ID after the Bait and Switch

[RonO]

In reading Wiki they have quotes that led me to some IDiocy that IDiots
should likely read.

It is IDiots admitting that they really didn't have the science to teach
in the public schools, but that they were only working on producing it
in 2003. One year after the Discovery Institute started running the
bait and switch scam that the Dover IDiots ran into a couple years later
and ignored to the detriment of the whole ID scam.

In the intelligent design wiki article this quote caught my eye.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

QUOTE:
Behe has acknowledged using "sloppy prose," and that his "argument
against Darwinism does not add up to a logical proof."[n 8]
END QUOTE:

It leads to an series of letters written a year after they started
running the bait and switch, and Behe does admit the limitations of his
stupidity. Unfortunately for Behe the verification that he thought was
possible never materialized, and that was evidence in Dover a couple
years later.

The ID perps were discussing an article by Berlinski, and it was
apparent that the ID science hadn't gotten to the stage where they
really believed that they had anything solid at that time.

http://www.discovery.org/a/1406

Like I said above the ID perps may have been more circumspect because
the bait and switch had been going down for over a year and over half a
dozen various IDiot creationist legislators and school boards had never
gotten the promised ID science by then.

The Berlinski article is also illuminating. It does not read as if it
was written by an agnostic. Maybe Berlinski had a change of heart and
had fallen over to belief in God by that time.

This is his conclusion:
QUOTE:
God alone knows what God is thinking; as suffering
men and women have long known, His inscrutability
is one of His less attractive features. But
if all options are equally likely, and no motives
known, we are in the position of observers contemplating
a vast, cosmic lottery, one whose outcome is
neither favored by the odds nor specified by its designer.
It is chance that now returns as the default
hypothesis, if only because it is the only hypothesis that is completely
consistent with our ignorance.
END QUOTE:

http://www.toriah.org/articles/berlinski-2002.pdf

So you can see the ID perps sort of acknowledging why the bait and
switch needed to go down, while still trying to bluff their way through
among their peers.

Sort of sad when you think of what the Discovery Institute was doing at
the time, and will do again if there are still IDiots stupid enough to
believe that there is any ID science. Not a single IDiot has ever
gotten the promised ID science when they have needed it, and these guys
knew why a very long time ago.

Ron Okimoto

[Kalkidas]

On 5/14/2016 6:51 AM, RonO wrote:
> ...IDiocy...IDiots
>...IDiots...bait and switch scam...IDiots...scam.
>...bait and switch...stupidity
>
>...perps

>...perps...bait...IDiot
>...perps...bait and switch
>IDiots...stupid...IDiot...

[Jonathan]

It's scam and conspiracy when a theory
falls short?

Just today scientists announced finding
Mastodon tusks with tool marks a full
thousand years before anyone thought
humans were in Florida.

So does that make the earlier theory
a bait and switch scam too?

And the massive controversy surrounding
ID shows one thing very clearly, ID
asked the right questions by pointing out
a gaping hole in evolutionary thought.

A hole as yet unfilled...speciation.

But neo-Darwinists refuse to admit the
obvious, they gloss over this central
unanswered question of how to explain
....'the origin of species'... as just
a minor little thing they haven't quite
gotten around to yet.

They've been too busy, ya know.

A more accurate characterization of
the response of the neo-Darwinists
of the question posed by ID would
be they're trying to...cover-up...
this massive gap in the theory and
maintain the theory is still complete
enough.

When it's been shown to be only half a theory
nothing 'close enough' about that.



Jonathan


s

[Wolffan]

On 2016 May 14, Kalkidas wrote
(in article <nh7c34$7qg$1...@dont-email.me>):

Thanks for confirming, yet again, exactly what you are, Kalki, m’man.

[RonO]

This is essentially all you ever had, so I guess it is all anyone can
expect out of you. All IDiocy ever was was IDiots putting up IDiocy as
the bait, but what did any IDiot ever get from the guys that perpetrated
the ID scam? Stupidity would be a kind way of describing the last
couple of decades.

Just think if you actually could address the issues, what would it be
like. You wouldn't have to lie to yourself like you do or go into denial.

It is just too bad that reality is just what it is.

I'll put it back so you can run in denial again.

Repost:

END Repost:

When will you have something to actually counter with? When do you
expect that day to come if it hasn't come in over 20 years of the modern
ID scam? The stupid thing is that they ran the ID scam on IDiots like
you. You know that for a fact, and what is the only thing that you can
think of to do? Did any IDiot ever get the ID science when they needed
it? When the IDiots had the discussion reposted above they had only
been running the bait and switch for a year. Now it is nearly 15 years
since the bait and switch started to go down. Dembski has quit the ID
scam, what was he claiming about it back then? The things that he was
claiming that they were going to do, were never accomplished. They all
knew that they hadn't done what needed to be done at that time, and what
they needed to do never got done.

What is the only thing that you can think of to counter reality?
Running in denial isn't any type of counter it is just running in
denial. The Only IDiots left are the ignorant, incompetent, and or
dishonest, and Kalk is all three. His only strategy is to remain as
ignorant as possible so that he doesn't have to lie to himself as much.

Ron Okimoto

[Kalkidas]

On 5/14/2016 8:07 AM, Jonathan wrote:
> On 5/14/2016 10:21 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
>
>> On 5/14/2016 6:51 AM, RonO wrote:
>>> ...IDiocy...IDiots
>>> ...IDiots...bait and switch scam...IDiots...scam.
>>> ...bait and switch...stupidity
>>>
>>> ...perps
>>
>>> ...perps...bait...IDiot
>>> ...perps...bait and switch
>>> IDiots...stupid...IDiot...
>>
>
>
> It's scam and conspiracy when a theory
> falls short?
>
> Just today scientists announced finding
> Mastodon tusks with tool marks a full
> thousand years before anyone thought
> humans were in Florida.

Check out the evidence of human habitation in Mexico 250,000 years ago
in Hueyatlaco. It is the subject of endless fact-free ridicule by people
like RonO.

>
> So does that make the earlier theory
> a bait and switch scam too?
>
> And the massive controversy surrounding
> ID shows one thing very clearly, ID
> asked the right questions by pointing out
> a gaping hole in evolutionary thought.
>
> A hole as yet unfilled...speciation.

The real bait-and-switch is the presentation of minor variation over a
few generations as "evolution" and then switching to the "origin of
species" as if it was just an extension of minor variation that
"somehow" will happen if the time scale is extended to millions of years.

[RonO]

On 5/14/2016 10:07 AM, Jonathan wrote:
> On 5/14/2016 10:21 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
>
>> On 5/14/2016 6:51 AM, RonO wrote:
>>> ...IDiocy...IDiots
>>> ...IDiots...bait and switch scam...IDiots...scam.
>>> ...bait and switch...stupidity
>>>
>>> ...perps
>>
>>> ...perps...bait...IDiot
>>> ...perps...bait and switch
>>> IDiots...stupid...IDiot...
>>
>
>
> It's scam and conspiracy when a theory
> falls short?

It is scam when you claim to be able to teach the science of intelligent
design, but when it comes time to put up or shut up, you do neither and
start running a stupid bait and switch scam on your creationist support
base. What have the ID perps been selling the rubes? What do the rubes
get? They have never gotten the ID science. That is just a fact. What
they get doesn't even mention that ID ever existed. You can't get much
further from their "theory" than that.

You know what reality is so why obfuscate about it. We aren't talking
about scientific hypotheses because IDiots never had one. All they have
had is the scam for nearly 15 years. They could have admitted that they
were wrong, and that they had come up short, but what happened?

What is really sad is that the bait and switch has had to continue for
over a decade. When the bait and switch was run on Texas and Louisiana
in 2013 it was already over a decade of the bait and switch going down.
IDiots are that stupid. What kind of idiot would push IDiocy at this
time? What will happen to the next group of IDiots that make the same
mistake that they have all made? Why are there still IDiots like you?

What I put up and what Kalk ran from indicates that the ID perps
understood that they had nothing substantial, and it was why the bait
and switch was needed. For stupid dishonest political reasons they
wanted to keep selling ID, but they knew that they had nothing to sell.
The bait and switch had been going down for a year. They all knew it.
It is called false advertising, but in politics it is freedom of speech.
It is still lying to your IDiot supporters no matter whether it is for
political purposes or not.

Ron Okimoto

[Kalkidas]

On 5/14/2016 8:28 AM, RonO wrote:
> On 5/14/2016 9:21 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
>> On 5/14/2016 6:51 AM, RonO wrote:
>>> ...IDiocy...IDiots
>>> ...IDiots...bait and switch scam...IDiots...scam.
>>> ...bait and switch...stupidity
>>>
>>> ...perps
>>
>>> ...perps...bait...IDiot
>>> ...perps...bait and switch
>>> IDiots...stupid...IDiot...
>>
>

>... IDiocy...IDiots...IDiocy...
>...bait...IDiot...
>...scam?...Stupidity
>...IDiocy...IDiots
>...IDiots...bait and switch scam...

> The ID perps were discussing an article by Berlinski, and it was

>...perps...bait and switch...IDiot...
>...perp...the bait and
>...switch...bluff...IDiots stupid...IDiot
>...scam?...scam...IDiots...IDiot...IDiot...bait and switch...bait and switch
>...IDiot

[Kalkidas]

On 5/14/2016 8:46 AM, RonO wrote:
> On 5/14/2016 10:07 AM, Jonathan wrote:
>> On 5/14/2016 10:21 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/14/2016 6:51 AM, RonO wrote:
>>>> ...IDiocy...IDiots
>>>> ...IDiots...bait and switch scam...IDiots...scam.
>>>> ...bait and switch...stupidity
>>>>
>>>> ...perps
>>>
>>>> ...perps...bait...IDiot
>>>> ...perps...bait and switch
>>>> IDiots...stupid...IDiot...
>>>
>>
>>
>> It's scam and conspiracy when a theory
>> falls short?
>

>...scam...stupid bait and switch scam...ID perps...rubes
>...IDiots...scam
>...bait and switch...bait and switch...bait and switch

>IDiots...idiot...IDiocy...IDiots...IDiots...
>
>...perps...bait and switch...stupid dishonest...bait and switch...lying....IDiot

[Jonathan]

On 5/14/2016 11:28 AM, RonO wrote:
> On 5/14/2016 9:21 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
>> On 5/14/2016 6:51 AM, RonO wrote:
>>> ...IDiocy...IDiots
>>> ...IDiots...bait and switch scam...IDiots...scam.
>>> ...bait and switch...stupidity
>>>
>>> ...perps
>>
>>> ...perps...bait...IDiot
>>> ...perps...bait and switch
>>> IDiots...stupid...IDiot...
>>
>
> This is essentially all you ever had, so I guess it is all anyone can
> expect out of you. All IDiocy ever was was IDiots putting up IDiocy as
> the bait, but what did any IDiot ever get from the guys that perpetrated
> the ID scam? Stupidity would be a kind way of describing the last
> couple of decades.
>

So what do you call it when a major university
teaches undergraduates evolution without
mentioning the open and glaring issue of
speciation?

> Just think if you actually could address the issues, what would it be
> like. You wouldn't have to lie to yourself like you do or go into denial.
>
> It is just too bad that reality is just what it is.
>
> I'll put it back so you can run in denial again.
>
> Repost:
> In reading Wiki they have quotes that led me to some IDiocy that IDiots
> should likely read.
>
> It is IDiots admitting that they really didn't have the science to teach
> in the public schools, but that they were only working on producing it
> in 2003. One year after the Discovery Institute started running the
> bait and switch scam that the Dover IDiots ran into a couple years later
> and ignored to the detriment of the whole ID scam.
>
> In the intelligent design wiki article this quote caught my eye.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
>
> QUOTE:
> Behe has acknowledged using "sloppy prose," and that his "argument
> against Darwinism does not add up to a logical proof."[n 8]
> END QUOTE:
>

That is more of an admission of error than
neo-Darwinists have ever made over the error
of teaching evolution without mentioning
the fact they haven't the first clue how a
species begins.


Or what about the whole 'missing link'/common descent
glaring hole Darwinists never seem to bring up, as in
....."as yet to be identified".




Missing link
Evolutionary theory

"Missing link, hypothetical extinct creature halfway
in the evolutionary line between modern human beings
and their anthropoid progenitors. In the latter half
of the 19th century, a common misinterpretation of
Charles Darwin’s work was that humans were lineally
descended from existing species of apes. To accept
this theory and reconcile it with the hierarchical
Great Chain of Being, some fossil ape-man or man-ape
seemed necessary in order to complete the chain.

Today it is recognized that the relationship of modern
humans to the present anthropoid apes (e.g., chimpanzees)
is through common ancestors rather than through
direct descent.

These ancestors have yet to be identified, but
ape-hominid divergence may have occurred 6 to 10
million years ago.

http://www.britannica.com/science/missing-link

> It leads to an series of letters written a year after they started
> running the bait and switch, and Behe does admit the limitations of his
> stupidity. Unfortunately for Behe the verification that he thought was
> possible never materialized, and that was evidence in Dover a couple
> years later.
>
> The ID perps were discussing an article by Berlinski, and it was
> apparent that the ID science hadn't gotten to the stage where they
> really believed that they had anything solid at that time.
>
> http://www.discovery.org/a/1406
>
> Like I said above the ID perps may have been more circumspect because
> the bait and switch had been going down for over a year and over half

Over a year and a half? Holy Toledo, how many decades has
neo-Darwinists failed to disclose their central theoretical
difficulties?

About half a century maybe.

You're the one ranting and raving and tossing your hands
frantically in the air like someone that just
walked into a spiders web.

You protest too much, and that is the sign you're
only trying to cover up what the ID crowd has
exposed in your belief system.

And for at least the tenth time, you accuse me of
being an ID believer when I have been consistently
saying I agree with their questions only, not with
their theories attempting to fill those gaps.

My ideas trying to answer that question are
based entirely on the very latest ideas of
emergence. An idea that is now very mainstream.

You are grossly misrepresenting my position, so
why should we take your criticism on ID seriously?
You have no problem skewing the facts to fit your
opinions.


Jonathan

s


> Ron Okimoto
>

[RonO]

Poor deluded Kalk. What kind of person could even post when he is in
such denial?

I'll repost the repost. The truth doesn't change when all you have is
stupid denial.

Repost of repost:

The ID perps were discussing an article by Berlinski, and it was

END Repost:

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

Here it is again so you can run in abject denial again.

What a sad IDiot you are.

Repost:

END Repost:

Just think if you could counter any of the truth instead of run from it.

What does that tell you about IDiocy?

Ron Okimoto

[Kalkidas]

[RonO]

On 5/14/2016 12:26 PM, Jonathan wrote:
> On 5/14/2016 11:28 AM, RonO wrote:
>> On 5/14/2016 9:21 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
>>> On 5/14/2016 6:51 AM, RonO wrote:
>>>> ...IDiocy...IDiots
>>>> ...IDiots...bait and switch scam...IDiots...scam.
>>>> ...bait and switch...stupidity
>>>>
>>>> ...perps
>>>
>>>> ...perps...bait...IDiot
>>>> ...perps...bait and switch
>>>> IDiots...stupid...IDiot...
>>>
>>
>> This is essentially all you ever had, so I guess it is all anyone can
>> expect out of you. All IDiocy ever was was IDiots putting up IDiocy as
>> the bait, but what did any IDiot ever get from the guys that perpetrated
>> the ID scam? Stupidity would be a kind way of describing the last
>> couple of decades.
>>
>
>
>
> So what do you call it when a major university
> teaches undergraduates evolution without
> mentioning the open and glaring issue of
> speciation?

What about it. Speciation is scientific fact. Deal with it.

How does what we do not fully understand at this time have anything to
do with what a dishonest scam IDiocy is and always was?

Really, do we know nothing about speciation?

No, so your denial is stupid.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> Just think if you actually could address the issues, what would it be
>> like. You wouldn't have to lie to yourself like you do or go into
>> denial.
>>
>> It is just too bad that reality is just what it is.
>>
>> I'll put it back so you can run in denial again.
>>
>> Repost:
>> In reading Wiki they have quotes that led me to some IDiocy that IDiots
>> should likely read.
>>
>> It is IDiots admitting that they really didn't have the science to teach
>> in the public schools, but that they were only working on producing it
>> in 2003. One year after the Discovery Institute started running the
>> bait and switch scam that the Dover IDiots ran into a couple years later
>> and ignored to the detriment of the whole ID scam.
>>
>> In the intelligent design wiki article this quote caught my eye.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
>>
>> QUOTE:
>> Behe has acknowledged using "sloppy prose," and that his "argument
>> against Darwinism does not add up to a logical proof."[n 8]
>> END QUOTE:
>>
>
>
>
> That is more of an admission of error than
> neo-Darwinists have ever made over the error
> of teaching evolution without mentioning
> the fact they haven't the first clue how a
> species begins.

It is an admission that he never had a valid argument. My guess is that
even someone as lost as you have seen Behe keep claiming that he never
supported teaching the junk in the public schools. What does that mean
about what he knew about the validity of his junk?

>
>
> Or what about the whole 'missing link'/common descent
> glaring hole Darwinists never seem to bring up, as in
> ....."as yet to be identified".

The switch scam rears it's ugly head. Doesn't this tell you what a
failure IDiocy is?

>
> Missing link
> Evolutionary theory
>
> "Missing link, hypothetical extinct creature halfway
> in the evolutionary line between modern human beings
> and their anthropoid progenitors. In the latter half
> of the 19th century, a common misinterpretation of
> Charles Darwin’s work was that humans were lineally
> descended from existing species of apes. To accept
> this theory and reconcile it with the hierarchical
> Great Chain of Being, some fossil ape-man or man-ape
> seemed necessary in order to complete the chain.
>
> Today it is recognized that the relationship of modern
> humans to the present anthropoid apes (e.g., chimpanzees)
> is through common ancestors rather than through
> direct descent.
>
> These ancestors have yet to be identified, but
> ape-hominid divergence may have occurred 6 to 10
> million years ago.
>
> http://www.britannica.com/science/missing-link
>

Do we know nothing about human evolution?

No, so what does your denial amount to?

The same thing IDiocy has going for it, absolutely nothing of any
significance.

You wouldn't have to resort to the obfuscation switch scam if ID had
anything at all going for it.

Why is it that you can't put up any valid ID science instead of
obfuscate about things that you know you have already lost on. Just
because we do not know everything obviously does not mean that we know
nothing, and we obviously know enough about humans evolving from an ape
like ancestor to convince even an IDiot like you if you were not in such
abject denial of reality.

>
>
>> It leads to an series of letters written a year after they started
>> running the bait and switch, and Behe does admit the limitations of his
>> stupidity. Unfortunately for Behe the verification that he thought was
>> possible never materialized, and that was evidence in Dover a couple
>> years later.
>>
>> The ID perps were discussing an article by Berlinski, and it was
>> apparent that the ID science hadn't gotten to the stage where they
>> really believed that they had anything solid at that time.
>>
>> http://www.discovery.org/a/1406
>>
>> Like I said above the ID perps may have been more circumspect because
>> the bait and switch had been going down for over a year and over half
>
>
>
>
> Over a year and a half? Holy Toledo, how many decades has
> neo-Darwinists failed to disclose their central theoretical
> difficulties?
>
> About half a century maybe.

The bait and switch was going down about every other month at this time,
that is why the ID perps were so circumspect. It was no secret what
they were doing because it happened to every single IDiot that needed
the ID science.

What is the failure of new-darwinists? Science makes progress, IDiots
run the bait and switch.

You have to be a stupid IDiot to not know that we have made progress
since Darwin and even since the new synthesis when science incorporated
genetics into evolutionary theory.

What a bone headed IDiot to think otherwise.

All I've seen is the switch scam and denial. The bait and switch is
fact and the next group of IDiots will have the bait and switch run on
them. Do you deny that? What will happen if there are still IDiots
stupid enough not to have a clue by this time? Really, can you be that
honest with yourself?

>
> You protest too much, and that is the sign you're
> only trying to cover up what the ID crowd has
> exposed in your belief system.

I believe that you should be honest and that science depends on honesty.
You obviously don't, but that is your problem.

Why do IDiots like you bend over and take the switch scam from the guys
that lied to them about the ID scam?

>
> And for at least the tenth time, you accuse me of
> being an ID believer when I have been consistently
> saying I agree with their questions only, not with
> their theories attempting to fill those gaps.

Sure, sure, and you are agnostic etc, etc. IDiots just lie a lot. That
is a fact. Why defend the bait and switch if you are not an IDiot?

>
> My ideas trying to answer that question are
> based entirely on the very latest ideas of
> emergence. An idea that is now very mainstream.

Most of your ideas are so nonsensical that I basically only consider the
IDiocy that you spout that some other IDiot has already spoouted.

>
> You are grossly misrepresenting my position, so
> why should we take your criticism on ID seriously?
> You have no problem skewing the facts to fit your
> opinions.
>
>
> Jonathan

Well, why defend the bait and switch? Why bend over for the switch
scam? Why be an IDiot at this late stage in the scam? You aren't very
convincing in your denial when you are only in denial of the science
that you don't like.

Ron Okimoto
>
> s
>
>
>> Ron Okimoto
>>
>

[Kalkidas]

[RonO]

It is a nice summary of what you are, but I will repost it again so that

you can run in denial again.

Don't you think that it is just a little odd that you have to run from
the truth because you know it is the truth?

Repost of Repost:

END Repost of repost:

[RonO]

Let's see how deep the denial is.

Repost the reposted repost:

END Reposted repost:

Sad, but denial is all IDiots have left.

Ron Okimoto

[Ray Martinez]

On Saturday, May 14, 2016 at 6:52:51 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> In reading Wiki they have quotes that led me to some IDiocy that IDiots
> should likely read.
>
> It is IDiots admitting that they really didn't have the science to teach
> in the public schools, but that they were only working on producing it
> in 2003. One year after the Discovery Institute started running the
> bait and switch scam that the Dover IDiots ran into a couple years later
> and ignored to the detriment of the whole ID scam.
>
> In the intelligent design wiki article this quote caught my eye.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
>
> QUOTE:
> Behe has acknowledged using "sloppy prose," and that his "argument
> against Darwinism does not add up to a logical proof."[n 8]
> END QUOTE:

The citation is invalid. Why not post these important quotations in full from the primary source?

Wikipedia is anything but a scholarly source since anyone with a computer can create the information. And since you're relying on a public source there is no reason to read the remainder of your message.

Dear Audience:

Partial quotes lacking context, invalid references, and non-scholarly sources, indicates inaccurate or even false information. Evolutionist Ron Okimoto should know better.

Ray

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 14 May 2016 08:43:31 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>:

>On 5/14/2016 8:07 AM, Jonathan wrote:

>> On 5/14/2016 10:21 AM, Kalkidas wrote:

>> It's scam and conspiracy when a theory
>> falls short?
>>
>> Just today scientists announced finding
>> Mastodon tusks with tool marks a full
>> thousand years before anyone thought
>> humans were in Florida.

A non-issue, as anyone with even half a brain who
understands how science works can see.

>Check out the evidence of human habitation in Mexico 250,000 years ago
>in Hueyatlaco.

Cite, please.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Kalkidas]

[RonO]

Does your therapist tell you to cope in this fashion? Beats me because
I've never been to a therapist, but if this is some type of
recommendation, I'd get a new therapist.

Running in denial is the stupidest thing any IDiot does, and they do it
all the time.

Just so you can run again and get something out of the money you must be
spending on the therapy. [Why is projection so much a part of being an
IDiot?]

It sort of looks like the denial is very deep today. Most of the time
it is just running away in denial after one round of the stupidity.

Repost the repost of the reposted repost:

END of the Reposted etc.

Ron Okimoto

[Mike Dworetsky]

Jonathan wrote:
> On 5/14/2016 10:21 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
>
>> On 5/14/2016 6:51 AM, RonO wrote:
>>> ...IDiocy...IDiots
>>> ...IDiots...bait and switch scam...IDiots...scam.
>>> ...bait and switch...stupidity
>>>
>>> ...perps
>>
>>> ...perps...bait...IDiot
>>> ...perps...bait and switch
>>> IDiots...stupid...IDiot...
>>
>
>
> It's scam and conspiracy when a theory
> falls short?
>
> Just today scientists announced finding
> Mastodon tusks with tool marks a full
> thousand years before anyone thought
> humans were in Florida.

Cite please? I don't particularly doubt it but would like to read more
details. And pushing back an earlier date for habitation in Florida by only
1000 years doesn't sound like a big deal, and does not alter any of our
basic knowledge very much.

>
> So does that make the earlier theory
> a bait and switch scam too?
>

No, don't be silly (though you will ignore this and continue to be silly).

> And the massive controversy surrounding
> ID shows one thing very clearly, ID
> asked the right questions by pointing out
> a gaping hole in evolutionary thought.
>
> A hole as yet unfilled...speciation.
>
> But neo-Darwinists refuse to admit the
> obvious, they gloss over this central
> unanswered question of how to explain
> ....'the origin of species'... as just
> a minor little thing they haven't quite
> gotten around to yet.
>
> They've been too busy, ya know.
>
> A more accurate characterization of
> the response of the neo-Darwinists
> of the question posed by ID would
> be they're trying to...cover-up...
> this massive gap in the theory and
> maintain the theory is still complete
> enough.
>
> When it's been shown to be only half a theory
> nothing 'close enough' about that.
>
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
> s

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

[Mike Dworetsky]

Kalkidas wrote:
> On 5/14/2016 8:07 AM, Jonathan wrote:
>> On 5/14/2016 10:21 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/14/2016 6:51 AM, RonO wrote:
>>>> ...IDiocy...IDiots
>>>> ...IDiots...bait and switch scam...IDiots...scam.
>>>> ...bait and switch...stupidity
>>>>
>>>> ...perps
>>>
>>>> ...perps...bait...IDiot
>>>> ...perps...bait and switch
>>>> IDiots...stupid...IDiot...
>>>
>>
>>
>> It's scam and conspiracy when a theory
>> falls short?
>>
>> Just today scientists announced finding
>> Mastodon tusks with tool marks a full
>> thousand years before anyone thought
>> humans were in Florida.
>
> Check out the evidence of human habitation in Mexico 250,000 years ago
> in Hueyatlaco. It is the subject of endless fact-free ridicule by
> people like RonO.

What cites can you give us for your claims of human habitation in Mexico
250K years ago? You were asked but did not reply. Instead you went off in
a corner and mumbled to yourself. How about it?

[August Rode]

On 5/14/2016 2:33 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Saturday, May 14, 2016 at 6:52:51 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
>> In reading Wiki they have quotes that led me to some IDiocy that IDiots
>> should likely read.
>>
>> It is IDiots admitting that they really didn't have the science to teach
>> in the public schools, but that they were only working on producing it
>> in 2003. One year after the Discovery Institute started running the
>> bait and switch scam that the Dover IDiots ran into a couple years later
>> and ignored to the detriment of the whole ID scam.
>>
>> In the intelligent design wiki article this quote caught my eye.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
>>
>> QUOTE:
>> Behe has acknowledged using "sloppy prose," and that his "argument
>> against Darwinism does not add up to a logical proof."[n 8]
>> END QUOTE:
>
> The citation is invalid. Why not post these important quotations in full from the primary source?

You could have looked it up as well as anyone, Ray. Here it is:

From <http://www.discovery.org/a/1406>:

"On the general question of the sufficiency of unintelligent physical
processes to produce the astonishing complexity of life, I think a
negative answer is justified, for reasons I gave in my book, Darwin's
Black Box (1995). I quite agree with Mr. Berlinski that my argument
against Darwinism does not add up to a logical proof. No argument that
rests on empirical observations can have such force. Yet, despite my
sloppy prose in suggesting that, "by definition,....irreducibly complex
systems cannot be approached gradually" I intended the argument to be a
scientific one, not a purely logical one. In a scientific argument,
conclusions are tentative, based on the preponderance of the physical
evidence, and potentially falsifiable." -- Michael J. Behe

So what was written in the Wikipedia article, that Behe acknowledged
using "sloppy prose" and that his "argument against Darwinism does not
add up to a logical proof," is accurate. You should feel entirely
comfortable responding to it now.

[August Rode]

I see you've taken to highlighting the important parts of Ron's posts.
Very wise.

[Thrinaxodon]

Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Saturday, May 14, 2016 at 6:52:51 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
>> In reading Wiki they have quotes that led me to some IDiocy that IDiots
>> should likely read.
>>
>> It is IDiots admitting that they really didn't have the science to teach
>> in the public schools, but that they were only working on producing it
>> in 2003. One year after the Discovery Institute started running the
>> bait and switch scam that the Dover IDiots ran into a couple years later
>> and ignored to the detriment of the whole ID scam.
>>
>> In the intelligent design wiki article this quote caught my eye.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
>>
>> QUOTE:
>> Behe has acknowledged using "sloppy prose," and that his "argument
>> against Darwinism does not add up to a logical proof."[n 8]
>> END QUOTE:
>
> The citation is invalid. Why not post these important quotations in full from the primary source?
>
> Wikipedia is anything but a scholarly source since anyone with a computer can create the information. And since you're relying on a public source there is no reason to read the remainder of your message.

Wow, good job moving the goalposts, Ray, one more logical fallacy to add
to the list. I believe this little piece of bullshit falls under the
"Argument from fallacy" logical fallacy, which states that if an
argument to support a conclusion is fallacious, then the conclusion must
be fallacious. Another fallacy your shit flies under is the "onus
propandi" fallacy, where you must not prove your claim, it's for the
attacker to prove it is false.

--
"I would rather betray the whole world than let the whole world betray
me." - Cao Cao

http://oxyaena.org/

also see: http://thrinaxodon.org/

oxyaena (at) oxyaena.org

[jillery]

On Sat, 14 May 2016 08:43:31 -0700, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:

>On 5/14/2016 8:07 AM, Jonathan wrote:
>> On 5/14/2016 10:21 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/14/2016 6:51 AM, RonO wrote:
>>>> ...IDiocy...IDiots
>>>> ...IDiots...bait and switch scam...IDiots...scam.
>>>> ...bait and switch...stupidity
>>>>
>>>> ...perps
>>>
>>>> ...perps...bait...IDiot
>>>> ...perps...bait and switch
>>>> IDiots...stupid...IDiot...
>>>
>>
>>
>> It's scam and conspiracy when a theory
>> falls short?
>>
>> Just today scientists announced finding
>> Mastodon tusks with tool marks a full
>> thousand years before anyone thought
>> humans were in Florida.
>
>Check out the evidence of human habitation in Mexico 250,000 years ago
>in Hueyatlaco. It is the subject of endless fact-free ridicule by people
>like RonO.

Right here would have been a good place for you to cite anything that
identifies and/or confirms what you're talking about. Just sayin'.

--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[jillery]

Yeah, yeah, you proved your point, you're an IDiot.

That *was* your point, right?

[jillery]

On Sat, 14 May 2016 13:26:17 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 5/14/2016 11:28 AM, RonO wrote:
>> On 5/14/2016 9:21 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
>>> On 5/14/2016 6:51 AM, RonO wrote:
>>>> ...IDiocy...IDiots
>>>> ...IDiots...bait and switch scam...IDiots...scam.
>>>> ...bait and switch...stupidity
>>>>
>>>> ...perps
>>>
>>>> ...perps...bait...IDiot
>>>> ...perps...bait and switch
>>>> IDiots...stupid...IDiot...
>>>
>>
>> This is essentially all you ever had, so I guess it is all anyone can
>> expect out of you. All IDiocy ever was was IDiots putting up IDiocy as
>> the bait, but what did any IDiot ever get from the guys that perpetrated
>> the ID scam? Stupidity would be a kind way of describing the last
>> couple of decades.
>>
>
>
>
>So what do you call it when a major university
>teaches undergraduates evolution without
>mentioning the open and glaring issue of
>speciation?

Right here would have been a good place for you to say what you mean
by the open and glaring issue of speciation.

And assuming there's any substance to the above, you should
immediately follow up by posting any evidence of any major university
teaching undergraduates evolution without mentioning it.

Just sayin'.

>> Just think if you actually could address the issues, what would it be
>> like. You wouldn't have to lie to yourself like you do or go into denial.
>>
>> It is just too bad that reality is just what it is.
>>
>> I'll put it back so you can run in denial again.
>>
>> Repost:
>> In reading Wiki they have quotes that led me to some IDiocy that IDiots
>> should likely read.
>>
>> It is IDiots admitting that they really didn't have the science to teach
>> in the public schools, but that they were only working on producing it
>> in 2003. One year after the Discovery Institute started running the
>> bait and switch scam that the Dover IDiots ran into a couple years later
>> and ignored to the detriment of the whole ID scam.
>>
>> In the intelligent design wiki article this quote caught my eye.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
>>
>> QUOTE:
>> Behe has acknowledged using "sloppy prose," and that his "argument
>> against Darwinism does not add up to a logical proof."[n 8]
>> END QUOTE:
>>
>
>
>
>That is more of an admission of error than
>neo-Darwinists have ever made over the error
>of teaching evolution without mentioning
>the fact they haven't the first clue how a
>species begins.

Here's a book you might want to read. It's public domain, and was
first published in 1859, but I understand how some people are too busy
to have read it:

<http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F373&viewtype=text&pageseq=1>
<http://tinyurl.com/y4p5dx>

HTH but I doubt it.

[Wolffan]

On 2016 May 14, Kalkidas wrote
(in article <nh7gsc$p7d$1...@dont-email.me>):

> Check out the evidence of human habitation in Mexico 250,000 years ago
> in Hueyatlaco. It is the subject of endless fact-free ridicule by people
> like RonO.

I’d like to hear some more on this subject. Where can I find such
information?

[Wolffan]

On 2016 May 14, Mike Dworetsky wrote
(in article<noSdnUygCYt3C6rK...@supernews.com>):

> > Just today scientists announced finding
> > Mastodon tusks with tool marks a full
> > thousand years before anyone thought
> > humans were in Florida.
>
> Cite please? I don't particularly doubt it but would like to read more
> details. And pushing back an earlier date for habitation in Florida by only
> 1000 years doesn't sound like a big deal, and does not alter any of our
> basic knowledge very much.

It’s a big deal when you think that the entire universe is only 6,000 years
old.

[Wolffan]

On 2016 May 14, Jonathan wrote
(in article<jpKdnVkZHsjNwqrK...@giganews.com>):

>
> So what do you call it when a major university
> teaches undergraduates evolution without
> mentioning the open and glaring issue of
> speciation?

Interesting. Are you _sure_ that you’re not a creationist, Jon, m’man?

[Wolffan]

On 2016 May 14, August Rode wrote
(in article <nh871u$cq5$1...@dont-email.me>):

> > > QUOTE:
> > > Behe has acknowledged using "sloppy prose," and that his "argument
> > > against Darwinism does not add up to a logical proof."[n 8]
> > > END QUOTE:
> >
> > The citation is invalid. Why not post these important quotations in full
> > from the primary source?
>
> You could have looked it up as well as anyone, Ray. Here it is:
>
> From <http://www.discovery.org/a/1406>:
>
> "On the general question of the sufficiency of unintelligent physical
> processes to produce the astonishing complexity of life, I think a
> negative answer is justified, for reasons I gave in my book, Darwin's
> Black Box (1995). I quite agree with Mr. Berlinski that my argument
> against Darwinism does not add up to a logical proof. No argument that
> rests on empirical observations can have such force. Yet, despite my
> sloppy prose in suggesting that, "by definition,....irreducibly complex
> systems cannot be approached gradually" I intended the argument to be a
> scientific one, not a purely logical one. In a scientific argument,
> conclusions are tentative, based on the preponderance of the physical
> evidence, and potentially falsifiable." -- Michael J. Behe
>
> So what was written in the Wikipedia article, that Behe acknowledged
> using "sloppy prose" and that his "argument against Darwinism does not
> add up to a logical proof," is accurate. You should feel entirely
> comfortable responding to it now.

Hmm.. seems as if RonO had it correctly. It should be interesting to see if
Ray replies, and what he says.

[Rolf]

"RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:nh7pf6$p4a$2...@dont-email.me...

We can't pretend they don't exist but I dont bother reading Kalki & Co.,
they are too far disconnected from the world of reality.

[Rolf]

"August Rode" <aug....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:nh871u$cq5$1...@dont-email.me...

Looks like Ray didnt bother to read the Wiki, and can't have bothered to
look up note #8.

Rolf

[Jonathan]

On 5/14/2016 6:33 PM, jillery wrote:
> On Sat, 14 May 2016 13:26:17 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 5/14/2016 11:28 AM, RonO wrote:
>>> On 5/14/2016 9:21 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
>>>> On 5/14/2016 6:51 AM, RonO wrote:
>>>>> ...IDiocy...IDiots
>>>>> ...IDiots...bait and switch scam...IDiots...scam.
>>>>> ...bait and switch...stupidity
>>>>>
>>>>> ...perps
>>>>
>>>>> ...perps...bait...IDiot
>>>>> ...perps...bait and switch
>>>>> IDiots...stupid...IDiot...
>>>>
>>>
>>> This is essentially all you ever had, so I guess it is all anyone can
>>> expect out of you. All IDiocy ever was was IDiots putting up IDiocy as
>>> the bait, but what did any IDiot ever get from the guys that perpetrated
>>> the ID scam? Stupidity would be a kind way of describing the last
>>> couple of decades.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> So what do you call it when a major university
>> teaches undergraduates evolution without
>> mentioning the open and glaring issue of
>> speciation?
>
>
> Right here would have been a good place for you to say what you mean
> by the open and glaring issue of speciation.
>

Mohamed A. Noor

Earl D. McLean Professor
Office:
130 Science Drive, Room 137, Duke Box 90338, Durham, NC 27708

Research Interests:

One of the greatest unsolved questions in biology is how
continuous processes of evolutionary change produce
the discontinuous groups known as species.
https://biology.duke.edu/people/mohamed-noor



Darwin's theory, "The Origin of Species" seems
to be missing the 'species' part.

So what work would you place instead of 'Species'?

The Origin of _ _ _ _ _? What?

It should be called the theory of how species change.

Which would be quite different from explaining
how we were created, it would only explain how
we came to be, say, taller, different colors
or how tits have evolved to look so much nicer
these days and so on~

> And assuming there's any substance to the above, you should
> immediately follow up by posting any evidence of any major university
> teaching undergraduates evolution without mentioning it.
>

From the SAME Professor from Duke "Introduction to Genetics and Evolution"

Lecture 2 - Basic Principles and Evidence For Evolution


"The other thing is that all species, not just a subset, all
species share common ancestry that not only do horses and
donkeys have a common ancestor, but horses, donkeys and pigs
have a common ancestor. Horses, donkeys, pigs, and mice
have a common ancestor. We share a common ancestor with them.
Flies share a common ancestor with us. Coral shares a common
ancestor with us. Sunflowers share a common ancestor with us,
and even the amoeba shares a common ancestor with us.
There is a presumed single origin of life that then produces
all the diversity that we see on the planet today."


Ah..."presumed"??? Excuse me?

Oh ye of such great FAITH to base an entire half of a theory
on 'presumptions' not in evidence.

This from the same prof that at his personal homepage above on
the VERY FIRST SENTENCE says speciation is the biggest
unsolved problem today in evolution.

https://www.coursera.org/learn/genetics-evolution/lecture/K8SDd/basic-principles-and-evidence-for-evolution-g



> Just sayin'.
>


Just citing...like below.

[Jonathan]

I am, I believe, becoming an Irreducible Design believer.
Not Intelligent Design, not Irreducible Complexity.

The simple facts, and they are facts, is that complexity
is the required ultimate initial condition for
self-organization.

And complexity always requires at least /two/ qualitative opposites
interacting. Reducing to a single ultimate part or force
is impossible. Which is what the LHC is going to prove
even if they won't admit it.

The complexity of a large interstellar cloud of gas and dust
or say the complexity of water, or the complexity of an
energy gradient, and so on, must come first.

A new species or adaptation comes suddenly, like an
earthquake, and like an earthquake pretty much
destroys the 'landscape' from which it came.

Then the incremental process begins, until the
next 'big one' comes along.

And the emergent properties that follow give a system
an 'intelligence' that guide the process towards
the better solution.

Emergence gives systems a goal.

And goal-driven systems are designed systems, whether
it's a group of amoeba that instead of moving randomly
when alone, move together as a group towards, say, food.

Or the emergent property of gravity guides matter
to organize, or an emergent termite nest, or societies
and so on. All having inherent goals due to the collective
'intelligence' or property of emergence that leads to
greater order over time.

life is the result of design which comes from within
not from some wise old man out there waving a
magic wand.

And reality or life cannot be reduced to a single
initial anything.

A creationist can't justify their beliefs, I just did.
So I'm not a creationist.

But life is irreducibly complex, and 'intelligently' designed.




Jonathan



s

[Wolffan]

On 2016 May 14, Jonathan wrote

(in article<gcGdnVEsLIXvWqrK...@giganews.com>):

> I am, I believe, becoming an Irreducible Design believer.
> Not Intelligent Design, not Irreducible Complexity.

Ah. You’re a creationist. That’s that sorted.

[Dale]

On Sat, 14 May 2016 08:51:34 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:

>Not a single IDiot has ever
>gotten the promised ID science when they have needed it

two people decide to reproduce, they have sex enough times or utilize
other means, and they have intelligently designed life

ID happens in eveyway, all the time, unID, abiogenesis, has never
been observed

if a life form makes life out of non-life. it still was designed by
the life form, biogenesis

atheists have made much about nothing in this case

speaking as a agnostic, there seems to be such an effort to disprove
religion in all science, every hypothesis ends up on some media
mainstream oriented factually
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org

[RonO]

On 5/14/2016 5:01 PM, August Rode wrote:
> On 5/14/2016 2:33 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> On Saturday, May 14, 2016 at 6:52:51 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
>>> In reading Wiki they have quotes that led me to some IDiocy that IDiots
>>> should likely read.
>>>
>>> It is IDiots admitting that they really didn't have the science to teach
>>> in the public schools, but that they were only working on producing it
>>> in 2003. One year after the Discovery Institute started running the
>>> bait and switch scam that the Dover IDiots ran into a couple years later
>>> and ignored to the detriment of the whole ID scam.
>>>
>>> In the intelligent design wiki article this quote caught my eye.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
>>>
>>> QUOTE:
>>> Behe has acknowledged using "sloppy prose," and that his "argument
>>> against Darwinism does not add up to a logical proof."[n 8]
>>> END QUOTE:
>>
>> The citation is invalid. Why not post these important quotations in
>> full from the primary source?
>
> You could have looked it up as well as anyone, Ray. Here it is:
>
> From <http://www.discovery.org/a/1406>:

I put in the link. Ray just did not read far enough into the post.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

Do you really believe this is some type of valid argument, or are you
just joking around. With creationists, you never know.

Ron Okimoto

[August Rode]

Ray wants Wikipedia to be full of lies. The thought that it might
contain accurate statements is something that he'd prefer not to think
about.

In fairness to Ray, it would have been preferable for Ron to have quoted
from the source materials. It would have taken the wind out of Ray's
sails while he was still at the dock.

[August Rode]

I can see that. Next time, consider leading with it. Ray uses Wikipedia
as an excuse to avoid answering.

[jillery]

On Sat, 14 May 2016 21:43:41 -0400, Dale <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote:

>On Sat, 14 May 2016 08:51:34 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>Not a single IDiot has ever
>>gotten the promised ID science when they have needed it
>
>two people decide to reproduce, they have sex enough times or utilize
>other means, and they have intelligently designed life
>
>ID happens in eveyway, all the time, unID, abiogenesis, has never
>been observed

Only if you define unID away, which makes your argument nothing more
than a word game.

>if a life form makes life out of non-life. it still was designed by
>the life form, biogenesis

Not all life is intelligent, for useful meanings of "intelligent".

>atheists have made much about nothing in this case

It's not atheists who play the IDiot card.

>speaking as a agnostic, there seems to be such an effort to disprove
>religion in all science, every hypothesis ends up on some media
>mainstream oriented factually
--

[jillery]

On Sat, 14 May 2016 20:21:43 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>

PRATT. You posted this before and ignored the replies. You continue
to conflate "that we don't know everything" with "we don't know
anything". They are not the same. Get a clue.

>> And assuming there's any substance to the above, you should
>> immediately follow up by posting any evidence of any major university
>> teaching undergraduates evolution without mentioning it.
>>
>
>
>
>
> From the SAME Professor from Duke "Introduction to Genetics and Evolution"
>
>Lecture 2 - Basic Principles and Evidence For Evolution
>
>
>"The other thing is that all species, not just a subset, all
>species share common ancestry that not only do horses and
>donkeys have a common ancestor, but horses, donkeys and pigs
>have a common ancestor. Horses, donkeys, pigs, and mice
>have a common ancestor. We share a common ancestor with them.
>Flies share a common ancestor with us. Coral shares a common
>ancestor with us. Sunflowers share a common ancestor with us,
>and even the amoeba shares a common ancestor with us.
>There is a presumed single origin of life that then produces
>all the diversity that we see on the planet today."

And since there is no substance to your premise, you should have
skipped the second part altogether.

>Ah..."presumed"??? Excuse me?

What is "presumed"? That there is a single origin of life. Noor
explicitly and honestly stated his presumption. It can't be anything
other than a presumption. There is utterly no way to prove, even in
principle, that life on Earth had a single origin.

But even if that presumption is incorrect, and life on Earth had
multiple "origins", at some point those different origins either
merged, or all but one was eliminated.

Either way, that presumption has nothing to do with how new species
evolve today, or how they evolved once life advanced beyond the barely
living stage.

So what's your actual complaint here? It seems like you're upset that
Noor is being more coherent and honest than you.

>Oh ye of such great FAITH to base an entire half of a theory
>on 'presumptions' not in evidence.
>
>This from the same prof that at his personal homepage above on
>the VERY FIRST SENTENCE says speciation is the biggest
>unsolved problem today in evolution.
>
>https://www.coursera.org/learn/genetics-evolution/lecture/K8SDd/basic-principles-and-evidence-for-evolution-g

This is the exact same argument Steadly tried to push through, and
you're wrong now for the same reasons he was then. As I noted then
and above, that some things are unknown doesn't moot those things that
are known.

>> Just sayin'.
>>
>
>
>Just citing...like below.

There's your problem. You cite without understanding what you cite.


<mercy snip of content you ignored>

[Burkhard]

Just reposting the same quote mine you mean? I remember I gave you last
time a paragraph by paragraph account of Noor's actual paper, all his
points were of the form: we understand a lot about speciation and have
identified its basic mechanisms, here are the details that would be
great to know more about.

[Kalkidas]

On 5/14/2016 2:18 PM, Mike Dworetsky wrote:
> Kalkidas wrote:
>> On 5/14/2016 8:07 AM, Jonathan wrote:
>>> On 5/14/2016 10:21 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/14/2016 6:51 AM, RonO wrote:
>>>>> ...IDiocy...IDiots
>>>>> ...IDiots...bait and switch scam...IDiots...scam.
>>>>> ...bait and switch...stupidity
>>>>>
>>>>> ...perps
>>>>
>>>>> ...perps...bait...IDiot
>>>>> ...perps...bait and switch
>>>>> IDiots...stupid...IDiot...
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It's scam and conspiracy when a theory
>>> falls short?
>>>
>>> Just today scientists announced finding
>>> Mastodon tusks with tool marks a full
>>> thousand years before anyone thought
>>> humans were in Florida.
>>
>> Check out the evidence of human habitation in Mexico 250,000 years ago
>> in Hueyatlaco. It is the subject of endless fact-free ridicule by
>> people like RonO.
>
> What cites can you give us for your claims of human habitation in Mexico
> 250K years ago? You were asked but did not reply. Instead you went off
> in a corner and mumbled to yourself. How about it?

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10933-006-0008-4

http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1661/0026-2803%282004%29050[0313%3ACOSAOA]2.0.CO%3B2?journalCode=mipa&

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/archivos_pdf/geologic-evidence-hueyatlaco.pdf

[Jonathan]

Oh please, if the theory is about the "Origin of Species"
yet the theory has no clue about the...origin of species
that's not just a minor detail yet to be filled.

IT'S A GLARING HOLE! And your denial of the obvious fact
speaks volumes to your bias and lack of comprehension.

It's like saying a cosmology that hasn't the first
clue how a star is formed is just missing a few
little details.

You're being ridiculous.

>
>>> And assuming there's any substance to the above, you should
>>> immediately follow up by posting any evidence of any major university
>>> teaching undergraduates evolution without mentioning it.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From the SAME Professor from Duke "Introduction to Genetics and Evolution"
>>
>> Lecture 2 - Basic Principles and Evidence For Evolution
>>
>>
>> "The other thing is that all species, not just a subset, all
>> species share common ancestry that not only do horses and
>> donkeys have a common ancestor, but horses, donkeys and pigs
>> have a common ancestor. Horses, donkeys, pigs, and mice
>> have a common ancestor. We share a common ancestor with them.
>> Flies share a common ancestor with us. Coral shares a common
>> ancestor with us. Sunflowers share a common ancestor with us,
>> and even the amoeba shares a common ancestor with us.
>> There is a presumed single origin of life that then produces
>> all the diversity that we see on the planet today."
>
>
> And since there is no substance to your premise, you should have
> skipped the second part altogether.
>
>
>
>> Ah..."presumed"??? Excuse me?
>
>
> What is "presumed"? That there is a single origin of life. Noor
> explicitly and honestly stated his presumption. It can't be anything
> other than a presumption. There is utterly no way to prove, even in
> principle, that life on Earth had a single origin.
>

Oh my God, that's what a religious zealot would say about God.
Congratulations!

Your entire world view is based on a concept that can't
be proven. Do you even read what you write?

> But even if that presumption is incorrect, and life on Earth had
> multiple "origins", at some point those different origins either
> merged, or all but one was eliminated.
>
> Either way, that presumption has nothing to do with how new species
> evolve today, or how they evolved once life advanced beyond the barely
> living stage.
>
> So what's your actual complaint here? It seems like you're upset that
> Noor is being more coherent and honest than you.
>
>
>> Oh ye of such great FAITH to base an entire half of a theory
>> on 'presumptions' not in evidence.
>>
>> This from the same prof that at his personal homepage above on
>> the VERY FIRST SENTENCE says speciation is the biggest
>> unsolved problem today in evolution.
>>
>> https://www.coursera.org/learn/genetics-evolution/lecture/K8SDd/basic-principles-and-evidence-for-evolution-g
>
>
> This is the exact same argument Steadly tried to push through, and
> you're wrong now for the same reasons he was then. As I noted then
> and above, that some things are unknown doesn't moot those things that
> are known.
>
>
>>> Just sayin'.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Just citing...like below.
>
>
> There's your problem. You cite without understanding what you cite.
>
>
> <mercy snip of content you ignored>
> --
> This space is intentionally not blank.
>

Unbelievable! Even religion nuts are more open minded
and rational.

Darwin himself could rise from the dead and say evolution
is only half a theory, and the easy half to boot, and
you'd say he was just in a bad mood that day.



Jonathan


s

[Jonathan]

Is this quote unclear to you?

"One of the greatest unsolved questions in biology
is how continuous processes of evolutionary change
produce the discontinuous groups known as species.

It says they don't know how speciation happens.

So what is speciation's basic mechanism?

[Jonathan]

And you believe the Earth is flat, quack, that is just
as obvious.

[RonO]

Grow a brain, you seem to need one.

Check out any evolutionary biology textbook and try to make your stupid
claim about "no clue."

Hint: We know that you can create instant species by making tetraploids.
It is only one of the known mechanisms. Look up the crop plants that
are tetraploids. Look up the fact that the common ancestor of all
vertebrates was such a tetraploid species.

Buy a clue and learn what Noor is actually talking about.

Ron Okimoto

[Wolffan]

On 2016 May 15, Jonathan wrote
(in article<L82dnRCtDPCr66XK...@giganews.com>):

Son, once you start mentioning ‘Design’, particularly when you use caps,
you’re a creationist. And your total lack of logic and your unsupported
statement that I’m a flat-earther is further evidence that you’re a
creationist; creationists tend to be illogical nutcases. You’re a
creationist. By all means continue to provide support for my position.

You could, of course, provide some evidence to support your ‘flat earth’
contention. That’d be most interesting.

And, oh, is that ‘quack’ something significant, or are you channeling the
AFLAC duck?

[Jonathan]

Plants? Please don't insult anyone's intelligence
by passing that off as relevant to a general theory
of speciation.

> Look up the fact that the common ancestor of all
> vertebrates was such a tetraploid species.
>

That's not an established theory, quite the contrary
it's an old theory that never got a consensus.

> Buy a clue and learn what Noor is actually talking about.
>
> Ron Okimoto

You're the one that can't grasp his simple
statement that going from continuous change
to discontinuous speciation is still unanswered.

So tell me, how does any species go from the
continuous change of selection to discontinuous
change in speciation? What is the theory of how
that happens to...any given...species?

Your anecdotes are hardly a theory of how
that happens.

What is the common ancestor for humans?

[joecummin...@gmail.com]

On Sat, 14 May 2016 20:50:35 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 5/14/2016 6:50 PM, Wolffan wrote:
>> On 2016 May 14, Jonathan wrote
>> (in article<jpKdnVkZHsjNwqrK...@giganews.com>):
>>
>>>
>>> So what do you call it when a major university
>>> teaches undergraduates evolution without
>>> mentioning the open and glaring issue of
>>> speciation?
>>
>> Interesting. Are you _sure_ that you’re not a creationist, Jon, m’man?
>>
>
>
>
>I am, I believe, becoming an Irreducible Design believer.
>Not Intelligent Design, not Irreducible Complexity.
>
>The simple facts, and they are facts, is that complexity
>is the required ultimate initial condition for
>self-organization.
>
>And complexity always requires at least /two/ qualitative opposites
>interacting. Reducing to a single ultimate part or force
>is impossible. Which is what the LHC is going to prove
>even if they won't admit it.

And yet I"ve asked Jonathan twice for examples of his method - once
for the activities of a flock of starlings, when he said that the
example wasn't measurable and not complex enough, and secondly for the
behaviour of a sandpile, which he's ignored.

On this last, I remarked thaat it was possible to completely describe
the behaviour of the sandpile in reductionist terms, and invited him
to describe the activity using his method.

Why is he reluctant to show us his method? From what he's said, there
seem to be limits to his all-explanatory method - if something is, for
instance "too simple," as with the flock of birds.

Jonathan,tell us where your method doesn't apply; tell us the limits
and limitaions of the method.



Have fun,

Joe Cummings

[Dale]

I'm agnostic


>Ron Okimoto
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org

[RonO]

Denial is so ingrained that you don't even understand how stupid you
are. We also have tetraploid fish and amphibian species. When you have
absolutely no equivalient evidence for your alternative what makes
reality so bad that you have to go into a stupid denial routine?

>
>
>
>> Look up the fact that the common ancestor of all
>> vertebrates was such a tetraploid species.
>>
>
>
> That's not an established theory, quite the contrary
> it's an old theory that never got a consensus.

It is a well established theory, and has been vindicated by genome
sequence results that Ohno never had in the 1970s.

Do you think that science stands still? Deny reality, but at least get
some idea of what you are in denial about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2R_hypothesis

They should update:

These are references that come up with the 2007 paper mentioned in Wiki:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?linkname=pubmed_pubmed&from_uid=17707623

Some more recent papers:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26327327

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26500483

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26555542

You can get more refs by just using pub med and clicking "see all" to
the right of the abstract in the additional ref column of the page.

>
>> Buy a clue and learn what Noor is actually talking about.
>>
>> Ron Okimoto
>
>
>
> You're the one that can't grasp his simple
> statement that going from continuous change
> to discontinuous speciation is still unanswered.

You are the one in obvious denial of reality. What about speciation
would support your alternative. Nothing that we know of comes to mind.
Why is that? Denial of what we know is stupid.

>
> So tell me, how does any species go from the
> continuous change of selection to discontinuous
> change in speciation? What is the theory of how
> that happens to...any given...species?

Once a population becomes isolated from the parent population it is free
to change independent of the parent population. What do you not get.
Even just genetic drift will change a species once it becomes an
independent breeding unit.

Demonstrate otherwise.

>
> Your anecdotes are hardly a theory of how
> that happens.

Speciation is documented fact, unlike your stupidity that has not
amounted to anything for centuries. What is sad is that even YEC
understand that speciation is a fact of nature. How did we get all the
species after the flood? Just go to the AIG web page and look it up.
They require more evolution in a shorter period of time than real science.

>
> What is the common ancestor for humans?

Which one? The common ancestor of all great apes, of all apes, of
primates, of mammals, of tetrapod vertebrates?

Do you deny that there were such common ancestors? That is what is so
stupid about you, you know that we can determine that these common
ancestors existed even if we haven't found their fossils or could
identify them from their fossils. So what if we can't determine that a
specific fossil left living descendants. We know that something like
them existed, right? What happens when people determine when such
common ancestors should exist and look in fossil bearing formations of
the right age. Tiktaalik is something that you should think about.
Tiktaalik is likely not the common ancestor of all tetropods, but it did
exist at the right time and something like it likely existed at the same
time because there were likely many closely related species, just like
we see among species today. So we may not have found the common
tetrapod ancestor, so what? Does that mean we have found nothing?

You lose and you lose some more. Just because you got scammed by a
bunch of creationists running a political ploy doesn't mean that real
science works that way. Your way is the IDiot scam way. Until you stop
lying to yourself about it, that is what you will be stuck with.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

Dale, you were an obvious creationist, and now you think that you have
changed your mind, but you still think like a creationist, and your
input is creationist type input. Really, no one knows if you are joking
or not. A creationist would not be joking. My guess is that you were
not joking.

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

On Sun, 15 May 2016 09:11:20 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>

You can stomp your feet and scream and shout and call me names all you
want, but it doesn't change the facts. Noor did not say we have "no
clue". What Noor did say does not mean we have "no clue". That you
continue to insist otherwise suggests that you're either deluded,
stupid, dishonest, or some combination of the three. As I did with
davidp, I lea eve it as an exercise which is the greater problem.

>>> And assuming there's any substance to the above, you should
>>>> immediately follow up by posting any evidence of any major university
>>>> teaching undergraduates evolution without mentioning it.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From the SAME Professor from Duke "Introduction to Genetics and Evolution"
>>>
>>> Lecture 2 - Basic Principles and Evidence For Evolution
>>>
>>>
>>> "The other thing is that all species, not just a subset, all
>>> species share common ancestry that not only do horses and
>>> donkeys have a common ancestor, but horses, donkeys and pigs
>>> have a common ancestor. Horses, donkeys, pigs, and mice
>>> have a common ancestor. We share a common ancestor with them.
>>> Flies share a common ancestor with us. Coral shares a common
>>> ancestor with us. Sunflowers share a common ancestor with us,
>>> and even the amoeba shares a common ancestor with us.
>>> There is a presumed single origin of life that then produces
>>> all the diversity that we see on the planet today."
>>
>>
>> And since there is no substance to your premise, you should have
>> skipped the second part altogether.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Ah..."presumed"??? Excuse me?
>>
>>
>> What is "presumed"? That there is a single origin of life. Noor
>> explicitly and honestly stated his presumption. It can't be anything
>> other than a presumption. There is utterly no way to prove, even in
>> principle, that life on Earth had a single origin.
>>
>
>
>
>Oh my God, that's what a religious zealot would say about God.
>Congratulations!

Really? A religious zealot would say there's no way to prove the
existence of God?? Really??? I don't know any religious zealots who
would say such a thing. How many do you know?

>Your entire world view is based on a concept that can't
>be proven. Do you even read what you write?

Right here would have been a good place for you to prove the concepts
on which your world view is based. Don't be insulted that I don't
wait for you to do so.

>> But even if that presumption is incorrect, and life on Earth had
>> multiple "origins", at some point those different origins either
>> merged, or all but one was eliminated.
>>
>> Either way, that presumption has nothing to do with how new species
>> evolve today, or how they evolved once life advanced beyond the barely
>> living stage.
>>
>> So what's your actual complaint here? It seems like you're upset that
>> Noor is being more coherent and honest than you.
>>
>>
>>> Oh ye of such great FAITH to base an entire half of a theory
>>> on 'presumptions' not in evidence.
>>>
>>> This from the same prof that at his personal homepage above on
>>> the VERY FIRST SENTENCE says speciation is the biggest
>>> unsolved problem today in evolution.
>>>
>>> https://www.coursera.org/learn/genetics-evolution/lecture/K8SDd/basic-principles-and-evidence-for-evolution-g
>>
>>
>> This is the exact same argument Steadly tried to push through, and
>> you're wrong now for the same reasons he was then. As I noted then
>> and above, that some things are unknown doesn't moot those things that
>> are known.
>>
>>
>>>> Just sayin'.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Just citing...like below.
>>
>>
>> There's your problem. You cite without understanding what you cite.
>>
>>
>> <mercy snip of content you ignored>
>
>

>Unbelievable! Even religion nuts are more open minded
>and rational.
>
>Darwin himself could rise from the dead and say evolution
>is only half a theory, and the easy half to boot, and
>you'd say he was just in a bad mood that day.

More accurately, *you* would say I said that, when in fact I would
have said no such thing.

You must enjoy the smell of straw, you surround yourself with the men
you create with it.

[jillery]

Your middle cite doesn't work for me, but the other two do.

Thank you for these cites. They document what you were talking about,
which is always useful, and they appear to show a real live paradox.
They do show that sometimes things can be complicated enough to
perplex even the pros.

I claim no expertise in the field. My impression is that the site is
too chaotic to reliably base dates of embedded artifacts on the dates
of sedimentary layers.

The alleged dates are over 20 times older than from other sites, and
similar stone artifacts and fossils from those other sites are
reliably dated to something not even close to those alleged dates.

If there were anything to these claims, there should be other sites
showing similar anomalies. It's been a long times since this site was
first reported. Someone should have stumbled on other sites like it
by now if any existed. But by itself, it remains merely an anomaly
best explained by redeposition.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 15 May 2016 09:15:27 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Jonathan
<writeI...@gmail.com>:

It's clear to me. It's also clear, given the fact that you
were provided with context by Burkhard and continue to
ignore it, that you prefer quotemines to facts. I seem to
recall the same sort of tendency on your part regarding
complexity and how science uses it when relevant.

>It says they don't know how speciation happens.

Not in context, it doesn't.

>So what is speciation's basic mechanism?

It has at least two (selection and drift), both dealing with
the change in allele frequencies in populations over
multiple generations. Some of the details are still under
investigation, but the basic mechanisms are known.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 15 May 2016 05:26:39 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>:

Interesting. Anything less than 30 years old, other than
papers apparently based on the original one from 1981? ISTM
that this would have been investigated and either refuted or
confirmed by now.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 14 May 2016 18:01:28 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by August Rode <aug....@gmail.com>:

>On 5/14/2016 2:33 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> On Saturday, May 14, 2016 at 6:52:51 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
>>> In reading Wiki they have quotes that led me to some IDiocy that IDiots
>>> should likely read.
>>>
>>> It is IDiots admitting that they really didn't have the science to teach
>>> in the public schools, but that they were only working on producing it
>>> in 2003. One year after the Discovery Institute started running the
>>> bait and switch scam that the Dover IDiots ran into a couple years later
>>> and ignored to the detriment of the whole ID scam.
>>>
>>> In the intelligent design wiki article this quote caught my eye.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
>>>
>>> QUOTE:
>>> Behe has acknowledged using "sloppy prose," and that his "argument
>>> against Darwinism does not add up to a logical proof."[n 8]
>>> END QUOTE:
>>
>> The citation is invalid. Why not post these important quotations in full from the primary source?
>
>You could have looked it up as well as anyone, Ray. Here it is:
>
> From <http://www.discovery.org/a/1406>:
>

>"On the general question of the sufficiency of unintelligent physical
>processes to produce the astonishing complexity of life, I think a
>negative answer is justified, for reasons I gave in my book, Darwin's
>Black Box (1995). I quite agree with Mr. Berlinski that my argument
>against Darwinism does not add up to a logical proof. No argument that
>rests on empirical observations can have such force. Yet, despite my
>sloppy prose in suggesting that, "by definition,....irreducibly complex
>systems cannot be approached gradually" I intended the argument to be a
>scientific one, not a purely logical one. In a scientific argument,
>conclusions are tentative, based on the preponderance of the physical
>evidence, and potentially falsifiable." -- Michael J. Behe
>
>So what was written in the Wikipedia article, that Behe acknowledged
>using "sloppy prose" and that his "argument against Darwinism does not
>add up to a logical proof," is accurate. You should feel entirely
>comfortable responding to it now.

Good luck with that; Ray uses the "Wiki is a garbage pit of
opinions" excuse repeatedly, and adamantly refuses to
acknowledge, after repeated urgings to explore them, that
the citations given with almost all scientific articles are
*not* subject to manipulation by the uninformed.

>> Wikipedia is anything but a scholarly source since anyone with a computer can create the information. And since you're relying on a public source there is no reason to read the remainder of your message.
>>
>> Dear Audience:
>>
>> Partial quotes lacking context, invalid references, and non-scholarly sources, indicates inaccurate or even false information. Evolutionist Ron Okimoto should know better.

Ray,

Scroll to the bottom of the article you dismiss so
cavalierly...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

....to the section titled "Notes"; there are 33 of them, all
or most of which are searchable.

More importantly, scroll down further, to the section titled
"References"; there are 180 of them, all or most of which
are searchable.

So let's have no more waffling and evading about "anyone
with a computer can create the information", since the
references *cannot* be so created, and most or all meet the
required standards for scientific documentation.

[Kalkidas]

On 5/14/2016 2:18 PM, Mike Dworetsky wrote:
> Kalkidas wrote:
>> On 5/14/2016 8:07 AM, Jonathan wrote:
>>> On 5/14/2016 10:21 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/14/2016 6:51 AM, RonO wrote:
>>>>> ...IDiocy...IDiots
>>>>> ...IDiots...bait and switch scam...IDiots...scam.
>>>>> ...bait and switch...stupidity
>>>>>
>>>>> ...perps
>>>>
>>>>> ...perps...bait...IDiot
>>>>> ...perps...bait and switch
>>>>> IDiots...stupid...IDiot...
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It's scam and conspiracy when a theory
>>> falls short?
>>>
>>> Just today scientists announced finding
>>> Mastodon tusks with tool marks a full
>>> thousand years before anyone thought
>>> humans were in Florida.
>>
>> Check out the evidence of human habitation in Mexico 250,000 years ago
>> in Hueyatlaco. It is the subject of endless fact-free ridicule by
>> people like RonO.
>
> What cites can you give us for your claims of human habitation in Mexico
> 250K years ago? You were asked but did not reply. Instead you went off
> in a corner and mumbled to yourself. How about it?

And for continuing work see

http://pleistocenecoalition.com/

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 14 May 2016 21:54:48 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:

Given the poster's history, he's probably serious.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 14 May 2016 23:18:35 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by August Rode <aug....@gmail.com>:

The source materials are referenced; as usual, Ray ignores
them even after whining about the "public" nature of Wiki.

> It would have taken the wind out of Ray's
>sails while he was still at the dock.

Sorry, but no. If something refutes Ray he simply ignores
the refutation (or falsely claims it's "tainted" or the
references, which he never reads, are "invalid", as he does
here) and continues to post his errors.

[Burkhard]

To me it is perfectly clear, I read his papers. You are however totally
confused about what he says

>
>
> "One of the greatest unsolved questions in biology
> is how continuous processes of evolutionary change
> produce the discontinuous groups known as species.
>
> It says they don't know how speciation happens.
>
> So what is speciation's basic mechanism?

I referred you to his actual paper. He lists the causes in much detail
there. The questions he has, which are the "unsolved questions", is e.g.
the exact balance between sexual and natural selection, and how one
could quantify their respective contribution, what specific barriers
contribute to geographic isolation, under ehat conditions drift is more
important than selection ect etc.

Here what I posted last time you quote mined him:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534711002618

Then you get an idea of what he actually means when he talks of
unresolved questions. The questions he lists are of the forms:

1)Which barriers contribute to reproductive isolation?

So the ToE explains correctly the origin of speciation by pointing at
reproductive barriers - but of course we can learn much more more about
these barriers, what different types there are, which ones are more
important than others, how if at all can we quantify the effect of
different barriers etc.

2) When does drift have a significant role?

So the ToE explains correctly the origin of species pointing at drift as
one of the causal factors, but of course, we can learn much much more
under what conditions exactly drift plays a role, how we can decide in a
given case how much of it was due to drift and how much to selection etc
etc

3)What are the relative roles of natural and sexual selection?

So the ToE explains correctly the origin of species pointing to natural
and sexual selection as causal factors, but of course we can learn much
much more about how the two interact, which one is more potent, how for
a specific trait we can determine if it was mainly due to one or the
other, etc etc

4) How important is hybridization in speciation?
So the ToE explains correctly the origin of species pointing to
hybridization as one causal factor, but of course we can learn much much
more about just how important hybridization is, if we can determine if
it is particularly important for certain types of speciation events ect etc

>
>
>

[jillery]

On Sun, 15 May 2016 12:54:40 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Plants? Please don't insult anyone's intelligence
>by passing that off as relevant to a general theory
>of speciation.

Apparently you think plants aren't alive. Is anybody surprised?

[Wolffan]

On 2016 May 15, Jonathan wrote

(in article<3tidncNMtJj7NKXK...@giganews.com>):

> > >
> > > Oh please, if the theory is about the "Origin of Species"
> > > yet the theory has no clue about the...origin of species
> > > that's not just a minor detail yet to be filled.
> >
> > Grow a brain, you seem to need one.
> >
> > Check out any evolutionary biology textbook and try to make your stupid
> > claim about "no clue."
> >
> > Hint: We know that you can create instant species by making tetraploids.
> > It is only one of the known mechanisms. Look up the crop plants that
> > are tetraploids.
>
>
>
> Plants? Please don't insult anyone's intelligence
> by passing that off as relevant to a general theory
> of speciation.

Intriguing. So there are no plant species, eh, and nothing can be learned by
studying plants. Be sure to not look up, oh, Gregor Mendel in your journeys,
there’s a good creationist.

[Wolffan]

On 2016 May 15, RonO wrote
(in article <nhads9$c2v$1...@dont-email.me>):

> Once a population becomes isolated from the parent population it is free
> to change independent of the parent population. What do you not get.
> Even just genetic drift will change a species once it becomes an
> independent breeding unit.
>
> Demonstrate otherwise.

The Panthera cats in general and the tigers in particular show this. All of
them can and will cross-breed in captivity and rarely in the wild (jaguars
are a special case, they cross with other Panthera cats only in captivity
because there are no other Panthera cats in the wild in the Western
Hemisphere, with the exception of a few which got loose from captivity and
which are usually quickly caught again. No, the Puma cats, especially
including thejaguarundi, are not Panthera cats and do not cross-breed with
the jaguar.) There are markeddifferencesbetween tiger subspecies. In all the
Panthera cats there is at least some sexual dimorphism, with males being
larger than females. In tigers this dimorphism can be extreme. Male Siberian
tigers range from maybe 180 to 310 kilos in weight, while females are perhaps
100 to 170 kilos. Male Sumatran tigers max out at 140 kilos, or about mid-way
in size to female Siberians. If both Siberian and Sumatran tigers don’t get
killed off, they’re on their way to becoming separate species on size
alone... There’re other differences, notably smaller ears in the Siberians,
and slightly different coloration (the stripes are lighter, more of a dark
brown than black) while the Sumatrans are better built for roaming dense
forests.

Looks like speciation in action to me, but what do I know?

[Jonathan]

On 5/15/2016 5:10 PM, jillery wrote:
> On Sun, 15 May 2016 12:54:40 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Plants? Please don't insult anyone's intelligence
>> by passing that off as relevant to a general theory
>> of speciation.
>
>
> Apparently you think plants aren't alive. Is anybody surprised?

Tell it to your plants.

That's like saying anything that's hot can tell us
how stars form. There's a rather large gap between
plants and animals too.

[Jonathan]

Right, all the basic questions are still unanswered.

Can you tell me how any given species occurs?
A generalized theory? Or just how this one or that one did?

What is the common explanmation for the speciation of
humans and ants, say.

Do you see the difference? A generalized theory wouldn't
be dealing with any specific example of speciation, but
have general rules governing how all speciation occurs.

Just as a general theory of gravity wouldn't be
explained by showing how this rock or that one
happened to fall down a hill, and why it happened
to land exactly there.

That is what you're doing.

It would explain why all bodies fall.



s

[Dale]

okay Ron, one point at a time:

1) we observe life from life a lot, we never observe life from
non-life

2) if life experimentally creates life from non-life, it still starts
with life, the experimenter, without the experimenter the experiment
and the resulting life from non-life would not have happened

there seems to be a lot of faith put in abiogenesis, considering the
above, if I was a betting agnostic, I would hedge my bets on
biogenesis along with the theists in this case

1) could be a life orb in the cosmos, like God(s)

2) could be directed panspermia from non-orbs

3) could be plain panspermia from non-orbs

[jillery]

On Sun, 15 May 2016 22:15:22 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Then you make a distinction without a difference. Plants are sorted
by species, as are all living things, and are as relevant to a general
theory of speciation. You have no basis for objecting to plants
specifically.

Your argumentation is incoherent. Once again, what you say I said
bears no resemblance to what I said or meant.

Observations are the basis of theories, and prove or disprove their
veracity.

Species exist. Speciation has been observed, lots of times.
Historical evidence of speciation is well documented from the fossil
record. Evidence of speciation in living organisms is well documented
from their morphology and molecular biology. So, if you want to
object about ToE, then stop making incoherent objections about plants.

[Rolf]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:rueijb500nsj9fgpu...@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 15 May 2016 22:15:22 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On 5/15/2016 5:10 PM, jillery wrote:
>>> On Sun, 15 May 2016 12:54:40 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Plants? Please don't insult anyone's intelligence
>>>> by passing that off as relevant to a general theory
>>>> of speciation.
>>>
>>>
>>> Apparently you think plants aren't alive. Is anybody surprised?
>>
>>
>>Tell it to your plants.
>>
>>That's like saying anything that's hot can tell us
>>how stars form. There's a rather large gap between
>>plants and animals too.
>
>
> Then you make a distinction without a difference. Plants are sorted
> by species, as are all living things, and are as relevant to a general
> theory of speciation. You have no basis for objecting to plants
> specifically.
>

Indeed, even stars are sorted by species.
A lot can be learned here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star

People suffering the idea that nothing at Wikipedia can be trusted may
follow the links to scientific sources.
That makes me reflect on the fact that creationists are short on references
to science.

[Rolf]

"Dale" <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote in message
news:1ncijbpr2ao7djoun...@4ax.com...

If an experiment is set up to mimic situations possible within the framewok
of what we know about physics and chemistry, does that make the experiment
irrelevant?
An experiment in chemistry would have the same outcome as the same
conditions working in nature.. There's a lot of chemistry going on all over
the universs, who can tell what's impossible? Dembski tried to use math to
prove impossibility but nature is not subject to Dembski or Behe's ideas.
There are things that can happen regardless of poor odds as long as we have
no proof they are 100% impossible.

http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2006/06/28/dishonest-dembskithe-universal-1/

[Burkhard]

I have no idea how anyone with basic comprehension skills can interpret
the above this way. I mean, your lack of science literacy is one thing,
but the above only requires basic English.

>
> Can you tell me how any given species occurs?
> A generalized theory? Or just how this one or that one did?

Ah yes, and of course lack of reasoning capacity. If you want to know
how a given species occurs, a general theory obviously is not enough,
but you need to know the relevant data as input for your general theory.
Whether we have this for a given species depends on the species.

We do have however a pretty good generalised theory, of which the
concepts mentioned above are parts, the others you find in the rest of
the article from which they come

>
> What is the common explanmation for the speciation of
> humans and ants, say.

ants are not a species, they are a family.

>
> Do you see the difference? A generalized theory wouldn't
> be dealing with any specific example of speciation, but
> have general rules governing how all speciation occurs.

Indeed. And all the concepts I (well, Noor) give above are general in
that sense.

>
> Just as a general theory of gravity wouldn't be
> explained by showing how this rock or that one
> happened to fall down a hill, and why it happened
> to land exactly there.
>
> That is what you're doing.

None of the stuff I quoted is about any individual species, again, your
reading skills are shocking.

[RonO]

So you were not joking. Something is better than nothing. Put up the
options side by side as a comparison. Start with the Big Bang and
physics and chemistry, and work your way down. List Abiogenesis in one
column and your favorite option in another and go down the list and
compare. You end up with nothing of interest that is different from
abiogenesis. It is either the same in both columns or you have nothing
in your column.
What got created in the big bang? How were the components of the
creator created?

How do the heavy elements required by life or your creator get made?

What is life and your creator made of?

What physical laws apply to life and your creator?

What chemical reactions are known to occur in life and your creator?

Keep going for as long as you want.

What does that tell you?

Something is better than nothing. That is the plain and simple fact of
reality. Isn't that why you now claim to be an agnostic? We can't rule
out the existence of some creator god, but there is actually nothing to
rule it in either. That is why it is called faith. You either have
enough faith or you don't, and science isn't going to help you out in
this case. Some people have tried to use science to lie to you about
your faith, but some people will do anything.

Ron Okimoto

[Mike Dworetsky]

These are very sensible comments, and the experts have raised valid
objections, including that the flint axes and tools are of a quite advanced
type usually found much later in human cultures. I do not think it is
impossible for an earlier human migrating group to have travelled from Asia
to North America, as there was an ice age about 130-200 000 years BP. But
it isn't clear that there were any people in Eastern Siberia at that time.
And explaining how they invented such advanced stone tools way back in the
Paleolithic is an unanswered question.

And, as you say, they appear to have left no other relics anywhere, nor any
skeletal remains.

If it could be proven beyond reasonable doubt, it would change some
textbooks, but not anything fundamental about evolution.

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

[jillery]

It's the double-whammy of human habitation so early in the western
hemisphere, plus those emigrants just happened to have the most
sophisticated technology anywhere at the time, which turns this claim
into an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence.

[Dale]

On Mon, 16 May 2016 07:13:32 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:

>
>Something is better than nothing.

more is better than less

life from life is observed all the time

as you said, something is better than nothing, life form non-life is
never observed

--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org

[Dale]

On Mon, 16 May 2016 07:13:32 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:

>What got created in the big bang? How were the components of the
>creator created?

there is no "theory of everything" that is testable, on either side
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org

[Dale]

On Mon, 16 May 2016 11:54:06 +0200, "Rolf" <rolf.a...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>If an experiment is set up to mimic situations possible within the framewok
>of what we know about physics and chemistry, does that make the experiment
>irrelevant?

no, but we have to account for the experimenter as a variable in
setting up the experiment, if we want to get at causality
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org

[jillery]

If the experimenter is a variable, then it's a poor experiment, and
its results can say nothing useful about causality.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 15 May 2016 22:22:39 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Jonathan
<writeI...@gmail.com>:

I confess I'm at a loss to understand how you could read the
above and make that statement. Each item he noted is about
the basic processes, *which have been answered*, and the
actual questions posed, about the relative influence of each
in a particular instance, are about the details. As an
analogy, we know the exact process by which water freezes
(it loses heat and the molecules link to form crystals), but
exactly how this happens in each instance depends on many
variables, starting with environmental temperature and
pressure (and depending on those, IIRC, the characteristics
of the resultant ice may differ significantly).

>Can you tell me how any given species occurs?
>A generalized theory? Or just how this one or that one did?

Like politics, all evolution is local, and each instance is
unique, even if governed by the general processes noted
above.

>What is the common explanmation for the speciation of
>humans and ants, say.

Both experienced at least one of the processes noted above.
Probably more than one.

>Do you see the difference? A generalized theory wouldn't
>be dealing with any specific example of speciation, but
>have general rules governing how all speciation occurs.

That would be true (all evolution follows exactly the same
paths for exactly the same reasons) only if living
populations inhabited exactly the same environments and were
subject to exactly the same pressures. But they don't. By
far; compare the environments of Norway rats, barn swallows
and orcas. The "general rules" you claim don't exist are the
ones Burkhard cited above, and have differing influence on
the process in each individual case.

>Just as a general theory of gravity wouldn't be
>explained by showing how this rock or that one
>happened to fall down a hill, and why it happened
>to land exactly there.
>
>That is what you're doing.
>
>It would explain why all bodies fall.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 16 May 2016 13:35:51 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "Mike Dworetsky"
<plati...@pants.btinternet.com>:

Agreed. Some seem to think for some reason that revision of
a particular timeline based on new evidence challenges
evolutionary theory; I suspect it has to do with their
reliance on pronouncements by authority, ("revealed truth",
written or otherwise), which *can't* be questioned while
still accepting the authority. Such revisions may shake up
the pet theories of individuals, but usually have no
profound effect on the underlying science.

And FWIW, I think it would be *very* interesting to discover
such a predecessor human population in the Americas, even if
it apparently died out later. *Lots* of room for research
papers there... ;-)

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 16 May 2016 11:10:11 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Dale <da...@dalekelly.org>:

>On Mon, 16 May 2016 07:13:32 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>Something is better than nothing.
>
>more is better than less

Does that apply to flagellation?

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 15 May 2016 13:21:37 -0400, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by Dale <da...@dalekelly.org>:

>On Sat, 14 May 2016 21:54:48 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On 5/14/2016 8:43 PM, Dale wrote:
>>> On Sat, 14 May 2016 08:51:34 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Not a single IDiot has ever
>>>> gotten the promised ID science when they have needed it
>>>
>>> two people decide to reproduce, they have sex enough times or utilize
>>> other means, and they have intelligently designed life
>>>
>>> ID happens in eveyway, all the time, unID, abiogenesis, has never
>>> been observed
>>>
>>> if a life form makes life out of non-life. it still was designed by
>>> the life form, biogenesis
>>>
>>> atheists have made much about nothing in this case
>>>
>>> speaking as a agnostic, there seems to be such an effort to disprove
>>> religion in all science, every hypothesis ends up on some media
>>> mainstream oriented factually
>>> --
>>> Dale
>>> http://www.dalekelly.org
>>>
>>
>>Do you really believe this is some type of valid argument, or are you
>>just joking around. With creationists, you never know.
>>
>
>I'm agnostic

So am I, but I know what it means as coined by Huxley, and I
use that definition, which applies equally to believers and
atheists, and everything in between.

Now, about whether you think you made a valid argument
above...?

[Jonathan]

I guess my point isn't getting through. I'm talking
about the lack of a generalized theory of speciation.
Such a theory could explain how speciation takes place
without ever referencing any particular life form or
species.

Just like the theory of gravity never once mentions
any specific rock rolling down hill and banging into
another. By citing some specific example of speciation
and recounting in great detail how that species came
to be, you're not talking about a generalized theory
or showing what is common to ALL acts of speciation.

You're recounting exactly why some rock broke off
a mountain and detailing everything it hit along
the way to the bottom, that's not the same thing.

There's eleventy billion species and even more rocks
and going that route may be true, it may be accurate
but it doesn't answer the question of what is the
underlying source of all life, or all motion in
the case of gravity.



Jonathan


s

[Dale]

On Mon, 16 May 2016 12:08:15 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism#Thomas_Henry_Huxley
it seems to mean a skeptic of religion

I define it as a skeptic of both sides of the argument, maybe I need a
different etymology

>
>Now, about whether you think you made a valid argument
>above...?

You didn't address my assertions, seems like ad hominem logical
fallacy.

I'll put them in the form of question

1) Doesn't the evidence that we observe life coming from life, and the
evidence we don't observe life coming from non-life, support
biogenesis to an extreme over abiogenesis?

2) You can't really call it repeatability if there is no observation
to start with, but if an experimenter "did" create life from non-life,
isn't the creator, the experimenter, a part of the causal path to
life?

3) Since we can't repeat life from non-life without life, considering
(2), isn't there limitations in any scientific philosophy in
abiogenesis assertions? Why is abiogenesis held in such creed?

4) The answer to me sounds like selective assertion in support of a
broader conjecture? Aren't the typical responses the real logical
fallacy here?

seems like
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent

and maybe many others
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org

[Jonathan]

On 5/15/2016 2:10 PM, RonO wrote:
> On 5/15/2016 11:54 AM, Jonathan wrote:
>> On 5/15/2016 9:31 AM, RonO wrote:
>>> On 5/15/2016 8:11 AM, Jonathan wrote:
>>>> On 5/14/2016 11:29 PM, jillery wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 14 May 2016 20:21:43 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>

>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/14/2016 6:33 PM, jillery wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 14 May 2016 13:26:17 -0400, Jonathan
>>>>>>> <writeI...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2016 11:28 AM, RonO wrote:

>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2016 9:21 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2016 6:51 AM, RonO wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> ...IDiocy...IDiots
>>>>>>>>>>> ...IDiots...bait and switch scam...IDiots...scam.
>>>>>>>>>>> ...bait and switch...stupidity
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ...perps
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ...perps...bait...IDiot
>>>>>>>>>>> ...perps...bait and switch
>>>>>>>>>>> IDiots...stupid...IDiot...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>> these days and so on~
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> PRATT. You posted this before and ignored the replies. You continue
>>>>> to conflate "that we don't know everything" with "we don't know
>>>>> anything". They are not the same. Get a clue.

>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Oh please, if the theory is about the "Origin of Species"
>>>> yet the theory has no clue about the...origin of species
>>>> that's not just a minor detail yet to be filled.
>>>
>>> Grow a brain, you seem to need one.
>>>
>>> Check out any evolutionary biology textbook and try to make your stupid
>>> claim about "no clue."
>>>
>>> Hint: We know that you can create instant species by making tetraploids.
>>> It is only one of the known mechanisms. Look up the crop plants that
>>> are tetraploids.
>>
>>
>>

>> Plants? Please don't insult anyone's intelligence
>> by passing that off as relevant to a general theory
>> of speciation.
>

> Denial is so ingrained that you don't even understand how stupid you
> are. We also have tetraploid fish and amphibian species. When you have
> absolutely no equivalient evidence for your alternative what makes
> reality so bad that you have to go into a stupid denial routine?
>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Look up the fact that the common ancestor of all
>>> vertebrates was such a tetraploid species.
>>>
>>
>>
>> That's not an established theory, quite the contrary
>> it's an old theory that never got a consensus.
>
> It is a well established theory, and has been vindicated by genome
> sequence results that Ohno never had in the 1970s.
>
> Do you think that science stands still? Deny reality, but at least get
> some idea of what you are in denial about.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2R_hypothesis
>




I guess you missed this line from your own link above
that states...

"the hypothesis of whole genome duplications in the early
stages of vertebrate evolution has as many adherents
as opponents".


Doesn't sound like a consensus to me.





> They should update:
>
> These are references that come up with the 2007 paper mentioned in Wiki:
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?linkname=pubmed_pubmed&from_uid=17707623
>
> Some more recent papers:
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26327327
>



I guess you missed this line in your link above...


"Our findings contradict the 2R model"



Come on man, take these debates more seriously.



s

[Dale]

On Mon, 16 May 2016 12:49:05 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On Mon, 16 May 2016 11:14:56 -0400, Dale <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 16 May 2016 11:54:06 +0200, "Rolf" <rolf.a...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>If an experiment is set up to mimic situations possible within the framewok
>>>of what we know about physics and chemistry, does that make the experiment
>>>irrelevant?
>>
>>no, but we have to account for the experimenter as a variable in
>>setting up the experiment, if we want to get at causality
>
>
>If the experimenter is a variable, then it's a poor experiment, and
>its results can say nothing useful about causality.

without the experimenter the experimeter is not aware of the
experiment, not a variable, but causal logic

and, a causal experiment is not poor if it includes all variables,
obviously a life form is the first step in the causal path

maybe you mean experiments that are non-causal, that is not the
assertion of biogenesis (life from life) or abiogenesis (life from no
life), both are causal assertions
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org

[Jonathan]

On 5/15/2016 11:19 PM, jillery wrote:
> On Sun, 15 May 2016 22:15:22 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 5/15/2016 5:10 PM, jillery wrote:
>>> On Sun, 15 May 2016 12:54:40 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Plants? Please don't insult anyone's intelligence
>>>> by passing that off as relevant to a general theory
>>>> of speciation.
>>>
>>>
>>> Apparently you think plants aren't alive. Is anybody surprised?
>>
>>
>> Tell it to your plants.
>>
>> That's like saying anything that's hot can tell us
>> how stars form. There's a rather large gap between
>> plants and animals too.
>
>
> Then you make a distinction without a difference. Plants are sorted
> by species, as are all living things, and are as relevant to a general
> theory of speciation. You have no basis for objecting to plants
> specifically.
>
> Your argumentation is incoherent. Once again, what you say I said
> bears no resemblance to what I said or meant.
>
> Observations are the basis of theories, and prove or disprove their
> veracity.
>
> Species exist.

Really, I didn't know that.

> Speciation has been observed, lots of times.

What, never.

> Historical evidence of speciation is well documented from the fossil
> record. Evidence of speciation in living organisms is well documented
> from their morphology and molecular biology.

I never said anything to the contrary, my point is
there lacks a generalized theory of how speciation
takes place. What is so difficult about that to
understand? I've said it half a dozen times recently
and everyone shoots back ...'what about this instance
of speciation, or that one'? Or...'it's a fact speciation
takes place'.

No kidding, I'm saying a generalized theory why
speciation happens doesn't exist. And I would be
correct about that. In an ng dedicated to evolution
I'm rather astonished I have to point out that fact.

But it's clear no one wants to admit the theory of
evolution doesn't have a theory for the eh hum...

'Origin of the Species'.

> So, if you want to
> object about ToE, then stop making incoherent objections about plants.

Plants suck~

Every time I plant one I have to vacuum it up a
couple weeks later.

[Jonathan]

On 5/15/2016 2:37 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Sun, 15 May 2016 09:15:27 -0400, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Jonathan
> <writeI...@gmail.com>:

>
>> On 5/15/2016 7:48 AM, Burkhard wrote:
>
>>> I remember I gave you last
>>> time a paragraph by paragraph account of Noor's actual paper, all his
>>> points were of the form: we understand a lot about speciation and have
>>> identified its basic mechanisms, here are the details that would be
>>> great to know more about.
>
>> Is this quote unclear to you?
>>
>>

>> "One of the greatest unsolved questions in biology
>> is how continuous processes of evolutionary change
>> produce the discontinuous groups known as species.
>

> It's clear to me. It's also clear, given the fact that you
> were provided with context by Burkhard and continue to
> ignore it, that you prefer quotemines to facts. I seem to
> recall the same sort of tendency on your part regarding
> complexity and how science uses it when relevant.

>
>> It says they don't know how speciation happens.
>

> Not in context, it doesn't.

>
>> So what is speciation's basic mechanism?
>

> It has at least two (selection and drift), both dealing with
> the change in allele frequencies in populations over
> multiple generations. Some of the details are still under
> investigation, but the basic mechanisms are known.
>



So all speciations involve drift /and/ selection?
Or can it be one or the other?

Can speciation occur without either?

Can there be other primary mechanisms?

What is the relationship between these two mechanisms?


When I read a paper on speciation, such as the
below, all I see is a bunch of anecdotes
without any generalized form that applies to
....all speciations.

Like with the theory of gravity, say, an underlying
theory that applies equally to all.

All this paper says is speciation can happen in
any number of ways and it depends depends depends
on all kinds of system specific details.

THAT IS NOT A GENERALIZED THEORY OF SPECIATION.

If you're going to approach the problem by
recounting each and every species one at a time
blow by blow, you'll never NEVER find a generalized
theory or 'see' the simplicity of life.

The correct answer will not be eleventy billion different
explanations one for each species, but one explanation for
THEM ALL.

I know about drift and selection, I'm talking
about a theory that never mentions any specific
example of speciation, but it's laws.



The paper by Korol et al. (1) addresses one of the most persistent
questions in evolutionary biology: How do new species arise? As with so
many apparently simple questions, there is no simple answer, only
complex answers to a number of interrelated questions. How do sexually
reproducing organisms become reproductively isolated? How do environment
and ecological interactions influence the formation of new species? Are
the processes of local adaptation and the evolution of reproductive
isolation the same (i.e., both resulting from the accumulation of small,
adaptive genetic changes) or are the genetic changes leading to
reproductive isolation fundamentally different (i.e., large and rapid
genetic changes such as chromosomal rearrangements, genetic revolutions,
transilience, or founder events)? Is the disruption of gene flow
necessary? What are the relative roles of chance events (e.g., genetic
drift) and selection in speciation?

The short answer to all of the above questions is that reproductive
divergence can evolve in a number of ways. Both drift and selection can
be important depending on the number, degree of interaction, and
magnitude of effect of genes involved in reproductive isolation; on the
relationship between genes controlling reproductive compatibility and
phenotypic characters that may be under ecological selection; and on the
historical effective population size of the diverging populations.
Reproductive isolation may evolve as a consequence of genetic drift in
populations of small effective size (see, e.g., refs. 3–5 for recent
treatments), or as a byproduct of adaptive divergence or genetic drift
in large populations in allopatry [the classic allopatric divergence
model of Mayr (6)]. Reproductive isolation may also evolve in sympatry
because of disruptive or divergent selection. For example, natural
selection on characters important in both ecological function and mate
recognition [such as bill size in Darwin's finches (7) or body size and
shape in sticklebacks (8–10)] can lead to premating reproductive
isolation without geographic isolation. Rapid chromosomal changes (as in
the origin of polyploid plants) can result in instantaneous reproductive
isolation, as can changes in genes of large effect that result in rapid
evolution of phenotypic characters important in reproduction (e.g., ref.
11). Host shifts in phytophagous insects are well-known to result in
essentially instantaneous reproductive isolation (e.g., refs. 12–14).
The challenge is to distinguish among alternative hypotheses for
diversification in natural populations and to determine the relative
roles of selection and drift in speciation.

Natural selection has always been considered a key component of adaptive
divergence and speciation (2, 15–17), but the importance of selection
has been eclipsed in recent decades by a strong focus on the geography
of speciation and on the purely genetic mechanisms by which reproductive
isolation evolves (see refs. 18–20 for reviews). Even though selection
was seen as critically important in sympatric speciation, sympatric
divergence was thought to be rare, and the role of ecology and the
environment in diversification received little emphasis. Currently,
there is resurgent interest in the role of ecology in speciation.
Several recent studies (9, 21–28) have emphasized the importance of
ecology and selection in speciation, regardless of the geographic
context in which populations diverge, and the term “ecological
speciation” has become an important part of the modern lexicon. In a
review of 40 years of laboratory experiments on speciation in
Drosophila, Rice and Hostert (29) concluded that founder events, drift,
and isolation played little role in speciation (but see ref. 20 for
critique). On the other hand, diversifying selection was found to
contribute substantially to the evolution of reproductive isolation,
even when populations were not isolated [see also Barton and
Charlesworth (30) who reached a similar conclusion]. This finding
bolstered earlier theoretical studies that showed how premating
reproductive isolation could evolve as a consequence of ecological
selection on characters involved directly in mate recognition or as a
consequence of pleiotropy or genetic hitchhiking of genes controlling
ecological and reproductive characters (31–33).

The paper by Korol et al. in this issue (1) is important in that it
demonstrates significant premating reproductive isolation among
populations of D. melanogaster experiencing divergent selection between
habitats, whereas there is no reproductive isolation among populations
occupying similar habitats. This result is consistent with the evolution
of reproductive divergence as a consequence of ecological selection
(ecological speciation). However, a key question remains unanswered,
namely, did reproductive isolation evolve in situ in response to
selection or is the presence of reproductive isolation among populations
a result of secondary contact between divergent populations whose
ecologies differ and whose ranges abut in Evolution Canyon? This
question is important because it bears on the mechanisms by which
reproductive isolation has evolved. If the populations are historically
divergent, then a degree of reproductive isolation may have evolved
because of drift or as a byproduct of adaptive divergence in allopatry
before their meeting in Evolution Canyon. If premating reproductive
isolation has evolved in situ as a result of local adaptation, then
traits under ecological selection must be either directly involved in
mate choice, or genetically correlated (via pleiotropy or linkage) with
phenotypic characters important in mate choice.

History, and the relative roles of drift and selection, are general
issues for empirical studies of speciation in natural populations. One
approach to examining the relative roles of drift and selection in
population divergence and speciation uses the correlation between
reproductive (or morphological) divergence and genetic divergence in
neutral molecular characters (Fig. 1). The null model is that
reproductive divergence evolves simply as a byproduct of the
accumulation of genetic differences among populations because of
mutation and drift. Under the null model, populations should show
similar levels of reproductive isolation for a given level of genetic
distance regardless of their ecological milieu. Several studies have
assessed the degree of reproductive and/or morphological divergence in
relation to genetic distance within and among populations occupying
different habitats and found support for ecological speciation (e.g.,
10, 19, 21, 22, 26, 28, 34). In addition, powerful evidence for the role
of natural selection in population divergence and speciation comes from
examples of “parallel speciation” (ref. 24; Fig. 1c) in which
reproductive and/or morphological divergence evolves repeatedly in
response to similar selective regimes in evolutionarily independent sets
of populations (9, 10, 19, 21, 28).


http://www.pnas.org/content/97/23/12398.full

[Jonathan]

On 5/15/2016 2:34 PM, jillery wrote:

> On Sun, 15 May 2016 09:11:20 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 5/14/2016 11:29 PM, jillery wrote:

>>> On Sat, 14 May 2016 20:21:43 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/14/2016 6:33 PM, jillery wrote:

>>>> One of the greatest unsolved questions in biology is how
>>>> continuous processes of evolutionary change produce
>>>> the discontinuous groups known as species.

>>>> https://biology.duke.edu/people/mohamed-noor
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Darwin's theory, "The Origin of Species" seems
>>>> to be missing the 'species' part.
>>>>
>>>> So what work would you place instead of 'Species'?
>>>>
>>>> The Origin of _ _ _ _ _? What?
>>>>
>>>> It should be called the theory of how species change.
>>>>
>>>> Which would be quite different from explaining
>>>> how we were created, it would only explain how
>>>> we came to be, say, taller, different colors
>>>> or how tits have evolved to look so much nicer
>>>> these days and so on~
>>>
>>>
>>> PRATT. You posted this before and ignored the replies. You continue
>>> to conflate "that we don't know everything" with "we don't know
>>> anything". They are not the same. Get a clue.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Oh please, if the theory is about the "Origin of Species"
>> yet the theory has no clue about the...origin of species
>> that's not just a minor detail yet to be filled.
>>

>> IT'S A GLARING HOLE! And your denial of the obvious fact
>> speaks volumes to your bias and lack of comprehension.
>>
>> It's like saying a cosmology that hasn't the first
>> clue how a star is formed is just missing a few
>> little details.
>>
>> You're being ridiculous.
>
>
> You can stomp your feet and scream and shout and call me names all you
> want, but it doesn't change the facts. Noor did not say we have "no
> clue". What Noor did say does not mean we have "no clue".




"Greatest unanswered questions" means what to you? Just another
minor fact we should get around to someday?

Let me put it this way, on a scale of 1 to 10, where would
you rate the importance of answering that 'greatest unanswered
question' involving speciation to evolution?

It's a nine, easily. Until a generalized theory of speciation
is found the theory of evolution will remain grossly
incomplete and invite all kinds of alternative
explanations. The debate will rage on with religion
until the TOE is better formed and explained.

The ID people see the glaring hole, they are not going away
from mere ridicule, but only with better explanations which
evolution has yet to give for creation.

Heal thyself.



That you
> continue to insist otherwise suggests that you're either deluded,
> stupid, dishonest, or some combination of the three. As I did with
> davidp, I lea eve it as an exercise which is the greater problem.

>
>
>>>> And assuming there's any substance to the above, you should
>>>>> immediately follow up by posting any evidence of any major university
>>>>> teaching undergraduates evolution without mentioning it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From the SAME Professor from Duke "Introduction to Genetics and Evolution"
>>>>
>>>> Lecture 2 - Basic Principles and Evidence For Evolution
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "The other thing is that all species, not just a subset, all
>>>> species share common ancestry that not only do horses and
>>>> donkeys have a common ancestor, but horses, donkeys and pigs
>>>> have a common ancestor. Horses, donkeys, pigs, and mice
>>>> have a common ancestor. We share a common ancestor with them.
>>>> Flies share a common ancestor with us. Coral shares a common
>>>> ancestor with us. Sunflowers share a common ancestor with us,
>>>> and even the amoeba shares a common ancestor with us.
>>>> There is a presumed single origin of life that then produces
>>>> all the diversity that we see on the planet today."
>>>
>>>

>>> And since there is no substance to your premise, you should have
>>> skipped the second part altogether.

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Ah..."presumed"??? Excuse me?
>>>
>>>

>>> What is "presumed"? That there is a single origin of life. Noor
>>> explicitly and honestly stated his presumption. It can't be anything
>>> other than a presumption. There is utterly no way to prove, even in
>>> principle, that life on Earth had a single origin.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Oh my God, that's what a religious zealot would say about God.
>> Congratulations!
>
>
> Really? A religious zealot would say there's no way to prove the
> existence of God?? Really??? I don't know any religious zealots who
> would say such a thing. How many do you know?
>
>
>> Your entire world view is based on a concept that can't
>> be proven. Do you even read what you write?
>
>
> Right here would have been a good place for you to prove the concepts
> on which your world view is based. Don't be insulted that I don't
> wait for you to do so.
>
>
>>> But even if that presumption is incorrect, and life on Earth had
>>> multiple "origins", at some point those different origins either
>>> merged, or all but one was eliminated.
>>>
>>> Either way, that presumption has nothing to do with how new species
>>> evolve today, or how they evolved once life advanced beyond the barely
>>> living stage.
>>>
>>> So what's your actual complaint here? It seems like you're upset that
>>> Noor is being more coherent and honest than you.

>>>
>>>
>>>> Oh ye of such great FAITH to base an entire half of a theory
>>>> on 'presumptions' not in evidence.
>>>>
>>>> This from the same prof that at his personal homepage above on
>>>> the VERY FIRST SENTENCE says speciation is the biggest
>>>> unsolved problem today in evolution.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.coursera.org/learn/genetics-evolution/lecture/K8SDd/basic-principles-and-evidence-for-evolution-g
>>>
>>>

>>> This is the exact same argument Steadly tried to push through, and
>>> you're wrong now for the same reasons he was then. As I noted then
>>> and above, that some things are unknown doesn't moot those things that
>>> are known.

>>>
>>>
>>>>> Just sayin'.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Just citing...like below.
>>>
>>>

>>> There's your problem. You cite without understanding what you cite.
>>>
>>>
>>> <mercy snip of content you ignored>
>>
>>
>> Unbelievable! Even religion nuts are more open minded
>> and rational.
>>
>> Darwin himself could rise from the dead and say evolution
>> is only half a theory, and the easy half to boot, and
>> you'd say he was just in a bad mood that day.
>
>
> More accurately, *you* would say I said that, when in fact I would
> have said no such thing.
>
> You must enjoy the smell of straw, you surround yourself with the men
> you create with it.

[Ray Martinez]

On Saturday, May 14, 2016 at 3:02:49 PM UTC-7, August Rode wrote:
> On 5/14/2016 2:33 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Saturday, May 14, 2016 at 6:52:51 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> >> In reading Wiki they have quotes that led me to some IDiocy that IDiots
> >> should likely read.
> >>
> >> It is IDiots admitting that they really didn't have the science to teach
> >> in the public schools, but that they were only working on producing it
> >> in 2003. One year after the Discovery Institute started running the
> >> bait and switch scam that the Dover IDiots ran into a couple years later
> >> and ignored to the detriment of the whole ID scam.
> >>
> >> In the intelligent design wiki article this quote caught my eye.
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
> >>
> >> QUOTE:
> >> Behe has acknowledged using "sloppy prose," and that his "argument
> >> against Darwinism does not add up to a logical proof."[n 8]
> >> END QUOTE:
> >
> > The citation is invalid. Why not post these important quotations in full from the primary source?
>
> You could have looked it up as well as anyone, Ray.

You don't know that that is the sole responsibility of the claimant?

Ray

[....]

[Ray Martinez]

On Saturday, May 14, 2016 at 3:57:49 PM UTC-7, Wolffan wrote:
> On 2016 May 14, August Rode wrote
> (in article <nh871u$cq5$1...@dont-email.me>):

>
> > > > QUOTE:
> > > > Behe has acknowledged using "sloppy prose," and that his "argument
> > > > against Darwinism does not add up to a logical proof."[n 8]
> > > > END QUOTE:
> > >
> > > The citation is invalid. Why not post these important quotations in full
> > > from the primary source?
> >

> > You could have looked it up as well as anyone, Ray. Here it is:
> >
> > From <http://www.discovery.org/a/1406>:
> >
> > "On the general question of the sufficiency of unintelligent physical
> > processes to produce the astonishing complexity of life, I think a
> > negative answer is justified, for reasons I gave in my book, Darwin's
> > Black Box (1995). I quite agree with Mr. Berlinski that my argument
> > against Darwinism does not add up to a logical proof. No argument that
> > rests on empirical observations can have such force. Yet, despite my
> > sloppy prose in suggesting that, "by definition,....irreducibly complex
> > systems cannot be approached gradually" I intended the argument to be a
> > scientific one, not a purely logical one. In a scientific argument,
> > conclusions are tentative, based on the preponderance of the physical
> > evidence, and potentially falsifiable." -- Michael J. Behe
> >
> > So what was written in the Wikipedia article, that Behe acknowledged
> > using "sloppy prose" and that his "argument against Darwinism does not
> > add up to a logical proof," is accurate. You should feel entirely
> > comfortable responding to it now.
>
> Hmm.. seems as if RonO had it correctly. It should be interesting to see if
> Ray replies, and what he says.

Well, I'm really struggling to understand what Behe is talking about. In the very next paragraph he writes:

"Virtually everyone (including Darwinists) agrees that life appears to be intelligently designed."

This statement is completely false: Darwinists do not agree "that life appears to be intelligently designed."

Darwinists do NOT accept the main claim of Paley:

"Natural Theology: or, Evidences Of The Existence And Attributes Of The Deity, Collected From The Appearances Of Nature" (1802).

I challenge anyone to make sense of what Behe is attempting to say, this includes Kalkidas.

Ray

[August Rode]

The references and notes were all there at the bottom of the Wikipedia
page, Ray. You were too lazy and too biased against anything Wikipedia
has to say to even take a peek.

[August Rode]

I can't do it. It looks to me as though Behe is engaging in an argument
from ignorance and a false dichotomy.

[jillery]

On Mon, 16 May 2016 20:53:56 -0400, Dale <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote:

>On Mon, 16 May 2016 12:49:05 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 16 May 2016 11:14:56 -0400, Dale <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 16 May 2016 11:54:06 +0200, "Rolf" <rolf.a...@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>If an experiment is set up to mimic situations possible within the framewok
>>>>of what we know about physics and chemistry, does that make the experiment
>>>>irrelevant?
>>>
>>>no, but we have to account for the experimenter as a variable in
>>>setting up the experiment, if we want to get at causality
>>
>>
>>If the experimenter is a variable, then it's a poor experiment, and
>>its results can say nothing useful about causality.
>
>without the experimenter the experimeter is not aware of the
>experiment, not a variable, but causal logic

The experimenter doesn't need to be aware of the experiment for the
experiment to work. It's called reality. You might have heard of it.

>and, a causal experiment is not poor if it includes all variables,
>obviously a life form is the first step in the causal path

It's not obvious to me that life forms are *any* step in the causal
path of physics and chemistry, nevermind the first step.

>maybe you mean experiments that are non-causal, that is not the
>assertion of biogenesis (life from life) or abiogenesis (life from no
>life), both are causal assertions

I'm certain that I don't mean that at all.

[jillery]

On Mon, 16 May 2016 20:59:52 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>

Based on your previous comments, that seemed to be the case. Several
others noted it as well.

>> Speciation has been observed, lots of times.
>
>
>What, never.
>
>
>> Historical evidence of speciation is well documented from the fossil
>> record. Evidence of speciation in living organisms is well documented
>> from their morphology and molecular biology.
>
>
>I never said anything to the contrary, my point is
>there lacks a generalized theory of how speciation
>takes place. What is so difficult about that to
>understand? I've said it half a dozen times recently
>and everyone shoots back ...'what about this instance
>of speciation, or that one'? Or...'it's a fact speciation
>takes place'.
>
>No kidding, I'm saying a generalized theory why
>speciation happens doesn't exist. And I would be
>correct about that. In an ng dedicated to evolution
>I'm rather astonished I have to point out that fact.
>
>But it's clear no one wants to admit the theory of
>evolution doesn't have a theory for the eh hum...
>
>'Origin of the Species'.

Right here would have been a good place for you to post a coherent and
cogent criticism of ToE. Just saying that it's not a generalized
theory, and pointlessly complaining about plants, doesn't work.

>> So, if you want to
>> object about ToE, then stop making incoherent objections about plants.
>
>
>Plants suck~
>
>Every time I plant one I have to vacuum it up a
>couple weeks later.

You should try cats.