C.D. 1939. _The Evolution of Genetic
Ah nothing like nice, current literature from 1939.
<snip>
>
> There is one other course that meiosis could conceivably
> have followed and that is in fact a simpler one. If
> chromosomes entirely failed to divide in the first
> division they would pair and separate very much as they
> do in meiosis in the male _Drosophila_.
Yet this example of drosophila indicates that meiosis is not as common as
previously alleged. Plus not all organism engage in sexual reproduction at
all.
> Without crossing-over indeed sexual
> reproduction is meaningless.
False. Sexual reproduction would be less effective, but not meaningless.
It would still produce genetic reassortments.
--
____________________________________________________
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
Danny Kodicek
news:<slrnc5ss06.2d4....@alder.alberni.net>...
> > On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 03:49:05 +0000 (UTC),
> > david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
> > > Darlington, C.D. 1939. _The Evolution of Genetic
> > ^^^^
> > <snip>
> >
> > Simply pathetic, David.
>
> In 1939, was the theory of NS well-supported by the experimental
> evidence then available?
Yes
>
> In 1939, was there a detailed Darwinian account for how exactly
> meiosis and sex arose in a gradual/ step-by-tiny-step fashion?
No
>
> Today, in 2004, is there a detailed Darwinian account for how exactly
> meiosis and sex arose in a gradual/ step-by-tiny-step fashion?
No, but there's a lot more now than there was then, and all data have
confirmed the theory.
Danny
Editor of EvilBible.com
Today, in 20004, is there even a crude theory about how an intelligent
creator created sexually reproducing organisms?
Danny Kodicek
"quibbler" <quibb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ac8ab919...@news.individual.de...
> In article <b1c67abe.04032...@posting.google.com>, dford3
> @gl.umbc.edu says...
> > Darlington, C.D. 1939. _The Evolution of Genetic
>
> Ah nothing like nice, current literature from 1939.
> <snip>
> >
> > There is one other course that meiosis could conceivably
> > have followed and that is in fact a simpler one. If
> > chromosomes entirely failed to divide in the first
> > division they would pair and separate very much as they
> > do in meiosis in the male _Drosophila_.
>
>
> Yet this example of drosophila indicates that meiosis is not as common as
> previously alleged. Plus not all organism engage in sexual reproduction
at
> all.
Drosophile is rather a nice description for David Ford, actually...
Danny
TomS
<DK-dnei8YYK...@adelphia.com>, Editor of EvilBible.com stated..."
Just a hint for the beginning of such a theory:
The Intelligent Designer responsible for that feature of the natural
world had an inordinate interest in sex.
---Tom S.
"According to some modern authorities the human mind cannot 'conceive how a
self-determining system can increase its own initial complexity.' If this be
admitted preformation must be a law of Nature, and epigenesis fundamentally
impossible." FJ Cole, Early Theories of Sexual Generation (1930), page 209
AC
> AC <mightym...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<slrnc5ss06.2d4....@alder.alberni.net>...
>> On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 03:49:05 +0000 (UTC),
>> david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
>> > Darlington, C.D. 1939. _The Evolution of Genetic
>> ^^^^
>> <snip>
>>
>> Simply pathetic, David.
>
> In 1939, was the theory of NS well-supported by the experimental
> evidence then available?
>
> In 1939, was there a detailed Darwinian account for how exactly
> meiosis and sex arose in a gradual/ step-by-tiny-step fashion?
In 1939 we didn't even have color TV, David.
>
> Today, in 2004, is there a detailed Darwinian account for how exactly
> meiosis and sex arose in a gradual/ step-by-tiny-step fashion?
No we do not have a detailed account. Are you going to stoop to making a
god of the gaps argument? Is that all you have, old references and a bag
full of logical fallacies? Do you ever stop to think how idiotic you look
when you pull these silly references out of your hat? Or is it that you
just don't care that people are laughing at you?
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
Daniel Harper
> "On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 15:12:01 +0000 (UTC), in article
> <DK-dnei8YYK...@adelphia.com>, Editor of EvilBible.com stated..."
>>
>>
>>"david ford" <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
>>news:b1c67abe.04032...@posting.google.com...
>>> AC <mightym...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:<slrnc5ss06.2d4....@alder.alberni.net>...
>>> > On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 03:49:05 +0000 (UTC), david ford
>>> > <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
>>> > > Darlington, C.D. 1939. _The Evolution of Genetic
>>> > ^^^^
>>> > <snip>
>>> >
>>> > Simply pathetic, David.
>>>
>>> In 1939, was the theory of NS well-supported by the experimental
>>> evidence then available?
>>>
>>> In 1939, was there a detailed Darwinian account for how exactly meiosis
>>> and sex arose in a gradual/ step-by-tiny-step fashion?
>>>
>>> Today, in 2004, is there a detailed Darwinian account for how exactly
>>> meiosis and sex arose in a gradual/ step-by-tiny-step fashion?
>>
>>Today, in 20004, is there even a crude theory about how an intelligent
>>creator created sexually reproducing organisms?
>
> Just a hint for the beginning of such a theory:
>
> The Intelligent Designer responsible for that feature of the natural
> world had an inordinate interest in sex.
>
Hugh Hefner is the intelligent designer? Somehow DNA strands in red
smoking jackets doesn't inspire the same way.
<snip .sig>
--
"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor'and 'hate your enemy.'
But I say to you, love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you, that
you may be like your Father in heaven, since he causes the sun to rise on
the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous."
(Matthew 5:43-45, New English Translation)
--Daniel Harper
(Change terra to earth for email)
Richard S. Crawford
I'm imagining hot little RNA strands in bunny outfits.
Richard S. Crawford
I'm not surprised, though. There are some folks who use a text dating
back four thousand years as their scientific source.
Andy Groves
Just so that we can be clear on this, what level of detail would satisfy you?
Andy
Daniel Harper
But they don't show both helixes until 1960 or so....
Richard S. Crawford
I remember a party I was at a few years ago with some of those hot RNA
strands. Or, at least, I remember most of it. We were dropping a lot
of amino acid in those days.
Daniel Harper
Did you try and get a polypeptide going? Give in to the base instincts? If
the wife asks, you can always blame it on your codon.
Richard S. Crawford
It was a broken codon that led to all the trouble in the first place.
david ford
> "david ford" <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
> news:b1c67abe.04032...@posting.google.com...
> > AC <mightym...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<slrnc5ss06.2d4....@alder.alberni.net>...
> > > On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 03:49:05 +0000 (UTC),
> > > david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
> > > > Darlington, C.D. 1939. _The Evolution of Genetic
> > > ^^^^
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > Simply pathetic, David.
> >
> > In 1939, was the theory of NS well-supported by the experimental
> > evidence then available?
>
> Yes
Please describe some of the better lines of that experimental evidence.
> > In 1939, was there a detailed Darwinian account for how exactly
> > meiosis and sex arose in a gradual/ step-by-tiny-step fashion?
>
> No
>
> > Today, in 2004, is there a detailed Darwinian account for how exactly
> > meiosis and sex arose in a gradual/ step-by-tiny-step fashion?
>
> No,
OK.
david ford
david ford:
[snip]
> What, if anything, is the scientific theory of creation.
Does an answer to this oft-asked question of yours appear within
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403142050.61ef9a92%40posting.google.com
> How, if any
> way, can we test it using the scientific method. Why, if any reason,
> won't Ford answer those two simple questions?
Do you agree with me that the theory of natural selection can be
tested [LF]"using the scientific method"?
What are 2 experiments that were performed to test novel predictions
of the theory of natural selection?
david ford
> "david ford" <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
> news:b1c67abe.04032...@posting.google.com...
>
> > Darlington, C.D. 1939.
>
> You do realize we are now in the 21st century, don't you?
I had no idea.
2001 Bernard d'Abrera
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403032014.15573cd3%40posting.google.com
david ford
I have quotations from other years, as well. Should you care to pick
a date since 1869, I will present a quotation from within 10 years of
that date.
david ford
[snip]
> "It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
> threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
> disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
> made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
> comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
> eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
What is Dawkins's faith?
Richard S. Crawford
As you already doubtless know, quotes don't matter when engaging in
scientific dispute. It's the observed data that matter. Science is not
conducted by rhetoric.
david ford
I do indeed appreciate the experimental data derived from experiments
with fruit flies. Fruit flies were, at least for a while, favorite
creatures of certain individuals intent on locating evidence for the
theory of natural selection. The exploits of some of those
individuals became quite well-known as they rocketed to international
fame when the evidence arrived.
Armitage
2036.
Ha! Gotcha!
--
Armitage.
Richard A. Mathers
He's physically in the 21st century but his religious values
are in the 15th and earlier centuries. He suffers from a
severe case of religious cultural lag. It is fundamentally
an emotional disorder. As a hillbilly I suffered from this
disorder as well. It is a communally based emotional
disorder that distorts social and religious reality. One is
lead to believe that the Bible is triumphant over all
secular knowledge. Anti intellectualism and anti science
are key attributes of this emotional disorder. One never
has to engage in a rational argument for your religious
beliefs since they are emotionally based. It is always
correct to lie or distort any argument (whether scientific
or not) for the biblical interpretation of the universe
since the ultimate goal is a biblical acceptance of its
preeminent "truth," i.e. if you truly believe you will
regardless of all your evil sins) have a guaranteed place in
heaven. De's disorder is the systematic distortion of
scientific theory and evidence. It is not even subtle, yet
he posts as if there is something substantive and unique
about his distorted arguments. Rationally, the antidote is
learning to accept that science trumps religiously based
empirical assertions, which he has done on the age of the
earth.. Emotionally DF is not there on humans being created
by those blind random undirected accidents of nature. As a
hillbilly I wasn't educated to his view either. I held the
same positions DF presently holds. I was anti-intellectual
and anti science. I grew out of this orientation by
recognizing my emotional commitments and viewing science as
orthogonal to religion and not a replacement for it.
Religion, I think it uncontroversial to assert, will always
be needed by many humans for the expression of emotional
feelings, ritual and serious thought. DF's anti
intellectualism and anti science values seem to block any
insight into strong emotional commitments to religion along
with strong emotional commitments to an evolutionary and
abiogenesis view of humans. The "violent discontinuity" is
between DF's rational abilities to understand science and
his emotional commitment to religious anti science values.
RAM
AC
He doesn't have one. He's an atheist. And why is that important, David?
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
Fred Stone
2014.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
John Wilkins
Or the terminal ends until much later still. We still haven't seen all
the business.
--
John Wilkins
john...@wilkins.id.au http://www.wilkins.id.au
"Men mark it when they hit, but do not mark it when they miss"
- Francis Bacon
John Wilkins
Don't tell me. You were totally methylated, right? I couldn't - I got
histone reactions.
Steven J.
> "\"Rev Dr\" Lenny Flank" <lflank...@ij.net> wrote in message
news:<405ee9a7$1...@corp.newsgroups.com>...
> david ford:
>
> [snip]
>
> > What, if anything, is the scientific theory of creation.
>
> Does an answer to this oft-asked question of yours appear within
>
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403142050.61ef9a92%40posting.google.com
>
or that lacks a well-tested explanation in terms of known causes, and from
this, neatly ignoring the possiblity of known causes acting in unknown way,
or unknown unintelligent causes, you insist that a "Creator" is required.
This is the very opposite of a *theory* of creation. It makes no testable
predictions. It offers no explanation of why anything is the way it is,
rather than some other way. It does not suggest any lines of inquiry into
these matters; rather, it suggests that inquiry should stop, and the matter
should be referred to second-rate theologians.
>
> > How, if any
> > way, can we test it using the scientific method. Why, if any reason,
> > won't Ford answer those two simple questions?
>
> Do you agree with me that the theory of natural selection can be
> tested [LF]"using the scientific method"?
>
be tested using the scientific method? If you don't, no one could agree
with you that it could.
>
> What are 2 experiments that were performed to test novel predictions
> of the theory of natural selection?
>
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/04/980401074442.htm
Then, of course, there is the well-known, oft-repeated classroom
demonstration with monoclonal _E. coli_ strains, sun lamps, and antibiotics.
>
-- Steven J.
Hank
You realize of course that both of you are seriously disturbed?
--
Assimilate a pitiful little species like you? I think not! - Q of Borg
Daniel Harper
Yeah, well, I guess partying with bunny RNA isn't really much of a gamete.
Er, or maybe it is. Certainly those who would cause problems in
relationships like that will always get my zygote... honestly!
Daniel Harper
Thankfully, now that we have the Internet, hardcore DNA watchers can have
all the sick pleasure they like, without having to deal with the rest of
society's misunderstanding.
Like me, wearing nylons right now like those dancing biochemistry hotties
of the forties used to wear.
--
"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor'and 'hate your enemy.'
But I say to you, love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you, that
you may be like your Father in heaven, since he causes the sun to rise on
the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous."
(Matthew 5:43-45, New English Translation)
--Daniel Classic Beauty Fetish Harper
Richard S. Crawford
I don't know. Sometimes it's just not all it's Cricked up to be.
Richard S. Crawford
Daniel, that's the second time you've given me a mental image that I
just DON'T NEED!!
(Well... the dancing biochem hotties of the 40s might be kinda nice.)
Richard S. Crawford
I've seen some of your posts. You can't deny that you share the same
sense of humor.
Okay, you can, but if you do, you're lying.
Frank Reichenbacher
"david ford" <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.04032...@posting.google.com...
> "Frank Reichenbacher" <vesu...@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:<Z9ednZTQZ75...@speakeasy.net>...
> > "david ford" <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
> > news:b1c67abe.04032...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > > Darlington, C.D. 1939.
> >
> > You do realize we are now in the 21st century, don't you?
>
> I had no idea.
>
> 2001 Bernard d'Abrera
>
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403032014.15573cd3%40posting.google.com
You found one (sort of).! Eureka, eureka!
Of course, he's really just an illustrator who describes himself as a
"philosopher of science." He's collected thousands of butterflies *in the
field* and he's published many many beautifully illustrated guides to them.
However, I don't seem to be able to find any peer-reviewed publications that
treat his interpretation of these data. Just taxonomies of butterflies,
typically in book form. His lepidopteran peers would have reviewed these
publications for the taxonomy, but not the biology. Maybe you know of
something?
Is this guy all you can come up with? You realize, of course, that there are
hundreds of living lepidoptera specialists who feel that the theory of
evolution *is* the best explanation.
Frank
Wade Hines
Whatever. Just about everyone seems willing to display their
junk now.
zosdad
> > On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 03:49:05 +0000 (UTC),
> > david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
> > > Darlington, C.D. 1939. _The Evolution of Genetic
> > ^^^^
> > <snip>
> >
> > Simply pathetic, David.
>
> In 1939, was the theory of NS well-supported by the experimental
> evidence then available?
>
> In 1939, was there a detailed Darwinian account for how exactly
> meiosis and sex arose in a gradual/ step-by-tiny-step fashion?
>
> Today, in 2004, is there a detailed Darwinian account for how exactly
> meiosis and sex arose in a gradual/ step-by-tiny-step fashion?
First, you have to define and defend a reasonable standard of
"detailed". No scientific model is ever really complete -- everything
is approximation. Go look at the history Global Climate Models or
models for the structure and function of the F1F0-ATPase. Successive
approximations improved by continued testing and gathering of data.
IMO, evolutionary models just have to be held to the same standard --
detailed enough to explain the origin of the features of the system
that initially seem puzzling, convert an unknown process into a series
of known processes, and create expectations about future data that
will be testable by future observations. I don't think one can ask
much more of science.
After you've settled upon a reasonable standard such as the above, why
don't you go ask Cavalier-Smith about how meiosis (and mitosis while
you're at it, the origin of the two is linked) evolved?
Cavalier-Smith, T., 1978. The evolutionary origin and phylogeny of
microtubules, mitotic spindles and eukaryote flagella. Biosystems. 10
(1-2), 93-114.
Cavalier-Smith, T., 1982. The evolutionary origin and phylogeny of
eukaryote flagella. Symposia of the Society for Experimental Biology.
35 (5896), 465-493.
Cavalier-Smith, T., 1987. The origin of cells: a symbiosis between
genes, catalysts, and membranes. Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on
Quantitative Biology. 52 (6111), 805-824.
Cavalier-Smith, T., 1987. The origin of eukaryotic and archaebacterial
cells. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 503, 17-54.
Cavalier-Smith, T., 2001. Obcells as proto-organisms: membrane
heredity, lithophosphorylation, and the origins of the genetic code,
the first cells, and photosynthesis. Journal of Molecular Evolution.
53 (4-5), 555-595.
Cavalier-Smith, T., 2002. The neomuran origin of archaebacteria, the
negibacterial root of the universal tree and bacterial
megaclassification. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 52, 7-76.
Cavalier-Smith, T., 2002. The phagotrophic origin of eukaryotes and
phylogenetic classification of Protozoa. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol.
52, 297-354.
Cavalier-Smith, T., 2002. Origins of the machinery of recombination
and sex. Heredity. 88, 125-141.
We should also throw in:
John Maynard Smith, Eors Szathmary (1995). The Major Transitions in
Evolution. Oxford University Press.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/019850294X/
These will give you a good basic survey of the topic. Let me know if
you ever see an antievolutionist who ever addresses, let alone
successfully rebuts, this literature...
david ford
According to the quotation of Dawkins, [Dawkins]"faith is one of the
world's great evils," and if Dawkins had a faith, then by his
statement he would be in possession of a great evil. Assuredly, he
must have some sort of faith. (Are you sure that atheism is not a
faith?) How about this:
Dawkins has a great faith in What Science Will Do Some Day, for
example, demonstrate how it is that life can come from non-life apart
from the input of any intelligence.
david ford
> > > On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 03:49:05 +0000 (UTC),
> > > david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
> > > > Darlington, C.D. 1939. _The Evolution of Genetic
> > > ^^^^
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > Simply pathetic, David.
> >
> > In 1939, was the theory of NS well-supported by the experimental
> > evidence then available?
> >
> > In 1939, was there a detailed Darwinian account for how exactly
> > meiosis and sex arose in a gradual/ step-by-tiny-step fashion?
> >
> > Today, in 2004, is there a detailed Darwinian account for how exactly
> > meiosis and sex arose in a gradual/ step-by-tiny-step fashion?
>
Try me, by putting forward a level of detail that you are satisfied with.
david ford
Frank Reichenbacher:
david ford:
> > > Darlington, C.D. 1939.
> >
> > You do realize we are now in the 21st century, don't you?
> >
> > Frank
> >
> > <snip pathetic waste of time>
>
> He's physically in the 21st century but his religious values
> are in the 15th and earlier centuries. He suffers from a
> severe case of religious cultural lag. It is fundamentally
> an emotional disorder. As a hillbilly I suffered from this
> disorder as well. It is a communally based emotional
> disorder that distorts social and religious reality. One is
> lead to believe that the Bible is triumphant over all
> secular knowledge. Anti intellectualism and anti science
> are key attributes of this emotional disorder. One never
> has to engage in a rational argument for your religious
> beliefs since they are emotionally based.
Let me guess: you are a psychologist.
AC
> AC <mightym...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<slrnc5up07.3fk....@alder.alberni.net>...
>> On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 21:01:57 +0000 (UTC),
>> david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
>> > quibbler <quibb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<MPG.1ac8ab919...@news.individual.de>...
>> >
>> > [snip]
>> >
>> >> "It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
>> >> threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
>> >> disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
>> >> made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
>> >> comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
>> >> eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
>> >
>> > What is Dawkins's faith?
>>
>> He doesn't have one. He's an atheist. And why is that important, David?
>
> According to the quotation of Dawkins, [Dawkins]"faith is one of the
> world's great evils," and if Dawkins had a faith, then by his
> statement he would be in possession of a great evil. Assuredly, he
> must have some sort of faith. (Are you sure that atheism is not a
> faith?) How about this:
> Dawkins has a great faith in What Science Will Do Some Day, for
> example, demonstrate how it is that life can come from non-life apart
> from the input of any intelligence.
How about this.
I'm personally not playing this game any more. David, will you return to
the thread "argument from incredulity" and finish the debate, or won't you?
This thread bombing of yours is getting tiring. It appears that you are
either unwilling or incapable of any type of long term discussion, and until
you get back into an existing one which was already started, I for one
refuse to go into any more with you.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
david ford
david ford wrote:
gal...@hotmail.com (Dave) wrote in message news:<5591d176.04032...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > I have quotations from other years, as well. Should you care to pick
> > a date since 1869, I will present a quotation from within 10 years of
> > that date.
>
> As you already doubtless know, quotes don't matter when engaging in
> scientific dispute. It's the observed data that matter.
When it comes the theory of natural selection, data observed from
numerous fruit fly experiments does not matter. The theory has to be
correct. The theory _is_ correct. There is no better explanation
(the postulation of intelligent design is not an explanation), so the
theory of natural selection is well-supported by all the relevant data
and is correct. It's the best we've got.
Andy Groves
No. I asked first. I want to hear what your bottom line is, rather
than let you play God-of-the-Gaps.
Andy
Hank
> Hank wrote:
>
<Snippo>
>
> >
> > You realize of course that both of you are seriously disturbed?
>
> I've seen some of your posts. You can't deny that you share the same
> sense of humor.
Note that at no point did I ever deny being SeRiOuSlY dIsTuRbEd. :-)
>
> Okay, you can, but if you do, you're lying.
Nah - not much point in lying. Too much extra crap to remember.
Severian
ford) wrote:
>According to the quotation of Dawkins, [Dawkins]"faith is one of the
>world's great evils," and if Dawkins had a faith, then by his
>statement he would be in possession of a great evil. Assuredly, he
>must have some sort of faith. (Are you sure that atheism is not a
>faith?)
How do you conflate a /lack/ of an attribute with the attribute
itself?
Do you think the absence of love is a type of love? Do you think the
absence of hope is a type of hope? Do you think the absence of joy is
joyfulness?
Why do you find it impossible for others to lack something you have?
>How about this:
>Dawkins has a great faith in What Science Will Do Some Day, for
>example, demonstrate how it is that life can come from non-life apart
>from the input of any intelligence.
--
Sev
Andy Groves
> "Richard S. Crawford" <rscrawf...@mossREMOVEWATERFOWLroot.com> wrote in message news:<c3nlg2$8s8$2...@woodrow.ucdavis.edu>...
> david ford wrote:
> gal...@hotmail.com (Dave) wrote in message news:<5591d176.04032...@posting.google.com>...
> > >>1939. Wow. So impressed.
> > >
> > > I have quotations from other years, as well. Should you care to pick
> > > a date since 1869, I will present a quotation from within 10 years of
> > > that date.
> >
> > As you already doubtless know, quotes don't matter when engaging in
> > scientific dispute. It's the observed data that matter.
>
> When it comes the theory of natural selection, data observed from
> numerous fruit fly experiments does not matter.
What data were you thinking of?
Andy
Richard A. Mathers
No I'm not. Why would it matter?
RAM
Daniel Harper
(Sorry, I have to do it.)
After the codon breaks, of course, years later that cute little piece of
DNA comes back with a little piece of male RNA and says it's yours. "I
have a son?" I'll say in bewilderment, "Watson?"
Daniel Harper
Hey, don't blame the messenger.
Daniel Harper
Only the second? You must be some sicko, that it's only been twice...
> (Well... the dancing biochem hotties of the 40s might be kinda nice.)
Much more full-figured than today's biochem hotties, right?
--
"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor'and 'hate your enemy.'
But I say to you, love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you, that
you may be like your Father in heaven, since he causes the sun to rise on
the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous."
(Matthew 5:43-45, New English Translation)
--Daniel Harper
Daniel Harper
You're just now figuring that out? Pretty much everyone who posts to
talk.origins regularly is seriously disturbed; Richard and I are just more
up-front about it.
david ford
> david ford wrote:
>
> > gal...@hotmail.com (Dave) wrote in message news:<5591d176.04032...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> >>
> >>>Darlington, C.D. 1939. _The Evolution of Genetic
> >>>Press), 151pp.
> >>
> >>1939. Wow. So impressed.
> >
> >
> > I have quotations from other years, as well. Should you care to pick
> > a date since 1869, I will present a quotation from within 10 years of
> > that date.
>
>
> Ha! Gotcha!
You did indeed.
david ford
> On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 03:27:19 +0000 (UTC), dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david
> ford) wrote:
> >According to the quotation of Dawkins, [Dawkins]"faith is one of the
> >world's great evils," and if Dawkins had a faith, then by his
> >statement he would be in possession of a great evil. Assuredly, he
> >must have some sort of faith. (Are you sure that atheism is not a
> >faith?)
>
> How do you conflate a /lack/ of an attribute with the attribute
> itself?
Remind me, what attribute did you have in mind?
> Do you think the absence of love is a type of love? Do you think the
> absence of hope is a type of hope? Do you think the absence of joy is
> joyfulness?
The belief that something is absent is still a belief.
> Why do you find it impossible for others to lack something you have?
I recognize that I possess things that others lack, and recognize that
I lack things that others possess.
Rodjk
> > "david ford" <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
> > news:b1c67abe.04032...@posting.google.com...
> > > AC <mightym...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<slrnc5ss06.2d4....@alder.alberni.net>...
> > > > On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 03:49:05 +0000 (UTC),
> > > > david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
> > > > <snip>
> > > >
> > > > Simply pathetic, David.
> > >
> > > In 1939, was the theory of NS well-supported by the experimental
> > > evidence then available?
> >
>
> Please describe some of the better lines of that experimental evidence.
Try reading "On the Origin of Species..." by C. Darwin.
And grow up, you are pathetic.
Rodjk #613
>
> > > In 1939, was there a detailed Darwinian account for how exactly
> > > meiosis and sex arose in a gradual/ step-by-tiny-step fashion?
> >
> > No
> >
> > > Today, in 2004, is there a detailed Darwinian account for how exactly
> > > meiosis and sex arose in a gradual/ step-by-tiny-step fashion?
> >
> > No,
>
> OK.
>
> > but there's a lot more now than there was then, and all data have
> > confirmed the theory.
Steven J.
conviction? He may, in fact, casually assume such a thing -- but is
he committed to this assumption? Is it not possible that he would
concede that we may *never* known how life originated.
Now, you seem to incorrigibly assume that gaps in current scientific
understanding are properly stuffed with the god of your choice -- that
there is no burden of proof on creationists to provide an actual
theory and actual evidence for that particular theory.
You therefore assume that if Dawkins sees no reason to believe in God,
he *must* be convinced that a naturalistic explanation will be found
for the origin of life -- otherwise, he would be forced to accept a
Creator as an "explanation." But a Creator, absent any testable
account of His purposes and/or methods, is not a explanation -- not a
reason why life has some properties and not others.
-- Steven J.
Severian
ford) wrote:
>Severian <seve...@chlamydia-is-not-a-flower.com> wrote in message news:<q2q060hlop3irtlhe...@4ax.com>...
>> On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 03:27:19 +0000 (UTC), dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david
>> ford) wrote:
>> >According to the quotation of Dawkins, [Dawkins]"faith is one of the
>> >world's great evils," and if Dawkins had a faith, then by his
>> >statement he would be in possession of a great evil. Assuredly, he
>> >must have some sort of faith. (Are you sure that atheism is not a
>> >faith?)
>>
>> How do you conflate a /lack/ of an attribute with the attribute
>> itself?
>
>Remind me, what attribute did you have in mind?
Faith.
>> Do you think the absence of love is a type of love? Do you think the
>> absence of hope is a type of hope? Do you think the absence of joy is
>> joyfulness?
>
>The belief that something is absent is still a belief.
An absence of belief is not equivalent to believing that something is
absent.
>> Why do you find it impossible for others to lack something you have?
>
>I recognize that I possess things that others lack, and recognize that
>I lack things that others possess.
Then please recognize that atheists do not possess faith.
>> >How about this:
>> >Dawkins has a great faith in What Science Will Do Some Day, for
>> >example, demonstrate how it is that life can come from non-life apart
>> >from the input of any intelligence.
--
Sev
david ford
I don't believe you. Your insights are so spot-on, they could only
have come from a professional psychologist.
david ford
fruit flies
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403082115.67a4b153%40posting.google.com
Hank
> Severian <seve...@chlamydia-is-not-a-flower.com> wrote in message news:<q2q060hlop3irtlhe...@4ax.com>...
> > On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 03:27:19 +0000 (UTC), dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david
> > ford) wrote:
> > >According to the quotation of Dawkins, [Dawkins]"faith is one of the
> > >world's great evils," and if Dawkins had a faith, then by his
> > >statement he would be in possession of a great evil. Assuredly, he
> > >must have some sort of faith. (Are you sure that atheism is not a
> > >faith?)
> >
> > How do you conflate a /lack/ of an attribute with the attribute
> > itself?
>
> Remind me, what attribute did you have in mind?
>
> > Do you think the absence of love is a type of love? Do you think the
> > absence of hope is a type of hope? Do you think the absence of joy is
> > joyfulness?
>
> The belief that something is absent is still a belief.
I do not trust you. That does not equate to I distrust you.
Dave
And your argument, Ford, is what? You feel that fruit flies disprove
TOE? The stability of fruit flies over the past half-century of
breeding proves nothing.
Richard A. Mathers
Well if it matters I'm a sociologist, yes we somewhat
overlap in orientation. However, there are two social
psycholgies; and I have only rudimentary knowledge of the
psychologically based tradition.
What's important is that regardless of the professional
orientation we often come to the same conclusions while one
emphasizes personality attributes and the other
socio/cultural experiences.
I appreciate that you view the insights as spot on.
RAM
Andy Groves
Ahhh... the old "They're still fruit flies" argument. Why am I not surprised?
Andy
Richard S. Crawford
You win. ;-)
Time to clean the coffee off my computer screen. Again.
Richard S. Crawford
I think Hank is just denying his true nature.
Accept yourself, Hank. Instead of making accusations about us, embrace
your own inner disturbance. You know, kinda like Saul on the road to
Damascus.
Richard S. Crawford
As you know, when data contradicts a current theory, that theory is
updated to account for the new data (think of how neutrinos entered into
physics), or tossed out for a new theory (think of how relativity
replaced Newtonian mechanics).
I suspect that you're trying to make a point that scientists are
desperately grabbing hold of a shaky theory disproved by experiments
with D. melanogaster. I haven't seen the data in question, but I
suspect that they are will accounted for in the theory of evolution,
despite the best efforts of Creationists to claim that they are
contradictions to the Theory of Evolution.
>> Science is not
>>conducted by rhetoric.
I stand by this point.
Daniel Harper
Not quite as satisfying as a POTM, but it's close. Do I win a prize, or am
I in everybody's killfile now?
> Time to clean the coffee off my computer screen. Again.
If it makes you feel any better, I laughed so hard I woke my fiancee at a
couple of them.
david ford
> On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 00:34:23 +0000 (UTC), dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david
> ford) wrote:
>
> >Severian <seve...@chlamydia-is-not-a-flower.com> wrote in message news:<q2q060hlop3irtlhe...@4ax.com>...
> >> On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 03:27:19 +0000 (UTC), dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david
> >> ford) wrote:
> >> >According to the quotation of Dawkins, [Dawkins]"faith is one of the
> >> >world's great evils," and if Dawkins had a faith, then by his
> >> >statement he would be in possession of a great evil. Assuredly, he
> >> >must have some sort of faith. (Are you sure that atheism is not a
> >> >faith?)
> >>
> >> How do you conflate a /lack/ of an attribute with the attribute
> >> itself?
> >
> >Remind me, what attribute did you have in mind?
>
> Faith.
>
> >> Do you think the absence of love is a type of love? Do you think the
> >> absence of hope is a type of hope? Do you think the absence of joy is
> >> joyfulness?
> >
> >The belief that something is absent is still a belief.
>
> An absence of belief is not equivalent to believing that something is
> absent.
>
> >> Why do you find it impossible for others to lack something you have?
> >
> >I recognize that I possess things that others lack, and recognize that
> >I lack things that others possess.
>
> Then please recognize that atheists do not possess faith.
Do you think Sagan's assertion that "THE COSMOS IS ALL THAT IS OR EVER
WAS OR EVER WILL BE." has been demonstrated through the tools and
methods employed by scientists? [See Carl Sagan, _Cosmos_ (1980), 4.
Caps in original.]
An atheist has faith that God does not exist. What are the
experiments and observations demonstrating that God doesn't exist?
There aren't any such observations and experiments. And yet atheists
believe that God does not exist. Despite the lack of supporting
observations, atheists have faith that God does not exist.
Agnostics, on the other hand, don't allege that God doesn't exist.
david ford
david ford:
I don't recall coming across any such concession. If you're aware of
one, please do share.
I have, though, read Dawkins saying that the thesis of his _Blind
Watchmaker_ book is that the postulation of an intelligent designer
isn't needed to account for either life's first appearance or for
later organisms.(page 147)
> Now, you seem to incorrigibly assume that gaps in current scientific
> understanding are properly stuffed with the god of your choice -- that
> there is no burden of proof on creationists to provide an actual
> theory and actual evidence for that particular theory.
I leave it to other creationists to develop a creationist theory and
evidence for the theory. For myself, I am presently having way too
much fun critiquing the theory of natural selection to participate in
that development and assembling of evidence.
> You therefore assume that if Dawkins sees no reason to believe in God,
> he *must* be convinced that a naturalistic explanation will be found
> for the origin of life -- otherwise, he would be forced to accept a
> Creator as an "explanation."
Dawkins believes that life can come from non-life totally apart from
the input of intelligence. He did not come to this belief on the
basis of observations and experimentation. Rather, his materialist
philosophy is the basis for that belief.
> But a Creator, absent any testable
> account of His purposes and/or methods, is not a explanation -- not a
> reason why life has some properties and not others.
Intelligence is a good explanation for many things. (Take a moment
and look around for five seconds. Can intelligence explain well
anything you are looking at?)
Their _a priori_ acceptance of materialism is the basis for some
individuals' belief that life can come from non-life totally apart
from any input of intelligent design.
david ford
> david ford wrote:
>
> > Severian <seve...@chlamydia-is-not-a-flower.com> wrote in message news:<q2q060hlop3irtlhe...@4ax.com>...
> > > On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 03:27:19 +0000 (UTC), dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david
> > > ford) wrote:
> > > >According to the quotation of Dawkins, [Dawkins]"faith is one of the
> > > >world's great evils," and if Dawkins had a faith, then by his
> > > >statement he would be in possession of a great evil. Assuredly, he
> > > >must have some sort of faith. (Are you sure that atheism is not a
> > > >faith?)
> > >
> > > How do you conflate a /lack/ of an attribute with the attribute
> > > itself?
> >
> > Remind me, what attribute did you have in mind?
> >
> > > Do you think the absence of love is a type of love? Do you think the
> > > absence of hope is a type of hope? Do you think the absence of joy is
> > > joyfulness?
> >
> > The belief that something is absent is still a belief.
>
> I do not trust you.
This is vague.
> That does not equate to I distrust you.
On the contrary, it might if [H]"I do not trust you." was spelled out
in a not-vague manner.
david ford
> dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.04032...@posting.google.com>...
> > gro...@cco.caltech.edu (Andy Groves) wrote in message news:<991ea4ae.04032...@posting.google.com>...
> > > dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0403...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > "Richard S. Crawford" <rscrawf...@mossREMOVEWATERFOWLroot.com> wrote in message news:<c3nlg2$8s8$2...@woodrow.ucdavis.edu>...
> > > > david ford wrote:
> > > > gal...@hotmail.com (Dave) wrote in message news:<5591d176.04032...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > >>1939. Wow. So impressed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have quotations from other years, as well. Should you care to
> > > > > > pick
> > > > > > a date since 1869, I will present a quotation from within 10 years
> > > > > > of that date.
> > > > >
> > > > > As you already doubtless know, quotes don't matter when engaging in
> > > > > scientific dispute. It's the observed data that matter.
> > > >
> > > > When it comes the theory of natural selection, data observed from
> > > > numerous fruit fly experiments does not matter.
> > >
> > > What data were you thinking of?
> >
> > fruit flies
> > http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403082115.67a4b153%40posting.google.com
>
> And your argument, Ford, is what? You feel that fruit flies disprove
> TOE?
Numerous experiments have been performed, including experiments using
fruit flies, with the hope of supplying evidence for the theory of
natural selection. That evidence has not been forthcoming.
As for the possibility of disproving the theory of evolution,
experimental results cannot do such. In fact, the reason we do not
see evolutionary transformations occurring in the laboratory is that
we have not been conducting our experiments for long enough amounts of
time. Evolutionary transformations took millions and millions of
years to occur, and we can hardly hope to see evolutionary
transformations occurring in laboratories within the space of under
100 years.
Now when we look at the fossil record, we do not see fossil evidence
of organisms transforming into other organisms. The reason we don't
see this fossil evidence is that the fossil record is imperfect.
Moreover, evolution can occur very quickly-- so quickly, in fact, that
evidence of the transformations occurring wasn't preserved by the
fossil record.
To summarize: too slowly in the laboratory, too quickly in the fossil
record. Plus the fossil record is highly imperfect.
So you see, laboratory data does not disprove the theory of evolution,
nor does fossil record evidence. Both laboratory data and the fossil
record are consistent with evolutionary theory.
> The stability of fruit flies over the past half-century of
> breeding proves nothing.
My point exactly. In general, experimental results prove absolutely
nothing.
belief in spontaneous generation, blindwatchmaking, and mental
spoon-bending is scientific
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401291120.41a6d843%40posting.google.com
david ford
> dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.04032...@posting.google.com>...
> > "Danny Kodicek" <dann...@well-spring.co.uk> wrote in message news:<crD7c.22794$h44.2...@stones.force9.net>...
> > > "david ford" <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
> > > news:b1c67abe.04032...@posting.google.com...
> > > > AC <mightym...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<slrnc5ss06.2d4....@alder.alberni.net>...
> > > > > On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 03:49:05 +0000 (UTC),
> > > > > david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > Darlington, C.D. 1939. _The Evolution of Genetic
> > > > > ^^^^
> > > > > <snip>
> > > > >
> > > > > Simply pathetic, David.
> > > >
> > > > In 1939, was the theory of NS well-supported by the experimental
> > > > evidence then available?
> > >
> > > Yes
> >
> > Please describe some of the better lines of that experimental evidence.
>
> Try reading "On the Origin of Species..." by C. Darwin.
> And grow up, you are pathetic.
I have read Appleman's abridgment of _Origin_ and was unimpressed.
May your ideas from the 1800s grow up, as the grounds for acceptance
of them are pathetic.
david ford
> "david ford" <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
> news:b1c67abe.04032...@posting.google.com...
> > AC <mightym...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<slrnc5ss06.2d4....@alder.alberni.net>...
> > > On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 03:49:05 +0000 (UTC),
> > > david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
> > > > Darlington, C.D. 1939. _The Evolution of Genetic
> > > ^^^^
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > Simply pathetic, David.
> >
> > In 1939, was the theory of NS well-supported by the experimental
> > evidence then available?
> >
> > meiosis and sex arose in a gradual/ step-by-tiny-step fashion?
> >
> > meiosis and sex arose in a gradual/ step-by-tiny-step fashion?
>
> creator created sexually reproducing organisms?
Prediction: by 20004, confirmation will have been obtained for the
allegation that life can come from non-life totally apart from the
input of any intelligence. Sadly, this confirmation does not exist
presently.
david ford
> "On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 15:12:01 +0000 (UTC), in article
> <DK-dnei8YYK...@adelphia.com>, Editor of EvilBible.com stated..."
> >
> >news:b1c67abe.04032...@posting.google.com...
> >> AC <mightym...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<slrnc5ss06.2d4....@alder.alberni.net>...
> >> > On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 03:49:05 +0000 (UTC),
> >> > david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
> >> > > Darlington, C.D. 1939. _The Evolution of Genetic
> >> > ^^^^
> >> > <snip>
> >> >
> >> > Simply pathetic, David.
> >>
> >> In 1939, was the theory of NS well-supported by the experimental
> >> evidence then available?
> >>
> >> In 1939, was there a detailed Darwinian account for how exactly
> >> meiosis and sex arose in a gradual/ step-by-tiny-step fashion?
> >>
> >> Today, in 2004, is there a detailed Darwinian account for how exactly
> >> meiosis and sex arose in a gradual/ step-by-tiny-step fashion?
> >
> >Today, in 20004, is there even a crude theory about how an intelligent
> >creator created sexually reproducing organisms?
>
>
> The Intelligent Designer responsible for that feature of the natural
> world had an inordinate interest in sex.
Does this "intelligent designer" have an inordinate fondness for
beatles? An inordinate fondness for sex?
If the intelligent design position is correct, then the designer(s) of
biology must have had an inordinate fondness for beetles and for sex.
The very thought is ludicrous. It totally strains my credulity to
believe that an intelligent designer(s) would possess such a fondness.
The very idea of an intelligent designer(s) of biology and of the
first lifeform is totally unbelievable. I simply do not believe it.
I simply do not believe it.
david ford
> > > dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.04032...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 03:49:05 +0000 (UTC),
> > > > > david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > Darlington, C.D. 1939. _The Evolution of Genetic
> > > > > ^^^^
> > > > > <snip>
> > > > >
> > > > > Simply pathetic, David.
> > > >
> > > > In 1939, was the theory of NS well-supported by the experimental
> > > > evidence then available?
> > > >
> > > > In 1939, was there a detailed Darwinian account for how exactly
> > > > meiosis and sex arose in a gradual/ step-by-tiny-step fashion?
> > > >
> > > > Today, in 2004, is there a detailed Darwinian account for how exactly
> > > > meiosis and sex arose in a gradual/ step-by-tiny-step fashion?
> > >
> > > satisfy you?
> >
> > Try me, by putting forward a level of detail that you are satisfied with.
>
> No. I asked first.
And I asked third.
> I want to hear what your bottom line is, rather
> than let you play God-of-the-Gaps.
Show me the best ya' got, and we can discuss it.
david ford
> On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 13:00:29 +0000 (UTC),
> > AC <mightym...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<slrnc5ss06.2d4....@alder.alberni.net>...
> >> On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 03:49:05 +0000 (UTC),
> >> david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
> >> > Darlington, C.D. 1939. _The Evolution of Genetic
> >> ^^^^
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> Simply pathetic, David.
> >
> > In 1939, was the theory of NS well-supported by the experimental
> > evidence then available?
> >
> > In 1939, was there a detailed Darwinian account for how exactly
> > meiosis and sex arose in a gradual/ step-by-tiny-step fashion?
>
>
> > Today, in 2004, is there a detailed Darwinian account for how exactly
> > meiosis and sex arose in a gradual/ step-by-tiny-step fashion?
>
I take you don't have a problem today with Darlington's 1939 claim
that the [Darlington]"origin of meiosis and sexual reproduction...
shows... violent discontinuity.... It demands not merely a sudden
change but a revolution. It is impossible to imagine it as the result
of a gradual accumulation of changes each one of which had a value as
an adaptation either Lamarckian or Darwinian."
> Are you going to stoop to making a
> god of the gaps argument? Is that all you have, old references and a bag
> full of logical fallacies? Do you ever stop to think how idiotic you look
> when you pull these silly references out of your hat? Or is it that you
> just don't care that people are laughing at you?
In general, I do not care if I'm being laughed at.
AC
I think we can be certain of one thing, David, and that is you won't discuss
it. Either you are incapable or unwilling to discuss things.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
david ford
david ford:
> > In 1939, was the theory of NS well-supported by the experimental
> > evidence then available?
> >
> > In 1939, was there a detailed Darwinian account for how exactly
> > meiosis and sex arose in a gradual/ step-by-tiny-step fashion?
> >
> > Today, in 2004, is there a detailed Darwinian account for how exactly
> > meiosis and sex arose in a gradual/ step-by-tiny-step fashion?
>
> "detailed". No scientific model is ever really complete -- everything
> is approximation. Go look at the history Global Climate Models or
> models for the structure and function of the F1F0-ATPase. Successive
> approximations improved by continued testing and gathering of data.
> IMO, evolutionary models just have to be held to the same standard --
> detailed enough to explain the origin of the features of the system
> that initially seem puzzling, convert an unknown process into a series
> of known processes, and create expectations about future data that
> will be testable by future observations. I don't think one can ask
> much more of science.
>
> After you've settled upon a reasonable standard such as the above, why
> don't you go ask Cavalier-Smith about how meiosis (and mitosis while
> you're at it, the origin of the two is linked) evolved?
>
> Cavalier-Smith, T., 1978. The evolutionary origin and phylogeny of
> microtubules, mitotic spindles and eukaryote flagella. Biosystems. 10
> (1-2), 93-114.
>
> Cavalier-Smith, T., 1982. The evolutionary origin and phylogeny of
> eukaryote flagella. Symposia of the Society for Experimental Biology.
> 35 (5896), 465-493.
>
> Cavalier-Smith, T., 1987. The origin of cells: a symbiosis between
> genes, catalysts, and membranes. Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on
> Quantitative Biology. 52 (6111), 805-824.
>
> Cavalier-Smith, T., 1987. The origin of eukaryotic and archaebacterial
> cells. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 503, 17-54.
>
> Cavalier-Smith, T., 2001. Obcells as proto-organisms: membrane
> heredity, lithophosphorylation, and the origins of the genetic code,
> the first cells, and photosynthesis. Journal of Molecular Evolution.
> 53 (4-5), 555-595.
>
> Cavalier-Smith, T., 2002. The neomuran origin of archaebacteria, the
> negibacterial root of the universal tree and bacterial
> megaclassification. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 52, 7-76.
>
> Cavalier-Smith, T., 2002. The phagotrophic origin of eukaryotes and
> phylogenetic classification of Protozoa. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol.
> 52, 297-354.
>
> Cavalier-Smith, T., 2002. Origins of the machinery of recombination
> and sex. Heredity. 88, 125-141.
Which of the above papers presents Cavalier-Smith's _best_ exposition
of a detailed Darwinian account of _how_ each of these items could
have arisen in a gradual/ step-by-tiny-step fashion?:
1. sex The paper: ____________________
2. mitosis The paper: ____________________
3. meiosis The paper: ____________________
> We should also throw in:
>
> John Maynard Smith, Eors Szathmary (1995). The Major Transitions in
> Evolution. Oxford University Press.
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/019850294X/
Szathmary, where have I seen that distinctive name before....
1996 Torbjorn Fagerstrom, Peter Jagers, Peter Schuster, & Eors
Szathmary
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10001122031240.8486-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
> These will give you a good basic survey of the topic. Let me know if
> you ever see an antievolutionist who ever addresses, let alone
> successfully rebuts, this literature...
Oh, please. This has shades of Wesley R. Elsberry's bogus
"Transitional Fossil Challenge."
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970708004648.1030A-100000%40umbc10.umbc.edu
david ford
Deferring to the expert opinion of a practitioner of one of the hard
sciences is the least I can do.
howard hershey
david ford wrote:
> gal...@hotmail.com (Dave) wrote in message news:<5591d176.04032...@posting.google.com>...
>
>>dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.04032...@posting.google.com>...
>>
>>>gro...@cco.caltech.edu (Andy Groves) wrote in message news:<991ea4ae.04032...@posting.google.com>...
>>>
>>>>dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0403...@posting.google.com>...
>>>>
>>>>>"Richard S. Crawford" <rscrawf...@mossREMOVEWATERFOWLroot.com> wrote in message news:<c3nlg2$8s8$2...@woodrow.ucdavis.edu>...
>>>>>david ford wrote:
[snip]
>>>>>When it comes the theory of natural selection, data observed from
>>>>>numerous fruit fly experiments does not matter.
>>>>
>>>>What data were you thinking of?
>>>
>>>fruit flies
>>>http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403082115.67a4b153%40posting.google.com
>>
>>And your argument, Ford, is what? You feel that fruit flies disprove
>>TOE?
>
>
> Numerous experiments have been performed, including experiments using
> fruit flies, with the hope of supplying evidence for the theory of
> natural selection. That evidence has not been forthcoming.
Again, you seem to have a private definition of "natural selection" that
does not match the meaning of this term as it is used in biology. Not
only has natural selection been demonstrated many times in fruit flies,
there are several selection experiments that are regularly repeated in
undergraduate labs (some -- such as selection for numbers of body hairs
-- involve 'artificial' selection by the student, but others involving
selection for or against movements up or down or toward or away from
light only require having an arranged selective environment and a bug
zapper -- to the light, you live, to the dark, bzzzzzzt, or reversed).
Could you explain to me what you think is meant by the words "natural
selection" and where, when, and how you came up with your bogus
understanding of the term?
> As for the possibility of disproving the theory of evolution,
> experimental results cannot do such. In fact, the reason we do not
> see evolutionary transformations occurring in the laboratory is that
> we have not been conducting our experiments for long enough amounts of
> time. Evolutionary transformations took millions and millions of
> years to occur, and we can hardly hope to see evolutionary
> transformations occurring in laboratories within the space of under
> 100 years.
We can certainly see transformations great enough within standard time
so that at the end of the process we have organisms that differ from
each other enough so that, if they were found in nature, they would be
considered as either a very unusual and highly polymorphic species or,
more commonly, would be considered as two species (by morphological
criteria alone).
Speciation (using the biological species definition of species requiring
reproductive isolation) is the key event in evolution. Speciation need
not be a consequence of natural selection. Morphological
differentiation of two subgroups is a common but not inevitable)
cause/side-effect of the speciation process. Evolutionary (speciating)
transformations do not necessarily take millions and millions of years
to occur. Single generation speciation via allopolyploidy in plants is
well documented and was important in generating bread wheat. There are
reasonably good examples of speciation events and dramatic morphological
or behavioral changes in a few hundred years. There exist ring species
at low frequency and it is not uncommon to see quasi-species which are
called subspecies in organisms where there is not stong genetic flow (as
in, for example, tigers, where the difference between the now nearly
extinct Sumatran and the now nearly extinct Siberian or Amur is quite
significant).
> Now when we look at the fossil record, we do not see fossil evidence
> of organisms transforming into other organisms. The reason we don't
> see this fossil evidence is that the fossil record is imperfect.
> Moreover, evolution can occur very quickly-- so quickly, in fact, that
> evidence of the transformations occurring wasn't preserved by the
> fossil record.
>
> To summarize: too slowly in the laboratory, too quickly in the fossil
> record. Plus the fossil record is highly imperfect.
Quickly in the laboratory and quickly in fossil or geological layer
formation are two quite different quickly's. The *rate* of
morphological change seen in the lab and seen in nature due to natural
selection is more than rapid enough to cause the amount of morphological
differentiation seen in the fossil record. And it is not "we do not see
fossil evidence of organisms transforming into other organisms". It is
that such evidence requires the existence of a very fine-grained and
relatively complete fossil record for the species in question, and such
records are rare. Not absent, just rare. The best such records record
speciation type changes (that is, changes in morphology similar to those
that characterize the degree of difference between most modern species
and their closest sister species -- limited by the usual inability to
see soft parts or colors) of shells of minute oceanic organisms.
>
> So you see, laboratory data does not disprove the theory of evolution,
> nor does fossil record evidence. Both laboratory data and the fossil
> record are consistent with evolutionary theory.
Because the rate of morphological change observed in the lab and in the
field due to selection is more than large enough to explain the degree
of morphological difference observed in the fossil record between sister
species when the records are at their best and most complete. And are
also consistent with the less complete records. Congruency and
consistency with the evidence are the hallmarks of all good scientific
theories.
>> The stability of fruit flies over the past half-century of
>>breeding proves nothing.
> My point exactly. In general, experimental results prove absolutely
> nothing.
They show that natural selection (the real definition, not yours) can
cause considerable morphological change in relatively short time frames
and that most species have a substantial resevoir of variance ready to
be exploited. Change due to selection occurs at rates that are more
than sufficient to explain the amount or morphological change seen in
the fossil record. That means that the morphological changes in local
species/subspecies do not need explaining. It may be the speciation
events leading to reproductive isolation of the two groups (the
biological species concept) subsequent to the local appearance of a
useful morph is what takes time and which may involve substantial chance
events (chromosomal translocations appear to be a common mechanism for
generating reproductive isolation).
Editor of EvilBible.com
Why don't you answer the question? Is there even a crude theory about how
an intelligent creator created sexually reproducing organisms? I know the
answer is no, you just refuse to admit it.
So why would any intelligent person reject a scientific theory because it is
not detailed enough and accept a fantasy that doesn't even have a crude
scientific explanation? That makes no sense at all.
Editor of EvilBible.com
Do you have a detailed theory about how an intelligent creator created sex,
mitosis, and meiosis? Of course you don't! Why do you continue to ask for
detailed scientific explanations for the theory of evolution while the
intelligent creator fantasy has no theory at all?
Even if you were to prove that the theory of evolution was incorrect (fat
chance) you still haven't proven that an intelligent creator created life.
Life could have been started by magic rocks. If you want to claim that an
intelligent creator created life then you are going to have to provide a
theory about how this happened. Otherwise your fantasy is about as
believable as the magic rocks. Where's the theory???
Richard A. Mathers
I do honestly appreciate the snideness. It reveals more
about you and your failed efforts in TO. It is clear that
your emotional religioous commitments create a steady string
of vacuous responses in TO. No expertise is required to
understand this.
RAM
Lieutenant Kizhe Katson
Bad news, dude: the "other creationists" are falling down on the job.
> much fun critiquing the theory of natural selection to participate in
> that development and assembling of evidence.
Great, have yourself a ball. We're having lots of fun ourselves --
laughing at you.
Nice cop-out, david. Typical.
> > You therefore assume that if Dawkins sees no reason to believe in God,
> > he *must* be convinced that a naturalistic explanation will be found
> > for the origin of life -- otherwise, he would be forced to accept a
> > Creator as an "explanation."
>
> Dawkins believes that life can come from non-life totally apart from
> the input of intelligence. He did not come to this belief on the
> basis of observations and experimentation. Rather, his materialist
> philosophy is the basis for that belief.
>
> > But a Creator, absent any testable
> > account of His purposes and/or methods, is not a explanation -- not a
> > reason why life has some properties and not others.
>
> Intelligence is a good explanation for many things. (Take a moment
> and look around for five seconds. Can intelligence explain well
> anything you are looking at?)
> Their _a priori_ acceptance of materialism is the basis for some
> individuals' belief that life can come from non-life totally apart
> from any input of intelligent design.
Personally, I don't give a hoot what Dawkins thinks -- haven't yet
bothered to read the man, in fact. Until such time as someone presents
a coherent hypothesis of Intelligent Design -- hoodunnit, when, how,
stuff like that -- I will take it as my default position that life
arose spontaneously from non-life, sans intelligent input. Absent an
ID hypothesis, it's not even a question -- there's nothing there to
investigate. So get back to us when you or your heroes have something
worth talking about, eh?
-- Kizhé
Andy Groves
What's the point? You'll just say it's not detailed enough.
Andy
Editor of EvilBible.com
"Hank" <Ha...@application.com> wrote in message
news:4061B106...@Company.com...
> david ford wrote:
>
> > Severian <seve...@chlamydia-is-not-a-flower.com> wrote in message
news:<q2q060hlop3irtlhe...@4ax.com>...
> > > On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 03:27:19 +0000 (UTC), dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david
> > > ford) wrote:
> > > >world's great evils," and if Dawkins had a faith, then by his
> > > >statement he would be in possession of a great evil. Assuredly, he
> > > >must have some sort of faith. (Are you sure that atheism is not a
> > > >faith?)
> > >
> > > itself?
> >
> > Remind me, what attribute did you have in mind?
> >
> > > Do you think the absence of love is a type of love? Do you think the
> > > absence of hope is a type of hope? Do you think the absence of joy is
> > > joyfulness?
> >
> > The belief that something is absent is still a belief.
>
Yes it does. Go back to school and listen this time.
Andy Groves
> >
> > Cavalier-Smith, T., 2002. Origins of the machinery of recombination
> > and sex. Heredity. 88, 125-141.
>
> Which of the above papers presents Cavalier-Smith's _best_ exposition
> of a detailed Darwinian account of _how_ each of these items could
> have arisen in a gradual/ step-by-tiny-step fashion?:
<snip>
Well, why don't you start with the review above, and work back from
there? Somehow, I doubt that the explanation will satify you. To quote
Bill Dembski:
"You're asking me to play a game: "Provide as much detail in terms of
possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my
Darwinian position." ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it's not ID's
task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic
stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and
indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to
ape your method of connecting the dots."
> > These will give you a good basic survey of the topic. Let me know if
> > you ever see an antievolutionist who ever addresses, let alone
> > successfully rebuts, this literature...
>
> Oh, please. This has shades of Wesley R. Elsberry's bogus
> "Transitional Fossil Challenge."
which you haven't yet met......
Andy
david ford
[RAM]"your failed efforts in TO" What are 2 such efforts?
david ford
Julie T. has done a marvelous start.
Julie Thomas on biological design
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.44L.01.0307231113280.765971-100000%40irix2.gl.umbc.edu
> > much fun critiquing the theory of natural selection to participate in
> > that development and assembling of evidence.
>
> Great, have yourself a ball.
Glad you approve.
> We're having lots of fun ourselves --
> laughing at you.
>
> Nice cop-out, david. Typical.
Does popularity or unpopularity of a position or idea have anything to
do with the truth or falsity or reasonableness or unreasonableness of
that position or idea?
> > > You therefore assume that if Dawkins sees no reason to believe in God,
> > > he *must* be convinced that a naturalistic explanation will be found
> > > for the origin of life -- otherwise, he would be forced to accept a
> > > Creator as an "explanation."
> >
> > Dawkins believes that life can come from non-life totally apart from
> > the input of intelligence. He did not come to this belief on the
> > basis of observations and experimentation. Rather, his materialist
> > philosophy is the basis for that belief.
> >
> > > But a Creator, absent any testable
> > > account of His purposes and/or methods, is not a explanation -- not a
> > > reason why life has some properties and not others.
> >
> > Intelligence is a good explanation for many things. (Take a moment
> > and look around for five seconds. Can intelligence explain well
> > anything you are looking at?)
> > Their _a priori_ acceptance of materialism is the basis for some
> > individuals' belief that life can come from non-life totally apart
> > from any input of intelligent design.
>
> Personally, I don't give a hoot what Dawkins thinks -- haven't yet
> bothered to read the man, in fact.
That's too bad.
> Until such time as someone presents
> a coherent hypothesis of Intelligent Design -- hoodunnit, when, how,
> stuff like that -- I will take it as my default position that life
> arose spontaneously from non-life, sans intelligent input.
Would you laugh at someone for saying the following?:
Until such time as someone presents a coherent hypothesis of how life
could have arisen spontaneously from non-life, sans any intelligent
input
whatsoever-- when, how, what happened before what, where genetic
information came from, how the DNA-RNA-protein system arose, stuff
like that-- I will take it as my default position that life arose with
david ford
Hypothesis: df [AC]"won't discuss" an account of how sexual
reproduction arose in a gradual/ step-by-tiny-step fashion, the
account possessing a level of detail with which AC is satisfied.
What are some tests that could be done to test this hypothesis?
> Either you are incapable or unwilling to discuss things.
Exhibit A being my posting behavior in this thread.
david ford
You will not be 100% sure of this until you try.
david ford
> dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.04032...@posting.google.com>...
> > gro...@cco.caltech.edu (Andy Groves) wrote in message news:<991ea4ae.04032...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > "Richard S. Crawford" <rscrawf...@mossREMOVEWATERFOWLroot.com> wrote in message news:<c3nlg2$8s8$2...@woodrow.ucdavis.edu>...
> > > > david ford wrote:
> > > > gal...@hotmail.com (Dave) wrote in message news:<5591d176.04032...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have quotations from other years, as well. Should you care to pick
> > > > > > a date since 1869, I will present a quotation from within 10 years of
> > > > > > that date.
> > > > >
> > > > > As you already doubtless know, quotes don't matter when engaging in
> > > > > scientific dispute. It's the observed data that matter.
> > > >
> > > > numerous fruit fly experiments does not matter.
> > >
> > > What data were you thinking of?
> >
> > fruit flies
> > http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403082115.67a4b153%40posting.google.com
>
If experimental data continues to be unaddressed by the proponents of
a particular position, you should not be surprised that the opponents
of that position continue to present for consideration that
experimental data.
david ford
> > "Frank Reichenbacher" <vesu...@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
> news:<Z9ednZTQZ75...@speakeasy.net>...> > > news:b1c67abe.04032...@posting.google.com...
> > >
> > > > Darlington, C.D. 1939.
> > >
> > > You do realize we are now in the 21st century, don't you?
> >
> >
> > 2001 Bernard d'Abrera
> > http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403032014.15573cd3%40posting.google.com
>
> You found one (sort of).! Eureka, eureka!
>
> Of course, he's really just an illustrator who describes himself as a
> "philosopher of science." He's collected thousands of butterflies *in the
> field* and he's published many many beautifully illustrated guides to them.
> However, I don't seem to be able to find any peer-reviewed publications that
> treat his interpretation of these data.
Since you haven't been able to find any such publications after a
no-doubt exhaustive and extensive search, they must not exist.
> Just taxonomies of butterflies,
> typically in book form. His lepidopteran peers would have reviewed these
> publications for the taxonomy, but not the biology. Maybe you know of
> something?
>
> Is this guy all you can come up with?
The 2001 Bernard d'Abrera statement is the only one that comes to mind
as having appeared in 2000 or since. If you would expand your date
range, perhaps to 1990 or 1980, I can present more statements of a
similar nature. Gould, who died recently, made some especially
damning comments in 1980.
> You realize, of course, that there are
> hundreds of living lepidoptera specialists who feel that the theory of
> evolution *is* the best explanation.
Feelings based upon others' assurance of the way things are are not
necessarily feelings that are well-founded.
Editor of EvilBible.com
I didn't see any theory in those links. All I saw was claims that certain
biological systems were too complex to have come about by evolution so they
must have been made by an intelligent creator. That is NOT a theory that
explains how the intelligent creator created life. Please try again.
There is a coherent hypothesis about how life came about without intelligent
input. It's called abiogenesis and evolution. There have been many
articles and books written about them. There is no theory about how an
intelligent creator created life. You refuse to propose a theory and you
can't show a link to a theory because there aren't any.