Cosmology, Evolution, Abiogenesis: An Intelligent Discussion

[david ford]

It appears that my posts to talk.origins are not going through, and in
fact, have not for the most part gone through, since auto-moderation was
instituted in May. Perhaps this post, with
"talk-o...@moderators.uu.net" after "to" will. In any event, I'm
moving to one of the atheist groups. I've had enough of this
robo-moderation. Hope to see you there.

[david ford]

This is a test.

[Peter Nyikos]

I'm using this article partly as a test of my own, to see
whether the address Ford gives below works. Our university netserver stopped
posting to moderated newsgroups months ago. A CC goes to David Ford
since it is not completely clear he will be monitoring this thread
in talk.origins.

david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> writes:

I tried alt.atheism but couldn't find anything there under "cosmology".
Please let us all know when you do decide to post it, which
newsgroup to look under.

Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208

[david ford]

On Mon, 7 Jul 1997, Peter Nyikos:

[snip]

> I tried alt.atheism but couldn't find anything there under
> "cosmology". Please let us all know when you do decide to post
> it, which newsgroup to look under.

I spoke too quickly. But, if sending stuff to "talk-origins@..." doesn't
work out, I'm moving. I saw 4 of my posts (the first recorded ones since
around May 11, and I've been posting regularly since around May 27!) to
talk.origins in dejavu, yet that's not all of the ones I tried the "To:
talk-o...@moderators.uu.net" with. We shall see.

I'd like to thank all those that spoke to me regarding this problem with
the posts. Having been gyped by the robot, I'll be posting again, in this
thread, much of what has been written since around May 27.

[Matt Silberstein]

David, don't bother. With the way things work around here, your posts
will probably be right on topic in about a month. If you time it
right, you can probably post the responses before the questions.

[david ford]

Welcome to this thread. Coming immediately up, some rather sizable posts
to talk.origins that were eaten by the auto-moderation, and a couple
smaller posts to all 4 ngs. Young-earth creationists, I'd like to
persuade you to become old-earth creationists, so please post some
young-earth claims for critical examination. Evolutionists, your
positions are going to get trashed. Let the games begin.

all that is, was and will be/ universe much too big to see/ time
and space never ending/ disturbing thoughts, questions pending/
limitations of human understanding.... pursuit of truth no matter
where it lies/ gazing up to the breeze of the heavens/ on a quest,
meaning, reason/ came to be, how it begun.... Metallica's "Through
the Never," 1991

[david ford]

This collection of posts appearing in the order presented is a
conversation with Sverker Johansson <l...@hlk.hj.se>. The posts were
posted only to disappear at the hands of the auto-moderator, and e-
mailed. (The first reply was in part based on some confusion about what
was Premise 1.)

Sverker Johansson <l...@hlk.hj.se> on 12 May 1997 in "Re: Blind
Watchmaker Thesis is Unfalsifiable":
david ford:

>: I think you'll agree with me that the first premise is correct. =20
>=20
> Since the first premise is blatantly untrue, I see no reason to
> agree with you.

"Philosopher Karl Popper has argued for decades that the primary
criterion of science is the falsifiability of its theories. We can
never prove absolutely, but we can falsify. A set of ideas that cannot,
in principle, be falsified, is not science.... 'Scientific creationism'
is a self-contradictory, nonsense phrase precisely because it cannot be
falsified.... Unbeatable systems are dogma, not science."-Stephen Jay
Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," _Discover_ May 1981, 35.

"Since the first premise ['If something is to be considered scientific,
then it must at a minimum be capable of being falsified'] is blatantly
untrue...." Take it up with Gould.

>: Now, for the 2nd premise,
>=20
> Since the first one failed, the second one is rather pointless, but
> I'll go along with you for a while...
>=20
>: [deletia]
>: ...,I conclude that the (unscientific) theory is not capable of
>: being falsified, and thereby affirm premise 2. =20
>=20
> Didn't you just claim that the theory had been falsified???

--begin inserted text, which was copied from about half a page above, and
which answers the 3 question mark question--
1) As a _scientific_ theory, the theory of evolution has been falsified,
[deletia]
2) As an _unscientific_ theory, the theory is unfalsifiable, that is to
say, there is no state of affairs, that if otherwise, would show
the (unscientific) theory of evolution to be false.
--end inserted text--

> In that case it's hard to argue that it's unfalsifiable. Actually,
> you're wrong on both counts, as others have shown on numerous occasions.

No. You are the first, as far as I know, to try to attack
the first premise.

> The theory of evolution is FALSIFIABLE but UNFALSIFIED,
> and thus very likely a good description of the natural world.

The blind watchmaker's thesis is an unbeatable system of dogma,
and thus, not science.

> Your text would make a lot more sense (and even be true) if you=20
> had performed one simple operation on it in your favourite editor:
> "GlobalReplace/evolution/creationism/"

Creationism is unfalsifiable, and hence, unscientific. You seem to
agree with that, judging by your global replace comment. The blind
watchmaker's thesis is likewise unfalsifiable, and hence, unscientific.=20
When it comes to your precious theory of evolution, however, concerning
premise one, "If something is to be considered scientific, then it must
at a minimum be capable of being falsified," you say "Since the first
premise is blatantly untrue, I see no reason to agree with you." Can we
say, "double standard"?

>: Q: If we were to find mammals in the Burgess Shale, would the theory of
>: evolution be falsified?
>: A: No, because the theory does not say when mammals will be found in the
>: fossil record. =20
>=20
> The theory DOES make strong predictions about the kind of _pattern_
> to be found in the fossil record (nested/hierarchical, with a reasonable
> chronological sequence).

Journal references, please.

> It doesn't specifically predict
> the place of any particular group, but that isn't needed.
> Fossils found persistently far from the expected pattern
> (such as precambrian mammals) _would_ falsify the theory.

"Precambrian mammals" "found persistently far from the expected pattern"
"_would falsify the theory." How can this be the case since, by your
own words, the blind watchmaker's thesis "doesn't specifically predict
the place of any particular group..."? It would be inconsistent to say
that the theory of evolution doesn't predict the placement of particular
groups, but it does tell us where we will not find "precambrian
mammals."

> But despite various creationist claims, no verifiable such finds exist.
>=20
>: Q: If we were to find a fossil that had not changed in basic body
>: structure for billions and billions of years, would the theory have been
>: shown to be incorrect?
>=20
> A: No. The theory doesn't predict that change is inevitable. For the=20
> first billion years, no major body plan changes _did_ take place AFAIK.

I'm glad to see you agree. What does "AFAIK" mean?

> [I'm re-grouping the questions a bit, to get more logical structure.]
>=20
>: Q: If we were to find an organ or limb that appears to us to have less
>: than the best design possible, would that show the theory to be
> incorrect?
>=20
> A: No. If anything, this is evidence against an omnipotent designer.

-----begin inserted text-----
Here is the design argument, reconstructed:
Premise 1: If God made this, then He would have made it _this_ way,
this way being the best way to make the item in question.
Premise 2: This is not made what _I_ have determined to be the best
way to make such a thing.
Conclusion: God did not make this.

The reasoning is valid, that is to say, correctly-reasoned, since it reads
"if God made, then this way; not this way; thus, God didn't make"-- it's a
modus tollens syllogism. Now an argument can fall in 2 ways: through
faulty reasoning, and through incorrect premises. Since in this case the
argument is correctly reasoned, we turn now to the premises.=20

Premise 1 has major flaws. In holding to premise 1, you are claiming to
possess insight into God's ways. If I may ask, what is the source of this
assertion of insight? As I thought, nonexistent. P1 therefore falls, and
the indesign argument stinks.
-----end inserted text-----

>: Q: If we were to find an organ or limb that appears to us to have the
>: absolute best design imaginable, would that show the theory to be
>: incorrect?
>=20
> A. Not a single one, no. But a _consistent_ pattern of perfection,
> against developmental and historical constraints,
> would be evidence against evolution.

"The second argument--that the imperfection of nature reveals evolution-
-strikes many people as ironic, for they feel that evolution should be
most elegantly displayed in the nearly perfect adaptation expressed by
some organisms--the camber of a gull's wing, or butterflies that cannot
be seen in ground litter because they mimic leaves so precisely. But
perfection could be imposed by a wise creator or evolved by natural
selection. Perfection covers the tracks of past history. And past
history--the evidence of descent--is our mark of evolution."-Gould,
"Evolution as Fact and Theory," _Discover_ May 1981, 36.

Your statement: "But a _consistent_ pattern of perfection, against
developmental and historical constraints, would be evidence against
evolution." Take it up with Gould.

> No such pattern has been
> found, though, and the pattern of good_but_not_perfect design
> that we do see, is close enough to what evolutionary theory
> would predict.

"What evolutionary theory would predict." Journal references, please.

> Another case where evolutionary theory=20
> _could_ have been falsified, but has been upheld.
>=20
>: Q: If we were to find a population of organisms, each one of
>: which had 4 heads, would that show the theory to be incorrect?
>=20
> A: No. Why on Earth should it?? (Unless the answer below applies.)
>=20
>: Q: Would the finding of behavior in an organism that seems to decrease
>: its chances for survival, and thereby decreases chances for continued
>: propagation of its genes, show the theory to be incorrect?
>=20
> A: Behaviour that unequivocally (sp?) DID significantly decrease the=20
> organism's inclusive fitness=20
> (n.b.: _not_ synonymous with survival), rather than
> just _seeming_ counterintuitive, would indeed falsify evolution, at
> least as far as it concerns that particular being (e.g. genetically
> engineered animals aren't evolved).
>=20
>: Q: If we were to find a population of organisms, each of which had very
>: colorful and cumbersome garb, which might make them especially
>: attractive to predators, would that show the theory to be incorrect?
>=20
> A: Same as above. Sexual selection in favour of weird appendages
> may well increase inclusive fitness while decreasing individual=20
> survival.
>=20
>: Q: If we were to find an organism that did not use sexual reproduction
>: to reproduce, would the theory have been shown to be incorrect?
>: Q: If we were to find an organism that did use sexual reproduction to
>: reproduce, would the theory have been shown to be incorrect?
>=20
> A: Neither. No particular mode of reproduction predicted, just
> one that gives good inclusive fitness _for_that_particular_
> _organism_. Which may well be different for different organisms.
>=20
>: Q: If we were to not presently observe organs and limbs taking shape
>: under the guidance of natural selection amidst various environmental
>: conditions, would the theory be shown to be incorrect?
>: A: The theory would not be shown to be incorrect because the theory
>: predicts that the changes occur over long periods of time, and it is
>: only when long periods of time have passed that we see the wonders that
>: have been wrought.
>=20
> Actually one answer of yours that isn't blatantly wrong...=20
> Nice for a change :-)

You don't seem to understand that every "no" response only bolsters my
claim that the blind watchmaker's thesis is unfalsifiable.

>: Q: If we were to not see the numerous transitional fossils that are
>: predicted by the theory when examining the fossil record, would the
>: theory be shown to be incorrect?
>: A: Yes, it would be shown to be incorrect, if we continue to hold the
>: theory up as being scientific: a major, definite, firm prediction is
>: made, and if the prediction is not met, then the theory will have been
>: shown to be false.
>=20
> Another one! Your batting average is going up...

---begin insertion of deleted text, which was not noted as
having been snipped (a typical evolutionist tactic?) and which
was an important part of my argument in answering the "Q"---
However, the lack of transitional fossils need not be a problem: we can
merely postulate that the evolution of new organs and limbs occurred so
quickly (relatively speaking since the earth is billions of years old),
that few transitional forms were left to record the transitions. We
could also blame the lack of transitional forms on an incomplete fossil
record, which would be all right until study had determined that we had
a good picture of what was happening in the fossil record.
---end insertion of deleted text, a deletion of which no note was
made, in what may very well be one evolutionist tactic designed
to perpetuate lies and misinformation---

> Of course, since we DO find plenty of transitionals (easy enough to
> find a list on this group's faq, which _of_course_ you have read.),

A FAQ that allays the concerns the concerns of the following group of
paleontologists, who have actually studied the fossil record first hand.=20
It is a famous FAQ, indeed, well worthy of being called a FAQ, yes
indeedy.

"In fact, most published commentary on punctuated equilibria has been
favorable. We are especially pleased that several paleontologists now
state with pride and biological confidence a conclusion that had
previously been simply embarrassing ('all those years of work and I
haven't found any evolution')."-_Paleobiology_ 3:134 (1977).

"We DO find plenty of transitionals." Take it up with Gould, Eldredge,
and the "several paleontologists" that stated "with pride and biological
confidence a conclusion that had previously been simply embarrassing."

> this is another point where evolution _could_ have been falsified,
> but instead has been upheld.
>=20
>: However, the lack of transitional fossils... [deletia]
>
> is a creationist myth, so why bother with it.

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists
as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn
our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches;
the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of
fossils."-Gould, _The Panda's Thumb_ (1980), 181.

"The lack of transitional fossils"[me] "is a creationist myth."[you]=20
Take it up with Gould.

> Some advice for you, David:
>=20
> Try reading some _real_ books on evolution, and understand what the
> theory _actually_ predicts. It's just a wee bit too obvious from
> your questions that you haven't.

Can you recommend any books that you've read? (I have this weird
feeling none of them would be from Gould. Call me psychic.)

> Your strawman version of the theory is such a poor copy --
> _real_ evolutionary theory is much more exciting,

I don't want exciting. I want truth.

> and actually makes a lot more sense.
>=20
> If you're getting "information" from creationist tracts, you should
> be aware that they routinely contain lies and misinformation.

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Sverker Johansson on 28 May 1997:
david ford:

>: Journal references, please, for the purported therapsid-mammal
>: transition. I can't wait to rip apart this supposed evidence for the
>: blind watchmaker thesis. Journal references. That's all I ask for--
>: you don't even have to present and defend the sequence yourself.
>=20
> This is textbook stuff, again. A good overview, with plenty of
> references, can also be found in the appropriate t.o. faq:
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

Present, if you would please, the predictions of the blind watchmaker
thesis, predictions that can be found in the talk.origins archives.

> (you DO read the faqs before posting to a group, don't you?).

Not the transitional-FAQ. Personally, I think it was designed to not be
read. All those technical names, no comments on what it's all supposed
to mean-- smokes and mirrors to get one to see that "yes, there's lots
of evidence for evolution, just look at all these words with _so_ many
syllables I need a zoology dictionary to understand."

> There's also a nice discussion, with references, in Strahler (1987).

Present, if you would please, the predictions of the theory of evolution
that are contained "in Strahler (1987)."

> As for more formal references, try:
>
> Kermack, D.M. & Kermack, K.A. 1984. The evolution of mammalian=20
> characters. Croom Helm Kapitan Szabo Publishers, London.=20
> or
> Szalay, F.S., M.J. Novacek, and M.C. McKenna. 1993.=20
> Mammal Phylogeny, vols 1 & 2. Springer-Verlag, New York.

Present, if you would please, the predictions of the blind watchmaker
thesis which are contained in these works.

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
I was working on a reply to Sverker J., and thought that instead of
replying to what was written, writing this all up into a semi-coherent
whole. Some of what follows was most recently posted in "Re: Blind
Watchmaker Thesis is Unfalsifiable, Hence Unscientific". (Definition of
terms: the blind watchmaker thesis is simply the belief that a
Watchmaker, i.e., intelligent Designer, was not required to make the
design evident in living organisms, and that a Designer is not needed
for the appearance of new organs, limbs, or body plans.)

1) As a _scientific_ theory, the theory of evolution has been falsified,
or shown to be incorrect. The theory of evolution, as a
_scientific_ theory, has been shown to be incorrect in the face of
genetics and of the fossil record.
2) As an _unscientific_ theory, the theory is unfalsifiable, that is to
say, there is no state of affairs, that if otherwise, would show
the (unscientific) theory of evolution to be false.
Premise 1: If something is to be considered scientific, then it
must at a minimum be capable of being falsified.
Premise 2: The theory of evolution is not capable of being
falsified.
Conclusion: Thus, the theory cannot be called scientific.

To summarize this modus tollens syllogism: if s, then f; not f; thus
not s. The reasoning is valid, i.e., correctly reasoned, so we move on
to the premises. I think you'll agree with me that the first premise is
correct. Gould certainly does: "Philosopher Karl Popper has argued for
decades that the primary criterion of science is the falsifiability of
its theories. We can never prove absolutely, but we can falsify. A set
of ideas that cannot, in principle, be falsified, is not science....
'Scientific creationism' is a self-contradictory, nonsense phrase
precisely because it cannot be falsified.... Unbeatable systems are
dogma, not science."[Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," _Discover_
(May 1981), 35]

Now, for the 2nd premise, what state of affairs, that if it was
otherwise, would show the theory to be false? Here we get to use our
imaginations, with some examples following to illustrate. On the basis
of the imaginary examples, I conclude that the (unscientific) theory is
not capable of being falsified, and thereby affirm premise 2. Since
premises 1 and 2 are accurate, and since the reasoning in the syllogism
is valid, we conclude that the theory of evolution is not scientific.=20
In short, insofar as the theory of evolution is scientific, it has been
falsified/shown to be incorrect; insofar as the theory of evolution is
an idea or set of ideas that refuse(s) to bow to the opposing evidence,
it is unfalsifiable and hence unscientific.

Note that I am not trying to have it both ways at the same time and in
the same sense in distinguishing between 1) and 2). It is not possible
for something to be both A and not-A at the same time and in the same
sense, and I am not attempting to do so when examining the blind
watchmaker thesis. The distinction between 1) and 2) is illustrated by
the example of young-earth creationism. Is it falsifiable? Yes, it is.=20
The proof? Just watch this:

The earth is billions of years old, and the universe is 10 to 20 billion
years old; supporting evidence: potassium-argon, uranium-lead,
relaxation time for galaxy clusters, calculation of the universe's age
using the velocity of the galaxies, etc., etc., etc.; also, estimates of
a young age for the earth have faulty assumptions or incorrect data....;
also, the speed of light is a constant, and to say that light has slowed
down would wreak havoc with E=3Dmc^2.... See, I have just falsified
young-earth creationism, and since I falsified it, it must be
falsifiable (for more details, see the talk.origins FAQs).

Now, the young-earth creationist's response: since God made Adam with
the appearance of age, He could have done the same for the universe; the
fossil record was put there by God, and God was so meticulous that He
even added fake fossilized dinosaur excrement; light from distant stars
was created so that it looks like it really is coming from distant
stars, when in reality, it's all a mirage.... problems for young-earth
creationism are solved.

This response has just prevented the young-earther's position from being
falsified in light of all the evidence for an old earth and old
universe. Just how can this maneuver be falsified-- how does one
falsify the statements, even in theory, that God created such things as
light on the way and a fossil record containing things that never lived?=20
One can't. It's an unbeatable system, and it's dogma.

This is the same situation in the case of the blind watchmaker thesis--
it's an unbeatable system, i.e., it's unfalsifiable, and it's dogma.=20
The theory of evolution is true. Oh yeah? I'll falsify that:
macroevolution, or vertical change in organisms, i.e., the appearance of
new body plans and new organs and limbs, is not recorded in the fossil
record; supporting evidence:

"What, to my knowledge, is completely lacking, is a quantitative study
of the entire fauna of such successions. A study of this kind should
pay attention to the percentage of forms which do not show any
evolutionary change. During my work as an oil paleontologist I had the
opportunity to study sections meeting these rigid requirements.... As
an ardent student of evolution, moreover, I was continually on the watch
for evidence of evolutionary change. The first conclusion to emerge was
that such instances are hard to find, and that _many species do not show
any evolutionary change at all_."

next column: "The impressions acquired from my studies of well-sections
are: _a_. The great majority of species do not show any appreciable
evolutionary change at all. These species appear in the section (first
occurrence) without obvious ancestor [sic] in underlying beds, are
stable once established, and disappear higher up without leaving any
obvious descendants."[H.J. Mac Gillavry, Geological Institute of the
University of Amsterdam, "Modes of Evolution Mainly Among Marine
Invertebrates an observational approach," _Bijdragen Tot De Dierkunde_
38:70 (1968)]

"Under the influence of phyletic gradualism, the rarity of transitional
series remains as our persistent bugbear. From the reputable claims of
a Cuvier or an Agassiz to the jibes of modern cranks and
fundamentalists, it has stood as the bulwark of anti-evolutionist
arguments: 'For evolution to be true, there had to be thousands,
millions of transitional forms making an unbroken chain' (Anon.,
1967--from a Jehovah's Witnesses pamphlet)."[Gould and Eldredge,
"Punctuated Equilibria: An Alternative to Phyletic Gradualism," first
published in _Models in Paleobiology_, T.J.M. Schopf, ed., 1972. Cited
in Eldredge's _Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and
the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria_ (1985), 197, 199]

"Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of
'seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for
evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in
the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between
species and paleontology does not provide them."[David B. Kitts, School
of Geology and Geophysics, Department of the History of Science, U. of
Oklahoma, "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory," _Evolution_ 28:467
(1974)]

pg. 646: "Phylogenies have traditionally been characterized as having
tree-like patterns. In plots depicting morphologic change on a
horizontal scale and time on a vertical scale, continuous phyletic
change is typically represented by diagonal branches and twigs. Being
based on fragmentary fossil evidence, such plots are interpretive. They
represent the concept of evolution that has been called _phyletic
gradualism_ (2). In reality, gradual phyletic change is recognized for
only a few fossil lineages, and in these it is of minor morphologic
consequence."

pg. 648: "_A Disclaimer_. It must be emphasized that the above tests do
not demonstrate that no gradual change occurs within established
species, but only that such change is generally slow and of minor
consequence relative to changes that frequently occur in speciation
events. The pattern of phylogeny is not perfectly rectangular, only
crudely so."[Steven M. Stanley, Department of Earth and Planetary
Sciences, The Johns Hopkins University, "A Theory of Evolution Above the
Species Level," _Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA_
72:646, 648 (1975)]

"In fact, most published commentary on punctuated equilibria has been
favorable. We are especially pleased that several paleontologists now
state with pride and biological confidence a conclusion that had
previously been simply embarrassing ('all these years of work and I
haven't found any evolution')."[G&E, "Punctuated Equilibria: the tempo
and mode of evolution reconsidered," _Paleobiology_ 3:134 (1977)]

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists
as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn
our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches;
the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of
fossils."[Gould, _The Panda's Thumb_ (1980), 181]

"The missing link between man and the apes, whose absence has comforted
religious fundamentalists since the days of Darwin, is merely the most
glamorous of a whole hierarchy of phantom creatures. In the fossil
record, missing links are the rule: the story of life is as disjointed
as a silent newsreel, in which species succeed one another as abruptly
as Balkan prime ministers. The more scientists have searched for the
transitional forms between species, the more they have been
frustrated."[_Newsweek_ (3 Nov. 1980), 95]

"The absence of transitional forms between established species has
traditionally been explained as a fault of an imperfect record, an
argument first advanced by Charles Darwin."[research news, Roger Lewin
_Science_ 210:883 (21 Nov. 1980)]

"Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to
Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still
missing and seem likely to remain so."[Edmund R. Leach, _Nature_ 293:20
(1981)]

"A large number of well-trained scientists outside of evolutionary
biology and paleontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the
fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is. This probably comes
from the oversimplification inevitable in secondary sources: low-level
textbooks, semipopular articles, and so on. Also, there is probably
some wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin, his
advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these
have not been found--yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure
fantasy has crept into textbooks."[David M. Raup, Field Museum of
Natural History, letter to _Science_ 213:289 (1981)]

"The saltational initiation of major transitions: The absence of fossil
evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic
design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct
functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and
nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."[Gould, "Is a
new and general theory of evolution emerging?" _Paleobiology_ 6:126-7
(1980)]

"Ever since Charles Darwin's day, the fossil record has posed a
difficulty for evolutionists--and an arguing point for creationists--
because it did not appear to confirm his notion of a slow, uniform
development of species. Instead, some fossil organisms seem to persist
through millions of years relatively unchanged, then disappear, after
which a spate of new ones 'suddenly' springs up."

skip a sentence and a paragraph. "A century later, a great deal more is
known about the fossil record, and its 'incompleteness' no longer seems
so convincing. Masses of additional data only reinforce the same story
and the worldwide record is consistent. It no longer seems to be an
'artifact' of chancy preservation that we see little change in species
for long periods, followed by extinction, followed by rapid radiations.=20
More likely, the rocks reveal real patterns in the history of
life."[Richard Milner, _The Encyclopedia of Evolution_ (1990), 375.=20
Foreword by Gould.]

"Phyletic gradualism has been well documented, again across all taxa
from microfossils^53 to mammals^54,55."[225][This would be things like
organisms getting slightly larger or smaller over time, etc.--
"lineages.... of minor morphologic consequence," to use Stanley's words-
- no new body plans or new limbs or organs gradually appearing here.]

"Given these stringent requirements, and in the light of such an
imperfect fossil record, we are delighted that so many cases have been
well documented, particularly in the crucial requirement of ancestral
survival after punctuated branching^32,56-61. Williamson's
discovery^62.... On the subject of punctuational corrections for
received gradualistic wisdom, Prothero and Shubin^67 have shown that the
most 'firmly' gradualistic part of the horse lineage (the general, and
false, exemplar of gradualism in its totality), the Oligocene transition
from _Mesohippus_ to _Miohippus_^68, conforms to punctuated
equilibrium....[225-6]

".... there are a growing number of reports documenting an overwhelming
relative frequency (often an exclusivity) for punctuated equilibrium in
entire groups or faunas. Consider the lifetime testimonies of taxonomic
experts on microfossils^69, on brachiopods^70,71, and on beetles^72.=20
Fortey^73 has concluded for trilobites and graptolites.... Other studies
access all available lineages in entire faunas and assert the dominance
of punctuated equilibrium. Stanley and Yang^76.... Hallam^23....
Kelley^24,25... Vrba^74.... Barnovsky's^75 compendium for Quaternary
mammals.... Prothero^76...."[226][G&E, review article "Punctuated
equilibrium comes of age," _Nature_ 366:225-6 (1993)]

To repeat what led up to all this quoting: This is the same situation in
the case of the blind watchmaker thesis-- it's an unbeatable system,
i.e., it's unfalsifiable, and it's dogma. The theory of evolution is
true. Oh yeah? I'll falsify that: macroevolution, or vertical change
in organisms, i.e., the appearance of new body plans and new organs and
limbs, is not recorded in the fossil record; supporting evidence:
[quotes followed]

And the evolutionist's response: well, the reason the transitionals have
not been found is that the fossil record is imperfect. Reply: still
imperfect, after all these years of study, and in light of the fact that
the more we study, the sharper the sudden appearances become???!?=20
Forget it. Evolutionist's next maneuver/ excuse: well, the reason the
transitionals haven't been found is that evolution occurred so quickly
(relatively speaking since the earth is billions of years old) and
occurred in such small areas, the probability of finding transitionals
is essentially zero, and _that's_ why we're not finding them; but the
transitionals did exist, you have to believe us on this one.

I submit that this is an unbeatable set of ideas. It's unfalsifiable,
it's unscientific, and it's dogma, no doubt about it. Thus, 1), "As a
_scientific_ theory, the theory of evolution has been falsified, or
shown to be incorrect. The theory of evolution, as a _scientific_
theory, has been shown to be incorrect in the face... of the fossil
record," stands. (Genetics has been broached elsewhere.)

Moving on to 2), "As an _unscientific_ theory, the theory is
unfalsifiable, that is to say, there is no state of affairs, that if
otherwise, would show the (unscientific) theory of evolution to be
false," we now examine imagined scenarios that when examined, affirm P2
in the syllogism "P1: If something is to be considered scientific, then
it must at a minimum be capable of being falsified; P2: The theory of
evolution is not capable of being falsified; C: Thus, the theory cannot
be called scientific."

Q: If we were to not see the numerous transitional fossils that are
predicted by the theory when examining the fossil record, would the
theory be shown to be incorrect?
A: Yes, it would be shown to be incorrect, if we continue to hold the
theory up as being scientific: a major, definite, firm prediction is
made using the theory, and if the prediction is not met, then the theory
will have been shown to be false.

However, the lack of transitional fossils need not be a problem, for we
can simply postulate that the evolution of new organs and limbs occurred
so quickly (relatively speaking since the earth is billions of years
old) and in such small areas, that few transitional forms were left to
record the transitions. We could also blame the lack of transitional
forms on an incomplete fossil record, which would be all right until
further study had determined that we had a good picture of what was
happening in the fossil record. Note also that we should not accept the
theory until the evidence is found, if the theory is to be accepted as a
_scientific_ theory.

Q: If we were to find mammals in the Burgess Shale, would the theory of
evolution be falsified?
A: No, because the theory does not say when mammals will be found in the
fossil record. If we were to examine solely the theory (no peeking at
the fossil record is allowed), we could not predict when mammals will
appear in the fossil record. Thus, since we cannot on the basis of the
theory predict when they will be found, we cannot consider the finding
of a mammal in the Burgess Shale as falsifying/showing incorrect the
theory.

Q: If we were to find a fossil that had not changed in basic body
structure for billions and billions of years, would the theory have been
shown to be incorrect?

Q: Would the finding of behavior in an organism that seems to decrease
its chances for survival, and thereby decreases chances for continued
propagation of its genes, show the theory to be incorrect?

Q: If we were to find an organ or limb that appears to us to have less
than the best design possible, would that show the theory to be
incorrect?
Q: If we were to find an organ or limb that appears to us to have the
absolute best design imaginable, would that show the theory to be
incorrect?

Q: If we were to find a population of organisms, each one of which had 4
heads, would that show the theory to be incorrect?

Q: If we were to find a population of organisms, each of which had very
colorful and cumbersome garb, which might make them especially
attractive to predators, would that show the theory to be incorrect?

Q: If we were to find an organism that did not use sexual reproduction
to reproduce, would the theory have been shown to be incorrect?
Q: If we were to find an organism that did use sexual reproduction to
reproduce, would the theory have been shown to be incorrect?

Q: If we were to not presently observe organs and limbs taking shape
under the guidance of natural selection amidst various environmental
conditions, would the theory be shown to be incorrect?
A: The theory would not be shown to be incorrect because the theory
predicts that the changes occur over long periods of time, and it is
only when long periods of time have passed that we see the wonders that
have been wrought by the great goddess, Dame Nature.

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Sverker Johansson on 27 May 1997 in "Re: Blind Watchmaker Thesis is
Unfalsifiable, Hence Unscientific":
david ford:

[snip]
>: A FAQ that allays the concerns the concerns of the following group
>: of paleontologists, who have actually studied the fossil record
>: first hand. It is a famous FAQ, indeed, well worthy of being called
>: a FAQ, yes indeedy.
>:=20
>: "In fact, most published commentary on punctuated equilibria has
>: been favorable. We are especially pleased that several
>: paleontologists now state with pride and biological confidence a
>: conclusion that had previously been simply embarrassing ('all those
>: years of work and I haven't found any evolution')."-_Paleobiology_
>: 3:134 (1977).
>:=20
>: "We DO find plenty of transitionals." Take it up with Gould,
>: Eldredge, and the "several paleontologists" that stated "with pride
>: and biological confidence a conclusion that had previously been
>: simply embarrassing."
>=20
> Why don't you tell us what their conclusion _is_! (Hint: it's _not_
> that there is no evolution to be found.)

Their conclusion is that stasis needs to be recorded as data, and that
the field of paleontology can contribute to the development of new
theories about how macroevolution occurred.

> This quote from Gould ought to be required reading for anybody using=20
> Gould quotes to argue for creationism:
>=20
> "Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it
> is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists--
> whether through design or stupidity, I do not know

How can Gould not know? He is quoted by creationists because at one
time he had the guts to say that the emperor has no clothes, and that
the fossil record does not confirm, but rather confutes, the prediction
that the transitional fossils would be found. Those "trends" referred
to are the fossil record's depiction of the sudden appearance of
organisms and stasis following first appearance.

> --as admitting that the fossil record includes no
> transitional forms.

"I do not doubt the supreme importance of preadaption, but the other
alternative, treated with caution, reluctance, disdain or even fear by
the modern synthesis, now deserves a rehearing in the light of renewed
interest in development: perhaps, in many cases, the intermediates never
existed."[Gould, _Paleobiology_ 6:127 (1980)]

> Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level,
> but they are abundant between larger groups."
>
> -- Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," _Hen's Teeth and
> Horse's Toes_, 1983, Norton, New York.

The next line reads "The evolution from reptiles to mammals, as
mentioned earlier, is well documented." Journal references, please, for
the therapsid to mammal sequence. Gould is not lying for Darwin here,
is he? Say it ain't so, and demonstrate that it isn't by giving the
journal references documenting this "well-documented" piece of evidence
supporting the blind watchmaker thesis. I'll take it from there.

>: "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record
>: persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary
>: trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes
>: of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not
>: the evidence of fossils."-Gould, _The Panda's Thumb_ (1980), 181.
>:=20
>: "The lack of transitional fossils"[me] "is a creationist myth."[you]
>: Take it up with Gould.
>=20
> YOU take it up with Gould! He'll agree with me on the "creationist=20
> myth" part, and he will not be amused by another creationist's abuse=20
> of his words, as evidenced by the quote I gave above.

This quote appeared in May 1981 in _Discover_, pg. 37. Yet in
_Paleobiology_ 6:119-130, Gould wrote an article that was accepted for
publication on 15 Oct. 1979, and that contained on 128 the phrase "....
many morphological trends in paleontology--a bugbear of the profession
because we have been unable to explain them in ordinary adaptive
terms...." Did a slew of new fossil discoveries pour in between Oct.
1979 and May 1981 that confirmed the theory of evolution and that led
Gould to make remarks contradicting what he said under 2 years before?=20
No, of course not.

In his May 1981 article, Gould lies for Darwin, rallying the troops
around the flag of that religious belief called the blind watchmaker
thesis in an attempt to do damage control and not let the "philistine
scourge" called scientific, i.e., young-earth, creationism use his
writings to defeat the blind watchmaker thesis. But alas, the horse had
gone, the writings had been published, and closing the barn door was
done too late. I wonder what his attitude toward old-earth creationism
is.[Quote in G&E, _Nature_ 366:223 (1993)]

"But most of all I am saddened by a trend I am just beginning to discern
among my colleagues. I sense that some now wish to mute the healthy
debate about the theory.... It provides grist for creationist mills,
they say, even if only by distortion. Perhaps we should lie low and
rally around the flag of strict Darwinism, at least for the moment--a
kind of old-time religion on our part."[Gould, _Discover_ (May 1981),
37]

As for the claim that the lack of transitional fossils "is a creationist
myth," consider the following. "(Contrary to popular myths, Darwin and
Lyell were not the heros of true science, defending objectivity against
the theological fantasies of such 'catastrophists' as Cuvier and
Buckland. Catastrophists were as committed to science as any
gradualist; in fact, they adopted the more 'objective' view that one
should believe what one sees and not interpolate missing bits of a
gradual record into a literal tale of rapid change.).... I only wish to
point out that it was never 'seen' in the rocks."[Gould, _The Panda's
Thumb_ (1980), 181. Article originally appeared in May 1977, in
_Natural History_.]

>: Can you recommend any books that you've read? (I have this weird
>: feeling none of them would be from Gould. Call me psychic.)
>=20
> Poor psychic in that case. I have about ten books by Gould at=20
> home, which I _all_ recommend. Recommend them for reading and=20
> _thinking_, that is, not for quote-mining from his at times=20
> confrontational rhetoric. Gould knows as well as Dawkins of the=20
> reality of evolution. Of Dawkins, read "The Selfish Gene", and "The=20
> Extended Phenotype", as well as Watchmaker. John Maynard Smith and=20
> Niles Eldredge have written essay collections similar to Gould. =20
> Recommended as well.
>=20
> Other books: try some basic biology, like Curtis&Barnes, and then=20
> Futuyma: "Evolutionary biology (?)". Strahler: "Science and Earth=20
> History" would be recommended as well, as it specifically covers the=20
> creationist arguments. Tim Berra "Evolution and the myth of=20
> creationism" can also be mentioned.
>
> After that it becomes more specialised. Liu: "Molecular Evolution"=20
> (or whatever the exact title is), for that side. Numerous books on=20
> human evolution; a good one is Tattersall: "The fossil trail".
> Currently I'm reading De Pomerai: "From Gene to Animal", on=20
> the link from genetics to embryology. Nitecki: "Evolutionary=20
> innovations" is also worth reading. I have a bunch more, but that'll
> keep you occupied for a while :-).

My question was "Can you recommend any books that you've read?" Are you
saying that you've read all the books mentioned above?

>: I don't want exciting. I want truth.
>
> Right! My point is that here you can have both!

".... one of the best documented, most compelling and exciting concepts
in all of science...."[Gould, _Discover_ (May 1981), 34] This is most
risible. How something that can explain any state of affairs no matter
what it is can be an "exciting" scientific concept is beyond me. How
something that makes no predictions (except for the prediction that
transitional fossils would be found, and we all know how _that_ turned
out) can be termed "one of the best documented" scientific concepts is
preposterous. How something that relies on errors appearing in DNA to
give rise to new organs, new limbs, and new body plans can be called
"compelling" is-- I don't even have a word for what this is.

You've read the quotes presented in support of my contention that "The
theory of evolution, as a _scientific_ theory, has been shown to be
incorrect in the face of... the fossil record." How firm is your belief
that "you can have both" exciting and truth with the blind watchmaker
thesis? Is it as strong as it ever was? If so, can I hire you? I have
a few mountains I'd like moved.

> Unlike creationist mythology, which is both boring and false.

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Sverker Johansson on 27 May 1997 in "Re: Blind Watchmaker Thesis is
Unfalsifiable, Hence Unscientific":
david ford:

[snip; snips throughout]
>: Journal references, please.
>=20
> This is textbook stuff! I'm pretty sure Futuyma discusses it
> (don't have the book handy, so can't tell what references he used).

A cursory look at the index of _Evolutionary Biology_ (1979) by Douglas
J. Futuyma reveals no mention of the predictions of the blind watchmaker
thesis. The closest to "prediction" is "predator switching," and there
is no mention of "prediction(s)" under the entries starting
"evolu_____." Oh, and I asked for journal references, not references to
books. With journal articles, one is more likely to get the straight
scoop on matters. The farther one gets from the journal article, the
more likely there are inaccuracies and incorrect assertions being made.

> A discussion of the issue can be found in Strahler (1987) "Science=20
> and Earth History", where he refers to Ayala (1977) in=20
> Dobzhansky et al: "Evolution", quoting "even the study of=20
> evolutionary history is based on the formulation of empirically=20
> testable predictions." (p 25 in Strahler, quoting p 477 in Ayala.)

There is no predictive theory of history. Historical events are
unrepeatable and unique. One cannot use the scientific method to
discriminate between historical theories because historical events are
unrepeatable. Who did you say said "the study of evolutionary history
is based on the formulation of empirically testable predictions"? I'll
have to be especially cautious and have my salt ready to throw out when
reading what else he or she has to say.

"[Evolutionary] Biology is more like history than it is like physics.=20
You have to know the past to understand the present. And you have to
know it in exquisite detail. There is as yet no predictive theory of
biology, just as there is not yet a predictive theory of history. The
reasons are the same: both subjects are still too complicated for
us."[Carl Sagan, _Cosmos_ (1980), 41]

> The issue of the falsifiability of evolution is also discussed in
> several places in the talk.origins faq archive, notably in
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/metaphysics.html

Post the predictions of the blind watchmaker thesis that this FAQ
contains, if you would please.

>: "Precambrian mammals" "found persistently far from the expected
>: pattern" "_would falsify the theory." How can this be the case
>: since, by your own words, the blind watchmaker's thesis "doesn't
>: specifically predict the place of any particular group..."? It
>: would be inconsistent to say that the theory of evolution doesn't
>: predict the placement of particular groups, but it does tell us
>: where we will not find "precambrian mammals."
>=20
> No, it is not inconsistent. Read carefully, and _think_ carefully.
> There is a big difference between predicting a _pattern_, and
> predicting _particular_ _individual_ positions in the pattern.
> An analogy: If I plant an acorn, I _predict_ that, if it germinates,
> the tree that grows from it will look like an oak. When we say that=20
> something "looks like an oak", we mean that it has a certain overall=20
> _pattern_ of leaf shapes, bark texture, branchings, and so on.
> I cannot possibly predict the exact shape and position of leaf
> number 18243, or even on which side of the trunk the lowest branch
> will go. But I can and do predict the oak-like pattern.
> Likewise, evolution doesn't predict the exact place of any individual
> taxon, but _does_ predict an "evolution-like" pattern.

That's what science is all about. Testing precise predictions, e.g.,
the blind watchmaker thesis's prediction that one will find "an
'evolution-like' pattern" when one looks at the fossil record. Wait a
second. This is not precise at all. What exactly is "an 'evolution-
like' pattern"? Is this: A, G, Z, AAA, VVVV....? Is this: 1, 24, 98,
99.249275987, 99.249275987B, 101....? Is this: orange, banana,
pineapple, grapefruit, Mellow-Yellow, beer, wine....? Is this: dog, St.
Bernard, bear, fly, street sign, octopus, clock tower, statue....?

> Finding
> precambrian mammals would break the pattern, in the way as finding
> oak leaves growing below ground on the roots of the oak would break
> the oaklike pattern.
>
>: -----begin inserted text-----
>: Here is the design argument, reconstructed:
>: Premise 1: If God made this, then He would have made it _this_ way,
>: this way being the best way to make the item in question.
>: Premise 2: This is not made what _I_ have determined to be the best
>: way to make such a thing.
>: Conclusion: God did not make this.
>:=20
>: The reasoning is valid, that is to say, correctly-reasoned, since it rea=
ds
>: "if God made, then this way; not this way; thus, God didn't make"-- it's=
a
>: modus tollens syllogism. Now an argument can fall in 2 ways: through
>: faulty reasoning, and through incorrect premises. Since in this case th=
e
>: argument is correctly reasoned, we turn now to the premises.=20
>:=20
>: Premise 1 has major flaws. In holding to premise 1, you are claiming to
>: possess insight into God's ways. If I may ask, what is the source of th=
is
>: assertion of insight? As I thought, nonexistent. P1 therefore falls, a=
nd
>: the indesign argument stinks.
>: -----end inserted text-----
>=20
> _I_ am certainly not asserting that the argument from design is=20
> valid. But various creationists _do_! But, as you correctly note,
> in order to use the argument from design, one needs insight into
> the designer's mind. Let me rephrase my point:
>=20
> Imperfect design is evidence against the argument from design,
> as generally used by creationists, where the perfection is
> nature is invoked as evidence _for_ a designer. (If you=20
> want a reference, try Paley (1802).) We agree that this
> creationist argument stinks. Good.

The first line of the insertion reads incorrectly as "Here is the design
argument, reconstructed," not as it should have, "here is the _indesign_
argument..." Nevertheless, even with this mistake, it should be obvious
from what else was written that the argument being examined is the
indesign argument, not the design argument.

>: "The second argument--that the imperfection of nature reveals
>: evolution--strikes many people as ironic, for they feel that
>: evolution should be most elegantly displayed in the nearly perfect
>: adaptation expressed by some organisms--the camber of a gull's wing,
>: or butterflies that cannot be seen in ground litter because they
>: mimic leaves so precisely. But perfection could be imposed by a
>: wise creator or evolved by natural selection. Perfection covers the
>: tracks of past history. And past history--the evidence of descent--
>: is our mark of evolution."-Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory,"
>: _Discover_ May 1981, 36.
>:=20
>: Your statement: "But a _consistent_ pattern of perfection, against
>: developmental and historical constraints, would be evidence against
>: evolution." Take it up with Gould.
>=20
> I've read this essay of Gould's, as well as many others. I think
> he and I agree on this issue. He argues, time and again, (notably=20
> in the essay "The Panda's Thumb", in the book with the same name),=20
> how the_imperfections_ in nature are evidence of evolution. He also
> claims in numerous places ("Wonderful life", among others IIRC=20
> (IIRC=3D"If I recall correctly"; another Usenet acronym)) that life will
> NOT reach perfection through evolution, other than locally in single=20
> features (I interpret the Gould quote of yours above as referring to=20
> such a single feature.). The overall pattern in an evolved world=20
> will _not_ be one of universal perfection. Which is exactly my=20
> point.
>
>: "What evolutionary theory would predict." Journal references,
>: please.
>=20
> You seem to have a high regard for Gould. It's in there, as I said,
> all over the place. See also the t.o.faq on jury-rigged design,
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jury%2Drigged.html, and references=20
> therein.

How about kindly posting these numerous predictions which can be found
"all over the place" of the blind watchmaker thesis?

>: You don't seem to understand that every "no" response only bolsters
>: my claim that the blind watchmaker's thesis is unfalsifiable.
>=20
> _I_ understand what I'm doing. But you don't seem to understand the=20
> implications of your unfalsifiability claim. You are claiming
> that there is NO way to falsify evolution. This means that a single
> "yes" response to your question is enough to show that theory _is_
> falsifiable, and that your unfalsifiability claim is _falsified_.
>=20
> Several of your Q:s simply miss the mark, and fail to test the theory
> at all, but that is beside the point.

Probably referred to here were the instances of using one's imagination
to attempt to come up with things that would, in theory, show incorrect
the blind watchmaker thesis. Such examples are perfectly legitimate in
testing to see whether a theory is falsifiable or not.

> Such a "no" doesn't bolster
> your claim very much, but a single "yes" destroys it. Falsifiability=20
> 101, with your unfalsifiability claim treated as a falsifiable
> hypothesis.
>
>: ---begin insertion of deleted text, which was not noted as
>: having been snipped (a typical evolutionist tactic?) and which
>: was an important part of my argument in answering the "Q"---
>: However, the lack of transitional fossils need not be a problem: we
>: can merely postulate that the evolution of new organs and limbs
>: occurred so quickly (relatively speaking since the earth is billions
>: of years old), that few transitional forms were left to record the
>: transitions. We could also blame the lack of transitional forms on
>: an incomplete fossil record, which would be all right until study
>: had determined that we had a good picture of what was happening in
>: the fossil record.
>: ---end insertion of deleted text, a deletion of which no note was
>: made, in what may very well be one evolutionist tactic designed
>: to perpetuate lies and misinformation---
>=20
> The part above is important only if an evolutionist _denies_ that a
> lack of transitionals would be a problem. Which I don't. So I deleted
> it, since it doesn't have any bearing on _our_ discussion.
>=20
> So it was sloppy of me to forget the [deletia] bracket.

Not saying "[deletion]" is fine, as long as the argument being responded
to is not weakened as a result of the deletion, or as long as the
snipping is to clear away old material so that the more recent lines
have more room (aka removing clutter).

> But I really resent your insinuation that it was done with malice!

Don't take it personally. I didn't when you said "If you're getting
'information' from creationist tracts, you should be aware that they
routinely contain lies and misinformation."

[snip; will be replied to separately]

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Sverker Johansson on 31 May 1997:
david ford:

>: I was working on a reply to Sverker J., and thought that instead
>: of replying to what was written, writing this all up into a semi-
>: coherent whole.
>=20
> Which is good and bad. Your main point comes across much more=20
> coherently now. You are still wrong, but I won't call you
> inconsistent anymore on that issue.
>=20
> What is bad about it, however, is the way in which this permits
> you to sidestep my rebuttals to your points. It is particularly
> annoying when you repeat at the end the same questions about evolution
> that we started with, but without my responses.

I've finished the reply to that post. If you think I have not responded
to any of your responses and would still like a reply, say so while
presenting the responses again, and I'll see what I can do. (I think I
got everything except for a couple of the Q and A's.)

>: Some of what follows was most recently posted in "Re: Blind
>: Watchmaker Thesis is Unfalsifiable, Hence Unscientific". (Definition
>: of terms: the blind watchmaker thesis is simply the belief that a
>: Watchmaker, i.e., intelligent Designer, was not required to make the
>: design evident in living organisms, and that a Designer is not needed
>: for the appearance of new organs, limbs, or body plans.)
>=20
> I've been waiting for this definition. Good to get that clarified.
> But I would much appreciate if you would distinguish between the
> following three:
>=20
> a) The theory of evolution, as generally used by biologists.

This theory says that non-intelligence-directed processes resulted in
life's variety.

> b) Dawkins' particular version of it, with its emphasis on
> gene-level phenomena.

This specific version says that non-intelligence-directed processes
resulted in life's variety.

> c) Dawkins' non-theistic conclusions.

So you're saying that Dawkins goes from "no God was required for the
rise of new body plans" to "God does not exist"? It wouldn't be
surprising, but I don't see how distinguishing between the religious
beliefs "non-intelligence-directed processes resulted in life's variety"
and "God does not exist" aids the discussion any.

> Of these, c) is the one that corresponds most closely to your=20
> definition above. As far as c) is concerned, you actually have a=20
> point. The stronger version of it, concluding that there _isn't_
> a designer, that one isn't scientific. On the other hand,
> "weak c)", the hypothesis that a designer isn't _necessary_,
> is certainly falsifiable. Behe's recent book about irreducible
> complexity is precisely an attempt to falsify weak c).

Suppose an example of irreducible complexity is found. How would that
falsify the belief that non-intelligence-directed processes resulted in
new biochemical pathways? Sure, it would make the gradual evolution of
the pathways much less plausible, but whoever said that evolution has to
proceed gradually? Where in the theory of evolution does it say that
evolution occurs slowly? Nowhere.

If we ever did find an instance of a biochemical system that truly was
irreducibly complex, we can simply postulate that the system came into
existence all at once. Problem solved. You say he wrote an entire
_book_ trying to falsify the "hypothesis that a designer isn't
_necessary_"? I can tell you without even having to read the book that
he's wasting his breath and trees.

> The scientific theory of evolution, however, b) as well
> as a), doesn't say anything about any gods, either for or against.
> (this point is also made somewhere in the t.o.faq).
>
> Your arguments appear to be directed sometimes against a), sometimes
> against b), and sometimes against c). The confusion is
> understandable; Dawkins doesn't draw a clear line between them either.
> But it would make the debate easier to follow if you'd be consistent
> in your terminology, and not mix up the scientific theory of
> evolution, with certain people's unwarranted atheistic conclusions
> from it.

[snip]
>: This response has just prevented the young-earther's position from
>: being falsified in light of all the evidence for an old earth and old
>: universe. Just how can this maneuver be falsified-- how does one
>: falsify the statements, even in theory, that God created such things
>: as light on the way and a fossil record containing things that never
>: lived? One can't. It's an unbeatable system, and it's dogma.
>=20
> OK. So far we agree. And thanks for explaining it so carefully. Now
> I understand better what you were trying to do with your syllogism.
> You are arguing that the theory of evolution has appealed too much
> to _ad_hoc_ hypotheses, and has thus passed beyond the realm of
> science.
>
> Note one difference, though. The creationist appeals to an ad hoc=20
> hypothesis (appearance of age) that is _in_principle_, _logically_,
> unfalsifiable.

And the evolutionist appeals to exactly what ad hoc hypotheses that in
principle are falsifiable?

>: This is the same situation in the case of the blind watchmaker thesis--
>
> a), b), or c) ?
>=20
>: it's an unbeatable system, i.e., it's unfalsifiable, and it's dogma.=20
>: The theory of evolution is true.=20
>=20
> a), b), or c) ?
>=20
>: Oh yeah? I'll falsify that:
>: macroevolution, or vertical change in organisms, i.e., the appearance of
>: new body plans and new organs and limbs, is not recorded in the fossil
>: record; supporting evidence:
>
> [Tons of quotes deleted.]
> Those quotes were mined from the debate around punctuated
> equilibrium, and were directed against phyletic gradualism,
> not against evolution per se.

And now I get to use them to argue against the blind watchmaker thesis
and for old-earth creationism. What's your point? Hey, look at this.=20
Another quote. I got it using a 32 inch pickax in what looks like rocky
shale from the Permian. This quote-mining is lots of fun.

"Though their existence provides the basis for paleontology, fossils
have always been something of an embarassment to evolutionists. The
problem is one of 'missing links': the fossil record is so littered with
gaps that it takes a truly expert and imaginative eye to discern how one
species could have evolved into another. This fact has been seized upon
by creationists...."[_Newsweek_ (7 Dec. 1981), 114.]

> Several of the quotes were from Gould and his friends.
> Among the stuff in my response to your previous post, that=20
> you did not see fit to comment upon, I gave you the
> following Gould quote, which is relevant here as well:
>=20
> "Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it
> is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists--
> whether through design or stupidity, I do not know--as admit-
> ting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms.
> Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level,
> but they are abundant between larger groups."
>=20
> -- Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," _Hen's Teeth and
> Horse's Toes_, 1983, Norton, New York.
>=20
> This quote occurs not two pages away from a quote that you used in
> another post (the quote about perfection hiding past history), so
> if you have actually read Gould, you can hardly have missed it.
> And yet you quote Gould in precisely the way that he finds
> "infuriating".

Yes, I guess if I, in a moment of indiscretion, revealed that my
Darwinian religion had no basis in reality, and opponents of my religion
picked up on that and trumpeted those remarks, I would be pretty
infuriated. I'd also be kicking myself for having said those remarks in
the first place. Ouch. Ow! Ooooph. Pow! Ahrrrrggg! Aahhhhhooo....

[snip]
>: Evolutionist's next maneuver/ excuse: well, the reason the
>: transitionals haven't been found is that evolution occurred so quickly
>: (relatively speaking since the earth is billions of years old) and
>: occurred in such small areas, the probability of finding transitionals
>: is essentially zero, and _that's_ why we're not finding them; but the
>: transitionals did exist, you have to believe us on this one.
>=20
> Let me put another face on it:
>=20
> When Darwin presented his theory, he wasn't able to make a solid
> prediction concerning the speed of evolution.

The blind watchmaker thesis is that flexible, now is it? Yes, I suppose
it is, and Darwin's saying that evolution proceeded slowly was only
putting his theory on risky ground, open to falsification in the light
of the fossil record. He should have known better-- Thomas Henry
Huxley, did, after all, warn him. It would have been much better had he
left open the question of how quickly evolution proceeded. That way,
his particular theory would never be open to falsification should the
predicted transitionals never be found. One could simply say that the
evolution proceeded so quickly, that as a consequence, no transitionals
are likely to be found.

Nothing like varying the speed of evolution to protect it from
falsification in light of the fossil evidence. Saltus. It'll liven up
your meal and do bad things for your heart, but it can positively save
the treasured blind watchmaker thesis. "You have loaded yourself with
an unnecessary difficulty in adopting _Natura non facit saltum_ so
unreservedly."[Huxley to Darwin, 23 Nov. 1859. Cited in G&E,
_Paleobiology_ 3:115]

> It was obvious that
> it would be slow, in human terms, but not precisely _how_ slow.
> (He lacked both the mathematical and genetic knowledge for such
> a prediction.)

And we now have "both the mathematical and genetic knowledge for such a
prediction," a prediction about the speed of the evolving of new organs,
limbs, and body plans, I presume. Journal references, please, for
articles containing those calculations. I can't imagine how they did
it. But we'll find out, won't we, when you present the journal
references for articles presenting those calculations for how long it
takes to evolve new body plans, yes? Good.

> He did realise, however, that there is no particular=20
> reason why it should always be the same speed, but stated rather=20
> that the speed could vary widely:
>=20
> "I believe in no fixed law of development, causing all the inhabitants
> of a country to change abruptly, or simultaneously, or to an equal
> degree. The process of modification must be extremely slow. The
> variability of each species is quite independent of that of all
> others. Whether such variability be taken advantage of by natural
> selection, and whether the variations be accumulated to a greater or
> lesser amount, thus causing a greater or lesser amount of
> modification in the varying species, depends on many complex
> contingencies, on the variability being of a beneficial nature, on the
>
> power of intercrossing, on the rate of breeding, on the slowly
> changing physical conditions of the country, and more especially on
> the nature of the other inhabitants with which the varying species
> comes into competition. Hence it is by no means surprising that one
> species should retain the same identical form much longer than others;
> or, if changing, that it should change less."[Darwin (1859) "Origin of
> species", ch 10.]
> http://www.literature.org/Works/Charles-Darwin/origin/chapter-10.html
> [I'm copying this from the online version, so page numbers are
> undefined]

This is from 314 in the original edition, about 3 pages into the chapter
"On the Geological Succession of Organic Beings."

> This quote sounds pretty much like a precursor of punk eek, so
> Gould et al certainly aren't trying to falsify Darwin.

It may "soun[d] pretty much like a precursor of punk eek," but it's not.=20
Darwin was a gradualist through and through and did not believe in
saltation:

"There are, however, some who still think that species have suddenly
given birth, through quite unexplained means, to new and totally
different forms: but, as I have attempted to show, weighty evidence can
be opposed to the admission of great and abrupt modifications. Under a
scientific point of view, and as leading to further investigation, but
little advantage is gained by believing that new forms are suddenly
developed in an inexplicable manner from old and widely different forms,
over the old belief in the creation of species from the dust of the
earth."[Darwin, "Recapitulation and Conclusion" chapter of _The Origin
of Species_, 118 of Philip Appleman's 1975 abridgement of the 6th ed. of
_Origin_.]

"As natural selection acts solely by accumulating slight, successive,
favourable variations, it can produce no great or sudden modifications;
it can act only by very short and slow steps. Hence the canon of
'Natura non facit saltum,' which every fresh addition to our knowledge
tends to make more strictly correct, is on this theory simply
intelligible."["Recapitulation and Conclusion" chapter, 471 in original
ed. of _The Origin of Species_, 108 of Appleman.]

Darwin may have wanted to go the quick-evolution route to explain away
the lack of transitionals-- in the 6th ed., he left out the word "very"
in the phrase "it can act only by very short and slow steps"-- but he
instead stuck with his excuse of a poor fossil record. "Excuse." I
kind of like that. The blind watchmaker thesis: the have-an-excuse-for-
any-apparent-problem, explain-everything-describe-nothing unfalsifiable
pseudoscientific theory.

Darwin knew full well that quick evolution was impossible, and rejected
patently obvious genetic miracles in the form of saltus. His proposal
also had genetic miracles being performed, but that was hidden by the
claim that the development of new organs and limbs and body plans took
huge amounts of time to accomplish. "I see you are inclined to advocate
the possibility of considerable 'saltus' on the part of Dame Nature in
her variations. I always took the same view, much to Mr. Darwin's
disgust."[Huxley to William Bateson on 20 Feb. 1894. Cited in G&E,
_Paleobiology_ 3:115.] =20

> Many of Darwin's followers, however, emphasized the "extremely slow"
> part, and over-extended it into slowness also in geological terms, and
> forgot the part about variable speed.

What morons to forget the variable speed knob. Didn't they know what
the fossil record looked like? Didn't they read their Darwin? "Those
who believe that the geological record is in any degree perfect, will
undoubtedly at once reject the theory."[Darwin, "On the Imperfection of
the Geological Record" chapter, section "On the Sudden Appearance of
Groups of Allied Species in the Lowest Known Fossiliferous Strata," _The
Origin of Species_, 6th ed. (1872).]

> This led to extreme phyletic
> gradualism, a version of evolutionary theory in which all species
> should change slowly and smoothly through geological time. _This_
> is what Gould et al are trying to falsify (with a fair amount of
> success).

"Falsify (with a fair amount of success)." Very funny. Try "with
devastating success." Have you read the G&E's _Paleobiology_ 3:115-150
article? It's rigorous, and _devastating_.

> The groundwork for punk eek was laid in population genetics, about
> fifty years ago, when the theory of evolution was placed on a firm
> mathematical footing.

You _are_ going to present the journal article references for the
calculations for how long it takes to evolve new body plans, right?

> One of the discoveries from that analysis was
> that the speed of evolution is predicted to be much faster in
> small isolated populations, than in large widespread ones. Most
> evolutionary change can thus be expected to happen in such small groups.

Journal references, please, describing precisely _how_ it is possible
for new body plans, new limbs, and new organs to arise quickly in "small
isolated populations." Not why, but _how_.

> It took a couple of decades, however, for these insights to spread into
> paleontology. Many of your quotes from paleontologists refer to the
> time when paleontologists expected to find phyletic gradualism in the
> fossil record. Which they usually didn't find.

And now that they look for punctuated equilibrium, they're finding it
all over the place. A success for old-earth creationism, wouldn't you
say? (Say so, if you like, while presenting those references containing
much math and gene knowledge and deriving precise predictions from that
knowledge about the speed of new-body-plan evolution, which I'm sure
will be shortly forthcoming.)

> From the population genetics results, it is obvious that one should
> expect a pattern of fossils that looks a lot like punk eek.

Journal references saying how, using population genetics, one can get
new body plans so quickly that the transitionals are not recorded in the
fossil record.

> Naturally, we find more fossils from large populations than from small
> one. And large populations don't change very much, so will give an
> appearance of stasis. From the small populations that do change,
> fossils will be much rarer, so the changing process itself will often
> be "invisible" -- punctuation.
>=20
> So punk eek predicts that the majority of fossils should show this
> punctuated pattern, but that in a minority of cases we _would_
> find fossils in transition.

Care to give a percentage of the number of fossils that will be found to
be "fossils in transition"? 5%? 10%? 23.9865301%?

> Much research has been done since
> punk eek was proposed in order to test this prediction, and
> the result is that it has stood up pretty well.

Prediction: you will not find the transitionals previously thought
required by the blind watchmaker thesis. Observation: the transitionals
are not found. I am not surprised.

>: I submit that this is an unbeatable set of ideas. It's unfalsifiable,
>: it's unscientific, and it's dogma, no doubt about it. =20
>
> [another repeat of your syllogism deleted]
> Not true. Extreme phyletic gradualism predicted a certain pattern
> in the fossil record. That pattern wasn't found. So extreme=20
> phyletic gradualism was falsified.

Agreed.

> Instead, punk eek was proposed,
> based on a re-analysis and a more thorough understanding of evolution.

No: punk eek was proposed based on an acknowledgement of what the fossil
record _didn't_ contain. ".... To preserve our [paleontologists']
favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so
bad that we never see the very process we profess to study." That
process, is of course, the appearance of new limbs and body plans
through naturalistic processes. Using punk eek, Gould states, "thus,
the fossil record is a faithful rendering of what evolutionary theory
predicts, not a pitiful vestige of a once bountiful tale."[Gould,
"Evolution's Erratic Pace," _Natural History_ (May 1977), 14, 16.]

> Punk eek made different predictions about fossils. Those predictions
> have, by and large, been upheld.

Hooray for old-earth creationism.

> But they _could_ have failed; punk eek
> _could_ have been falsified.
>=20
> If we actually had found _no_ transitional fossils, at _no_ resolution,
> at _no_ taxonomic level, then we would have to reconsider evolution as
> a whole. In that case, evolution _per_se_ could be falsified.

Not at all. Just say that we haven't looked hard enough. That ought to
hold things down and thwart falsification for another 100+ years. When
that doesn't work, say that the fossil record is imperfect: out of the
whole book, we only have a few chapters, and of those few chapters, only
a few lines, and of those few lines, only a few letters, etc. That
ought to hold people for-- let's see, 1859 to 1972-- we'll say 110+
years.

Then, when individuals start wondering about this latest excuse, just
say that the evolution consistently occurred super-fast in quantum
jumps, and that the transitionals never existed-- that's why the
transitionals are not found: because they never existed. And people are
so gullible, they'll believe that for, we'll say another 100+ years, but
that's probably too conservative an estimate. So all in all, you've
just added an extra 310+ years to the lifetime of the blind watchmaker
thesis. Use your imagination, and remember: the more and the better
excuses you can come up with, the longer your theory will remain
unfalsified in light of the fossil record. Ahhhh..... The pride one
gets being in the Evolutionary Excuse Corps (EEC). Here's to you, Mr.
Darwin.

"If we actually had found _no_ transitional fossils, at _no_ resolution,
at _no_ taxonomic level." What transitionals, and at what "taxonomic
levels," have been found?

> But, as you've been told a number of times, quite a few transitional
> fossils _do_ exist! I've given you enough pointers to the literature,
> and I've seen others post about them as well. If you won't take the
> trouble to read about them, well that's _your_ problem.
>=20
> Just curious: you seem to have an odd, simplistic view about how
> science works in reality. How much science have you _done_?

I've done no science. I got this from the sci.skeptic FAQ, and think
it's right on target: the scientific method involves the following
steps. 1) look at the universe or some part therein; 2) invent a theory
consistent with what's observed; 3) use the theory to make predictions;
4) test the predictions using observations or experimentation; 5) change
the theory in light of what was seen; 6) go to step 3, and repeat the
process. The theory of evolution has precious little in the way of
predictions (except for the prediction that transitionals would be
found), and does not meet the standards of the scientific method. How
is my view of science odd?

> How much have read _about_ how science works?

I know a little about Einstein's general theory of relativity and the
big bang theory. These things are science, making definite predictions
that can be checked by observation, and it is having those risky
predictions that make them falsifiable. Unlike the theory of evolution,
I might add, which has no predictions (except for the prediction that
transitionals would be found) and which as a consequence is
unfalsifiable. The big bang model and relativity _describe_ the
universe, unlike the theory of evolution, which merely _explains_
observations. I'd say I know enough about real science to spot
pseudoscience when it shows up, and the blind watchmaker thesis is
pseudoscience posing as science.

> You seem to like Popper (as do I), but have
> you actually read any of his books? His falsificationism is a lot
> more subtle and complex than you seem to realize. I can recommend
> both "Logic of Scientific Discovery" and "Conjectures and
> Refutations".

No, I have not read any books by Popper. I'm sure his idea of
falsification is a lot more complex than I realize. He is, after all, a
professional philosopher. Am I missing anything important by not
reading his works?

> [a repeat of old transitional-fossil bullshit deleted]

Infuriating bullshit, at that. How dare someone question the basis for
my Darwinian religion and fraudulently claim that the predicted
transitionals have not been found! Evolution is TRUE, it's as true as
the fact that peas are green and toads look ugly. The fossil evidence
for the FACT of evolution is abundant and well-documented, and the
theory of evolution's predictions have been confirmed time and time and
time and time again. For example, the prediction that evolution
occurred quickly at various times has been well-confirmed by study of
the fossil record, which shows that things do indeed appear suddenly and
fully-formed.

The paramount principle of evolution and its prolific, productive
predictions permeate the princely pages of the principle peer-reviewed
science publications of our prodigious period, to use periphrastic
phraseology. The only reason that it hasn't been falsified is that
there is, and indeed can, be no evidence against it, for it is FACT. It
will never be falsified. The fact that it has not yet been falsified is
profound and persuasive evidence of this most veritable of verities.=20
Anybody that says otherwise knows not about that of which they are
perorating, and if they do know, are pernicious prevaricating personages
of the most pusillanimous persuasion.

>: Q: If we were to find mammals in the Burgess Shale, would the theory
>: of evolution be falsified?
>: [a whole bunch of other Qs deleted]
>=20
> I've already responded to these Qs of yours, but now you repost
> them as they were, without taking into account any of my responses.
> In a _different_ thread, you bleat about predictions, which is what
> we were debating _here_, but here you skip it.
>=20
> Why do I bother with you??

This thread hasn't attracted too many individuals from the Evolutionary
Excuse Corps (EEC), and I hope you will continue to discuss these
matters with me. Here's a quote from the now-defunct "Blind Watchmaker"
thread, to which the person it was directed has not yet responded.=20
Perhaps you'll bother to reply to it. Then again, perhaps not.

"As a public illustration, and as a sociopolitical victory, transitional
whales may be the story of the decade, but paleontologists didn't doubt
their existence or feel that a central theory would collapse if their
absence continued."[Gould, "Hooking Leviathan by Its Past," _Natural
History_ (May 1994), 14.] You are going to believe in the blind
watchmaker thesis no matter what the evidence of the fossil record looks
like. Just admit it.

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Sverker Johansson on 05 Jun 1997:
david ford:
Sverker Johansson on 31 May 1997:

>:> I've been waiting for this definition. Good to get that clarified.
>:> But I would much appreciate if you would distinguish between the
>:> following three:
>:>=20
>:> a) The theory of evolution, as generally used by biologists.
>:=20
>: This theory says that non-intelligence-directed processes resulted in
>: life's variety.
>=20
> Not quite... It _abstains_ from invoking divine intervention
> as an explanation.

IMHO, 'abstaining from invoking intelligence' is equivalent to 'no
intelligence is needed to explain this.' For example, an event happens.=20
Saying 'I'm going to abstain from invoking intelligence to explain this
event' is the same as saying 'no intelligence was required in the
occurrence of this event.'

> As do all scientific theories.

Because the theory of evolution is untestable, it is not a scientific
theory.

> If you allow
> miracles as explanations, then unfalsifiability follows.

I agree that creationism is unfalsifiable. Will you likewise agree with
me that the theory of evolution is unfalsifiable?

> It's usually called "methodological naturalism", and=20
> implies nothing whatsoever about the existence of God
> (unlike ontological naturalism, which belongs more
> under c) below.)
>=20
> The theory of evolution doesn't talk about gods. Likewise,
> the theory of gravity doesn't talk about gods. But would
> you describe gravity as "non-intelligence-directed processes=20
> resulted in falling"?

I have no problem with saying 'invoking intelligence to explain this
apple's fall is not needed.' I do have a problem with saying
'intelligence is not needed to explain how the apple's genetic code came
to be.'

>:> b) Dawkins' particular version of it, with its emphasis on
>:> gene-level phenomena.
>:=20
>: This specific version says that non-intelligence-directed processes
>: resulted in life's variety.
>=20
> Ditto.
>=20
>:> c) Dawkins' non-theistic conclusions.
>:
>: So you're saying that Dawkins goes from "no God was required for the
>: rise of new body plans" to "God does not exist"? =20
>=20
> I said non-theistic, not atheistic, because I don't remember exactly
> how far he went.
>
>: It wouldn't be
>: surprising, but I don't see how distinguishing between the religious
>: beliefs "non-intelligence-directed processes resulted in life's
>: variety" and "God does not exist" aids the discussion any.
>=20
> Distinguishing between=20
> a&b): scientific theories which simply don't mention God.

For example, the theory of relativity is a scientific theory that does
not mention God.

> c1): a testable claim that no god is _needed_ to explain life

The theory of evolution is not a scientific theory because it is not
testable. Therefore, its "claim that no god is _needed_ to explain
life" is not scientific in nature. Therefore, the belief that life
originated and diversified through naturalistic processes is simply
that-- a belief. Something believed on faith, if you will.

> c2): an UNtestable claim that no god exists

I agree that the "claim that no god exists" is not testable. Therefore,
the "claim that no god exists" is not scientific in nature. Therefore,
the belief that "no god exists" is simply that-- a belief. Something
believed on faith, if you will.

> would IMHO aid the discussion considerably.

We are not discussing the assertion that God does not exist. As for the
other items, would it aid the discussion if I distinguished between
scientific theories and things that are simply beliefs, i.e., is that
what you'd like to see? For example, I could distinguish between the
scientific theory of relativity, which doesn't mention God, and the
unscientific belief that in the unobserved and unobservable past, life
developed through non-intelligence-directed processes?

>:> Behe's recent book about irreducible
>:> complexity is precisely an attempt to falsify weak c).
>:=20
>: Suppose an example of irreducible complexity is found. How would
>: that falsify the belief that non-intelligence-directed processes
>: resulted in new biochemical pathways?
>=20
> Take it up with Behe. He claims that i.c. is evidence in favour of
> intelligent design, and by implication evidence _against_
> non-intelligence-directed processes.
>=20
>: Sure, it would make the gradual evolution of
>: the pathways much less plausible,=20
>=20
> _True_ irreducible complexity, requiring many simultaneous=20
> evolutionary jumps, would _falsify_ gradual evolution. Wouldn't
> falsify saltationism, but that has been falsified in other ways.

I.C. "would _falsify_ gradual evolution." Agreed. "Wouldn't falsify
saltationism." Agreed. This means that if ever a case of "_True_
irreducible complexity" is ever found, the belief (not scientific
theory, but belief-- faith, if you would) that God is not needed to
explain the existence of life would stay preserved, since a defeat for
gradualism in this instance does not likewise mean a defeat for
saltationism. The option of saltation remains an option.

"Saltationism, but that has been falsified in other ways." How has
saltationism been falsified?

>: but whoever said that evolution has to
>: proceed gradually? Where in the theory of evolution does it say
>: that evolution occurs slowly? Nowhere.
>=20
> Darwin said so, in the quotes that _you_ supply below.

So in response to the question "whoever said that evolution has to
proceed gradually?" the answer is "Darwin," the evidence being Darwin's
statements. And in response to the question "Where in the theory of
evolution does it say that evolution occurs slowly?" the answer you
provide is, it's not given. No answer was provided to the question
(other than my own answer). Let me ask it again. Where in the theory
of evolution does it say that evolution occurs slowly?

> [lots deleted]
>=20
>: And the evolutionist appeals to exactly what ad hoc hypotheses that in
>: principle are falsifiable?
>=20
> _I_ am not claiming "that the evolutionist appeals to [..] ad hoc=20
> hypotheses". That's my interpretation of _your_ argument.
>
> Are you implying that evolution uses hypotheses that are
> "_in_principle_, _logically_, unfalsifiable" ? If so, which?

I'm going to dispense with use of the word "unfalsifiable" as much as
possible, and use instead "testable." No theory is, when you really get
down to it, is unfalsifiable. Relativity predicts 90 arcseconds
rotation of Mercury's major axis in 100 years, and observation say 43?=20
Something is wrong with the instrument. Relativity predicts that a
deflection in starlight will be observed, but none is? Something went
wrong with the experiment. And so on. "Testable" is a much better term
than "falsifiable."

Yes, I am asserting that the theory of evolution uses claims that are in
principle unfalsifiable, or better yet, untestable. An example is the
excuse that the reason the intermediates haven't been found is because
the evolution occurred in such small areas and so quickly. Quick
definition of terms: an ad hoc hypothesis "can't be verified
independently of the data it's supposed to explain."[Theodore Schick,
Jr. and Lewis Vaughn, _How to Think About Weird Things: Critical
Thinking For a New Age_ (1995), 197.]

How on earth can one independently verify that the intermediates existed
for only a short time in very small areas-- use a time machine to go
into the past and observe that yes, the transitionals aren't in
existence long enough or in large enough areas for them to be caught by
the act of fossilization? One can't verify this ad hoc hypothesis, it
being proposed to prevent the theory of evolution from being disproven
in light of the fossil record, and thus, the theory of evolution is not
a scientific theory. Continuing to call the theory of evolution
scientific when in fact it is no such thing makes it pseudoscience,
pseudoscience being "a system of theories, assumptions, and methods
erroneously regarded as scientific."[_Merriam Webster's 10th_ (1995).]

> As I read your argument, you are rather saying that evolution uses a
> _sequence_ of ad hoc hypo's, each one of which is falsifiable, but
> that the total effect is unfalsifiability because a new hypo is=20
> always found to "save" the theory when the old one is blown.
> Is this a reasonable synopsis of your reasoning?

The theory of evolution is riddled with ad hoc hypotheses, many examples
of which come from evolutionary theory's infamous just-so stories. Ad
hoc hypotheses, by definition, are not testable, and so are not capable
of being falsified. I suppose they could be ad hoc until they happen to
be tested and disproved (how such just-so stories could be disproved, I
haven't a clue), as Gould suggests in the following:

"I believe that this 'adaptationist program' has had decidedly
unfortunate effects in biology.... It has led to a reliance on
speculative storytelling in preference to the analysis of form and its
constraints; and, if wrong, in any case, it is virtually impossible to
dislodge because the failure of one story leads to the invention of
another rather than abandonment of the enterprise."[Gould,
_Paleobiology_ 6:128 (1980).]

> [deleted]
>
>:> [Tons of quotes deleted.]
>:> Those quotes were mined from the debate around punctuated
>:> equilibrium, and were directed against phyletic gradualism,
>:> not against evolution per se.
>:=20
>: And now I get to use them to argue against the blind watchmaker
>: thesis and for old-earth creationism. What's your point?
>=20
> My point is that your use is dishonest.

Dishonest-characterized by lack of truth, honesty, or trustworthiness:
unfair, deceptive.[Merriam's 10th.] How is my using statements by
evolutionists where they say that the predicted transitionals have not
been found, but rather that organisms appear suddenly and fully-formed
during punctuations, in arguing for the claim that God created organisms
at various intervals over the course of the earth's 4.6 billion year
history, lacking "truth, honesty, or trustworthiness" or being "unfair,
deceptive"?

> As you admit below, you have never done any science yourself.
> For that reason, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt,=20
> and assume that you were simply unaware of the ethics of
> quoting in science.

I was unaware of these ethics; what are the "ethics of quoting in
science" as opposed to, I suppose, the ethics of quoting in history or
another subject of study.

>: "Though their existence provides the basis for paleontology, fossils
>: have always been something of an embarrassment to evolutionists. The
>: problem is one of 'missing links': the fossil record is so littered
>: with gaps that it takes a truly expert and imaginative eye to discern
>: how one species could have evolved into another. This fact has been
>: seized upon by creationists...."[_Newsweek_ (7 Dec. 1981), 114.]
>=20
> ... such as David Ford. Or how did _Newsweek_ continue the sentence?

Glad you asked. "This fact has been seized upon by creationists, who
hold that the origin of species is explained simply and literally in
Genesis." The next line reads, "But now, for the first time,
excavations at Kenya's Lake Turkana have provided clear fossil evidence
of evolution from one species to another." Things appear to be looking
up for the evolutionist's position. However, reading on, we see "But
the fossils of Lake Turkana don't record any gradual change; rather,
they seem to reflect eons of stasis interrupted by brief evolutionary
'revolutions.' Thus, they lend credence to a new model of evolution
called punctuated equilibrium." These things appear suddenly and fully-
formed.

[snip]
>: Yes, I guess if I, in a moment of indiscretion, revealed that my
>: Darwinian religion had no basis in reality, and opponents of my religion
>: picked up on that and trumpeted those remarks, I would be pretty
>: infuriated. I'd also be kicking myself for having said those remarks in
>: the first place. Ouch. Ow! Ooooph. Pow! Ahrrrrggg! Aahhhhhooo....
>=20
> Nice ethics you show here.

How are these comments lacking "truth, honesty, or trustworthiness" or
being "unfair, deceptive"?

> If Gould says something that, ripped=20
> sufficiently far out of context, you can use,

If you tell me what you assert was ripped out of context, I'll provide
some context. I'll quote the entire page and the articles's conclusion,
abstract, and introduction, if it has any of these, if need be. Just
tell me what you think was "ripped sufficiently far out of context," and
I'll start typing away.

> then you quote
> him as having "revealed that [..] Darwinian religion had no basis=20
> in reality", and appeal to his authority. But when he reacts
> against creationists misrepresenting him, you cast doubts on
> _his_ ethics, and mock him.

"Creationists misrepresenting him." Again, tell me what remarks of
Gould's that I'm allegedly misrepresenting, and I'll quote from the
article for as long as it takes to demonstrate that I am indeed not
misrepresenting his remarks, as was incorrectly alleged.

"But when he reacts against creationists misrepresenting him, you cast
doubts on _his_ ethics." The simple fact is, the appearance of young-
earth creationism with some of its adherents wishing to get equal time
in the schools for the teaching of young-earth creationism alongside the
theory of evolution united evolutionists to defeat a common foe, with
Gould even going to Arkansas to testify against the introduction into
schools of young-earth creationism. In being a part of this effort to
defeat the young-earthers, Gould made remarks (in _Natural History_ and
_Discover_, for example) that directly contradicted what he had said
before (in _Paleobiology_ and _Natural History_, e.g.).

In _Discover_ and _Natural History_, the rules for publication are a lot
laxer than those for peer-reviewed journals. Gould can say whatever he
likes, whether it's well-founded or not, well-documented or not, in
_Discover_ and _Natural History_. Not so for _Paleobiology_ or in a
review article for _Nature_. I defy you to find a journal article where
Gould says something like "paleontologists have discovered several
superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to
convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical
genealogy"[_Natural History_ (May 1994), 8.] in a peer-viewed journal
article.

If I was Gould, and had built an entire career in the field of
evolutionary biology after converting to the Darwinian religion at the
tender age of 10, I'd get pretty infuriated when some people that a)
denied the "fact" of evolution, saying instead that God created plants
and animals, and b) denied the fact that the earth and universe is
billions of years old, started using my statements to try to get young-
earth creationism taught alongside the "fact" of evolution. Yes, Gould
lied for Darwin, but it was-- in his estimation, I'm sure-- for a good
cause. For a clear instance of his lying for Darwin, compare his _An
Urchin in the Storm_ (1987), pg. 235 with his essay "Return of the
Hopeful Monster" in _The Panda's Thumb_ (1980).

> When scientists say something "useful", they are authorities.
> When they protest, you call it a conspiracy.

One must sift the wheat from the chaff, whoever is making the remarks.=20
As in the present case, an understanding of the political circumstances
in which those remarks were made can be important in the sifting
process. For some individuals, there will be no wheat to be sifted out,
and for others, much of what they say will be wheat. There's a lot of
wheat in Gould and Eldredge's 1972 (in the book _Models in
Paleobiology_), 1977 _Paleobiology_, and 1993 _Nature_ comments, and in
Gould's June/July and May 1977 _Natural History_ and 1980 _Paleobiology_
comments. There's a lot of chaff in Gould's May 1981 _Discover_, Jan.
1987 _Discover_, and May 1994 _Natural History_ comments.

> Even with your
> evidently limited insights into scientific ethics, it should
> be obvious that you are overstepping its bounds.
> [deleted]
>
>:> Let me put another face on it:
>:>=20
>:> When Darwin presented his theory, he wasn't able to make a solid
>:> prediction concerning the speed of evolution.
>=20
> [snide malicious bullshit deleted]
>=20
>:> It was obvious that
>:> it would be slow, in human terms, but not precisely _how_ slow.
>:> (He lacked both the mathematical and genetic knowledge for such
>:> a prediction.)
>:=20
>: And we now have "both the mathematical and genetic knowledge for such
>: a prediction," a prediction about the speed of the evolving of new
>: organs, limbs, and body plans, I presume.
>=20
> I didn't say anything about body plans.

Well I did. That's one of the big things I'm interested in hearing
about from the evolutionary side, namely, _how_ it is that new organs,
new limbs, and new body plans appeared through naturalistic processes.=20
I am not interested in hearing about fruitflies that get fruitfly arms
appearing where their eyes would have been, or about the ratio of white
vs. dark moths changing over 200 years. I'm interested in _how_ it was
that the moths and the fruitflies appeared in the first place.

> We still lack both the
> mathematical and genetic knowledge for such a prediction (but keep
> an eye out for ongoing simulation work - it's not that far off.). But
> the speed of evolution, as in rate of change of allele frequencies in
> a population, given the fitness of the different alleles, that we
> _can_ calculate.
>
>: Journal references, please, for articles containing those
>: calculations. =20
>=20
> If you seriously care about the allele frequency calculations,=20
> I can supply those references.

"Strictly speaking, evolution is simply a change in the frequency with
which specific genes occur in a population. By this token, there is the
well-known example of the peppered moth of Britain."[_Washington Post_
(8 Jan. 1997), H5.] No, I am not interested in the least in hearing
"about the allele frequency calculations." I want to hear _how_ it is
that moths came into existence in the first place. Last summer, one
evolutionist bravely tried to give a description of _how_ new organs and
limbs came into existence through non-intelligence directed processes,
but the attempt was a miserable failure. Perhaps you'll do better.

> But are you actually going=20
> to read them, and do you have the mathematical prerequisites to
> understand them? If not, why should I bother? Frankly, I think
> you'd get more out of a textbook on population genetics.
> You'll find the basics in chs 6-7 of Futuyma.
>=20
> One journal reference, as a sign of good will:
>=20
> Wright(1931)"Evolution in Mendelian populations" Genetics 16:97-159
>=20
> This one of the early, seminal papers. Much has happened since
> then, but this is close to where it started.

[snip; rest will be replied to later]

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Sverker Johansson on 07 Jun 1997:
david ford:

[snip]
>: There is no predictive theory of history. Historical events are
>: unrepeatable and unique. One cannot use the scientific method to
>: discriminate between historical theories because historical events
>: are unrepeatable.
>=20
> Not true; see below.

"If we accept Popper's distinctions between science and non-science, we
must ask first whether the theory of evolution by natural selection is
scientific or pseudo-scientific (metaphysical). Taking the first part
of the theory, that evolution has occurred, it says that the history of
life is a single process of species-splitting and progression, like the
history of England. This part of the theory is therefore a historical
theory, about unique events, and unique events are, by definition, not
part of science, for they are unrepeatable and so not subject to
test."[Colin Patterson, _Evolution_ (1978). Cited in _New Scientist_
(17 July 1980), 215.]

>: Who did you say said "the study of evolutionary history
>: is based on the formulation of empirically testable predictions"?
>: I'll have to be especially cautious and have my salt ready to throw
>: out when reading what else he or she has to say.
>=20
> Ayala. Will you give him your usual treatment, calling him "liar for
> Darwin" as soon as he says something that goes against your pet
> misconceptions?

I won't call him a liar for Darwin "as soon as he says something that
goes against [my] pet misconceptions," just as soon as he lies for
Darwin and I can easily prove it. That reminds me, I made a serious
charge against Gould, that of lying for Darwin, and provided the
references _An Urchin in the Storm_ (1987), pg. 235 and the essay
"Return of the Hopeful Monster" in _The Panda's Thumb_ (1980). When can
I be expecting you to refute my charge by showing that Gould is not
lying for Darwin in this instance?

>: "[Evolutionary] Biology is more like history than it is like physics.=20
>: You have to know the past to understand the present. And you have to
>: know it in exquisite detail. There is as yet no predictive theory of
>: biology, just as there is not yet a predictive theory of history. The
>: reasons are the same: both subjects are still too complicated for
>: us."[Carl Sagan, _Cosmos_ (1980), 41]
>=20
> The key word here is _prediction_ (adj. predictive) where you need to=20
> distinguish between two different uses of it.
>=20
> Prediction A: Foretelling of the future, as in what will be the future
> course of human evolution.
> Prediction B: Predicting the results of future _observations_ of
> events, events that need not belong to the future themselv=
es.
> Predicting the nature of future finds of fossils of the
> past belongs here; the fossils are already in the
> ground, but our _observation_ of them lies in the future.
>
> Sagan uses Prediction A. The kind of predictions required of=20
> a scientific theory is Prediction B.

Sagan is _not_ using "Prediction A." When Sagan say "biology is more
like history than it is like physics" and "there is as yet no predictive
theory of biology just as there is not yet a predictive theory of
history," he is implying that there is a predictive theory of physics,
of which 2 that come to mind are the general theory of relativity and
quantum mechanics. Both GTR and QM predict the results of future
observations, and thus are in keeping with your "Prediction B" category.=20
Just how carefully did you read the Sagan quote?

> Evolution is quite predictive in sense B,

We shall see. We shall see....

> even though evolutionary predictions sense A can only
> be done on a very small scale (as in "indiscriminate use of
> antibiotics will increase the prevalence of resistant microbes").
>=20
> But don't worry; Popper made the same error at first (making an=20
> eminently minable quote). Then he corrected the error - but for
> some reason the correction isn't quoted nearly as often by your ilk.

Are you referring to Popper's stating that "I have come to the
conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific
theory...."?[Cited in _New Scientist_ (17 July 1980), 215.] According
to John W.'s evolution and metaphysics FAQ recently gotten off the web,
"Karl Popper (1974) claimed that evolutionary theory was a metaphysics
not a scientific theory... Popper later retracted his claim in a rather
weak fashion...." To do damage control, perhaps your ilk got to him and
made him recant. I've heard rumors about the same being done to
Galileo, but don't quote me on that.

>: Post the predictions of the blind watchmaker thesis that this FAQ
>: contains, if you would please.
>=20
> Is this faq also too difficult for you to understand?
> In any case, its purpose isn't to give to a list
> of predictions; it is relevant for this debate in
> other ways.
>
>: That's what science is all about. Testing precise predictions, e.g.,
>: the blind watchmaker thesis's prediction that one will find "an
>: 'evolution-like' pattern" when one looks at the fossil record. Wait a
>: second. This is not precise at all. =20
>=20
> So I used one word to set a label on a concept that would take
> a whole book to define precisely. I'm not going to write
> that book for you. Go read some from my list instead.
>=20
>: What exactly is "an 'evolution-
>: like' pattern"? Is this: A, G, Z, AAA, VVVV....? Is this: 1, 24, 98,
>: 99.249275987, 99.249275987B, 101....? Is this: orange, banana,
>: pineapple, grapefruit, Mellow-Yellow, beer, wine....? Is this: dog, St.
>: Bernard, bear, fly, street sign, octopus, clock tower, statue....?
>=20
> Since you're so hot on falsifiability, I'll give a few examples of
> what would NOT be evolution-like (and would thus falsify evolution if
> found.):
>
> a) A completely random fossil record, with mammals and trilobites
> and all the others evenly mixed throughout the entire column.

random-lacking a definite plan, purpose, or pattern [Merriam's 10th.]
The sequence described isn't random, because there is a _consistent
pattern_ of all organisms existing at the same time. Where in the
theory of evolution does it say that all organisms cannot exist at the
same time? IMNHO, nowhere. It could be that prebiotic evolution
utilizing Darwinian principles of natural selection and blah blah blah
(or some other proposed or as yet unproposed mechanism) resulted in the
appearance of all animals' genomes at the same time through non-
intelligence directed processes.

"A completely random fossil record, with mammals and trilobites and all
the others evenly mixed throughout the entire column." This reminds me
of the following. "One of the ironies of the evolution-creation debate
is that the creationists have accepted the mistaken notion that the
fossil record shows a detailed and orderly progression and they have
gone to great lengths to accommodate this 'fact' in their Flood
geology."[David M. Raup, Field Museum of Natural History, letter to
_Science_ 213:289.]

> b) A fossil record "upside down", starting at the bottom with
> precambrian hominids and other extant forms, and then=20
> "de-evolving", branches on the evolutionary tree _joining_
> instead of splitting as you go forward in time, ending with
> pliocene ediacarans.

So humans are at the top of the evolutionary tree, pyramid, sphere,
whatever. You're starting out with the prideful assumption that humans
are the highest lifeform, and concluding that if we evolved first, with
Ediacarans evolving last, then that would disprove the theory of
evolution. All such a sequence would disprove is your mistaken notion
that we are the highest lifeforms. If nuclear war occurred, we'd be
dead, but some bacteria might still survive in the ocean's depths.=20
Wouldn't you want to have "devolved" to a bacterium before that point in
time? What's the higher lifeform, then, huh?

> c) Repeated evolution of _identical_ forms, from different ancestors.

Identical forms, different ancestors. Hmmm..... What if one found a
vertical tail fluke that had evolved "from different ancestors"-- would
that falsify the theory of evolution?

> In the triassic, we find one transitional series from
> reptiles to mammals. But in the cambrian we find _another_
> transitional series, from trilobites to mammals, ending up
> with extant mammals in the silurian, which then go extinct.

So mammals evolved twice, each time from different ancestors. What's
the big deal? How would finding 2 transitional sequences depicting
gradual transformation of 1) reptiles, and 2) trilobites, into mammals
hurt the theory of evolution? If I were an evolutionary paleontologist,
I'd be _extremely_ happy to find these sequences, and would demand a
well-deserved Nobel.

> [(In-)design argument deleted. ]
> I think we largely agree here, despite some misunderstanding on my
> part. Let me re-phrase it:
>
> The arguments from design or indesign _both_ require knowledge
> of the creator's mind, which isn't readily available. Thus _neither_
> argument is valid. Nevertheless, the argument from indesign is usable
> as a _rebuttal_ to the design argument, defeating that argument on its
> own terms (which indeed includes certain assumptions about the
> creator's mind.)

I show you my Casio watch's innards. Can you tell whether it had a
designer? Yes, of course you can, and you'd answer that yes, it was
designed. Do you have knowledge of the watch's designer's mind? No,
you don't. This illustrates the fact that knowledge of the designer's
mind is not required to determine whether something has enough design to
have required a designer.

[snip]
> One of the subtleties of science that you have failed to grasp,
> is that it is far from always that prediction are given
> explicitly and labeled as such. Some predictions are so obvious
> that nobody bothers (like the one about no precambrian mammals).
>
> Others are implicit: when
> Gould forcefully argues that imperfections in nature
> are evidence of evolution, this carries an implicit=20
> prediction from his theory that imperfections
> will be the rule.

For a prediction to count as a scientific prediction, it has to predict
something not part of the background information. "Scientific
hypotheses always go beyond the information given. They will not only
explain [I prefer "describe"] what has been discovered, they also
predict what will be discovered."[Schick and Vaughn, _How to Think About
Weird Things_ (1995), 194.] Therefore, saying "more imperfections will
be found" after finding some imperfections doesn't count as a scientific
prediction.

"When Gould forcefully argues that imperfections in nature are evidence
of evolution, this carries an implicit prediction from his theory that
imperfections will be the rule." Non sequitur. From the fact that
imperfections are evidence for the theory of evolution it does not
follow that the theory of evolution predicts that imperfections will be
the rule. It could be, for example, that only 8 imperfections have been
found in all the extinct and extant flora and fauna, that these
imperfections provide evidence of evolution, and that these 8 are the
only ones that exist or have ever existed. 8 imperfections out of at
least 5 billion animal species would mean that imperfections are most
definitely _not_ the rule.

"When Gould forcefully argues that imperfections in nature." Assumption
that these are imperfections. Who is to say that they are
imperfections? It could be that the particular body plan's
developmental pattern cannot proceed in any other way, and thus, the
supposed imperfection in unavoidable, and the best that could be done
under the circumstances, i.e., it's as perfect as it can ever be, and
thus not an imperfection. It could be that we are calling these things
imperfections when actually they get the job done in an efficacious
enough manner.[Ideas from Kurt P. Wise in _The Creation Hypothesis:
Scientific Evidence For an Intelligent Designer_, J.P. Moreland ed.
(1994), 222.]

"When Gould forcefully argues that imperfections in nature are evidence
of evolution." From a few lines above: "The arguments from design or
indesign.... _neither_ argument is valid." Contradiction. Which will
it be? Gould's indesign argument is forcefully argued, or the indesign
argument is invalid? It cannot be both.

> Likewise, the result of a calculation
> is an implicit prediction from the premises and assumptions
> behind the calculation.

5 times 4 equals 20. Yes, it is true that the result of this
calculation was implicit in the "premises and assumptions behind the
calculation," since 5x4=3D20 is true by definition-- from the terms "5,"
"4," and "=3D," one gets by definition the answer "20." Yet we aren't
interested in things that are true by definition, but instead, are
interested in the way the world is. I'll try again.

Using the theory of relativity, one can calculate the prediction that
Earth's major axis will shift by 3.8 arcseconds in a century. "The
result of a calculation is an implicit prediction from the premises and
assumptions behind the calculation." Agreed, an example being the Earth
illustration, for the theory of relativity was an assumption among
several in the calculation of the prediction. With this prediction, one
can test the theory of relativity, i.e., the theory of relativity is
testable. Since observations reveal a shift of 5.0 plus minus 1.2
arcseconds, this was a successful prediction.

> Furthermore, nobody bothers to
> publish explicit predictions from theories that are already amply=20
> corroborated. Thus, journal refs with titles like "From the theory
> of evolution, it is predicted that XXX..." will be exceedingly rare.

Scientific theories _become_ well-corroborated by testing their
predictions against observations. For example, in the case of the
theory of relativity:

"The Relativity Shift at the 1952 February 25 Eclipse of the Sun," =20
_Astrophysical Journal_ 58:87-8 (1953).
"Effect of Gravity on Nuclear Resonance," _Physical Review Letters_
13:539-40 (1964).
"Mercury's Perihelion Advance: Determination by Radar," _Physical Review
Letters_ 28:1594-7 (1972).
"Solar Gravitational Deflection of Radio waves Measured by Very-Long-
Baseline Interferometry," _Physical Review Letters_ 33:1621-3
(1974).
"Verification of the Principle of Equivalence for Massive Bodies,"
_Physical Review Letters_ 36:555-8 (1976).
"Measurements of General Relativistic Effects in the Binary Pulsar PSR
1913+16," _Nature_ 277:437-40 (1979).
"Viking Relativity Experiment: Verification of Signal Retardation by
Solar Gravity," _Astrophysical Journal Letters_ 234:219-21 (1979).
"VLBI Observations of the Double QSO 0957+561 A, B," _Nature_ 282:384-6
(1979).
"Test of Relativistic Gravitation with a Space-Borne Hydrogen Maser,"
_Physical Review Letters_ 45:2081-4 (1980).
"The Triple QSO PG 1115+08: Another Probable Gravitational Lens,"
_Nature_ 285:641-3 (1980).
"High-Resolution Imaging from Mauna Kea: the Triple Quasar in 0.3 arc s
Seeing," _Nature_ 321:139-42 (1986).
"Galaxy Mass Deduced from the Structure of Einstein Ring MG1654+1346,"
_Nature_ 344:43-5 (1990). [Source for citations: Hugh Ross, _The
Fingerprint of God_ (1991), 192-3.]

"Nobody bothers to publish explicit predictions from theories that are
already amply corroborated." You aren't implying that the theory of
evolution is _so_ well proven that it doesn't need peer-reviewed
articles describing how its predictions match up with observations to be
proven correct, are you? I didn't think so. Presented above are twelve
(12) journal citations spanning the years 1953 to 1990, and containing
a) testable predictions of the theory of relativity and b) the results
of observations (which, BTW, match up with the predictions). Kindly
present, if you would please, three (3) journal citations, each of which
discusses the theory of evolution's a) testable predictions and b) the
results of pertinent observations.

> Evolution
> _per_se_ is textbook stuff by now, and textbooks don't usually
> present their stuff as a series of predictions.

"Evolution _per_se_ is textbook stuff by now." Your listing of the
three (3) journal citations may come from the time when the theory of
evolution was pre-textbook stuff, if you so wish. The theory of
evolution's "prolific, productive predictions permeate the princely
pages of the principle peer-reviewed science publications of our
prodigious period," do they not? Three (3).

> Details within=20
> the evolutionary framework are sometimes hotly debated in the=20
> journals, and that's where it might be fruitful to search for=20
> predictions, from e.g. punk eek.

Let me get this straight: evolutionary predictions are most likely to be
found in those areas where there is not much agreement. This makes
utterly no sense. If there are predictions, why aren't the
disagreements settled by observing and deciding which, if any, of the
predictions were correct?

[snip]
>: How about kindly posting these numerous predictions which can be
>: found "all over the place" of the blind watchmaker thesis?
>=20
> "All over the place" referred to Gould's writings on imperfection,=20
> of which I gave two examples.

And now I'm upping the stakes by asking for the journal references.=20
They do exist, don't they, and the theory of evolution _is_ testable,
isn't it?

[snip]
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Sverker Johansson on 11 Jun 1997:
david ford:

>: IMHO, 'abstaining from invoking intelligence' is equivalent to 'no
>: intelligence is needed to explain this.' [deleted]
>=20
> IMNSHO there is a subtle difference between simply disregarding
> the possibility of divine intervention, and actively pointing
> out that God isn't needed here. But maybe too subtle for you...
[snip]

>: I have no problem with saying 'invoking intelligence to explain this
>: apple's fall is not needed.' I do have a problem with saying
>: 'intelligence is not needed to explain how the apple's genetic code
>: came to be.'
>
> Apparently you do. Please do some careful introspection,
> and tell me WHY you have a problem with one but not the other.

Biology is just too complicated. Physics is a lot more simple, as seen
in the fact that calculations can be make of physical systems predicting
what will become of them. Not so with biological systems.

For example, there's a big difference between galaxy formation, star
burning, and nucleosynthesis during the big bang on the one hand, etc.,
and the rise of various life forms on earth. In the one case, we can
look at equations and calculate what's happening inside a star,
calculate how stars of certain sizes change through time, run the
calculations and figure the percentages of elements in the present-day
universe that were formed in the first few minutes of the universe's
existence, and can use general relativity to describe the universe's
change in size through time.

In the other case, we do not have such laws. Biology is just too
complicated to be adequately described through mathematical formulas and
calculations. There is no theory of general relativity for biology, no
description of what will eventually happen to organisms based on their
present sizes, no predictive description of the internal physical
changes of organisms.

It's an interesting question about who has the burden of proof here.=20
Must creationists show that biology is much too complex to be like
physics, so that they may conclude that appeal must be made to a
Designer to explain the existence of and variety in life? Or must
evolutionists show that biology is like physics and present biology's
equivalent of the GTR and quantum field theory, so that they may thereby
conclude that a Designer is not needed to explain the design clearly
evident in nature? (If evolutionists do present those laws, then the
creationist could then ask if those wondrous laws of new biochemical
system, body plan, and organ development were themselves designed.)

> It wouldn't have anything to do with your religion, would it?

Supposing it did, that would have utterly no bearing on whether my
arguments for my position on the matter are strong or not.

>: For example, the theory of relativity is a scientific theory that
>: does not mention God.
>=20
> For example, the theory of evolution is a scientific theory that
> does not mention God.
>
> You seem to have a problem with that. But the fact that a scientific
> theory doesn't happen to invoke your favourite god is YOUR problem,
> not a problem with the theory.
>
> [deleted repetition of the usual assertion]
> =20
>: I agree that the "claim that no god exists" is not testable. Therefore,
>: the "claim that no god exists" is not scientific in nature. Therefore,
>: the belief that "no god exists" is simply that-- a belief. Something
>: believed on faith, if you will.
>=20
> OK, fine. Here we agree.
> [deleted repetition of the usual assertion]
>
>: I.C. "would _falsify_ gradual evolution." Agreed. "Wouldn't falsify
>: saltationism." Agreed. This means that if ever a case of "_True_
>: irreducible complexity" is ever found,=20
>=20
> [deleted repetition of the usual assertion]
>=20
>: explain the existence of life would stay preserved, since a defeat for
>: gradualism in this instance does not likewise mean a defeat for
>: saltationism. The option of saltation remains an option.
>:=20
>: "Saltationism, but that has been falsified in other ways." How has
>: saltationism been falsified?
>=20
> Look it up in Futuyma. (It's in the index.) Textbook stuff, as usual.

In the index, "saltation" is said to be on pages 159, 372. On 160,
Futuyma says, "Although Goldschmidt's argument has been very unpopular
almost since he proposed it, a _rapprochement_ between it and the
gradualist view has recently been developing, and it may prove to be one
of the most interesting developments in evolutionary thought (_Chapter
17_)."

The last 2 lines of chapter 8's summary on 183 read, "It seems probable
that some macroevolutionary changes, between ancestors and their very
different descendants, can have arisen from just a few genetic changes.=20
Very often, however, the great phenotypic differences among taxa are the
summation of many smaller differences, like the variations within
individual species." These 2 statements do not sound like a falsifying
of saltationism. Just how carefully did you read _Evolutionary
Biology_, 2nd ed., before saying "Look it up in Futuyma.... Textbook
stuff, as usual"?

BTW, reading on, I happened to see the following: "Gradualists have been
embarrassed by the fossil record, in which series of intermediate forms
leading to major new taxa are most uncommon. Fossils from here and
there can be pieced together to form series, as in the succession of
horses with decreasing numbers of toes; but seldom if ever can these be
shown to be steps on a direct line of descent (Eldredge and Gould,
1972... 1977; _Chapter_ 7).

Intermediate forms, such as the therapsids with both reptilian and
mammalian features, or _Archaeopteryx_, with reptilian and avian
characteristics, are plentiful and demonstrate conclusively the
phylogenetic origins of higher taxa; but they are mosaics of ancestral
and derived character states rather than true intermediates....
Gradualists have traditionally attributed the paucity of intermediate
fossils to failures of preservation and to the other imperfections of
the fossil record.

Simpson (1953), however, advanced another view, championed especially by
Eldredge and Gould.... Major evolutionary changes may occur by QUANTUM
EVOLUTION, to use Simpson's term, or by punctuated equilibria, to use
Eldredge's and Gould's.... Because of the rapidity of change,
intermediate forms, if they existed, are not preserved in the fossil
record."[Futuyma, _Evolutionary Biology_ (1979), 161-3.]

> [Silly nit-picking deleted. Textbook stuff, again.]

So my question "Where in the theory of evolution does it say that
evolution occurs slowly?" is nit-picking. Okay.

>: I'm going to dispense with use of the word "unfalsifiable" as much as
>: possible, and use instead "testable." No theory is, when you really
>: get down to it, is unfalsifiable.
>=20
> Are you _sure_ this says what you meant?

Quite sure, and reading the evolution and metaphysics FAQ reminded me of
this point.

>: Relativity predicts 90 arcseconds rotation
>: of Mercury's major axis in 100 years, and observation say 43?
>
> False. Relativity says 43. The agreement with experiment is
> better than half a percent.
>
>: Something is wrong with the instrument. Relativity predicts that
>: a deflection in starlight will be observed, but none is?
>=20
> False. Was observed in 1919 for the first time. Numerous
> observations since then.

This little digression was to illustrate my point that "No theory is,
when you really get down to it, is unfalsifiable." Just how carefully
did you read this?

> Here, though, we may have the source from which your Mercury
> claim has evolved. In 1911, Einstein published an early
> version of GR, in which he erroneously calculated starlight
> deflection a factor of 2 too low. In 1916, the full
> theory was published, in which the 1911 error was corrected.
>
> So Einstein made a mistake, then corrected it (still _before_ the
> experiment), and then the prediction was confirmed.
>
>: Something went
>: wrong with the experiment. And so on. "Testable" is a much
>: better term than "falsifiable."
>
> So you have indeed noticed that the issue is more complex
> than the naive falsificationism you have promulgated up to now.
>
> Good!
>=20
>: Yes, I am asserting that the theory of evolution uses claims that are in
>: principle unfalsifiable, or better yet, untestable. An example is the
>: excuse that the reason the intermediates haven't been found is because
>: the evolution occurred in such small areas and so quickly. =20
>=20
> As I have pointed out before, this "excuse" IS testable, simply by
> finding fossils in those small areas. Such fossils have been found.

"New characters, including those diagnostic of major new groups, may
evolve very rapidly when a small population is geographically isolated
and becomes a new species (_Chapter 16_)."[Futuyma, _Evolutionary
Biology_ (1979), 163.] Journal references, please, documenting the
fossils that have been discovered "in those small areas," at which new
bauplane appeared. And you can't say "therapsids-mammals," because that
is said to have occurred from at least 270 to 100 million years ago--
hardly rapid.

>: Quick
>: definition of terms: an ad hoc hypothesis "can't be verified
>: independently of the data it's supposed to explain."[Theodore Schick,
>: Jr. and Lewis Vaughn, _How to Think About Weird Things: Critical
>: Thinking For a New Age_ (1995), 197.]
>=20
> I'm using a slightly different definition:
> Ad hoc: hypothesis invented _only_ for the purpose of explaining
> a particular set of anomalous data; whether it has testable=20
> implications in other areas is incidental.

According to this definition, the following hypothesis is not ad hoc:
"The reason that one does not see the gremlins striking the inside of
light bulbs to make the light appear is that they are totally
undetectable." The hypothesis is not ad hoc because it was _not_
invented _only_ to explain why light bulbs burn; it was invented to
explain why bulbs burn _and also_ invented because I happen to like
gremlins, and it makes me all warm and fuzzy when I mention the word
"gremlins" in sentences containing a total of 26 words. The definition
stinks.

> (based more on actual use by scientists, than on any particular
> book; but see e.g. Hempel "Philosophy of Natural Science", or for
> that matter Popper.)
>
>: How on earth can one independently verify that the intermediates
>: existed for only a short time in very small areas
>=20
> See above. See also Harris&White cited below.
>
> [Just-so stuff deleted. Gould has a point here, but he's NOT
> arguing that evolution per se is unscientific.]
> [dishonesty definition deleted]
>
>: I was unaware of these ethics;=20
>=20
> So I've noticed...
>=20
>: what are the "ethics of quoting in science" as opposed to, I
>: suppose, the ethics of quoting in history or another subject of
>: study.
>
> Difficult to give a short answer; this is an integral part of
> the culture and ethos of science. This is often not explicitly
> _taught_, but a significant part of graduate student training
> involves an immersion in these values.
>=20
> I'll give it a try. Other scientists on the group;=20
> feel free to add your perspective.
>=20
> Legitimate citing and quoting:
>=20
> Citing somebody else's _data_, and quoting their factual
> _description_ of data, is normally legit, even if you interpret
> the data differently.

I do this all the time, e.g., quoting Eldredge's description of the
fossil data when he writes in his _Fossils_ (1991), while arguing for my
old-earth creationist interpretation of this data.

> However, you may not select only the pieces that suit you,

Do that. For example, I ended a recent post with quotes from Gould
where he said about 50 million times that the theory of evolution is a
"'fact.'" Actually, this reminds me of an analogy I developed to expose
the chicanery involved in this fact/theory distinction. I present it
once again, for your examination. Keep in mind that an analogy is
weaker the more dissimilar the things being compared are.

-------begin inserted text-------
It is often said that most biologists believe in evolution & that the
theory of evolution is a fact, but that they have much disagreement
about the mechanism for evolution. Some say this, others say maybe it
was that. It sounds to me like the biologists & paleontologists don't
know what they are talking about when they say evolution occurred
without presenting a plausible way of _how_ evolution could have
occurred. How can one call something a fact without presenting a
plausible explanation, a plausible mechanism, providing for a basis of
truth for what is called a fact? Before I make my analogy, note that
evolution is said to have occurred in the past-- hence the term "natural
history." If it occurs today, it is claimed to be happening too slowly
for us to see it. We can only look to the past for evidence showing
that it _has_ occurred.

I say that in the past, the earth turned around in its orbit around the
sun & went the opposite way. It just so happens that human civilization
has not been around when this reversal happened.
You: "How do you know that this occurred?"
Me: "It's a fact. Almost everybody in the scientific community believes
this has happened in the past. Newton, Galileo, Einstein, Hubble-- all
reputable scientists believe it."
You: "And how do they know?"
Me: "Well, since it happened in the past when no one was around, we have
no observations. But it's a fact that it really happened."
You: "Answer the question. You say no one saw it. How do they know it
happened-- can you present the way it happened?"
Me: "Well, there are different theories & much disagreement about that.=20
Einstein says that melting polar ice caps caused a sudden reversal in
electromagnetism's fine-structure polarity, causing the reversal.=20
Newton disagrees, saying that a meteor crash on the earth's crust caused
a seismic tremor that caused a powerful shock wave that pushed the earth
back & into a reversed orbit. Galileo proposes that a reversal in the
earth's magnetic field was caused by the accumulation of iron from
comets, which generated a negative momentum strong enough to push the
earth into reversing its direction. And there are many other theories.=20
But they all agree: it happened, & it's a fact that it happened."

My question to you: am I justified in calling my statement "the earth
reversed direction in the unrecorded past" a fact if I can offer no
plausible mechanism for _how_ this occurred, no mechanism that the
scientists who know about such matters could generally agree upon?=20
Similarly, are evolutionists justified in calling the statement "the
complexity & variation in plants & animals visible today gradually arose
from primitive ancestors through entirely naturalistic processes" a fact
without presenting a plausible mechanism for how this could have
occurred?
--------end inserted text--------

> and your quotes must accurately reflect the author's description.

Do that. Should you disagree, I'll provide the necessary context to
show that the quotes faithfully reflect what Gould was saying at the
time.

> When we depart from the immediate data, the citing and quoting becomes
> more sensitive. If you are arguing for a certain point of view in
> your text, and you cite or quote somebody else without qualifications
> on your part, you thereby imply that they support your argument.
> This is the rule that you most often break. You are arguing for some
> version of OEC. When you invoke Gould quotes, you are implicitly
> saying that _Gould_ supports OEC, which he emphatically does not.
> This is perceived as deceptive on your part.

-------begin inserted text of something said almost a year ago-------
Actually, this reminds me of something said recently, and again, I
apologize for not having your name. It went like, "Quoting an
evolutionist to disprove evolution. Go figure..." When I need the
weight of a respected authority to support my position that the fossil
record totally refutes Darwin's theory of evolution, do you think I'm
going to turn to D. James Kennedy, Henry Morris, Ken Ham, or Duane Gish?=20
Of course not-- you wouldn't trust what they have to say, and neither
would I. Gould (and Eldredge) is perfect: he's one of the very few that
has the guts to reveal paleontology's dirty little secret, the fact that
the fossil record does not confirm what Darwin put forth in his _The
Origin_. Gould continues to be an evolutionist in spite of the
evidence, but that's his problem.
--------end inserted text--------

-------begin inserted text of material posted around 31 May 1997 within
the same post and in reply to your comments of 27 May 1997-------
The next line reads "The evolution from reptiles to mammals, as
mentioned earlier, is well documented." Journal references, please, for
the therapsid to mammal sequence. Gould is not lying for Darwin here,
is he? Say it ain't so, and demonstrate that it isn't by giving the
journal references documenting this "well-documented" piece of evidence
supporting the blind watchmaker thesis. I'll take it from there.

In his May 1981 article, Gould lies for Darwin, rallying the troops
around the flag of that religious belief called the blind watchmaker
thesis in an attempt to do damage control and not let the "philistine
scourge" called scientific, i.e., young-earth, creationism use his
writings to defeat the blind watchmaker thesis. But alas, the horse had
gone, the writings had been published, and closing the barn door was
done too late. I wonder what his attitude toward old-earth creationism
is.[Quote in G&E, _Nature_ 366:223 (1993)]

"But most of all I am saddened by a trend I am just beginning to discern
among my colleagues. I sense that some now wish to mute the healthy
debate about the theory.... It provides grist for creationist mills,
they say, even if only by distortion. Perhaps we should lie low and
rally around the flag of strict Darwinism, at least for the moment--a
kind of old-time religion on our part."[Gould, _Discover_ (May 1981),
37]

".... one of the best documented, most compelling and exciting concepts
in all of science...."[Gould, _Discover_ (May 1981), 34] This is most
risible.
--------end inserted text--------

I present the majority of the Gould quotes for the question of what the
data looks like, and then interpret that data in terms of old-earth
creationism. I've utterly no idea how it is that you get the impression
that I'm "implicitly saying that _Gould_ supports OEC." Just how
carefully did you read the post that contained the 2nd of the
insertions?

> A _legitimate_ way for you to use Gould would be:
>
> "Gould (19xx) states that transitional fossils are scarce,
> and interprets this as evidence of punk eek. I, on the
> other hand, interpret this scarcity as evidence in
> favour of OEC." You must clearly and explicitly
> divorce Gould's views from yours.
>=20
> An _illegitimate_ use, caricaturized from the way you usually do it:
>=20
> "There is no evidence of evolution. Gould (19xx) says
> "No transitionals bla bla...". All species appear suddenly and=20
> fully formed."
>=20
> Here you are giving the incorrect impression that _Gould_,
> by implication, thinks that they appear suddenly and fully formed.
>
> This kind of implication is regarded as unethical in science.

Since, by your own words, this is a caricature of my quoting practices,
I see no need to respond to it.

>: Things appear to be looking
>: up for the evolutionist's position. However, reading on, we see "But
>: the fossils of Lake Turkana don't record any gradual change; rather,
>: they seem to reflect eons of stasis interrupted by brief evolutionary
>: 'revolutions.' Thus, they lend credence to a new model of evolution
>: called punctuated equilibrium." These things appear suddenly and
>: fully-formed.
>=20
> Here you are kind enough to supply another example of
> dubious quoting ethics (though it may be Newsweek's fault;
> _they_ are not always careful, not being a scientific journal). =20
> Unless I'm completely mistaken, Newsweek refers to a case of an
> exceptionally fine-grained fossil record, where even the 'revolutions'
> are actually recorded. IIRC it may well be:
>=20
> Harris, J., & White, T.D. 1979. Evolution of Plio-Pleistocene=20
> African Suidae. Trans. Am. Phil. Soc. 69:1-128.=20
>=20
> (That paper is worth reading in any case, as an example of
> what a _really_ good fossil record may look like. Hint: it
> does NOT look as if "[t]hese things appear suddenly and fully-
> formed.")

This is not specifically what is being referred to, since Peter
Williamson described his mollusks in the 8 Oct. 1981 issue of _Nature_.=20
When you say "Hint....", do you really mean to imply that the _Newsweek_
writers managed to present the story completely opposite of what the
fossils actually depict?

Here are some statements from the Williamson article from the last
section, "Implications." "A persistent problem in evolutionary biology
has been the absence of intermediate forms in the fossil record. Long-
term gradual transformations of single lineages are rare and generally
involve simple size increases or trivial phenotypic effects. Typically,
the record consists of successive ancestor-descendant lineages,
morphologically invariant through time and unconnected by
intermediates."[440]

"The phylogenetic geometry of molluscan lineages from the Turkana Basin
sequence clearly conforms to the punctuated equilibrium model: long-term
stasis in all lineages is punctuated by rapid episodes of major
phenotypic change. No 'gradualistic' morphological trends occur in any
lineage."[440]

"Events during the radiation of several lineages in the Lower Member of
the Koobi Fora are typical of the fossil record in that intermediates
between derivative and ancestral taxa are not documented."[441]

"However, two major aspects of events at the Suregei tuff and Guomde
levels are clearly at variance with Mayr's [founder-effect] model: (1)
the (obligatory) asexual taxon _M. tuberculata_ shows a pattern of
evolutionary change identical with other sexual species, at both the
Suregei tuff and Guomde levels; and (2) evolutionary change at the
Suregei level, although occurring rapidly, occurs over a large area and
in thick faunal units containing many millions of individuals."[P.G.
Williamson, "Paleontological documentation of speciation in Cenozoic
molluscs from Turkana Basin," _Nature_ 293:442 (1981).]

What do you think of the creationist explanation of this data,
specifically, this is evidence for God's simultaneously making new
sexual and asexual species, with the reason for why no intermediates
were found being that the intermediates never existed?

>: How are these comments lacking "truth, honesty, or trustworthiness"
>: or being "unfair, deceptive"?
>
> You really haven't got a clue, do you...?
> [out-of-context discussion deleted; I refer you to what I said
> about quoting ethics.]

I agree there can exist a discussion of a taken-out-of-context _quote_,
but don't understand how that discussion could itself be labeled an
"out-of-context _discussion_."[Emphasis supplied.]

-------begin inserted text-------
I defy you to find a journal article where Gould says something like
"paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary
forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded
skeptic about the reality of life's physical genealogy"[_Natural
History_ (May 1994), 8.] in a peer-viewed journal article.
--------end inserted text--------

So, when are you going to produce a Gould peer-reviewed journal article
where he makes a statement similar to the above? Never? I _thought_
so.

> [more Gould abuse deleted]
>
>: Yes, Gould
>: lied for Darwin, but it was-- in his estimation, I'm sure-- for a good
>: cause. For a clear instance of his lying for Darwin, compare his _An
>: Urchin in the Storm_ (1987), pg. 235 with his essay "Return of the
>: Hopeful Monster" in _The Panda's Thumb_ (1980).
>:=20
>: One must sift the wheat from the chaff, whoever is making the remarks.=
=20
>=20
> Right, but... Your definitions appear to be:
> "Wheat" =3D useful ore for quote-mining
> "Chaff" =3D protests against your dubious activities

These are poor definitions, since Gould's lyings for Darwin make for
good quotes as well. Not as good as when he's telling the truth, of
course, but almost.

> [rest deleted; again I refer you to what I said about quoting ethics.]
>
>: Well I did. [deleted]
> =20
>: [deleted] No, I am not interested in the least in hearing
>: "about the allele frequency calculations." =20
>=20
> OK, I'm beginning to understand. You ask for journal references.

Correction: I asked for journal refs, not for allele shifts (what you
gave), but for the appearance of new body plans. Just how carefully did
you read this?
-------begin inserted text of my request in full-------
And we now have "both the mathematical and genetic knowledge for such a
prediction," a prediction about the speed of the evolving of new organs,
limbs, and body plans, I presume. Journal references, please, for
articles containing those calculations.
--------end inserted text--------

> But as soon as I _do_ supply refs, you either claim they're
> lying for Darwin,

This must be a reference to the May 1981 Gould article. Last time I
checked, _Discover_ was not a journal.

> or you move the goalposts, as you do here.

As for moving goalposts, see response following "Correction," above.

>: I want to hear _how_ it is
>: that moths came into existence in the first place. Last summer, one
>: evolutionist bravely tried to give a description of _how_ new organs
>: and limbs came into existence through non-intelligence directed
>: processes, but the attempt was a miserable failure. Perhaps you'll
>: do better.
>=20
> Perhaps I could. But given your attitude towards what I _have_
> supplied, I don't see why I should take the trouble.

I say you __can't__, and are simply looking for an excuse to not
describe how it is that new organs, limbs, body plans, and biochemical
systems appear through naturalistic processes using changes in DNA.

> You just ignore the evidence anyway, and
> then keep on bleating that it doesn't exist.
>
>: [snip; rest will be replied to later]
>=20
> Including the journal reference??

I _already_ replied to the journal reference. Just how carefully did
you read the following (assuming you read it at all)?

-------begin inserted text-------
"Strictly speaking, evolution is simply a change in the frequency with
which specific genes occur in a population. By this token, there is the
well-known example of the peppered moth of Britain."[_Washington Post_
(8 Jan. 1997), H5.] No, I am not interested in the least in hearing
"about the allele frequency calculations." I want to hear _how_ it is
that moths came into existence in the first place. Last summer, one
evolutionist bravely tried to give a description of _how_ new organs and
limbs came into existence through non-intelligence directed processes,
but the attempt was a miserable failure. Perhaps you'll do better.
--------end inserted text--------

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Sverker Johansson:
david ford:
Sverker Johansson:

>:> Why don't you tell us what their conclusion _is_! (Hint: it's _not_
>:> that there is no evolution to be found.)
>:=20
>: Their conclusion is that stasis needs to be recorded as data, and
>: that the field of paleontology can contribute to the development of
>: new theories about how macroevolution occurred.
>=20
> OK. But a far cry from what you implied in your previous post.

What conclusion of Gould and Eldredge's did I imply in connection with
the G&E quote mentioning the "several paleontologists"?

>:> This quote from Gould ought to be required reading for anybody using=20
>:> Gould quotes to argue for creationism:
>:>=20
>:> "Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it
>:> is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists--
>:> whether through design or stupidity, I do not know
>:=20
>: How can Gould not know?
>=20
> Because there is insufficient evidence to tell whether you
> misrepresent his views through malice or through stupidity.
>=20
> [deleted]

Yikes. There exists the possibility that I'm misrepresenting Gould's
views so as to cause him injury, pain, or distress, or to cause him harm
without justification.

The individual to whom the following comments were originally directed
has as of yet not responded to them. I present them to you now.

-------begin inserted text-------
I'm going to give two Gould quotes, and I want you to tell me whether I
am misinterpreting either of them. Ready? Here we go.

"In fact, most published commentary on punctuated equilibria has been
favorable. We are especially pleased that several paleontologists
now state with pride and biological confidence a conclusion that had
previously been simply embarrassing ('all those years of work and I
haven't found any evolution')."-_Paleobiology_ 3:134 (1977).

Interpretation: the thesis of punctuated equilibrium is tantamount to
admitting that confirming evidence of "this grand view of life" (the
theory of evolution), evidence that would stand up in a court of law,
does not exist in the fossil record.

And here's the second quote: "The history of most fossil species
includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1.
_Stasis_. Most species exhibit no directional change during their
tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same
as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and
directionless. 2. _Sudden appearance_. In any local area, a species
does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors;
it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'"[Gould's _The Panda's Thumb_
(1980), 182.]

Interpretation: these are the facts. The interpretation of the fact of
sudden appearance of organisms in the fossil record can be taken as
evidence for a) Goldschmidtism/saltation, or b) God making these things
at various intervals over the course of the earth's 4.6 billion year
history. Option b) is, in my view, preferable. Others may prefer, for
whatever reason, the saltation route.

Your mission, should you decide to accept it, is to show how I am
misinterpreting these statements by Gould and Eldredge, and by Gould,
respectively. Are you up to it? Too-too-dooooo, too-doo-tooooo....=20
--------end inserted text--------

>:> --as admitting that the fossil record includes no
>:> transitional forms.
>:=20
>: "I do not doubt the supreme importance of preadaption, but the other
>: alternative, treated with caution, reluctance, disdain or even fear by
>: the modern synthesis, now deserves a rehearing in the light of renewed
>: interest in development: perhaps, in many cases, the intermediates never
>: existed."[Gould, _Paleobiology_ 6:127 (1980)]
>=20
> Another quote ripped out of context. I seriously doubt that "the=20
> intermediates" refer to _all_ transitionals, as you imply.

"Another quote ripped out of context." Then let's provide some context.=20
(If you tell me what for other quotes you believe to be ripped out of
context, I'll see what I can do about them. You _will_ tell me what
those other ripped out of context quotes were, yes, so that I can then
give the context?) (In typing this, it has become obvious that you may
have been correct in asserting that the quote was taken out of context;
it's unclear. In any event, the charge of ripping a quote out of
context has been made, my response to which will be, oddly enough, to
provide more context.)

entire abstract of Gould's "Is a new and general theory of evolution
emerging?": "The modern synthesis, as an exclusive proposition, has
broken down on both of its fundamental claims: extrapolationism (gradual
allelic substitution as a model for all evolutionary change) and nearly
exclusive reliance on selection leading to adaptation. Evolution is a
hierarchical process with complementary, but different, modes of change
at its three major levels: variation within populations, speciation, and
patterns of macroevolution. Speciation is not always an extension of
gradual, adaptive allelic substitution to greater effect, but may
represent, as Goldschmidt argued, a different style of genetic change--
rapid reorganization of the genome, perhaps non-adaptive.

Macroevolutionary trends do not arise from the gradual, adaptive
transformation of populations, but usually from a higher-order selection
operating upon groups of species, while the individual species
themselves generally do not change following their geologically
instantaneous origin. I refer to these two discontinuities in the
evolutionary hierarchy as the Goldschmidt break (between change in
populations and speciation) and the Wright break (between speciation and
trends as differential success among species).

A new and general evolutionary theory will embody this notion of
hierarchy and stress a variety of themes either ignored or explicitly
rejected by the modern synthesis: punctuational change at all levels,
important non-adaptive change at all levels, control of evolution not
only by selection, but equally by constraints of history, development
and architecture--thus restoring to evolutionary theory a concept of
organisms."

complete paragraph, which starts at the bottom of pg. 126: "The
saltational initiation of major transitions: The absence of fossil
evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic
design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct
functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and
nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution. St. George
Mivart (1871), Darwin's most cogent critic, referred to it as the
dilemma of 'the incipient stages of useful structures'--of what possible
benefit to a reptile is two percent of a wing?

The dilemma has two potential solutions. The first, preferred by
Darwinians because it preserves both gradualism and adaptation, is the
principle of preadaption: the intermediary stages functioned in another
way but were, by good fortune in retrospect, preadapted to a new role
they could play only after greater elaboration. Thus, if feathers first
functioned 'for' insulation and later 'for' the trapping of insect prey
(Ostrom 1979), a proto-wing might be built without any reference to
flight."

entire next paragraph, part of which was said to be taken out of
context: "I do not doubt the supreme importance of preadaption, but the
other alternative, treated with caution, reluctance, disdain or even
fear by the modern synthesis, now deserves a rehearing in the light of
renewed interest in development: perhaps, in many cases, the
intermediates never existed. I do not refer to the saltational origin
of entire new designs, complete in all their complex and integrated
features--a fantasy that would be truly anti-Darwinian in denying any
creativity to selection and relegating it to the role of eliminating old
models.

Instead, I envisage a potential saltational origin for the essential
features of key adaptations. Why may we not imagine that gill arch
bones of an ancestral agnathan moved forward in one step to surround the
mouth and form proto-jaws? Such a change would scarcely establish the
_Bauplan_ of the gnathostomes. So much more must be altered in the
reconstruction of agnathan design--the building of a true shoulder
girdle with bony, paired appendages, to say the least.

But the discontinuous origin of a proto-jaw might set up new regimes of
development and selection that would quickly lead to other, coordinated
modifications. Yet Darwin, conflating gradualism with natural selection
as he did so often, wrongly proclaimed that any such discontinuity, even
for organs (much less taxa) would destroy his theory:"

entire Darwin quote: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ
existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous,
successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down
(1859, p. 189)."

entire next paragraph: "During the last 30 years, such proposals have
generally been treated as a fantasy signifying surrender--an invocation
of hopeful monsters rather than a square facing of a difficult issue.=20
But our renewed interest in development, the only discipline of biology
that might unify molecular and evolutionary approaches into a coherent
science, suggests that such ideas are neither fantastic, utterly
contrary to genetic principles, nor untestable."

>:> Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level,
>:> but they are abundant between larger groups."
>:>
>:> -- Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," _Hen's Teeth and
>:> Horse's Toes_, 1983, Norton, New York.
>:=20
>: The next line reads "The evolution from reptiles to mammals, as
>: mentioned earlier, is well documented." Journal references, please, for
>: the therapsid to mammal sequence.
>=20
> Pointers to such refs given to you in another subthread.

I'm on it. I hope to have destroyed the therapsid-mammal transitional
sequence by within say 5 years. Judging by what Futuyma states on 85 of
_Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution_ (1983), 1st complete
paragraph, this shouldn't be hard, for it appears that geographic
variation wasn't taken into account. According to Kathleen H.'s
"Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ" updated Jan. 13, 1994, in the
section "Transition From Synapsid Reptiles to Mammals," we read "This is
the best-documented transition between vertebrate classes." It will be
a very bad day for the Darwinian religion when this "best-documented"
sequence falls, and fall it will.

[snip]
>:> YOU take it up with Gould! He'll agree with me on the "creationist=20
>:> myth" part, and he will not be amused by another creationist's abuse
>:> of his words, as evidenced by the quote I gave above.
>:=20
>: This quote appeared in May 1981 in _Discover_, pg. 37. Yet in
>: _Paleobiology_ 6:119-130, Gould wrote an article that was accepted
>: for publication on 15 Oct. 1979, and that contained on 128 the
>: phrase ".... many morphological trends in paleontology--a bugbear of
>: the profession because we have been unable to explain them in
>: ordinary adaptive terms...." Did a slew of new fossil discoveries
>: pour in between Oct. 1979 and May 1981 that confirmed the theory of
>: evolution and that led Gould to make remarks contradicting what he
>: said under 2 years before? No, of course not.
>
> Of course not. Two quotes ripped out of _different_ contexts may
> well _appear_ contradictory.

Those quotes claimed to be ripped out of context [you] and contradict
each other [me] being the bugbear quote and the __________ quote. If
you say they appear contradictory, that would have to be the bugbear and
the May 1981 _Discover_ quote, the second of which you presented from
_Hen's Teeth_. I don't know if you meant to do this, but you have
accused yourself of ripping a quote of Gould's out of context.=20
Congratulations, this may be a first in Usenet history. I tell you
what. If you show that you have not ripped Gould's "infuriating"
comments out of context, as you charge yourself with doing, then I'll
defend myself against your charge of ripping out of context Gould's
bugbear quote.

> Again you misrepresent Gould's arguments against extreme
> phyletic gradualism as arguments against evolution.

See the "Too-too-dooooo" insertion above.

>: In his May 1981 article, Gould lies for Darwin, rallying the troops
>: around the flag of that religious belief called the blind watchmaker
> ^^^^ by David Ford only

No, this was not originally my idea, but Phillip Johnson's. "Do you
admit or deny the 'fact of evolution'? Deny it and you seem to be
denying that island species vary from mainland ancestors, or that dog
breeders have produced St. Bernards and dachshunds from an ancestral
breed. Admit it and you are taken to have admitted, quite without
support in the evidence, that an ancestral bacterium changed by a vast
series of purposeless adaptive steps to produce today's whales, humans,
insects, and flowers. If 'evolution' is assumed to be a single process,
then to admit any aspect is to admit the entire story. This verbal
manipulation has power even over trained minds....

Experience with this continual use of vague terminology to cloud the
issues led me to introduce a more specific terminology that would help
readers and lecture audiences to grasp the really important point of
Darwinian evolution. Beginning with lectures in early 1992, I made a
point of avoiding the term 'evolution' and described the central
doctrine of Darwinism as the 'blind watchmaker thesis,' after the famous
book by Richard Dawkins."[Johnson, _Darwin on Trial_ (1993), 167-8.]

>: thesis in an attempt to do damage control and not let the "philistine
>: scourge" called scientific, i.e., young-earth, creationism use his
>: writings to defeat the blind watchmaker thesis. But alas, the horse had
>: gone, the writings had been published, and closing the barn door was
>: done too late.
>=20
> So, as usual, when Gould says something you can twist to your
> advantage, you quote him with glee.

For example, "All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains
precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
major groups are characteristically abrupt."[Gould, "Return of the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Hopeful Monster," _The
Panda's Thumb_ (1980), 189.]

> But when he tries to
> correct your misrepresentations, he "lies for Darwin".

For example, "Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
level, but are abundant between larger groups."[Gould, _Discover_ (May
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 1981), 37.]

> Is Mr Ford consistent?

Yes, for I consistently quote Gould with glee and then, when he tries to
do a 180 and lie for Darwin, point that out. At the end of a future
post, some more discussion of consistency. ;-)

> Ethical?

From=20this question, I get the impression that you consider it unethical
to point out when someone that knows better lies for his Darwinian
religion. Is this a correct impression?

>: I wonder what his attitude toward old-earth creationism
>: is.[Quote in G&E, _Nature_ 366:223 (1993)]
>=20
> Why don't you ask him? Afraid you might not like the answer?

"Afraid you might not like the answer?" I wouldn't be so sure. He says
many nice things about the old-earth creationist Cuvier in _Hen's Teeth
and Horse's Toes_ (1983), 94-106, in an essay I recommend all young-
earth creationists read. At one point, Gould even calls "Cuvier's
creationism" "good science in his time."

>: "But most of all I am saddened by a trend I am just beginning to discern
>: among my colleagues. I sense that some now wish to mute the healthy
>: debate about theory.... It provides grist for creationist mills,
>: they say, even if only by distortion. Perhaps we should lie low and
>: rally around the flag of strict Darwinism, at least for the moment--a
>: kind of old-time religion on our part."[Gould, _Discover_ (May 1981),
>: 37]
>=20
> Why don't you quote the next few paragraphs as well, where Gould argues=
=20
> forcefully _against_ letting a few idiots curtail scientific debate
> around evolution.

Er, there's only one more paragraph, and it's a summary paragraph. Just
how carefully did you read the essay?

>: As for the claim that the lack of transitional fossils "is a creationist
>: myth," consider the following. "(Contrary to popular myths, Darwin and
>: Lyell were not the heros of true science, defending objectivity against
>: the theological fantasies of such 'catastrophists' as Cuvier and
>: Buckland. Catastrophists were as committed to science as any
>: gradualist; in fact, they adopted the more 'objective' view that one
>: should believe what one sees and not interpolate missing bits of a
>: gradual record into a literal tale of rapid change.).... I only wish to
>: point out that it was never 'seen' in the rocks."[Gould, _The Panda's
>: Thumb_ (1980), 181. Article originally appeared in May 1977, in
>: _Natural History_.]
>=20
> So most of the evidence that Darwin invoked was not fossil.
> Big deal. Plenty of other evidence for evolution.

I think you mean "So most of the evidence that Darwin invoked was not
_found_. Big deal."

> And the catastrophists of the 18th and early 19th century=20
> were indeed scientists. That's why the majority of them
> abandoned catastrophism when new evidence and better theories
> turned up during the 19th century.

The moon is believed by astronomers to have been once a part of the
earth; a large object struck the early earth and dislodged what went on
to become the moon, somehow without destroying the earth in the
process.[_Astronomy_ (July 1996), 41.] In his _Fossils: The Evolution
and Extinction of Species_ (1991), Eldredge notes on 128 that "six major
global extinction events stand out over the past 570 million years."=20
David Norman reports on 230 of _Dinosaur!_ (1991) that John Sepkoski and
David Raup found a pattern of major and minor extinctions occurring in
roughly 26 million year intervals over the past 250 million years,
perhaps caused indirectly by a companion star dubbed Nemesis.

There is good evidence that the dinosaurs became extinct 65 mya as a
result of a comet or asteroid hitting the earth, and they may have died
in as few as 100 years because of the impact.[Essay in _Understanding
Catastrophe_, ed. by Bourriau (1992).] The extinction at the end of the
Permian Period saw the death of 90% of species and was apparently caused
by climate and sea level changes.[Peter Douglas Ward, _On Methuselah's
Trail: Living Fossils and the Great Extinctions_ (1992), 51-2.] In sum,
many catastrophes have visited the earth.

"And the catastrophists of the 18th and early 19th century were indeed
scientists. That's why the majority of them abandoned catastrophism
when new evidence and better theories turned up during the 19th
century." What for improved theories and evidence are being referred
to?

[snip]
> Yes. I've read a lot more. I'm not illiterate; when I want to learn=20
> about a field I _read_. One can learn a lot that way - you should try
> it some time.
>
> The books I have in my bookshelf I also have in a database;=20
> here's a listing of those that are classified under biology:
>
> Anders, Timothy The evolution of evil
> Ardrey, Robert African genesis
> Ardrey, Robert The territorial imperative
> Bakker, Robert T Dinosauriernas gata
> Barlow, Connie Evolution extended
> Browne, Janet Charles Darwin voyaging
> Cowen, Richard The History of Life
> Curtis, Helena Biology
> Dawkins, Richard Den blinde urmakaren
> Dawkins, Richard River out of Eden
> Dawkins, Richard Den sjalviska genen
> De Pomerai, David From gene to animal, 2nd ed
> Desmond, Adrian The ape's reflexion
> Diamond, Jared The rise and fall of the third chimpanzee
> Eldredge, Niles Life pulse
> Eldredge, Niles Reinventing Darwin
> Evans, Peter Ourselves and other animals
> Futuyma, Douglas J Evolutionary biology, 2nd ed.
> Goodall, Jane van Lawick I manniskans skugga
> Gould, Stephen Jay Bully for Brontosaurus
> Gould, Stephen Jay An urchin in the storm
> Gould, Stephen Jay Hen's teeth and horse's toes
> Gould, Stephen Jay Time's arrow and time's cycle
> Gould, Stephen Jay Ever since Darwin
> Gould, Stephen Jay Eight little piggies
> Gould, Stephen Jay The Flamingo's Smile
> Gould, Stephen Jay Pandans tumme
> Hvass, Hans All varldens faglar
> Johanson, Don&Edey, Maitland Lucy - the beginnings of humankind
> Johanson, Don&Shreeve, James Lucy's child
> Leakey, Richard&Lewin, Roger P=E5 spaning efter m=E4nniskans ursprung
> Lewin, Roger Bones of contention
> McNamara, Kenneth J Evolutionary trends
> Nitecki, Matthew H Evolutionary innovations
> Petersson B&Petersson G Vara djur och vaxter
> Provine, William B Sewall Wright and evolutionary biology
> Sagan, Carl&Druyan, Ann Shadows of forgotten ancestors
> Schwartz, Jeffrey H Den roda apan
> Shklovskii, I & Sagan, Carl Intelligent life in the universe
> Smith, John Maynard Did Darwin get it right?
> Somit, Albert Biology and politics
> Tattersall, Ian The Fossil Trail
> Trinkaus, Erik&Shipman, Pat The Neandertals
> Walker, Alan&Shipman, Pat The wisdom of bones
>=20
> I've also read dozens of biology books from libraries,
> but I don't have a listing of those. Among them
> are at least two more Goulds (Wonderful Life,
> and Mismeasure of Man), and one Dawkins,
> and the Liu I recommended.
>=20
> Your point?
>=20
>:> Right! My point is that here you can have both!
>:=20
>: ".... one of the best documented, most compelling and exciting
>: concepts in all of science...."[Gould, _Discover_ (May 1981), 34]
>=20
> Exactly!
>=20
>: This is most
>: risible. How something that can explain any state of affairs no
>: matter what it is can be an "exciting" scientific concept is beyond
>: me. How something that makes no predictions (except for the
>: prediction that transitional fossils would be found, and we all know
>: how _that_ turned out)
>=20
> Yes we do. Turned out quite nicely. How long will you keep
> repeating the myth that it didn't?

Never. "'The pattern that we were told to find for the last 120 years
does not exist,' declared Niles Eldridge [sic], a paleontologist from
the American Museum of Natural History in New York."[_New York Times_ (4
Nov. 1980), C3.]

>: can be termed "one of the best documented" scientific concepts is
>: preposterous. How something that relies on errors appearing in DNA to
>: give rise to new organs, new limbs, and new body plans can be called
>: "compelling" is-- I don't even have a word for what this is.
>=20
> Hint: there's a big difference between what you _think_ the theory says
> and what it actually does say.
>
>: You've read the quotes presented in support of my contention that "The
>: theory of evolution, as a _scientific_ theory, has been shown to be
>: incorrect in the face of... the fossil record."
>=20
> There's also a big difference between how you _think_ science works,
> and how it actually does. Quote-mining just doesn't cut it.
>=20
> Someone who _understands_ the theory will know the context,
> and won't be fooled.
>=20
>: How firm is your belief that "you can have both" exciting and
>: truth with the blind watchmaker thesis? Is it as strong as it
>: ever was? If so, can I hire you? I have a few mountains I'd
>: like moved.
>=20
> Are you telling me that you actually honestly believe that you have
> presented strong arguments against the theory of evolution???

How silly of me. You're right, I honestly believed that I'd presented
strong arguments against the blind watchmaker thesis, but alas, I was
terribly wrong. One can't present strong (or even weak) arguments
against dogma/ideology/something believed on faith. It's _impossible_.

>:> Unlike creationist mythology, which is both boring and false.

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Sverker Johansson on 05 Jun 1997:
david ford:
Sverker Johansson on 31 May 1997:

[snipped: what was replied to earlier]
[snip]
>:> This quote sounds pretty much like a precursor of punk eek, so
>:> Gould et al certainly aren't trying to falsify Darwin.
>:=20
>: It may "soun[d] pretty much like a precursor of punk eek," but it's not.=
=20
>: Darwin was a gradualist through and through and did not believe in
>: saltation:
>=20
> What does saltation have to do with punk eek? Another issue
> where Gould is frequently misrepresented...

-------begin reinserted text-------
"I see you are inclined to advocate the possibility of considerable
'saltus' on the part of Dame Nature in her variations. I always took
the same view, much to Mr. Darwin's disgust."[Huxley to William Bateson
on 20 Feb. 1894. Cited in G&E, "Punctuated equilibria: the tempo and
mode of evolution reconsidered," _Paleobiology_ 3:115.]

"You have loaded yourself with an unnecessary difficulty in adopting
_Natura non facit saltum_ so unreservedly."[Huxley to Darwin, 23 Nov.
1859. Cited in G&E, _Paleobiology_ 3:115, and that, together with the
previous quote, introduces the peer-reviewed article.]
--------end reinserted text--------

> [Darwin quotes deleted. We agree that 'Natura non facit saltum'.]
> [Biologists of today, including Gould, also agree.]

"I do, however, predict that during this decade [the 1980s] Goldschmidt
will be largely vindicated in the world of evolutionary biology."[Gould,
"Return of the Hopeful Monster," _The Panda's Thumb_ (1980), 186.]

"IN his autobiography, published posthumously in 1960, Richard
Goldschmidt wrote of the work here reprinted, 'I am confident that in 20
years my book, which is now ignored, will be given an honorable place in
the history of evolutionary thought' (1960, p. 324). We are within the
limits of statistical error on Goldschmidt's prediction.... This
reprint... commemorates the strong reawakening of interest in
Goldschmidt's views among evolutionary biologists."[Gould, introduction
to Goldschmidt's _The Material Basis of Evolution"_ (1982).]

>:> Many of Darwin's followers, however, emphasized the "extremely slow"
>:> part, and over-extended it into slowness also in geological terms,
>:> and forgot the part about variable speed.
>:
>: What morons to forget the variable speed knob.
>
> [deleted]

-------begin reinserted text-------
Didn't they know what the fossil record looked like? Didn't they read
their Darwin? "Those who believe that the geological record is in any
degree perfect, will undoubtedly at once reject the theory."[Darwin, "On
the Imperfection of the Geological Record" chapter, section "On the
Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the Lowest Known
Fossiliferous Strata," _The Origin of Species_, 6th ed. (1872).]
--------end reinserted text--------

If you aren't going to reply to this, I will. I should have instead
said "Didn't they know what the fossil record looked like? Didn't they
read their _Huxley_?" "Eldredge's detailed studies of trilobites
brought home to him a pattern that had impressed Thomas Henry Huxley:
The fossil record seems to show 'burts' of speciation, then long periods
of stability."[Richard Milner, _The Encyclopedia of Evolution_ (1990),
198. Foreword by Gould.]

> I wouldn't put it that way, but yes, it was an error, a=20
> misunderstanding of the theory.

Where in the theory of evolution does it say that evolution has to
proceed at a certain rate, whether fast, slow, or a mixture of the two
speeds? IMNHO, nowhere. Therefore, one can't claim that Darwin's
saying that evolution proceeded slowly was "a misunderstanding of the
theory."

> People make mistakes, you know, and sometimes
> the mistakes get corrected.

In making his prediction that the transitionals would eventually be
found, Darwin was making a risky prediction since the fossil evidence
wasn't there. Are you saying that Darwin's going out on a limb in
making that risky prediction was a mistake?

> Sometimes it even happens _without_ any conspiracies
> or coverups or malicious intentions.
>=20
> Do you have a problem with that?

No, but I do have a problem with preventing a purportedly scientific
theory from being falsified in the face of adverse evidence by appealing
to ad hoc hypotheses: ".... If creationism had to rise again, it is well
that we have punctuationalism to counter some of its arguments. Many of
the complaints that creationists have leveled at gradualistic evolution
(complaints that this model of change does not square with the facts of
the fossil record) now appear baseless. With the acceptance of the
punctuational scheme, the sudden appearance in the fossil record of many
distinctive groups of animals and plants need trouble evolutionists no
longer."[Steven M. Stanley, _The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils,
Genes, and the Origin of Species_ (1981), 165.]

>:> This led to extreme phyletic
>:> gradualism, a version of evolutionary theory in which all species
>:> should change slowly and smoothly through geological time. _This_
>:> is what Gould et al are trying to falsify (with a fair amount of
>:> success).
>:=20
>: "Falsify (with a fair amount of success)." Very funny. Try "with
>: devastating success." Have you read the G&E's _Paleobiology_
>: 3:115-150 article? It's rigorous, and _devastating_.
>=20
> Whatever. Not quite as clear-cut if you listen to all sides of the=20
> debate, though.

If I was an evolutionist, I'd also prefer that the validity of punk-eek
vs. gradualism were not clear-cut. When the fossil evidence is said to
not exist, I can have my cake and eat it too by simultaneously saying
that a) the reason the transitionals are not there is because the
evolution occurred so quickly and in such small areas, and b) the
transitionals are there, just look at these gradualistic sequences.

>:> The groundwork for punk eek was laid in population genetics, about
>:> fifty years ago, when the theory of evolution was placed on a firm
>:> mathematical footing.
>:=20
>: You _are_ going to present the journal article references for the
>: calculations for how long it takes to evolve new body plans, right?
>=20
> See a few pages above.
>=20
>:> It took a couple of decades, however, for these insights to spread
>:> into paleontology. Many of your quotes from paleontologists refer
>:> to the time when paleontologists expected to find phyletic
>:> gradualism in the fossil record. Which they usually didn't find.
>:
>: And now that they look for punctuated equilibrium, they're finding it
>: all over the place. A success for old-earth creationism, wouldn't
>: you say?
>
> No, I wouldn't.
> [deleted]
>
>:> From the population genetics results, it is obvious that one should
>:> expect a pattern of fossils that looks a lot like punk eek.
>:=20
>: Journal references saying how, using population genetics, one can get
>: new body plans so quickly that the transitionals are not recorded in
>: the fossil record.
>=20
> That is not what punk eek says. Re-quoting Gould: (reference above)
> "Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species
> level, but they are abundant between larger groups."

Here made is the unwarranted assumption that simply because Gould said
it, it's a description of punk-eek.

[snip]
> [spurious comment deleted]

-------begin inserted text-------
Care to give a percentage of the number of fossils that will be found to
be "fossils in transition"? 5%? 10%? 23.9865301%?
--------end inserted text--------

spurious-false. The comment was a non-rhetorical question, and thus it
cannot be false. Now, are you going to answer the question? Or are you
going to delete it and this paragraph, and move on to something
seemingly easier to tackle?

>:> Much research has been done since
>:> punk eek was proposed in order to test this prediction, and
>:> the result is that it has stood up pretty well.
>:=20
>: Prediction: you will not find the transitionals previously thought
>: required by the blind watchmaker thesis. =20
>=20
> Read what I wrote above. This is NOT an honest complete paraphrase.

What you wrote above: ".... So punk eek predicts that the majority of
fossils should show this punctuated pattern, but that in a minority of
cases we _would_ find fossils in transition." My reply: "Care to give a
percentage of the number of fossils that will be found to be 'fossils in
transition'? 5%? 10%? 23.9865301%?" Your reply to my reply:
"[spurious comment deleted]."

>: Observation: the transitionals are not found. I am not surprised.
>
> This is false, which has been pointed out to you SO many times,
> by me and others, that I have a hard time believing that you're
> making this claim in good faith.
> =20
> For the umpteenth time: a whole bunch of transitionals HAVE been
> found.

Enough to stand up in a court of law as being good evidence for the
"fact" that new body plans, organs, and limbs developed through
naturalistic processes in the unobserved past, as is claimed in that
grand view of life, the theory of evolution?

> The punk eek prediction that "in a minority of cases we _would_
> find fossils in transition" has been borne out by subsequent
> careful studies.

So Gould and Eldredge were wrong in saying the following?
-------begin inserted text-------
"Dr. Eldridge,[sic] along with Stephen Jay Gould... reiterated the
hypothesis that new species arise not from gradual changes but in sudden
bursts of evolution. As they see it, species remain largely stable for
long periods and then suddenly change dramatically. The transition
happens so fast, they suggest, that the chance of intermediate forms
being fossilized and found is nil."[_New York Times_ (4 Nov. 1980), C3.]
--------end inserted text--------

> When the fossil record is sufficiently fine-grained,
> species-level transitions ARE observed.

So Gould and Eldredge were wrong in saying the following?
-------begin inserted text-------
"But stasis will not go away; and the punctuations that mark the fossil
record do not smooth out as stratigraphic resolution improves."[Gould
and Eldredge, _Paleobiology_ 3:118 (1977).]
--------end inserted text--------

> One example, since you're so hot on references:
> Krishtalka, L., and Stucky, R.K. 1985. Revision of the Wind River
> Faunas. Early Eocene of Central Wyoming. Part 7.
> Revision of Diacodexis (Mammalia, Artiodactyla). Am. Carnegie Mus.
> 54:413-486.

In this reference, the evolution is said to have occurred from what to
what structurally different body plans? (I'd like to know before going
off on a wild goose chase only to find that the article described
microevolutionary, i.e., horizontal, changes.)

> There are plenty more in the transitional faq, but they are just as
> accessible for you as for me, so why should I waste bandwidth with
> them here?

The same person that wrote the transitional FAQ also wrote the horse
evolution FAQ. One gets the misleading impression from the horse FAQ
that we have evidence of evolution on our hands. It's the same case
with the more general transitional FAQ-- one's being fed the misleading
impression that there is actually evidence for the theory of evolution
in the fossil record.

>:> Not true. Extreme phyletic gradualism predicted a certain pattern
>:> in the fossil record. That pattern wasn't found. So extreme=20
>:> phyletic gradualism was falsified.
>:=20
>: Agreed.
>:=20
>:> Instead, punk eek was proposed,
>:> based on a re-analysis and a more thorough understanding of
>:> evolution.
>:=20
>: No: punk eek was proposed based on an acknowledgement of what the fossil
>: record _didn't_ contain. ".... To preserve our [paleontologists']
>: favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so
>: bad that we never see the very process we profess to study." That
>: process, is of course, the appearance of new limbs and body plans
>: through naturalistic processes. Using punk eek, Gould states, "thus,
>: the fossil record is a faithful rendering of what evolutionary theory
>: predicts, not a pitiful vestige of a once bountiful tale."[Gould,
>: "Evolution's Erratic Pace," _Natural History_ (May 1977), 14, 16.]
> =20
> You're making my point for me. Thanks. He says "the fossil record is=20
> a faithful rendering of what evolutionary theory predicts", right!
> This refers to predictions made from the re-analysis I mentioned.
> What's your problem?

The problem is that this is not allowable as being a scientific
prediction. For a prediction to be scientific, it must predict
phenomena other than what it was originally introduced to describe. The
more novel, the more startling the predictions, the better. With punk-
eek, there's no novel prediction involved, since punk-eek is not going
beyond the available evidence: the fossil record evidence says that
organisms appear abruptly, and then there is stasis. Punk-eek says that
organisms appear abruptly, and then there is stasis.

>:> Punk eek made different predictions about fossils. Those
>:> predictions have, by and large, been upheld.
>:=20
>: Hooray for old-earth creationism.
>=20
> (Should I play David?)

Imitation _is_ said to be the sincerest form of flattery.

> Journal references to predictions that OEC will look like
> punk eek, _including_ species-level transitions, please.

I have no journal references that even mention OEC. This quote from a
book I found interesting, however. "There is no doubt that the new
punctuational movement will bring joy to the hearts of creationists--
those who claim species to be discrete entities that a divine being
brought separately to life and placed upon the earth. The fossil
record, in offering the punctuational message that distinctive forms
somehow appear suddenly and, once established, change slowly, would
appear to be playing into the creationists' hands."[Steven M. Stanley,
_The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of
Species_ (1981), 165.]

>:> But they _could_ have failed; punk eek
>:> _could_ have been falsified.
>:>
>:> If we actually had found _no_ transitional fossils, at _no_
>:> resolution, at _no_ taxonomic level, then we would have to
>:> reconsider evolution as a whole. In that case, evolution _per_se_
>:> could be falsified.
>:=20
>: Not at all. Just say that we haven't looked hard enough. That ought
>: to
>
> [malicious portrayal deleted]

-------begin inserted text-------
That ought to hold things down and thwart falsification for another 100+
years. When that doesn't work, say that the fossil record is imperfect:
out of the whole book, we only have a few chapters, and of those few
chapters, only a few lines, and of those few lines, only a few letters,
etc. That ought to hold people for-- let's see, 1859 to 1972-- we'll
say 110+ years.

Then, when individuals start wondering about this latest excuse, just
say that the evolution consistently occurred super-fast in quantum
jumps, and that the transitionals never existed-- that's why the
transitionals are not found: because they never existed. And people are
so gullible, they'll believe that for, we'll say another 100+ years, but
that's probably too conservative an estimate. So all in all, you've
just added an extra 310+ years to the lifetime of the blind watchmaker
thesis. Use your imagination, and remember: the more and the better
excuses you can come up with, the longer your theory will remain
unfalsified in light of the fossil record. Ahhhh..... The pride one
gets being in the Evolutionary Excuse Corps (EEC). Here's to you, Mr.
Darwin.
--------end inserted text--------

malice-desire to cause pain, injury, or distress to another; intent to
commit an unlawful act or cause harm without legal justification or
excuse [Merriam Webster's 10th.] Exactly how are my above comments
malicious?

> I'm getting fed up with your attitude. I've given you numerous
> examples of how evolution could have been falsified, but you just
> ignore them and prattle on about some imagined evolutionist
> conspiracy.

"Punctuated equilibria began showing up in creationist tracts as
evidence that some scientists openly doubt evolution.... Naturally we
jumped into the fray, as did many of our opposite numbers at the High
Table. Closing ranks to face a common enemy is a natural
reaction."[Eldredge,_Reinventing Darwin: The Great Debate at the High
Table of Evolutionary Theory_ (1995), 104.]

>: "If we actually had found _no_ transitional fossils, at _no_ resolution,
>: at _no_ taxonomic level." What transitionals, and at what "taxonomic
>: levels," have been found?
>=20
> Here we go again... =20
> This is what I wrote last time:
>
> But, as you've been told a number of times, quite a few transitional
> fossils _do_ exist! I've given you enough pointers to the literature,
> and I've seen others post about them as well. If you won't take the
> trouble to read about them, well that's _your_ problem.
>
> This is getting tiresome...
>
>:> Just curious: you seem to have an odd, simplistic view about how
>:> science works in reality. How much science have you _done_?
>:=20
>: I've done no science.
>=20
> Why am I not surprised? (FYI, I have. If you want journal refs, see
> http://www.hj.se/~josv/pub.htm)
>
>: I got this from the sci.skeptic FAQ, and think
>: it's right on target: the scientific method involves the following
>: steps. 1) look at the universe or some part therein; 2) invent a theory
>: consistent with what's observed; 3) use the theory to make predictions;
>: 4) test the predictions using observations or experimentation; 5) change
>: the theory in light of what was seen; 6) go to step 3, and repeat the
>: process. =20
>=20
> You've done no science, but you believe you know better than scientists
> how it is done. How humble!
>
> The above is an idealized simplified version, written for people
> who have _no_ clue what science is. You now have _one_ clue,
> and think you know it all...

Please present your non-idealized, more sophisticated version of the
scientific method so that they may be compared.

> [deleted]

-------begin inserted text-------
The theory of evolution has precious little in the way of predictions
(except for the prediction that transitionals would be found), and does
not meet the standards of the scientific method. How is my view of
science odd?
--------end inserted text--------

Are you going to back up your assertion that my view of science is odd,
other than merely saying that my presentation of the scientific method,
which was taken from the sci.skeptic FAQ, is "an idealized simplified
version, written for people who have _no_ clue what science is"?

>:> How much have read _about_ how science works?
> =20
> [non-answer deleted, containing the usual falsehoods about
> evolution being unscientific]

-------begin inserted text-------
I know a little about Einstein's general theory of relativity and the
big bang theory. These things are science, making definite predictions
that can be checked by observation, and it is having those risky
predictions that make them falsifiable. Unlike the theory of evolution,
I might add, which has no predictions (except for the prediction that
transitionals would be found) and which as a consequence is
unfalsifiable. The big bang model and relativity _describe_ the
universe, unlike the theory of evolution, which merely _explains_
observations. I'd say I know enough about real science to spot
pseudoscience when it shows up, and the blind watchmaker thesis is
pseudoscience posing as science.
--------end inserted text--------

This is not a non-answer. If you handle a lot of paper money, when a
counterfeit bill comes along, you spot it immediately, because you know
what the real thing looks and feels like. Likewise, if know something
about the big bang theory and the theory of relativity, and then come
across the supposedly-scientific theory of evolution, you can spot the
theory of evolution for what it is: pseudoscience, with a capital "P."

>: No, I have not read any books by Popper.
>=20
> Why am I not surprised?
>
>: I'm sure his idea of
>: falsification is a lot more complex than I realize. He is, after
>: all, a professional philosopher. Am I missing anything important by
>: not reading his works?
>=20
> Yes. Go read him! Go find out how science is done, while you're
> at it.

So by reading a philosopher, I'll find out how science is done. I may
just be displaying my profound ignorance again, but wouldn't it be
better to read a scientist to find out how science is done?

>: Infuriating bullshit, at that. How dare someone question the basis
>: for my Darwinian religion and fraudulently claim that the predicted
>: transitionals have not been found!
>=20
> So you finally admit that your claim IS fraudulent! :-)
>
>: Evolution is TRUE, it's as true as
>: the fact that peas are green and toads look ugly. The fossil
>: evidence for the FACT of evolution is abundant and well-documented,
>: and the theory of evolution's predictions have been confirmed time
>: and time and time and time again. For example, the prediction that
>: evolution occurred quickly at various times has been well-confirmed
>: by study of the fossil record,=20
>=20
> So far, close enough...
>=20
>: which shows that things do indeed appear suddenly and fully-formed.
>=20
> ... but this is, as you admit, fraudulent.
>=20
>: The paramount principle of evolution and its prolific, productive
>: predictions permeate the princely pages of the principle peer-reviewed
>: science publications of our prodigious period, to use periphrastic
>: phraseology. The only reason that it hasn't been falsified is that
>: there is, and indeed can, be no evidence against it, for it is FACT. It
>: will never be falsified. The fact that it has not yet been falsified is
>: profound and persuasive evidence of this most veritable of verities.=20
>: Anybody that says otherwise knows not about that of which they are
>: perorating, and if they do know, are pernicious prevaricating personages
>: of the most pusillanimous persuasion.
>=20
> Precisely! :-)

"The only reason that it hasn't been falsified is that there is, and
indeed can, be no evidence against it, for it is FACT." This translates
into "unfalsifiable," or more precisely, "untestable." Just how
carefully did you read this before writing "Precisely! :-)"?

> [deleted]

-------begin inserted text-------
This thread hasn't attracted too many individuals from the Evolutionary
Excuse Corps (EEC), and I hope you will continue to discuss these
matters with me. Here's a quote from the now-defunct "Blind Watchmaker"
thread, to which the person it was directed has not yet responded. =20
--------end inserted text--------

Don't get me wrong. When I say "I hope you will continue to discuss
these matters with me," I really mean it.

>: Perhaps you'll bother to reply to it. Then again, perhaps not.
>:=20
>: "As a public illustration, and as a sociopolitical victory, transitional
>: whales may be the story of the decade, but paleontologists didn't doubt
>: their existence or feel that a central theory would collapse if their
>: absence continued."[Gould, "Hooking Leviathan by Its Past," _Natural
>: History_ (May 1994), 14.] =20
>
> Plenty of other evidence to go around, so why _should_ the absence
> of one minor clue bother us?
>
> Let's turn it around:
>=20
> On anatomical grounds, it is clear that whales are mammals.
> One obvious prediction from evolutionary theory (so obvious
> that I doubt if anybody has even bothered to publish it
> as a prediction (an example of how science is more subtle=20
> and complex than you think)) is that IF a whale transition
> is found, it'll be a transition from other _mammals_.

Fact about the world: whales are mammals; using this fact as a
background assumption, the t. of ev. predicts that whales evolved from
other mammals. Yet, this prediction does not follow from the t. of ev.,
because it could be that we have an instance of "convergent evolution"
on our hands, with mammals evolving on land and separately evolving in
the waters. It's no wonder that this "obvious" prediction was not
published in a peer-reviewed article.

> Finding (say) a fish-whale or trilobite-whale transitional=20
> sequence instead, would falsify evolution.

Let me get this straight. Finding a detailed sequence showing that a
fish (or trilobite) population gradually became a whale population would
falsify the theory of evolution. <:-) Hmmmmmmmmmmmm...................

> So once more, evolution is clearly falsifiable, and
> thus clearly scientific.

So once more, the theory of evolution is untestable, and thus clearly
pseudoscientific.

>: You are going to believe in the blind
>: watchmaker thesis no matter what the evidence of the fossil
>: record looks like. Just admit it.
>=20
> No. I've given examples of what would cause me to abandon
> evolution. There is more evidence for this:
>=20
> You are going to DISbelieve in the blind
> watchmaker thesis no matter what the evidence of the fossil
> record looks like. Just admit it.

This is the end of this collection of posts.

[david ford]

"It's true... that for the last eighteen months or so I've been kicking
around non-evolutionary or even anti-evolutionary ideas.... One of the
reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, or let's call it a
non-evolutionary view, was that last year I had a sudden realization.
For over twenty years I had thought I was working on evolution in some
way. One morning I woke up... and it struck me that I had been working
on this stuff for more than twenty years, and there was not one thing I
knew about it. It's quite a shock to learn that one can be misled for
so long.... Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about
evolution? Any one thing, any one thing that is true?"[Colin Patterson,
quoted in _Harper's_ (Feb 1985), 50.]

Can you tell me one thing that you know is true about evolution?

[david ford]

Genesis 6:14 has God telling Noah to coat the ark with pitch. Where did
this pitch come from, since flood geology says that petroleum was formed
as a _result_ of the flood, which had not yet occurred? Flood geology: an
idea whose time not only has gone, but whose time never came. [Idea from
Alan Hayward's excellent _Creation and Evolution: Rethinking the Evidence
From Science and the Bible_ (1985), 185. Most recently published in 1995.]

[david ford]

This series of posts was in reply to what Michael G. has said.

Michael Grice <gibgric (at) .mailbag.com> on 13 May 1997 in "Re: Blind

Watchmaker Thesis is Unfalsifiable":
david ford:

>: -----begin inserted text-----
>
> [Snip. Are you inserting your own text? I don't have any context
> to judge from.]

Yes, my own text was inserted.

>: Q: If we were to find mammals in the Burgess Shale, would the theory of

>: evolution be falsified?
>: A: No, because the theory does not say when mammals will be found in the
>: fossil record. If we were to examine solely the theory (no peeking at
>: the fossil record is allowed), we could not predict when mammals will
>: appear in the fossil record. Thus, since we cannot on the basis of the
>: theory predict when they will be found, we cannot consider the finding
>: of a mammal in the Burgess Shale as falsifying/showing incorrect the
>: theory.
>

> [Bigger snip]
>
> Looking only at your beloved Big Bang, we could not predict the
> location of any galaxy.

Truth is precious, so yes, I suppose the big bang model is beloved.
By the tone of your comment, it does not appear to be very beloved
to you. What for evidence can I present that would persuade you of
the big bang's truthfulness?

> Yet we could falsify it by examining their
> positions--by showing that a large portion of galaxies are moving
> towards each other or are not moving at all relative to each other.

So you are saying that the big bang model does not predict the
location of any particular galaxy, but is does say what will be the
motion of all galaxies, in general. Hmmmm.

(In general, galaxies are going farther apart from each other in the
expanding universe as part of the aftermath of the big bang.
Clusters of galaxies may be traveling toward each other, however, as
a result of their gravitational pull for each other, but the general
motion of galaxies in the universe is away from each other. I know
you know this, Michael G.-- just stating it for the record.)

Now, to draw the parallel to this for the blind watchmaker's thesis.
The theory of evolution does not say when individual mammals, e.g.,
cows or sheep or deer, will appear in the fossil record, but it does
say when mammals generally will appear in the fossil record. Have I
stated your argument correctly? If I am right in this
reconstruction of your argument, I'm going to have to ask for
journal references about where the blind watchmaker's thesis
predicts that mammals, etc., generally will appear in the fossil
record.

> Looking only at existing theories of radioactivity, we could not
> predict when any individual atom will decay. Yet we could falsify
> them by demonstrating that groups of atoms do not decay in the
> pattern predicted.

So, we can't tell, i.e., predict, when a particular atom will decay,
but we can predict that a certain percentage of atoms will decay in
a specified amount of time. Likewise, with the theory of evolution,
we can't predict when a particular organism will appear, but we can
tell when a certain number of that type of organism will appear.
So, for example, we can't predict when one human will appear in the
fossil record, but we can predict when a group of humans will
appear.

Is this an accurate reconstruction of your remarks, and if so, could
you please give references in support of the claim that the blind
watchmaker's thesis predicts when groups of humans, or groups of
aquatic creatures, etc. will appear, just as "existing theories of
radioactivity" predict "that groups of atoms" will decay in a
certain pattern?

> Evolution can't make predictions about when a particular organism
> or group of organisms will emerge. But it does make predictions
> about the overall pattern of emergence of organisms.

"It does make predictions about the overall pattern of emergence
of organisms." Journal references, and a fuller description of just
what those predictions are, please.

> If you can show that
> this pattern does not exist, you can falsify evolution.

I didn't see an answer to the question about Goldschmidtism, so to
ask it again, what is your position on Goldschmidtism/ saltation?
Also, you have stated that finding human bones in Cambrian strata
would falsify the theory of evolution. Would finding chordates in
Cambrian strata falsify the theory of evolution? Justify your
answer.

===================================================================
Michael Grice on 15 May 1997 in "Re: evolution?(please read)":

[snip]
> No, I don't think saltation is a viable mode of evolution (except
> arguably in plants).

What is the argument for saltation in plants? Have any journal
references to go along with a presentation of the argument?

> As for the "fully formed" appearance of organisms in the fossil
> record, I have two points. The first is that we don't have a complete
> fossil record, so we're only getting occasional snapshots of what
> actually happened. According to the vertebrate transitional FAQ, for
> example, there are no known tetrapod fossils from the Aalenian (the
> mid-Jurassic), and in many other locations and eras it's estimated
> that the fossil record is about 75% complete for vertebrates at the
> family level. (And if there is any geographic component to evolution,
> that makes finding transitionals that more difficult). If the fossil
> record were incomplete, we'd expect to find new species all the time.
> Well, guess what; we are finding new species all the time--most of
> those whale fossils were found in the last ten or fifteen years, for
> example.

Evolutionists have had over 100 years to find the predicted
transitionals, and they weren't found. Do you really expect me to
believe that the fossil evidence is just now coming in, with the example
of whale skeletons being discovered in the last 15 years, one whale of
which is said to have vestigial limbs, but if you read the _Science_
article, it becomes quite clear that the limbs had a definite function,
and in no way were they smaller versions of land-walking legs?

> The second is that, especially later in the earth's history, those
> gaps just aren't that big. Modern whales didn't just pop up without
> any precursors; there were other, very similar whales before them,
> some of which had legs. The first mammals didn't pop up without any
> precursors; they're very similar to therapsids. When I look at the
> therapsid-mammal fossils, I can only conclude evolution, or that God
> creates by modification in small jumps.

Journal references, please, for the purported therapsid-mammal
transition. I can't wait to rip apart this supposed evidence for the
blind watchmaker thesis. Journal references. That's all I ask for--
you don't even have to present and defend the sequence yourself.

===================================================================
Michael Grice on 2 Sep 1996 in "Re: Creation VS Evolution Survey Now
Complete":
david ford:

[snip]
> >Genetics says that things reproduce after their kinds. In revealing
> >a lack of transitional fossils, and in showing organisms that have
> >survived in the basic form for millions upon millions of years, the
> >fossil record bears genetics out.
>
> Genetics also says that organisms pass on changes in their genes to
> their offspring.
>
> David Raup estimates (somewhere in _Extinction: Bad Genes or Bad
> Luck_) that we've found about 250,000 species of extinct organisms.
> He also estimates that "somewhere between five and fifty _billion_
> species have existed at one time or another."

The exact quotation is "Estimates of the total progeny of evolution
range from 5 to 50 billion species."-"Extinction: bad genes or good
luck?". Of course, that's how it goes in the _New Scientist_ 14 Sept.
1991, 46, and Raup may very well have made this general comment slightly
rephrased in another article of his by the same title.

> These aren't unreasonable numbers; we know that most species
> only last a few million years.
>
> I'll let you do the math: would you expect to find countless
> transitional fossils if you've found 0.005% of all species that once
> lived?

"But stasis will not go away; and the punctuations that mark the fossil
record do not smooth out as stratigraphic resolution improves."[Gould
and Eldredge, _Paleobiology_ 3:118 (1977).]

> Of course, you do a number on well-established transitional fossil
> series, such as the whale and the horse series (and we have more
> transitional fossil series of the far less sexy marine invertebrates
> than we do of the vertebrates).

Journal references for the "transitional fossil series of the far less
sexy marine invertebrates," please. I'd like to do a number on them as
well.

[snip intro to Michael G.'s question "Why did crocodiles and alligators
survive the Cretaceous event?"]

> >It probably has to do with their reproductive patterns. See _The
> >Encyclopedia of Evolution_ (1990), 101-2. Same deal for nautiloids.
>
> That's an untestable hypothesis, David: we don't know how dinosaurs
> reproduced. The gender of dinosaurs might have been determined by
> some external factor, like it is in crocodiles and reptiles.

Yes, it is "an untestable hypothesis." But in the great tradition of
evolutionary just-so stories, let's do some speculating. Your question:
"Why did crocodiles and alligators survive the Cretaceous event?" My
answer: "It probably has to do with their reproductive patterns."
Supporting evidence: "Because recently evolved (postdinosaur) reptiles
like snakes have genetically determined sexes, while the more ancient
lineages--crocodilians and turtles--do not, some scientists believe
environmentally determined sex is the older system. Therefore, they
speculate most reptiles on Earth during the Mesozoic period, including
dinosaurs, had environmentally determined sexes."

"If that were true, changes in climate could have produced a
preponderance of one or the other sex, causing genetic bottlenecks and
sharp curtailment of breeding. Dinosaurs may have become extinct, then,
because their eggs produced too many individuals of one sex. How would
turtles and crocodilians have escaped the same fate? Perhaps by making
compensations in their nesting behavior to adjust the incubation
temperature....

creating vegetation heaps of just the right temperature to go on
producing enough individuals of both sexes.... In fact, recent
studies... shows that sex ratios _are_ determined by distribution of
eggs in a single nest.... observations... support the hypothesis that
adult alligators do regulate the temperature at which they incubate
eggs...."[_The Encyclopedia of Evolution humanity's search for its
origins_ (1990), foreword by Gould, 101.]

> It still isn't that easy. The ammonoids were hit hard three times
> between their first appearance in the Devonian and their last
> appearance at the end of the Cretaceous, and they recovered and
> diversified afterwards each time. Raup points out that the mammals
> were also hit hard in the Cretaceous event. These things just aren't
> as clear-cut as you want to believe.
[big snip]

===================================================================
Michael Grice on 2 Sep 1996 in "Re: Creation VS Evolution
Survey Now Complete":

[snip]
> Your case boils down to the following argument:
>
> P1. There are only two possible ways to explain the variety of
> species around us and the history of the earth: my version of
> old-earth creationism and evolution.
> P2. Evolution is flawed.
> C. Therefore, my version of old-earth creationism is correct.
>
> Sadly, your first premise is incorrect. Extraterrestrials could have
> done it (I know, you don't believe in them either, but you certainly
> haven't proven that they don't exist). God could have used evolution
> as his method of creation (He clearly uses microevolution).
[snip]

So you're saying that premise one is false because it does not cover
all the possibilities, and P1 should contain the following: either
1) old-earth creationism, or
2) the blind watchmaker's thesis, or
3) extraterrestrials, or
4) God used evolution to create.

Question for you: how did the extraterrestrials come into
existence? (This is not a rhetorical question.)

Another question: is 4), "God used evolution to create," correctly
rephrased as "God directed evolution"? I ask because if it is,
then this is the same as saying "God created these lifeforms."
God _directing_ evolution is equivalent to creationism.

===================================================================
Michael Grice on 10 May 1997 in "Re: What? You want proof? How dare
you!":
david ford:

> >So you say the theory of evolution predicts what should be near human
> >bones. Hmmmm. I was unaware of the fact that the theory even mentioned
> >bones, let alone human bones (perhaps you could give a source for this
> >information), but let's suppose that it does predict "what should be near
> >[human bones]."
>
> Technically, you're right--evolution makes no predictions about the
> preservation of bones.
>
> However, it does predict that, for every species that has ever
> existed, you should find similar species living just before it.

"Even more notable are the features these organisms lack. They seem to
have no heads or tails, insides or outsides, fronts or backs. They have
no obvious circulatory, nervous, or digestive systems. Sans teeth, sans
eyes, sans almost everything, including bones, muscles, mouths, and
internal organs, the Ediacarans are nearly impossible to classify.
Paleontologists cannot even agree on whether they are animal or
vegetable, single-celled or multicellular."-"When Life Was Odd,"
_Discover_ March 1997, 54.

"However, it does predict that, for every species that has ever existed,
you should find similar species living just before it." Please, then,
tell what "similar species living just before" the Cambrian explosion's
species the blind watchmaker thesis predicts that we will find. It
doesn't predict that we'd find the above, now does it? But is it
falsified because it did not correctly predict that we'd find what's
described above?

Of course not. The theory of evolution never predicted that we'd find
the above, nor did it predict that we'd "find similar species living
just before" the Cambrian's organisms (if you object, journal
references, please), and because it did not predict finding the above,
when we did find the Ediacarans, the theory was not falsified. No
testable, definite, risky predictions using the theory=unfalsifiability.
The blind watchmaker thesis is unfalsifiable.

[The following is interesting in light of an earlier conversation of
ours. On page 56 of the _Discover_ article, it reports that in 1994, "a
stunning section of Ediacaran fossils running smack up against a
formation from the early Cambrian" was found in Namibia's deserts.]

> You'll note that there are *no* species remotely similar to humans
> living in or before the Cambrian.

[snip]
> >By the way, what are the similar species in nearby strata for the Cambrian
> >strata? It was my understanding that the pre-Cambrian organisms are on
> >the point of being freakish, otherworldly, weird and totally unlike
> >anything else.
>
> Keith Littleton currently has a post on possible ancestors of
> trilobites in the Ediacaran fauna. I haven't looked up the references
> given, but check out message ID:
>
> <Pine.BSI.3.91.970509...@able.comm.net>

This thing looks scary. How about presenting the post here?

> Can you show me other examples of apparent discontinuities?

One is not enough?

> The
> problem with the Cambrian explosion example is that we have good
> reason to suspect that this is a result of sampling error rather than
> a "creation event." There are fewer 500-billion-year-old rocks than
> there are more recent rocks, and if the ancestors of the Cambrian
> fauna were soft (as seems likely) they were less likely to be
> preserved than hard-bodied fossils from more recent eras.
>
> We're only getting isolated snapshots from the Cambrian and before.
> Although this shouldn't matter; if evolution is wrong, you should be
> able to prove it based eras when the fossil evidence is more complete.

I can't "prove [that the blind watchmaker thesis is wrong] based [on]
eras when the fossil evidence is more complete," since the theory of
evolution is unfalsifiable. "As a public illustration, and as a

sociopolitical victory, transitional whales may be the story of the
decade, but paleontologists didn't doubt their existence or feel that a
central theory would collapse if their absence continued."[Gould,

"Hooking Leviathan by Its Past," _Natural History_ May 1994, 14.] You

are going to believe in the blind watchmaker thesis no matter what the

"fossil evidence" looks like. Just admit it.

[snip] [snip insert, which was replied to in a separate post] [snip]

This ends this collection.

[david ford]

This collection of 3 posts is a conversation between John Wilkins and I,
mostly about whether or not the theory of evolution is falsifiable.

John Wilkins <wil...@wehi.EDU.AU> on 12 May 1997 in "Re: Blind

Watchmaker Thesis is Unfalsifiable":
david ford:

Michael Grice <gibgric (at) .mailbag.com> on 10 May 1997:

>:> Begin excerpt:
>:>
>:> Off the top of my head, let me give you a list of data that would
>:> overthrow evolution:
>:>
>:> 1. Disorder in the fossil record.
>:
>: How would this disprove the theory of evolution? Where in the theory of
>: evolution does it say "when one looks at the fossil record, no disorder
>: will be found"? What do you mean by disorder, anyway? Would pine trees
>: in Cambrian strata be a case of a disordered strata? If pine trees were
>: found then, all that would mean would be that trees evolved earlier than
>: we earlier thought, and Dame Nature is more wondrous, more magnificent,
>: then we could have ever imagined. And the theory of evolution would
>: remain, as always, unfalsified.
>
> It depends on the level of disorder. No science is impervious to new,
> unexpected, results, but finding angiosperms, for example, in the early
> Cambrian, would be a major challenge to current theory.

How so? Where in the blind watchmaker's thesis does it say that
"finding angiosperms... in the early Cambrian" will never be done?
Journal reference, please, for the claim that the theory of
evolution predicts that angiosperms will not be found in the
Cambrian.

> Would it force
> abandonment of evolution? Hard to say in the abstract.

Not hard to say at all. The idea that the variety of extent and
extinct flora and fauna came into existence through non-intelligence
directed processes would remain as vigorous as ever. Unfalsifiable.

> I tend to think it
> would precipitate a major crisis, but global theories in science do not get
> dropped because of one result. If enough evidence came forward that made
> evolution defendable only through so many ad hoc revisions that it was in
> the position of the Ptolemaic epicyclical theory, my guess is it would be
> abandoned, for reasons of parsimony.
>
>:> 2. Young earth.
>:
>: How would a young earth disprove the blind watchmaker's thesis? Where in
>: the theory of evolution does it say that the earth will be old? Suppose,
>: tomorrow, all the different areas of evidence that tell us the earth is
>: 4.6 billion years old, and the universe 10 to 20 billion years old, was
>: shown to be incorrect, and that the actual age of the earth was 10,000
>: years. How would this disprove the blind watchmaker's thesis? All it
>: would mean is that evolution proceeded at warp speed. Goldschmidt would
>: love it. And the theory of evolution would have not been falsified. Just
>: postulate that from some primitive organism (into which God breathed the
>: breath of life, a la Darwin's comment to this effect, if you like), the
>: evolution of that organism resulted in all the animals, including humans,
>: that you see today. Problem for T of Ev. solved. Unfalsifiable.
>
> There are two distinct issues here. One is whether common descent is
> correct. A young earth would not falsify that without some reference to
> the mechanism of evolution. However, the BW hypothesis you refer to is a
> very different theory to that of Goldschmidt, whose views are emphatically
> not representative of evolutionary views like those of Dawkins. A young
> earth would falsify Dawkins's and modern neo-Darwinian theories in general -

Neo-Darwinism says that evolution occurs very slowly, and thus, it
takes a long time for new organs and limbs to appear. Its mechanism
for the occurrence of evolution is such things as point mutations in
DNA. Showing that the earth was 10,000 years old would invalidate
this particular mechanism, because this method is said to require
long periods of time. But invalidating one proposed mechanism is
not the same as invalidating the blind watchmaker's thesis. That
can never be invalidated, for it is dogma. And dogma cannot be
falsified.

> including those of Punctuated Equilibrium Theory, before
> you misunderstand the point.

Punk-eek says that evolution occurs in short bursts. If the
mechanism behind these bursts needs more time than 10,000 years,
then perhaps we need a new mechanism, now don't we? And after we
discard our previously cherished mechanisms for our new mechanism
which says that evolution occurs as fast as lightning, our belief
that life's organisms came into being through non-intelligence
directed processes would still be as strong as ever. Unfalsifiable.

>:> 3. Mixing and matching of characteristics: show that an organism
>:> gained a fully-developed trait which its ancestors did not and for
>:> which they do not have a reasonable precursor. Examples: show me a
>:> whale with gills, show me an ant with lungs, etc.
>:
>: Where in the theory of evolution does it make the prediction that you
>: won't find a whale with gills, or an ant with lungs? Nowhere. Since it
>: does not make these predictions, how would my finding such oddities
>: falsify the blind watchmaker's thesis?
>
> The views here lie in the domain of phylogenetic reconstructions, based on
> both the distributions of traits in Recent animals and the fossil record.
> If such mosaic animals, with traits from entirely distinct genuses,
> occurred naturally, then the notion of nested classifications being based
> on evolutionary views would suffer badly. My guess is that either some new
> hypotheses about sharing of genes would be needed (unlikely since we know
> so much by direct observation of genetic phenomena) or evolution in the
> sense of common descent would be abandoned.

So we abandon common descent. Perhaps instead of one common
ancestor, we now believe that 17 different organisms were the
original common ancestors of all other life forms. The dogma that
life evolved through non-intelligence directed processes would be as
fervent as ever. Unfalsifiable.

> The theory of evolution takes
> the fact of nested sets of traits as a datum. If that fell apart, so does
> much of the need for evolutionary modelling.

Then we just come up with some new modelling of how life _really_
evolved. But the basic idea of a blind watchmaker would remain
unshaken. Unfalsifiable.

> Of course, the world would
> have to look like a medieval traveller's guide for that to occur.
>
>:> 4. Radical dissimilarity of DNA: show me that organisms purported to
>:> be related by evolution do not have similar DNA. Example: show me
>:> that human DNA is less similar to that of chimps than to axolotls,
>:> giraffes, bacteria, yeast, etc.
>:
>: Suppose I do show what you ask. All that would mean would be that the we
>: evolved through a different lineage than previously thought. Our
>: ancestors were not chimps or some ancestor of both chimps and humans, but
>: rather we evolved from giraffes, or a different strain of bacteria, as
>: the case might be. Problem solved, and the theory would remain
>: unfalsified. Unfalsifiable.
>
> No, it would again throw into question whether phylogeny determines sharing
> of traits - in this case, of molecular traits. If we were more resembling
> bacteria than those who we most morphologically resemble like Pan, then
> with the rest of our knowledge about molecular biology, it would in effect
> falsify any current or previous evolutionary model,

The current evolutionary model may go, but the blind watchmaker's
thesis will live on. I guarantee it. Unfalsifiable dogma.

> probably in favour of
> some form of spontaneous species generation theory like Senapathy's.
>
>:> 5. Multiple systems of heredity within a proposed lineage/clade.
>:
>: Suppose I present an example of this. All that would mean would be that
>: the proposed lineage (I don't know what clade means, but will take it to
>: mean the same as "lineage") is wrong. Evolution must have taken a
>: different pathway than previously thought. But the validity of the blind
>: watchmaker's thesis will be intact. Dame Nature, She is so very
>: wonderful. All hail Dame Nature, Mother of Life.
>:
>:> By
>:> systems of heredity, I mean systems that allow the transmission of
>:> traits from one generation to the next, but only one of these would be
>:> DNA; the others would use different bases, use different codes for
>:> amino
>:> acids, have a different structure, etc. Example: show me that some
>:> mammals use a different system of heredity than others.
>:
>: Suppose I do present such an example. How would that falsify the theory
>: of evolution, since it never said, i.e., _predicted_, "there will only be
>: found one system of heredity." If two different mammals used different
>: systems of heredity, then they evolved from different ancestors. Problem
>: solved. Theory of evolution unfalsified. Unfalsifiable.
>
> It's a question of parsimony (economy of explanation) on the one hand, and
> theoretical knowledge on the other. If you find a theory permits too many
> complications in the arena it purports to explain, then it isn't doing its
> job.

How would postulating the existence of two different systems of
heredity complicate the blind watchmaker's thesis?

>:> I'll even make a testable claim myself.
>:
>: Stop the presses! An evolutionist is about to present a testable claim!
>: Imagine that. Newton did it, concerning the shape of the earth,
>: Newton's theory of gravitation was used to predict the existence and
>: location of Neptune, Einstein made predictions of Einstein rings and about
>: the deflection of light, and now we have an evolutionist making a testable
>: prediction, making use of the blind watchmaker's thesis. A moment of
>: silence, please, as we take note of this momentous occasion.
>:
>:> I'll predict that all
>:> vertebrates will have a copy of the gene called eyeless, currently
>:> found in mice, drosophilia and squid.
>:
>:> This gene appears to play an
>:> important role in the development of the eye (copies of the mouse
>:> version inserted into drosophilia's genome at odd spots produced fly
>:> eyes at odd spots on the fly's body). I'll go even further and
>:> predict that a majority of several classes, including insects (if I
>:> have the taxonomic level right, which I doubt), will have copies of
>:> the gene eyeless.
>:
>: How exactly did you use the blind watchmaker's thesis to arrive at this
>: prediction? Where int he theory of evolution dies it mention eye genes,
>: exactly? Do you have a journal reference for how it is that the blind
>: watchmaker's thesis speaks to us about an eye gene? Suppose I go out,
>: and don't find "that the majority of several classes... will have copies of
>: the gene eyeless"-- how would the blind watchmaker's thesis have been
>: falsified?
>:
>: I'm having a little understanding how it would be falsified in this
>: instance, or any of the other instances mentioned. Any journal
>: references on the predictions of the blind watchmaker's thesis would
>: be much appreciated. Such a massively successful theory _must_ be
>: absolutely brimming with predictions.)
>
> You are having a little trouble understanding the theory of evolution at
> all, it seems. There is no authoritative scripture that outlines the Theory
> For All Time, unlike certain other intellectual systems one could name (no,
> it isn't religion I have in mind). The theory of evolution (let's be a bit
> more specific - the modern synthetic theory of evolution) like any theory
> in science, incorporates the results of current research if it can.
>
> A generalized hypothesis of the kind Michael is proposing would be - "if a
> gene is shared by organisms from as different a lineage under the best
> current reconstruction of phylogeny as possible, and that gene is important
> in the development of some major feature in each of those lineages, then
> that gene will be important in all the taxa those lineages are joint
> members of." If it isn't, then it calls for explanation why.

The explain everything, explain nothing theory of evolution can be
counted on to provide us with an explanation. That's what it is,
after all, all about: explanation, not, as is the case with real
science, description.

> If it isn't
> *enough*, then the theory of common descent would be worthless.
>
> Note, though, that all the molecular evidence shows that it isn't
> worthless. You want predictions, read any edition of a journal
> on evolution or biology.

Journal references, please.

> One major prediction of the current theory is that molecular
> homologies will be roughly identical to phylogenetic taxon sets. One
> counterexample won't make a spring in evolution any more than in physics,
> because there are convergences, but enough would.

What do you mean by "make a spring in evolution"? What does "molecular
homologies" being "roughly identical to phylogenetic taxon sets" mean?

> Science is not a simple process of "here's a law, there's a
> counterexample, so the law is false."

Here's relativity. The creator of relativity wants relativity
tested, and an observation is made. Relativity matches up. Here's
another situation, this time involving not the sun, but pulsars,
which have a much stronger gravitational pull than the sun. Let's
test relativity again. Relativity passes with flying colors.
Thumbs up for relativity. Say, look here, another way to test
relativity. Relativity predicts this, observation yields-- the same
result. Thumbs up for relativity. And so it goes.

Here's the big bang model. It predicts x, y, z, and q. Here are
our observations of x, y, z, and q. Thumbs up for the big bang
model. Oh no, this was not found, and the big bang model predicts
that it would be found. We'll look again. Success! We found it.
Big bang model had predicted w, and after some intensive searching,
w was found. Hooray for the big bang model. This is real science.

Here's the blind watchmaker's thesis. Here's an observation. The
blind watchmaker's thesis didn't predict that we'd find the
observation, but no matter, the theory of evolution explains the
observation. Here's another observation. What do you know, the
blind watchmaker's thesis explains this, too. Did it predict that
we'd observe this? No, but it explains it. Explain everything,
explain nothing. Unfalsifiable pseudoscience.

> If you think it is, you don't know much science, or
> much philosophy of science from the period since Kuhn's Structure (ie, the
> last 35 years). To reject a theory, scientists need to have lots of good
> reasons, not just a single data point that fails to fit some arbitrarily
> imposed criterion. So, given that scientists, including biologists, reject
> theories all the time, you have good sociological evidence to conclude that
> evolution is not unfalsifiable, just unfalsified, in the weaker sense I
> describe here. And every other science is in the same boat as evolutionary
> science. Deal with it.

"The [Newtonian] system of gravitation can be regarded as true only
after it has been demonstrated by precise calculations that it
agrees exactly with the phenomena of nature; otherwise the Newtonian
hypothesis does not merit any preference over the [Cartesian] theory
of vortices by which the movement of the planets can be very well
explained, but in a manner which is so incomplete, so loose, that if
the phenomena were completely different, they could very often be
explained just as well in the same way, and sometimes even better.

break. The [Newtonian] system of gravitation does not permit any
illusion of this sort; a single article or observation which
disproves the calculations will bring down the entire edifice and
relegate the Newtonian theory to the class of so many others that
imagination has created and analysis has destroyed."-French
mathematician Jean D'Alembert, quoted in Thomas L. Hankins's
_Science and the Enlightenment_ (1985), 37.

I submit that Newton's casting of gravitation, Einstein's theory of
general relativity, and the big bang model are all falsifiable
because they make definite, firm predictions, and are true
scientific theories.

The theory of evolution/ the blind watchmaker's thesis, on the other
hand, is like Descartes's conception of gravitation, which, quoting
D'Alembert again, explains "in a manner which is so incomplete, so
loose, that if the phenomena were completely different, they could
very often be explained just as well in the same way, and sometimes
even better."

>:> [Obviously, this shouldn't necessarily include
>:> species who don't have eyes.]
>:>
>:> End excerpt.

===================================================================
John Wilkins in "Re: Gould on Archaeopteryx" on 31 Mar 1997:

> See "Hooking Leviathan by its Past" in _Dinosaur in a Haystack_,
> Norton, 1996, p. 360.
>
> Gould says that Archaeopteryx is a splendid example of a
> transitional form, and goes on:
>
> "The supposed lack of intermediate forms in the fossil record remains
> the fundamental canard of current antievolutionism. Such transitional
> forms are sparse, to be sure, and for two sets of good reasons -
> geological (the gappiness of the fossil record) and biological (the
> episodic nature of evolutionary change, including patterns of punctuated
> equilibrium, and transition within small populations of limited
> geographic extent). But paleontologists have discovered several superb

> examples of intermediary forms and sequences,

Harvard's premier evolutionist, Stephen Jay Gould, wouldn't lie for
Darwin about there being "several superb examples of intermediary forms
and sequences," would he? Journal references, please, for the examples
of fossil record "sequences" supporting the blind watchmaker's thesis.

> more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the

> reality of life's physical genealogy."

===================================================================
Posted with permission.

John Wilkins on 30 May 1997 through private channels because of a dead
newsfeed:
david ford:

>: How so? Where in the blind watchmaker's thesis does it say that
>: "finding angiosperms... in the early Cambrian" will never be done?
>: Journal reference, please, for the claim that the theory of
>: evolution predicts that angiosperms will not be found in the
>: Cambrian.
>
> You keep using the phrase "the blind watchmaker's thesis", as if there
> were an authoritative or axiomatic set of statements from which
> everything else followed. Dawkins was describing a facet of evolution

That facet being "no God is necessary to get new organs, new limbs, or
new body plans. Naturalistic, non-intelligence directed processes can
do it just fine."

> - one not everybody agrees with in it's entirety, I hasten to add

On the contrary, everybody it seems agrees with the belief that non-
intelligence directed processes can do it all.

> - but there is a corpus of
> knowledge about paleontology, phylogeny, a field called neontology (the
> opposite of paleontology), genetics, biogeography, ecology, etc. This
> corpus makes some result extremely unlikely to be accepted as blithely as
> you expect. In cases where the evidence garnered by biological research in
> these areas (note that phylogeny is a variety of evolutionary systematics)
> contradicts the picture of the history of biological evolution that is a
> rough consensus now, evolution could be falsified.

"In cases where the evidence gathered... contradicts the picture of the
history of biological evolution that is a rough consensus now, evolution
could be falsified." But the belief that "no God is necessary to get
new organs, new limbs, or new body plans, since naturalistic, non-
intelligence directed processes can do it just fine" would remain intact
and as strong as ever. So what if some new evidence contradicts our
previous conception of evolutionary history? We'll just come up with
another version of how things happened, and everybody will be happy
again. But the blind watchmaker thesis will remain, unfalsified and
unfalsifiable.

>: Not hard to say at all. The idea that the variety of extent and
>: extinct flora and fauna came into existence through non-intelligence
>: directed processes would remain as vigorous as ever. Unfalsifiable.
>
> What is unfalsifiable in this case is the view that any natural (i.e., not
> human) process whatsoever could be the result of directed intelligence.

"The view that any natural (i.e., not human) process whatsoever could be
the result of directed intelligence" is "unfalsifiable." Rephrased:
"the following statement is unfalsifiable: any non-human directed
process could be the result of directed intelligence." I'll agree that
this statement is unfalsifiable: how can one, even theoretically, show
that a particular non-human directed process is not the result of some
other intelligence? One can't. It could be that whatever is causing
the process is an invisible intelligence, perhaps an alien with
cloaking. It could be that whatever is causing the process is visible
but moves so quickly that it may as well be invisible. What has all
this got to do with the fact that the theory of evolution is
unfalsifiable?

> Of course, if that is unfalsifiable, then so is its opposite -
> because the same data set will go to the falsification attempts.

I acknowledge that creationism is unfalsifiable. Will you agree with me
that the belief that new body plans, etc. can arise through naturalistic
processes is likewise unfalsifiable?

> The way you have set it up makes it impossible to
> determine the issue on evidence, which is, per definitio,
> what falsification is about.

Please elaborate on this statement.

> Moreover, no science is *ever* falsified, nor any single theory, but some
> collection of hypotheses, methods and full-blown theories. This is a fact
> of science. It applies in every case in science, irrespective of whether
> it is a historical issue, a physical issue, or even, as in the case of
> post-Euclidean geometry, a mathematical issue.

"It applies in every case in science." Incorrect assumption: the
pseudoscience that is the theory of evolution falls under the rubric
"science."

> Because there is no hard
> and fast criterion for falsifying this group, it *is* hard to say in the
> abstract. But it is not impossible that these views would be abandoned.

In the case of belief in the blind watchmaker thesis, it's close to
wildly improbable that these views will be forsaken. When your dealing
with dogma, evidence and counterevidence do not matter.

>: Neo-Darwinism says that evolution occurs very slowly, and thus, it
>: takes a long time for new organs and limbs to appear. Its mechanism
>: for the occurrence of evolution is such things as point mutations in
>: DNA. Showing that the earth was 10,000 years old would invalidate
>: this particular mechanism, because this method is said to require
>: long periods of time. But invalidating one proposed mechanism is
>: not the same as invalidating the blind watchmaker's thesis. That
>: can never be invalidated, for it is dogma. And dogma cannot be
>: falsified.
>
> 1. Neo-Darwinian theories (by which I take you to mean post-1942 versions)
> do not, and never have, required evolution to happen slowly. They happen
> *gradually* but at variable speeds. That is, you can see slopes of all
> kinds from shallow to steep, but never a discontinuity like a cliff.

How can one tell the difference between a 90 degree cliff and an 89.999
degree steep slope when it comes to how quickly a new body plan came
into existence through non-intelligence directed means?

Concerning Neo-Darwinism, Gould's "Is a New and General Theory of
Evolution Emerging" is interesting. "I well remember how the synthetic
theory beguiled me with its unifying power when I was a graduate student
in the mid-1960's. Since then I have been watching it slowly unravel as
a universal description of evolution.... I have been reluctant to admit
it--since beguiling is often forever--but if Mayr's characterization of
the synthetic theory is accurate, then that theory, as a general
proposition, is effectively dead, despite its persistence as textbook
orthodoxy."[Gould, _Paleobiology_ 6:120 (1980).]

> This
> has been explicit at least since Simpson's 1944 book, where he observed
> that a slow and steady evolution of bats and whales would put them back
> before the therapsid ancestors of mammals. Hence, evolution must occur
> rapidly some times. You may think this is changing the theory to suit the
> evidence. So did Simpson, Mayr and Dobzhansky. That *is* science.

And after the theory has been changed to fit the evidence, the theory
still fails to make any risky predictions, and is as unfalsifiable as it
ever was. Unfalsifiable, explain everything, explain nothing theories
have no place in science. Pseudoscience, perhaps, but not science.

>: Punk-eek says that evolution occurs in short bursts. If the
>: mechanism behind these bursts needs more time than 10,000 years,
>: then perhaps we need a new mechanism, now don't we? And after we
>: discard our previously cherished mechanisms for our new mechanism
>: which says that evolution occurs as fast as lightning, our belief
>: that life's organisms came into being through non-intelligence
>: directed processes would still be as strong as ever. Unfalsifiable.
>
> Ummm, PE does not say that. It says that - ex post facto - evolution
> occurs typically at only 10% of the duration of a species. That might
> be a very short geological time, or it might be a very long one.
>
> However, no presently understood natural process could generate all the
> diversity of life in 10k years. So if you were able to show that to be
> true, then evolution - the entire nest of theories - would have to go.
> Falsifiable.

There is a key comment made here, namely "no presently understood
natural process could generate all the diversity of life in 10k years."
If tomorrow it were shown that the earth was 10,000 years old, evolution
does not at all have to go. We simply postulate that some presently
unknown mechanism that operated at superfast speeds resulted in the
diversity of past and present organisms. How hard can that be? It
can't be that hard at all.

After all, we don't even know how, with an earth that is 4.6 billion
years old, the mechanism behind the appearance of new body plans.
Everybody agrees that new body plans can arise through non-intelligence
directed means, but there is some uncertainty as to what the mechanism
of new-body-plan-creation was, yes?

If the earth is found to be 10k years old tomorrow, we'll have the same
situation. Everybody will agree that new body plans can arise through
non-intelligence directed means, but there will remain some uncertainty
as to what the mechanism of new-body-plan-creation is, though we'll now
know that it must have been superfast, akin to evolution along an
89.9999999999999999999999999999999999 degree slope. But the "fact" that
evolution occurred will remain intact and as strong as ever. "Facts"
have a habit of staying intact and robust things you can count on;
otherwise, they wouldn't be called "facts."

>: So we abandon common descent. Perhaps instead of one common
>: ancestor, we now believe that 17 different organisms were the
>: original common ancestors of all other life forms. The dogma that
>: life evolved through non-intelligence directed processes would be as
>: fervent as ever. Unfalsifiable.
>
> Ermm, what exactly are you saying is not falsifiable here? If evolution is
> comprised of a number of theories - common descent, descent with
> modification, evolution of adaptations by natural selection, etc, then it
> won't do to say that if one theory is falsifiable, then another isn't, so
> evolution is unfalsifiable. If each thesis is falsifiable in its own terms,
> then the fact is it is falsifiable.

"If each thesis is falsifiable in its own terms, then the fact is [that]
it is falsifiable." Not so. Falsifying all of the components simply
means that we don't have the right components. We must keep searching.
But the "fact" that life's extant and extinct diversity arose through
non-intelligence directed processes will remain exactly that-- a "fact"-
- that will never be doubted. Why? Because it is "fact." Granite-
hard, dependable, tough as tempered steel, impervious to rust, moths,
fire, natural disaster, water, etc., FACT. Facts remain facts. Because
they are, after all, facts.

Suppose I show that the mechanism of natural selection cannot behind the
creation of new body plans. All that will mean is that there must have
been some other mechanism at work. To take another example from your
list, suppose that I show that organisms could have not descended from a
single common ancestor. All that will mean is that descent must have
been from more than one ancestor, perhaps 11, or 19, or 34, or 87, or
1187. Perhaps there were 5,189,547,120 original ancestors. Who says
this many things cannot have crawled out of the primordial slime, or out
of ponds of primordial slime that have existed over the course of the
earth's lifetime?

The belief that new body plans, new limbs, and new organs can arise
through non-intelligence directed processes will always remain as secure
as ever, for it is a fact. And there can be no denying, no falsifying
of, this FACT.

> You can't add together any number of theories and say that
> because some element is X therefore the entire set is X.
>
> If you wish to specify what exactly is unfalsifiable if something as
> basic to the explanatory structure of Darwinism as common descent is
> falsifiable and that doesn't matter, please do.
>
>: Then we just come up with some new modelling of how life _really_
>: evolved. But the basic idea of a blind watchmaker would remain
>: unshaken. Unfalsifiable.
>
> Uh uh. It would at that point no longer be a BW thesis. It might be a
> Lamarckian thesis,

Definition of terms: the blind watchmaker thesis is simply the belief
that a Watchmaker, i.e., intelligent Designer, was not required to make
the design evident in living organisms, and that a Designer is not
needed for the appearance of new organs, limbs, or body plans. Lamark:
new body plans, etc., arose through the effect of organisms'
environments on them, not through the work of a Designer. Lamarkianism
is one particular account of how evolution proceeded that holds, as do
the others, to the blind watchmaker thesis, which says that Intelligence
is not needed to account for these things.

Suppose the particular mechanism Lamarkianism falls by the wayside.
Another mechanism must have been at work, then, but the fact that non-
intelligence directed processes are all that's needed will remain. It
is, after all, a fact. When was the last time you rejected belief in an
instance of FACT? Facts. Things you can count on. Things that can be
relied on through thick and thin. Certain. Durable. Dependable. A
sure thing. Tried and true. There when you need them. Things you
would bet your life on. Why? Because they are facts. And the fact
that life's diversity arose through naturalistic processes is a FACT.

> or some other (Teilhardian) thesis, or it might be some
> other view that doesn't require this sort of nesting. It would in
> no way be neo-Darwinian.
>
>: The current evolutionary model may go, but the blind watchmaker's
>: thesis will live on. I guarantee it. Unfalsifiable dogma.
>
> What *is* "the blind watchmaker's thesis" if it isn't the current
> evolutionary model? Justify that claim. Watch out for historical
> examples, here, because they will trip you up.
>
>: How would postulating the existence of two different systems of
>: heredity complicate the blind watchmaker's thesis?
>
> Darwinism rests on a two-fold distinction, between replication and
> interaction, or between heredity and selection. If (and I am talking about
> the synthetic view here, not Darwin's views, which were very different and
> are now abandoned) there was a form of somal inheritance as opposed to
> nuclear inheritance, and it was a fundamental process in genetics, then
> neo-Darwinism would be false, pure and simple, because selection would not
> have the effect required to drive adaptation. This isn't a rebuttal to
> common descent, but adaptation by natural selection (see how important it
> is to make those distinctions?).

Suppose I've rebutted the mechanism of new-body-plan-development called
adaptation by natural selection. Another mechanism must have been at
work. Perhaps Lamarkianism. Perhaps Goldschmidtism. Perhaps Fordism
(a mechanism of my own-- I'll share it when it's fully developed). But
the FACT that life's diversity appeared as a result of non-intelligence-
directed processes will remain as sure a thing as ever. "And why is
that?" you ask. I'm so glad you asked, because the fact that life arose
and developed through naturalistic processes is, quite simply, a
|~#]@`=;\+$%_*{**_*_*___FFFFF-AAAAA-CCCCC-TTTTT___*_*_**}*_@;\`|~#+=[$%,
that's F-A-C-T, FACT.

>: The explain everything, explain nothing theory of evolution can be
>: counted on to provide us with an explanation. That's what it is,
>: after all, all about: explanation, not, as is the case with real
>: science, description.
>
> It isn't description to make a prediction about what will be found.
>
>: Journal references, please.
>
> Last edition of _Cell_ or _Nature_.

_Nature_ I can do. The local library should have it. _Cell_ will be a
little harder. What are the predictions contained in one of these
journals about (so I know what to look for)? Also, I'm still waiting
for the journal references for the examples of fossil record "sequences"
supporting the blind watchmaker's thesis, Gould having said that

"paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary

forms and sequences." Gould wouldn't lie for Darwin, would he? Journal
references, please for the "several superb examples of intermediary...
sequences."

>: What do you mean by "make a spring in evolution"? What does "molecular
>: homologies" being "roughly identical to phylogenetic taxon sets" mean?
>
> Sorry, "one swallow doesn't make a spring" is a maxim used in Australia and
> England. Molecular homologies are homologies of genes and proteins between
> phyla. Phylogenetic taxon sets are groups of species and higher level taxa
> arranged in a phylogenetic tree - a tree diagram of broad ancestries.

[snip]
> You really should read Popper and some of the literature about
> verificationism and falsificationism. Try Alan Chalmers _What is
> this thing called science?_ as an introduction. I have a brief
> review in the draft FAQ.

For what reasons(s) should I read Chalmers's book?

[snip]
> Whatever D'Alembert and Kant and the Enlightenment philosophers may
> have thought about the nature of science is rather irrelevant to
> modern realities.

The only reason this is said, I suspect, is that you don't have a
predictive theory of biology on your hands or on the horizon. Suppose
there was a theory of biology that predicted, correctly, what changes
would occur in organisms in the future, and suppose there was another
theory that made no such predictions, but that merely was able to
explain things after the fact.

You would call the theory that made correct predictions "science," and
call the one that merely explained things instead of describing them,
and whose adherents insisted in the theory being called science,
"pseudoscience," would you not? The only impetus behind saying
"whatever D'Alembert and Kant and the Enlightenment philosophers may
have thought about the nature of science is rather irrelevant to modern
realities" is the modern reality that you do not have a predictive
theory of biology, and the theory you do have explains everything, thus
explaining nothing and being unfalsifiable.

"Well, evolution _is_ a theory. It is also a fact.... Facts do not go
away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them.... And human
beings evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's
proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered....
Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and
theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always
acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms
(theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred.... Yet amidst all this
turmoil no biologist has been led to doubt the fact that evolution
occurred; we are debating _how_ it happened.... these facts of
evolution.... but the culprit is not, and cannot be, evolution or any
other fact of the natural world."[Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory,"
_Discover_ (May 1981), 34-37]

".... The fact of evolution.... The fact of evolution is as well
established as anything in science.... our confidence in the _fact_ of
transmutation.... But evolution is also a fact of nature.... evolution
is as well established as any scientific fact.... the fact of
evolution.... I don't want to sound like a shrill dogmatist shouting
'rally round the flag boys,' but biologists have reached a consensus,
based on these kinds of data, about the fact of evolution.... our
fruitful consonance about the fact of evolution... our vibrant
dissonance about the mechanisms of change.... the fact of
evolution...."[Gould, "Darwinism Defined: The Difference Between Fact
and Theory," _Discover_ (Jan. 1987), 64-70]

This ends this collection of posts between myself and John W.

[david ford]

On 8 Jul 1997, Matt Silberstein:
david ford:

> >I'd like to thank all those that spoke to me regarding this problem with
> >the posts. Having been gyped by the robot, I'll be posting again, in this
> >thread, much of what has been written since around May 27.
>
> David, don't bother. With the way things work around here, your posts
> will probably be right on topic in about a month.

Thank you. My sneaking suspicion that the posts are cutting-edge has been
confirmed.

[Matt Silberstein]

In talk.origins david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:

You know, thinking about this is interesting. I am assuming that this
is the correct quote. If so this is quite refreshing. As I read it Dr.
Patterson realized that he needed to learn more on a basic subject.
Think of the intellectual courage for his to say, after 20 years, that
he needs to fill in his education.

>Can you tell me one thing that you know is true about evolution?
>

That is happens. That it is powerful. That it does not happen
smoothly.

[Christopher A. Lee]

In article <Pine.SGI.3.95.970709...@umbc9.umbc.edu> david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> writes:
>"It's true... that for the last eighteen months or so I've been kicking
>around non-evolutionary or even anti-evolutionary ideas.... One of the
>reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, or let's call it a
>non-evolutionary view, was that last year I had a sudden realization.
>For over twenty years I had thought I was working on evolution in some
>way. One morning I woke up... and it struck me that I had been working
>on this stuff for more than twenty years, and there was not one thing I
>knew about it. It's quite a shock to learn that one can be misled for
>so long.... Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about
>evolution? Any one thing, any one thing that is true?"[Colin Patterson,
>quoted in _Harper's_ (Feb 1985), 50.]

What is the context? What are his reasons for saying this?

I know that *you* believe things because other people do, not because you
understand their reasons - because you don't give their reasons. So *you*
don't have a reason.

>Can you tell me one thing that you know is true about evolution?

It happened/happens. This was settled last century and the juggernaut of
science has moved on since then to understanding the causes and
mechanisms behind it.

And the mechanisms behind these causes and mechanisms.

These have spun off whole new sciences, technologies and practical
applications. The fact that these exist and work confirms evolution.
Like genetics. And the genetic engineering/biotechnology which is behind
much of modern medicine and agriculture.

It is accepted because the explanations work powerfully, predictively and
above all usefully.

Patterson does not dispute this. I suggest you read some of his stuff in
its entirity instead of quoting something out of context which does not
say what he is talking about, what he objects to and why he objects to it.

Hint: he is talking about cladistics. How he classifies specimens. He is
in disupute about a small detail, not whether it happens.

Try to understand what you're arguing about.

[Mr. M.J. Smith]

In article <Pine.SGI.3.95.970709...@umbc9.umbc.edu>,
david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:

>Can you tell me one thing that you know is true about evolution?

Allele frequencies change over time. Oh and another thing, all life
on earth is related by common ancestry.

Martin Smith

[Michael D. Painter]

Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.SC.EDU> wrote in article
<1997070917...@milo.math.sc.edu>...

> david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> writes:
>
> >This collection of posts appearing in the order presented is a
> >conversation with Sverker Johansson <l...@hlk.hj.se>. The posts were
> >posted only to disappear at the hands of the auto-moderator, and e-
> >mailed. (The first reply was in part based on some confusion about what
> >was Premise 1.)
>
>

> >"Philosopher Karl Popper has argued for decades that the primary
> >criterion of science is the falsifiability of its theories. We can
> >never prove absolutely, but we can falsify. A set of ideas that cannot,
> >in principle, be falsified, is not science.... 'Scientific creationism'
> >is a self-contradictory, nonsense phrase precisely because it cannot be
> >falsified.... Unbeatable systems are dogma, not science."-Stephen Jay
> >Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," _Discover_ May 1981, 35.
>

> Gould is speaking out of atheistic dogma when he says that
> scientific creationism is not falsifiable. He is assuming
> that God will never reveal, not even in a life after death,
> that Genesis is not to be taken literally--not because he
> is a fundamentalist, but because he does not believe in God.

>
> Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics
> University of South Carolina
> Columbia, SC 29208

I have often thought that fundamentalist Christians would be more happy
with math than science.
A few axioms, a little thought, and they have a Christian algebra or
geometry that is closed.
Bingo, they will be Right and able to prove it.

You apparently have tried to do just that. You have changed the meaning of
falsifiable by postulating, in the form of axioms, both the existence of a
god and apparently a literal Genesis.

You are free to do so.

It's times like this when it is obvious why engineers and scientists get so
pissed at the mathematician.
You have ignored massive bodies of work in all fields, including bible
research by real scholars, that show there is no relation between your
definitions and reality.

[Peter Nyikos]

david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> writes:

>This collection of posts appearing in the order presented is a
>conversation with Sverker Johansson <l...@hlk.hj.se>. The posts were
>posted only to disappear at the hands of the auto-moderator, and e-
>mailed. (The first reply was in part based on some confusion about what
>was Premise 1.)

>Sverker Johansson <l...@hlk.hj.se> on 12 May 1997 in "Re: Blind
> Watchmaker Thesis is Unfalsifiable":
>david ford:

>>: I think you'll agree with me that the first premise is correct. =20
>>=20
>> Since the first premise is blatantly untrue, I see no reason to
>> agree with you.

>"Philosopher Karl Popper has argued for decades that the primary
>criterion of science is the falsifiability of its theories. We can
>never prove absolutely, but we can falsify. A set of ideas that cannot,
>in principle, be falsified, is not science.... 'Scientific creationism'
>is a self-contradictory, nonsense phrase precisely because it cannot be
>falsified.... Unbeatable systems are dogma, not science."-Stephen Jay
>Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," _Discover_ May 1981, 35.

Gould is speaking out of atheistic dogma when he says that

scientific creationism is not falsifiable. He is assuming
that God will never reveal, not even in a life after death,
that Genesis is not to be taken literally--not because he
is a fundamentalist, but because he does not believe in God.

>"Since the first premise ['If something is to be considered scientific,

>then it must at a minimum be capable of being falsified'] is blatantly
>untrue...." Take it up with Gould.

Debatable; but one is certainly not obliged to take the word
of Gould or even Popper for the validity of the principle.
It has even been turned against evolutionary theory in talk.origins:

>--begin inserted text, which was copied from about half a page above, and
> which answers the 3 question mark question--
> 1) As a _scientific_ theory, the theory of evolution has been falsified,
> [deletia]

This part I strongly disagree with, but the following one has
merit:

> 2) As an _unscientific_ theory, the theory is unfalsifiable, that is to
> say, there is no state of affairs, that if otherwise, would show
> the (unscientific) theory of evolution to be false.
>--end inserted text--

>> The theory of evolution is FALSIFIABLE but UNFALSIFIED,

>> and thus very likely a good description of the natural world.

>The blind watchmaker's thesis is an unbeatable system of dogma,
>and thus, not science.

I agree, if that has to do with atheistic evolution.

[...]

>>: Q: If we were to find mammals in the Burgess Shale, would the theory of
>>: evolution be falsified?
>>: A: No, because the theory does not say when mammals will be found in the
>>: fossil record. =20

>> The theory DOES make strong predictions about the kind of _pattern_

>> to be found in the fossil record (nested/hierarchical, with a reasonable
>> chronological sequence).

>Journal references, please.

I doubt that they will be forthcoming. Evolutionary theory does
not imply anything about what will actually be FOUND by us
20-21st century humans in the
fossil record, which is highly fragmentary and biased towards
certain kinds of organisms.

>> It doesn't specifically predict
>> the place of any particular group, but that isn't needed.
>> Fossils found persistently far from the expected pattern
>> (such as precambrian mammals) _would_ falsify the theory.

This has been thrashed out already. Richard Harter
(if memory serves) has pointed out why no such falsification
would follow.

>>: Q: If we were to find a fossil that had not changed in basic body
>>: structure for billions and billions of years, would the theory have been
>>: shown to be incorrect?
>>=20
>> A: No. The theory doesn't predict that change is inevitable. For the=20
>> first billion years, no major body plan changes _did_ take place AFAIK.

>I'm glad to see you agree. What does "AFAIK" mean?

As Far As I Know.

Remainder of gargantuan post deleted. I would have
preferred a series of separate posts, spaced out over
a week or two.

[Marc A. Moniz]

david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
>
> >"It's true... that for the last eighteen months or so I've been kicking
> >around non-evolutionary or even anti-evolutionary ideas.... One of the
> >reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, or let's call it a
> >non-evolutionary view, was that last year I had a sudden realization.
> >For over twenty years I had thought I was working on evolution in some
> >way. One morning I woke up... and it struck me that I had been working
> >on this stuff for more than twenty years, and there was not one thing I
> >knew about it. It's quite a shock to learn that one can be misled for
> >so long.... Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about
> >evolution? Any one thing, any one thing that is true?"[Colin Patterson,
> >quoted in _Harper's_ (Feb 1985), 50.]
> >

What's the context of this statement? Being familiar with Patterson's
work I assume he's talking about "pattern cladistics" and not evolution
in general.

[Libertarius]

In <5q19ji$q82$1...@shell6.ba.best.com> at...@best.comNOSPAM (Mark Isaak)
writes:

>
>In article <Pine.SGI.3.95.970709...@umbc9.umbc.edu>,
>david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:

>>Genesis 6:14 has God telling Noah to coat the ark with pitch. Where
did
>>this pitch come from, since flood geology says that petroleum was
formed
>>as a _result_ of the flood, which had not yet occurred?
>

>If you're trying to disprove a flood, you can do better than that.
>
>1) Pitch can be formed from things other than petroium, such as wood
and
>bone oil.
>
>2) It is possible some petroleum existed before the flood.

===>We now know from actual observation that the Flood ocurred on Mars!
The Ark must have been a spaceship! ;-)

Libertarius

[John Wilkins]

In article <Pine.SGI.3.95.970709...@umbc9.umbc.edu>, david
ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:

| "It's true... that for the last eighteen months or so I've been kicking
| around non-evolutionary or even anti-evolutionary ideas.... One of the
| reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, or let's call it a
| non-evolutionary view, was that last year I had a sudden realization.
| For over twenty years I had thought I was working on evolution in some
| way. One morning I woke up... and it struck me that I had been working
| on this stuff for more than twenty years, and there was not one thing I
| knew about it. It's quite a shock to learn that one can be misled for
| so long.... Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about
| evolution? Any one thing, any one thing that is true?"[Colin Patterson,
| quoted in _Harper's_ (Feb 1985), 50.]
|

| Can you tell me one thing that you know is true about evolution?

You have read Patterson's book on evolution, haven't you? You do know he's
talking in the context of taxonomic method - a variety known as transformed
cladistics or pattern cladism, don't you? Of course you do, or why would
you have posted a quotation right out of context?

--
John Wilkins, Head of Communication Services, Walter and Eliza
Hall Institute of Medical Research [Remove .UNSPAM from header address]
<http://www.wehi.edu.au/~wilkins><mailto:wil...@wehi.edu.au>
It is not enough to succeed. Friends must be seen to have failed. - Capote

[Mark Isaak]

In article <Pine.SGI.3.95.970709...@umbc9.umbc.edu>,
david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:

>Genesis 6:14 has God telling Noah to coat the ark with pitch. Where did
>this pitch come from, since flood geology says that petroleum was formed
>as a _result_ of the flood, which had not yet occurred?

If you're trying to disprove a flood, you can do better than that.

1) Pitch can be formed from things other than petroium, such as wood and
bone oil.

2) It is possible some petroleum existed before the flood.

--
Mark Isaak at...@best.com http://www.best.com/~atta
"To undeceive men is to offend them." - Queen Christina of Sweden

[Adrian]

> david ford spake thusly :-

>Welcome to this thread. Coming immediately up, some rather sizable posts

Not too sizeable, please. Some of have dial-up accounts, you know.

>to talk.origins that were eaten by the auto-moderation, and a couple
>smaller posts to all 4 ngs. Young-earth creationists, I'd like to
>persuade you to become old-earth creationists, so please post some
>young-earth claims for critical examination. Evolutionists, your
>positions are going to get trashed. Let the games begin.

Scary scary. I hope you're going to rely on objective evidence, and
not magic.

[snip]

--
| __ __/__ . __ __ | Pope Adrian IV of the Church of The Holy Lungfish,
|(_/(_// / (_// / | Larry the Thrice-blessed. BAAWA ha ha. (a.a. list #0x80)
| | http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/main.html
[ ** Anti-Spam - Remove "XXX" from my address to reply via email ** ]

"6 was scared of 7, because 7 8 9"

[Adrian]

> david ford spake thusly :-

>"It's true... that for the last eighteen months or so I've been kicking
>around non-evolutionary or even anti-evolutionary ideas.... One of the
>reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, or let's call it a
>non-evolutionary view, was that last year I had a sudden realization.
>For over twenty years I had thought I was working on evolution in some
>way. One morning I woke up... and it struck me that I had been working
>on this stuff for more than twenty years, and there was not one thing I
>knew about it. It's quite a shock to learn that one can be misled for
>so long.... Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about
>evolution? Any one thing, any one thing that is true?"[Colin Patterson,
>quoted in _Harper's_ (Feb 1985), 50.]

>Can you tell me one thing that you know is true about evolution?

Let's see....
"It is a theory used to describe _observed_ natural phenomena."

How's that?

--
| __ __/__ . __ __ | Pope Adrian IV of the Church of The Holy Lungfish,
|(_/(_// / (_// / | Larry the Thrice-blessed. BAAWA ha ha. (a.a. list #0x80)
| | http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/main.html
[ ** Anti-Spam - Remove "XXX" from my address to reply via email ** ]

"There was only Earth prior to the Big Bang. Just like God said." - John P. Boatwright, alt.atheism

[ArachnomaniA]

In talk.origins Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.SC.EDU> wrote:

In talk.origins Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.SC.EDU> wrote:
> Gould is speaking out of atheistic dogma when he says that
> scientific creationism is not falsifiable.

Then how do you falsify creationism?

> He is assuming
> that God will never reveal, not even in a life after death,
> that Genesis is not to be taken literally--not because he
> is a fundamentalist, but because he does not believe in God.

Wrong. The subject of god is irrelevant when
attempting to determine if genesis should be taken literally.
All one must do is look at the evidence (or lack of).

Jeff

[lo...@my.sig]

E-mailed to talk-o...@moderators.uu.net.
My apologies for any duplications.

Following up my own message...

In <33c3faa2...@news.netnews.att.com>, lo...@my.sig (Jack
Dominey) wrote:

Last night I went home and re-read "Hooking Leviathan by Its Past" in
Gould's _Dinosaur in a Haystack_. Because I mis-remembered the
material, I misrepresented it below, and therefore I must
substantially change my questions.

Disclaimer: I don't have the book with me now and I'll try to at least
be obvious when I don't remember significant details.

I asked David Ford:

>Do you agree or disagree that the rear limbs of _Pakicetus_ and
>_Rhodcetus_ are, structurally speaking, legs? (I.e. They have similar
>bones in the same order and with the same connections as land-dwelling
>animals.) If not, why not?

Minor revision: It's not _Rhodcetus_, it's _Rodhocetus_, and I'm still
not sure I placed the 'h' properly.

Major revision: The most complete leg bone fossils are from
_Basilosaurus_, which I think even David Ford agrees is an early
whale. There are partial leg bone fossils from _Pakicetus_,
_Indocetus_, and _Rodhocetus_ (I think _Indocetus_ only includes the
femur), but not enough to make the question above relevant. If Mr.
Ford will answer the question with regard to _Basilosaurus_, that will
be fine.

>2) If evolutionary theories are unscientific, how did the people who
>discovered the fossil whales know where to look?

I retract this question.

I based it on a faulty memory of how Gingerich, et al searched for the
later fossils. I could not find any information in Gould's essay
indicating that the team had selected the search site based on the
strata, using the expectation of the date and environment for an
intermediate in the fossil whale transition.

Still, IIRC, the 1994 discovery was in the proper sediments (shallow
marine environment) of the proper age (about 3 million years later
than the earliest fossil in the series) for an intermediate, at least
according to 'evolutionary' expectations. If Mr. Ford wishes to
address why this is so, I would appreciate it, but I don't insist by
any means.

Jack Dominey "Apparently I'm insane.
domineys(at)mindspring.com But I'm one of the happy kinds!"

[Randy M. Wadkins]

In article <Pine.SGI.3.95.970709...@umbc9.umbc.edu>
david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> writes:

> "It's true... that for the last eighteen months or so I've been kicking
> around non-evolutionary or even anti-evolutionary ideas.... One of the
> reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, or let's call it a
> non-evolutionary view, was that last year I had a sudden realization.
> For over twenty years I had thought I was working on evolution in some
> way. One morning I woke up... and it struck me that I had been working
> on this stuff for more than twenty years, and there was not one thing I
> knew about it. It's quite a shock to learn that one can be misled for
> so long.... Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about
> evolution? Any one thing, any one thing that is true?"[Colin Patterson,
> quoted in _Harper's_ (Feb 1985), 50.]
>
> Can you tell me one thing that you know is true about evolution?

I'll tell you one thing I know that's true: creationists are liars.

The above quote is Patterson addressing a group of geologists.

--Randy

--------------------------------------------------
To send me e-mail, remove ANTISPAM from the address.

[Wade Hines]

Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.SC.EDU> writes:

>Gould is speaking out of atheistic dogma when he says that

>scientific creationism is not falsifiable. He is assuming

>that God will never reveal, not even in a life after death,
>that Genesis is not to be taken literally--not because he
>is a fundamentalist, but because he does not believe in God.

Well Gould's right out then, isn't he.

However, I was just wondering, how many mathematical problems
involve revealations in "life after death".

All along, I'ld thought that science restricted itself to
observables which in my hopelessly limited mind was also
restricted to life and I had ignored 'life after death' as
a part of hte picture. Can such observations be referenced?
Do they go as personal communications?

And when I think about it, why would you take as evidence the
heresay of some reserector that Genesis was not to be taken
literally. Maybe it's just a temp playing with your mind whilst
the author of Genesis is off to another dimension or even waiting
behind the curtains to test your reaction?

But Gould sure was off base to suggest that intervention by a
divine power capable to working outside restrictions of physics
is an unfalsafiable 'theory'. You've sure pegged that one.

--Wade

[Geoff Sheffield]

david ford wrote:
>
> "It's true... that for the last eighteen months or so I've been kicking
> around non-evolutionary or even anti-evolutionary ideas.... One of the
> reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, or let's call it a
> non-evolutionary view, was that last year I had a sudden realization.
> For over twenty years I had thought I was working on evolution in some
> way. One morning I woke up... and it struck me that I had been working
> on this stuff for more than twenty years, and there was not one thing I
> knew about it. It's quite a shock to learn that one can be misled for
> so long.... Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about
> evolution? Any one thing, any one thing that is true?"[Colin Patterson,
> quoted in _Harper's_ (Feb 1985), 50.]
>
> Can you tell me one thing that you know is true about evolution?

To Mr. Ford:

Who is this guy Patterson, and why should I consider what he says to
be important? Please don't tell me he's an evolutionist, because
the quote contradicts that. If you tell me he's an evolutionist, all
that proves is that you have quoted him out of context.

GS

[ArachnomaniA]

In sci.skeptic david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
> Can you tell me one thing that you know is true about evolution?

Yes, life changes - it evolves.

Evolution is fact. Why? Because evolution is defined as change in
populations over time. Speciation has been observed, changes in
the phenotypic frequencies of populations have been observed,
the fossil record supports evolution very well, genetic comparisons
support evolution, laboratory reproductions have demonstrated
evolution and computer simulations can be created to simulate
evolution.

jeff

[Cemtech]

In article <Pine.SGI.3.95.970709...@umbc9.umbc.edu>,
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu says...

> Genesis 6:14 has God telling Noah to coat the ark with pitch. Where did
> this pitch come from, since flood geology says that petroleum was formed

> as a _result_ of the flood, which had not yet occurred? Flood geology: an
> idea whose time not only has gone, but whose time never came. [Idea from
> Alan Hayward's excellent _Creation and Evolution: Rethinking the Evidence
> From Science and the Bible_ (1985), 185. Most recently published in 1995.]

Excellent argument against creationism! And with only the Bible yet.

Nice work David.

----------------------------
Steve "Chris" Price
Associate Professor of Computational Aesthetics
Amish Chair of Electrical Engineering
University of Ediacara "A fine tradition since 530,000,000 BC"
ra...@kaiwan.com OR Cem...@pacbell.net

[Cemtech]

In article <Pine.SGI.3.95.970709...@umbc9.umbc.edu>,
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu says...

> "It's true... that for the last eighteen months or so I've been kicking
> around non-evolutionary or even anti-evolutionary ideas.... One of the
> reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, or let's call it a
> non-evolutionary view, was that last year I had a sudden realization.
> For over twenty years I had thought I was working on evolution in some
> way. One morning I woke up... and it struck me that I had been working
> on this stuff for more than twenty years, and there was not one thing I
> knew about it. It's quite a shock to learn that one can be misled for
> so long.... Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about
> evolution? Any one thing, any one thing that is true?"[Colin Patterson,
> quoted in _Harper's_ (Feb 1985), 50.]
>

> Can you tell me one thing that you know is true about evolution?

"Chelvam asserts that "we are drownin" in evidence against darwinism. He
cites nothing beyond the remarks attributed to me. It seems possible that
he confuses two theories under the name of darwinism, the general theory
of common ancestry or descent with modification, and Darwin's special
theory of mechanism, natural selection. If he knows of evidence
inconsistent with the general theory of common descent, he should tell us
what it is. I know of none." (Patterson 1988)

[zoner]

l.net>
Organization: GoodNet (602) 303-9500
Distribution:

Cemtech (Cem...@pacbell.net.SPAMNOT) wrote:
: In article <Pine.SGI.3.95.970709...@umbc9.umbc.edu>,
: dfo...@gl.umbc.edu says...
: > Genesis 6:14 has God telling Noah to coat the ark with pitch. Where did

: > this pitch come from, since flood geology says that petroleum was formed
: > as a _result_ of the flood, which had not yet occurred? Flood geology: an
: > idea whose time not only has gone, but whose time never came. [Idea from
: > Alan Hayward's excellent _Creation and Evolution: Rethinking the Evidence
: > From Science and the Bible_ (1985), 185. Most recently published in 1995.]
:
: Excellent argument against creationism! And with only the Bible yet.
:
: Nice work David.

Steve, why don't you stop lying and include the REST of the story? Boy
you evolutionist/atheists sure are deceptive!

:
: ----------------------------

:

[Paul Yost]

Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.SC.EDU> wrote in article
<1997070917...@milo.math.sc.edu>...
> david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> writes:

> >"Philosopher Karl Popper has argued for decades that the primary
> >criterion of science is the falsifiability of its theories. We can
> >never prove absolutely, but we can falsify. A set of ideas that cannot,
> >in principle, be falsified, is not science.... 'Scientific creationism'
> >is a self-contradictory, nonsense phrase precisely because it cannot be
> >falsified.... Unbeatable systems are dogma, not science."-Stephen Jay
> >Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," _Discover_ May 1981, 35.
>

> Gould is speaking out of atheistic dogma when he says that
> scientific creationism is not falsifiable. He is assuming
> that God will never reveal, not even in a life after death,
> that Genesis is not to be taken literally--not because he
> is a fundamentalist, but because he does not believe in God.

WE cannot falsify scientific creationism because we are not God. If we
have to rely upon some unsubstantiated God to reveal the truth to us in
some hypothetical afterlife, that's two strikes already. How can you
falsify creation science when anything you point to the creationist can
respond with, "that's the way God created it."

[david ford]

On 12 Jul 1997, Paul Yost wrote:

> WE cannot falsify scientific creationism because we are not God. If we
> have to rely upon some unsubstantiated God to reveal the truth to us in
> some hypothetical afterlife, that's two strikes already. How can you
> falsify creation science when anything you point to the creationist can
> respond with, "that's the way God created it."

By "creation science," I take it young-earth creationism is being referred
to. The statement that the earth is young actually is falsifiable, and in
fact, it has been falsified from many areas of science. "In taking this
stance they are in conflict with data from astronomy, astrophysics,
nuclear physics, geology, geochemistry, and geophysics. In these
disciplines an enormous mass of observational and experimental data has
been accumulated bearing on the age of the earth and of the
universe."["Creationism and the Age of the Earth," _Science_ 215:looks
like the title page (1982).]

The earth is 4.6 billion years old, and the universe is 10 to 20 billion
years old, it being created out of nothing (ex nihilo) in the big bang.
Scientists agree that the earth is billions of years old, because the
observational and experimental evidence says that it is so.

However, when it comes to evolution, they widely disagree about what the
mechanism behind new organ and new limb and new body structure appearances
is, and with good reason: nothing they have describes how blind
watchmaking can proceed. Lamarckianism is for the birds, and
neo-Darwinism is a piece of garbage. Evolutionists are sometimes even
reduced to speaking of elusive directional processes in light of the
irreducible complexity and design seen in nature.

The fact that evolution occurred is said to be a _fact_, however. This
makes utterly no sense. No plausible mechanism, yet it is said to have
happened in the unobserved and unobservable past. The belief that
evolution is occurred is simply that, and nothing more: a belief.
Something believed on faith, if you would. It is not science, any more
than a Marxist interpretation of history is science, or Freudian
psychology is science.

[Matt Silberstein]

In talk.origins david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:

>On 12 Jul 1997, Paul Yost wrote:
>
>> WE cannot falsify scientific creationism because we are not God. If we
>> have to rely upon some unsubstantiated God to reveal the truth to us in
>> some hypothetical afterlife, that's two strikes already. How can you
>> falsify creation science when anything you point to the creationist can
>> respond with, "that's the way God created it."
>
>By "creation science," I take it young-earth creationism is being referred
>to. The statement that the earth is young actually is falsifiable, and in
>fact, it has been falsified from many areas of science. "In taking this
>stance they are in conflict with data from astronomy, astrophysics,
>nuclear physics, geology, geochemistry, and geophysics. In these
>disciplines an enormous mass of observational and experimental data has
>been accumulated bearing on the age of the earth and of the
>universe."["Creationism and the Age of the Earth," _Science_ 215:looks
>like the title page (1982).]
>
>The earth is 4.6 billion years old, and the universe is 10 to 20 billion
>years old, it being created out of nothing (ex nihilo) in the big bang.
>Scientists agree that the earth is billions of years old, because the
>observational and experimental evidence says that it is so.
>

Up to know you were doing fine.

>However, when it comes to evolution, they widely disagree about what the
>mechanism behind new organ and new limb and new body structure appearances
>is, and with good reason: nothing they have describes how blind
>watchmaking can proceed. Lamarckianism is for the birds, and
>neo-Darwinism is a piece of garbage. Evolutionists are sometimes even
>reduced to speaking of elusive directional processes in light of the
>irreducible complexity and design seen in nature.
>
>The fact that evolution occurred is said to be a _fact_, however. This
>makes utterly no sense. No plausible mechanism, yet it is said to have
>happened in the unobserved and unobservable past. The belief that
>evolution is occurred is simply that, and nothing more: a belief.
>Something believed on faith, if you would. It is not science, any more
>than a Marxist interpretation of history is science, or Freudian
>psychology is science.
>

Your problems with evolution still have nothing to do with the
falsifiability of creationism, young Earth or old. Please tell us how
old Earth creationism is falsifiable.

[Raistlin Majere, Archmage]

On 12 Jul 1997 12:08:54 -0400, zo...@mail.goodnet.com (zoner) let it be known
that:

>l.net>
>Organization: GoodNet (602) 303-9500
>Distribution:
>
>Cemtech (Cem...@pacbell.net.SPAMNOT) wrote:
>: In article <Pine.SGI.3.95.970709...@umbc9.umbc.edu>,
>: dfo...@gl.umbc.edu says...
>: > Genesis 6:14 has God telling Noah to coat the ark with pitch. Where did
>: > this pitch come from, since flood geology says that petroleum was formed
>: > as a _result_ of the flood, which had not yet occurred? Flood geology: an
>: > idea whose time not only has gone, but whose time never came. [Idea from
>: > Alan Hayward's excellent _Creation and Evolution: Rethinking the Evidence
>: > From Science and the Bible_ (1985), 185. Most recently published in 1995.]
>:
>: Excellent argument against creationism! And with only the Bible yet.
>:
>: Nice work David.
>
>Steve, why don't you stop lying and include the REST of the story? Boy
>you evolutionist/atheists sure are deceptive!

What's an "evolutionist"?
atheism != a belief that evolution occurs. You know better than to
posit that strawman. Why did you do so?

Toddy, you need some serious help.

Raist
alt.atheism atheist #51

Nothing is the miracle it appears to be--Simon Stevin

<dkresch><at><execpc><dot><com>

[Marc A. Moniz]

Geoff Sheffield wrote:

>
> david ford wrote:
> >
> > "It's true... that for the last eighteen months or so I've been kicking
> > around non-evolutionary or even anti-evolutionary ideas.... One of the
> > reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, or let's call it a
> > non-evolutionary view, was that last year I had a sudden realization.
> > For over twenty years I had thought I was working on evolution in some
> > way. One morning I woke up... and it struck me that I had been working
> > on this stuff for more than twenty years, and there was not one thing I
> > knew about it. It's quite a shock to learn that one can be misled for
> > so long.... Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about
> > evolution? Any one thing, any one thing that is true?"[Colin Patterson,
> > quoted in _Harper's_ (Feb 1985), 50.]
> >
> > Can you tell me one thing that you know is true about evolution?
>

> To Mr. Ford:
>
> Who is this guy Patterson, and why should I consider what he says to
> be important? Please don't tell me he's an evolutionist, because
> the quote contradicts that. If you tell me he's an evolutionist, all
> that proves is that you have quoted him out of context.
>
> GS

Colin Patterson is a systematist and paleontologist at the British
Museum. He is a leader in the field of systematics and was instrumental
in the development of 'pattern' or 'transformed' cladistics, to which
this out of context quote is referring.

See http://www.mrccos.com/arn/odesign/od171/colpat.html for an interview
with Patterson concerning his infamous talk at the AMNH.

[david ford]

Adrian <adr...@XXXabarnett.demon.co.uk> on 9 Jul 1997:
david ford:

>: Can you tell me one thing that you know is true about evolution?

>
> Let's see....
> "It is a theory used to describe _observed_ natural phenomena."
>
> How's that?

Let's see....
We don't observe the appearance of new bauplane, but we do observe
microevolution, i.e., horizontal change, e.g., as when after several
generations of breeding, instead of a wolf-like thing, we get a German
shepherd. Reference must be being made to microevolution. Yes, we
observe it, and it's trivial, and it has no application to the question
at hand, namely, whether new bauplane came into existence through non-
intelligence-directed means.

[david ford]

Mark Isaak <at...@best.comNOSPAM> on 9 Jul 1997:
david ford:

>: Genesis 6:14 has God telling Noah to coat the ark with pitch. Where did

>: this pitch come from, since flood geology says that petroleum was formed
>: as a _result_ of the flood, which had not yet occurred?
>

> If you're trying to disprove a flood, you can do better than that.
>

> 1) Pitch can be formed from things other than petroleum, such as wood and

> bone oil.
>
> 2) It is possible some petroleum existed before the flood.

Under what conditions and in what amounts can pitch be formed from wood
and bone oil?

[david ford]

Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> on 11 Jul 1997:
david ford:

>: "Another possible explanation for the nested hierarchy of
>: biological form is in an intelligent Designer.
>
> An Intelligent Designer is an explanation for any set of
> observations. As such it is really useless.

"The theory of intelligent design promises to reinvigorate a field of
science grown stale from a lack of viable solutions to dead-end
problems."[Michael J. Behe, _Darwin's Black Box_ (1996), 231.] I submit
that investigating the natural world as if an Intelligence had made the
organs, limbs, biochemical pathways, etc., and asking "how would an
intelligent entity make such a thing?" will be much more productive in
revealing the wonders in nature than looking at the natural world and
asking "how could changes in DNA have resulted in such a marvelously
complex entity?"

>: And though
>: there are many types of tablespoons, many types of soup spoons and
>: many types of serving spoons, all these types of spoons can be
>: classified together as spoons.
>
> This is a very bad example. The results of human design do not
> show a *nested* hierarchy at all.

Is the example one of a nested hierarchy? If "no," why not?

> There are clear examples of
> cross-fertilization. An innovation in one spoon over time can
> transfer to other spoon lines or even to non-spoon items.

For example, intelligent minds can take an innovation in one area (say
in electroplating spoons with a thin layer of gold) and transfer that
innovation to another area (say in electroplating parts of guided rocket
computer chips). Applying this to the living world, an Intelligent Mind
can take an innovation in one area (say the echolocation sonar system in
bats) and transfer that innovation to another area (say the echolocation
sonar system in dolphins). You make a very good point.

Another example of taking an innovation in one area and applying it to
another organism comes with eyes. Eyes are said to have evolved
independently over 40 times. Translated into the language of
intelligent design, this means that God reproduced a basic concept, that
of vision, in 40 different organisms.

Now, if you are going to persist in saying that "examples of cross-
fertilization" are indicative of the lack of a nested hierarchy, then
just by looking at the prevalence of eyes, you must say that there is
not a nested hierarchy in nature. Are you willing to say that there is
no nested hierarchy in the natural world with the division of things
into categories of kingdom, phylum, class, etc.?

>: Humans, without so intending, create objects that are distributed
>: in character space in a nested hierarchy of form. If life is the result
>: of an intelligence analogous to humankind's then a nested hierarchy of
>: life forms would be the expected result."
>
> I suspect that there are aspects of nested hierarchy that Wise is
> ignoring. Yes, you can set up a classification scheme and have spoons,
> forks, chairs, paintings, and music all in their own classes. Or I can
> set up a different scheme and have Georgian, Roman, Art Deco, and Modern
> items all in their own classes. IOW, it is not a nested hierarchy.

Different schemes could be used to divide up the living world. By the
above line of reasoning, therefore, there does not exist a nested
hierarchy in the living world. Do you really want to imply this?
[snip]

> Are any of these better than this example? If not, I don't see any
> reason to continue your quotes.

[david ford]

Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> on 11 Jul 1997:
david ford:

>: This post is about Stephen Hawking's religious views.
>
> As has been pointed out many times, Hawking's religious views,
> Einstein's religious views, your religious views and my religious
> views are really off topic when discussing science.

I'm sorry to hear that. I was kinda hoping that you'd stick around to
defend the Darwinian religion. "The concept of organic evolution is
very highly prized by biologists, for many of whom it is an object of
genuinely religious devotion, because they regard it as a supreme
integrative principle."[E.G. Conklin, _Man, Real and Ideal_ (1943), 147.
Cited in Alan Hayward, _Creation and Evolution_ (1985), 16.]

[david ford]

Cemtech <Cem...@pacbell.net.SPAMNOT> on 12 Jul 1997:
david ford:

>: Can you tell me one thing that you know is true about evolution?
>

> "Chelvam asserts that "we are drowning" in evidence against

> darwinism. He cites nothing beyond the remarks attributed to me.

How did those remarks read, did Patterson say them and if so where, and
who is Chelvam?

> It seems possible that
> he confuses two theories under the name of darwinism, the general
> theory of common ancestry or descent with modification, and Darwin's
> special theory of mechanism, natural selection.

Looking at this and the following sentences, apparently Patterson does
not believe in natural selection as the mechanism behind the appearance
of new organs, limbs, body plans, and biochemical pathways. What then
does Patterson believe is behind the appearance of such things? What is
the evidence he presents for the existence of this alternative
mechanism?

> If he knows of evidence
> inconsistent with the general theory of common descent, he should tell
> us what it is. I know of none." (Patterson 1988)

This is not saying much. There is no evidence inconsistent with
Freudian psychology, my [in reality, it's not actually my invention]
sleep theory, or a Marxist interpretation of history. These are not
scientific, and neither is the belief that new bauplane came into
existence through chance in the unobserved past.

[david ford]

Mike Noren <ev-mi...@SPAMSTOPnrm.se> in "Re: Transitional Fossil
Challenge (was Re: A Challenge for Creationists)" on 12 Jul 1997:
Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com>:
david ford:

>:> Looking at the fossil record, do speciation events appear to
>:> occur in bunches?

Evolutionists might not wish to acknowledge it, but the answer is "yes."

>:> If the speciation of peripheral isolates occurs in bunches/en
>:> masse/at roughly the same moment in time, how does Wesley explain
>:> this fact in terms of events causing _numerous different_
>:> populations to become isolated at the _same_ time?
>:
>: I would assume that they do occur in bunches. An isolating mechanism
>: is likely to isolate an ecosystem rather than a single sub-population.
>
> In some cases, ie the death valley pupfish, the rift valley lakes and
> their cichlid fish, and the amazonian rainforest, the radiation of
> species is linked to (often repeated) recession of habitable habitat:
> for the rift lakes and the death valley you have large lakes which've
> partially dried up, producing numerous small lakes which are isolated
> from each other; in the case of the amazonian rain forest you have a
> large forest which receded during the glaciations to form numerous
> small isolated 'woodlets'.
>
> When these isolated habitats once again join up, as they have in
> amazonia and the rift lakes, many species in each clump of habitable
> habitat will have acquired barriers for interbreeding with their old
> conspecifics in the other isolated habitats.

More precision should have been used when handling the idea of a
"species." David is not referring to populations that can't interbreed,
but instead, populations that are significantly structurally different.
In most cases, paleontologists can't classify organisms based on whether
they interbreed. They classify based on body structure, and that is the
same way David would classify organisms.

"More than a dozen different [mammalian] groups appeared simultaneously
in the fossil record at the start of the Eocene, some 50 million years
ago. Moreover they appeared in many different environments - in Asia,
in South Africa and in South America.... Most mammals arose, it would
seem, in the remarkably short space of 12 million years. Suddenly we
find remains of carnivores, of cetaceans (whales, dolphins), of rodents,
of marsupials, of toothless creatures like the anteaters, of horses,
camels, elephants, rabbits, bats and many others."[Gordon Rattray
Taylor, _The Great Evolution Mystery_ (1983), 74, 83.]

As a creationist, David would say that this sudden appearance of such
very different things as bats and horses and anteaters in very different
locations was the result of God's creating these things. Now, how
exactly do evolutionists explain these numerous sudden appearances in
terms of events causing _numerous different_ populations to become
isolated at the _same_ time (to say nothing of how, genetically, one
gets these very different things)? Keep in mind that we're pitting
explanation against explanation, non-science vs. non-science.

BTW, Taylor's book is absolutely fantastic, just the book for which
David was looking. It's pretty cool, just how many of the things
that are called mysteries for the theory of evolution make perfect sense
when interpreted from a creationist perspective. In reading just a part
of the book, it has become quite obvious why Alan Hayward calls _The
Great Evolution Mystery_ "one of the most devastating [onslaughts on
Darwinism] ever to appear in print."[_Creation and Evolution_ (1985),
46.]

Gordon Rattray Taylor, _The Great Evolution Mystery_ (NY: Harper and
Row, Publishers, 1983). 277 pages. introduction: evolution in
ferment
1: Darwin said: chance or purpose?; eminently curious; apparent
objections; puzzling features; proofs of natural selection
2: the problem of the giraffe: of ostriches and warthogs; Lamarck: of
birds and giraffes; of salamanders and toads; of wheat and cows;
dead but won't lie down
3: patterns of living: from water to land; private pools; learning to
fly; reptile to mammal; of flowering plants; summing up
4: by fits and starts: has evolution stopped?; explosive radiations; as
dead as the dodo; catastrophe theories; unnatural selection

5: extreme perfection: inventing the eye; re-inventing the eye;
mobilising the ear; blood and iron; mimicry
6: puzzles and plans: straight-line evolution; repetition work; chicken
and egg; a summing up
7: the unsolved origin of species: the paradoxes; elusive species;
speciation on trial; why fishes are silvery; evolution upside down
8: revolution in genetics: passing the buck; DNA and the frame shift;
the protean genome; genes within genes
9: transformation scene: regulation and control; two for the price of
one; infant precocity

10: the one and the many: evolution's biggest step; colonial government;
it makes a difference; ancestors of man?; sex and sensitivity
11: the origins of life: life emerges; life and light; life from space?;
life diversifies; life-and-death matters
12: inherited behavior: no place like home; the mystery of instinct; do
as you would be done by; done on purpose
13: chance or purpose: neo-Darwinism assessed; is evolution Darwinian?;
where is evolution going?; order from disorder; a matter of form
7 page glossary; 15 page bibliography; 1 page picture sources; index

[david ford]

Bruce Salem <sa...@pangea.Stanford.EDU> on 8 Jul 1997 wrote:

Material that I haven't seen appear on talk.origins. You might want to
try posting it while having "talk-o...@moderators.uu.net" after "To:"
Talk.origins has this 4 by 4 newsgroup policy, and the moderation is
leaving some posts on the cutting room floor. You can have the ISP
(whatever that is) changed, but I'm not touching that solution with a 10
foot pole.

[david ford]

Geoff Sheffield <geoff@m_l.abfcnz.com>:

> To Mr. Ford:
>
> Who is this guy Patterson, and why should I consider what he says
> to be important?

To Mr. Sheffield:

In regard to your 11 Jul 1997 inquiry, Patterson is a senior
paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, i.e., he's high
up there. As for the second part of your question, it might be best if
you decided for yourself whether what he says is worth taking note of.
While it is true that he possesses nice credentials in areas relevant to
the issue of origins, the value of what he says (ideally) ought be
judged independently of what those credentials are.

> Please don't tell me he's an evolutionist, because
> the quote contradicts that.

It's understandable how one might get the mistaken impression that he's
not an evolutionist. Consider the following. Patterson talking about
the time he spoke to the Systematics Discussion Group at the American
Museum of Natural History in the fall of 1981: "I compared evolution and
creation and made a case that the two were equivalent." Talking about
the resulting uproar: "One has to live with one's colleagues. They hold
the theory very dear. I found out that what you say will be taken in
'political' rather than rational terms."

He wrote a brochure for the British Museum in 1981 that contained a
sentence beginning "If the theory of evolution is true...."
Contributing editor of _Harper's_, Tom Bethall, notes that, "Patterson
told me that he regarded the theory of evolution as 'often unnecessary'
in biology. 'In fact,' he said, 'they could do perfectly well without
it.'"["Agnostic Evolutionists: The Taxonomic Case Against Darwin,"
_Harper's Magazine_ (Feb. 1985), 49, 52.]

> If you tell me he's an evolutionist, all

> that proves is that you have quoted him out of context.

Yes, he is an evolutionist. I haven't a clue why (or why _any_ rational
person would, for that matter), but he is.

[Elmer Bataitis]

david ford wrote:

> Another example of taking an innovation in one area and applying it to
> another organism comes with eyes. Eyes are said to have evolved

> independently over 40 times. =

I have always doubted this "factoid" from the first time I ran across it
in my first intro geology class in 1963. My doubt as to the validity of
this observation has only increased with time. Specifically: =93Homology
of the *eyeless* Gene of Drosophilia to the *Small eye* Gene in Mice and
*Aniridia* in Humans=94; Quiring, Walldorf, Kloter and Gehring; =93Scienc=
e=94,
vol 265 page 785.
=

******************************************************************
Elmer Bataitis =93Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!=94
Planetech Services -Hobbes
716-442-2884 =

******************************************************************

[Elmer Bataitis]

david ford wrote:
> =

> Geoff Sheffield <geoff@m_l.abfcnz.com>:
> =

> > To Mr. Ford:
> >
> > Who is this guy Patterson, and why should I consider what he says
> > to be important?

> Yes, he is an evolutionist. I haven't a clue why (or why _any_ rationa=

l
> person would, for that matter), but he is.

He's an evolutionist, but he's also a pattern cladist. If you can
explain pattern cladism, you will understand most of his quotations.

[Elmer Bataitis]

david ford wrote:
> =

> Cemtech <Cem...@pacbell.net.SPAMNOT> on 12 Jul 1997:
> david ford:

> > If he knows of evidence
> > inconsistent with the general theory of common descent, he should tel=

l
> > us what it is. I know of none." (Patterson 1988)

> =

> This is not saying much. There is no evidence inconsistent with
> Freudian psychology, my [in reality, it's not actually my invention]
> sleep theory, or a Marxist interpretation of history. These are not
> scientific, and neither is the belief that new bauplane came into
> existence through chance in the unobserved past.

Please explain where the social bauplane of "democracy" came from. It
had its roots in the unobserved past, too. Should we assume that it was
given to us by god? =

[John Wilkins]

In article <Pine.SGI.3.95.97071...@umbc9.umbc.edu>, david
ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:

| Adrian <adr...@XXXabarnett.demon.co.uk> on 9 Jul 1997:

| david ford:
|
| >: Can you tell me one thing that you know is true about evolution?
| >

| > Let's see....
| > "It is a theory used to describe _observed_ natural phenomena."
| >
| > How's that?
|
| Let's see....
| We don't observe the appearance of new bauplane, but we do observe
| microevolution, i.e., horizontal change, e.g., as when after several
| generations of breeding, instead of a wolf-like thing, we get a German
| shepherd. Reference must be being made to microevolution. Yes, we
| observe it, and it's trivial, and it has no application to the question

| at hand, namely, whether new bauplane came into existence through non-
| intelligence-directed means.

If you're going to use the German plural, rather than the Anglicised term
"bauplans", do it properly - either Bauplaene or if your news software
supports it, Baupläne.

Secondly, and more to the point, new structural plans of organisms arise
first as differing species. If all chordates bar mice and monkeys were
extinguished without leaving a fossil record, we'd have two different
proto-bauplans (Urbauplaene auf Deutsch). Given several hundred millions
years for diversification, we'd have two distinct chordate bauplans.

When body structures were less canalised, minor specific variations laid
the basis for what we now see as major differences. That only those
persisted that we now see is largely a matter of contingency, for
extinction of individual species can be a very contingent affair. If there
were 20 or so body plans in existence during the pre-Cambrian because there
were 20 or so metazooan species, and 16 of them became extinct for one
reason or another, of course we'll see in their lineal descendants the
basic structure retained and amplified and modified.

You think microevolution cannot account for major higher level evolutionary
change. We think that it can but that we do not have all the information
required to make a detailed historical reconstruction. You cannot show that
observed evolutionary processes cannot lead to this sort of change. We
cannot show _how_ it did, but only for lack of recorded information.
Evolutionists have every good reason to think that this is the general
explanation, even if we never get all the paleontological data needed to
fill out the actual course of biohistory.

--
John Wilkins, Head of Communication Services, Walter and Eliza
Hall Institute of Medical Research [Remove .UNSPAM from header address]
<http://www.wehi.edu.au/~wilkins><mailto:wil...@wehi.edu.au>
It is not enough to succeed. Friends must be seen to have failed. - Capote

[Matt Silberstein]

In talk.origins david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:

>Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> on 11 Jul 1997:
>david ford:
>

>>: "Another possible explanation for the nested hierarchy of
>>: biological form is in an intelligent Designer.
>>
>> An Intelligent Designer is an explanation for any set of
>> observations. As such it is really useless.
>
>"The theory of intelligent design promises to reinvigorate a field of
>science grown stale from a lack of viable solutions to dead-end
>problems."[Michael J. Behe, _Darwin's Black Box_ (1996), 231.]

So what. This is called an argument from authority. I don't care how
many people you can provide who have this view. It does not deal with
the issue. Now if you have any way to refute what I said I would be
interested in listening. For instance, can you think of any
observation that ID does not explain?

> I submit
>that investigating the natural world as if an Intelligence had made the
>organs, limbs, biochemical pathways, etc., and asking "how would an
>intelligent entity make such a thing?" will be much more productive in
>revealing the wonders in nature than looking at the natural world and
>asking "how could changes in DNA have resulted in such a marvelously
>complex entity?"
>

Can you give me an description of what you mean by "Intelligent". Does
it have anything to do with the same word when applied to people?

>>: And though
>>: there are many types of tablespoons, many types of soup spoons and
>>: many types of serving spoons, all these types of spoons can be
>>: classified together as spoons.
>>
>> This is a very bad example. The results of human design do not
>> show a *nested* hierarchy at all.
>
>Is the example one of a nested hierarchy? If "no," why not?
>

No. See what I said below. Soup spoons share some characteristics in
common. But so do spoons of a particular design. There is no nesting.

>> There are clear examples of
>> cross-fertilization. An innovation in one spoon over time can
>> transfer to other spoon lines or even to non-spoon items.
>
>For example, intelligent minds can take an innovation in one area (say
>in electroplating spoons with a thin layer of gold) and transfer that
>innovation to another area (say in electroplating parts of guided rocket
>computer chips). Applying this to the living world, an Intelligent Mind
>can take an innovation in one area (say the echolocation sonar system in
>bats) and transfer that innovation to another area (say the echolocation
>sonar system in dolphins). You make a very good point.
>

Right. Which is not what we see in biology.

>Another example of taking an innovation in one area and applying it to
>another organism comes with eyes. Eyes are said to have evolved

>independently over 40 times. Translated into the language of
>intelligent design, this means that God reproduced a basic concept, that
>of vision, in 40 different organisms.
>

The problem is, it is the solution, not the technique that is
"copied". The eye has evolved separately, but we can distinguish the
separate lineages. And those that share the same eye "method" share
other things in common. The hierarchy is nest and unique.

>Now, if you are going to persist in saying that "examples of cross-
>fertilization" are indicative of the lack of a nested hierarchy, then
>just by looking at the prevalence of eyes, you must say that there is
>not a nested hierarchy in nature. Are you willing to say that there is
>no nested hierarchy in the natural world with the division of things
>into categories of kingdom, phylum, class, etc.?
>

No, because you are misunderstanding the observations. Biologists did
not look at the eyes and arbitrarily decide there were 40 separate
lineages. They looked at the morphology, they looked at development,
they looked at all of the aspects of the organism. And they found
these 40 distinct lineages.

>>: Humans, without so intending, create objects that are distributed
>>: in character space in a nested hierarchy of form. If life is the result
>>: of an intelligence analogous to humankind's then a nested hierarchy of
>>: life forms would be the expected result."
>>
>> I suspect that there are aspects of nested hierarchy that Wise is
>> ignoring. Yes, you can set up a classification scheme and have spoons,
>> forks, chairs, paintings, and music all in their own classes. Or I can
>> set up a different scheme and have Georgian, Roman, Art Deco, and Modern
>> items all in their own classes. IOW, it is not a nested hierarchy.
>
>Different schemes could be used to divide up the living world. By the
>above line of reasoning, therefore, there does not exist a nested
>hierarchy in the living world. Do you really want to imply this?
>[snip]
>

Yes, I can divide organisms into winged and non-winged, for example.
But the bats clearly don't belong with the birds, the similarity is
superficial. The qualities that puts bats with mammals and birds
separately are integral to the organism. It involves bones and muscle
and organs and reproduction. The fact is, you can't develop a
meaningful alternate taxonomy. But go ahead, prove me wrong. Give us
one.

>> Are any of these better than this example? If not, I don't see any
>> reason to continue your quotes.
>

Matt Silberstein
----------------------------------------------

CAUCHON. And you, and not the Church, are to be the judge?

JOAN. What other judgment can I judge by but my own?

_Saint Joan_ by GBS, Scene VI

[Matt Silberstein]

In talk.origins david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:

>Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> on 11 Jul 1997:
>david ford:
>

Come on David. You know better than this. The term is "religious
devotion". People have religious devotion to their football teams.
That does not make football a religion. (Though Joe was a god.) Unless
you really want to debase the concept of religion, evolution is
science, not religion.

[Jeremy Henty]

In article <33C99F...@i-2000.com>, "Marc A. Moniz" <mam...@i-2000.com> writes:

|> Colin Patterson is a systematist and paleontologist at the British
|> Museum. He is a leader in the field of systematics and was instrumental
|> in the development of 'pattern' or 'transformed' cladistics, to which
|> this out of context quote is referring.
|>
|> See http://www.mrccos.com/arn/odesign/od171/colpat.html for an interview
|> with Patterson concerning his infamous talk at the AMNH.

Try http://www.mrccos.com/arn/odesign/od171/colpat.htm, instead. That
actually works! (Netscape 3.0 obviously isn't smart enough to try
*.htm if *.html fails, are there any browsers that are, I wonder.)

Regards,

Jeremy

--
Jeremy Henty
Atheist #152

[Mark Isaak]

In article <Pine.SGI.3.95.97071...@umbc9.umbc.edu>,
david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:

>"More than a dozen different [mammalian] groups appeared simultaneously
>in the fossil record at the start of the Eocene, some 50 million years

>ago. ..."

You realize, don't you, that, if true, the above utterly disproves
Creationism. And I don't just mean young earth creationism.

Or do you believe that there were millions of individual creation events
scattered over billions of years?
--
Mark Isaak at...@best.com http://www.best.com/~atta
"To undeceive men is to offend them." - Queen Christina of Sweden

[atta]

In article <Pine.SGI.3.95.97071...@umbc9.umbc.edu>,
david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:

>>: And though
>>: there are many types of tablespoons, many types of soup spoons and
>>: many types of serving spoons, all these types of spoons can be
>>: classified together as spoons.
>

>Is the example one of a nested hierarchy? If "no," why not?

No. It's not nested heirarchically. Why don't silverware sections in
department stores group all spoons together in one area and all forks in
another? The divisions you get vary wildly depending on what characters
you examine.

>For example, intelligent minds can take an innovation in one area (say
>in electroplating spoons with a thin layer of gold) and transfer that
>innovation to another area (say in electroplating parts of guided rocket
>computer chips). Applying this to the living world, an Intelligent Mind
>can take an innovation in one area (say the echolocation sonar system in
>bats) and transfer that innovation to another area (say the echolocation
>sonar system in dolphins).

The lack of such transferred innovations shows Creationism is false. I
think if you examine dolphins and bats, you will find that the sonar
production mechanisms are quite different.

>Another example of taking an innovation in one area and applying it to
>another organism comes with eyes. Eyes are said to have evolved
>independently over 40 times.

With 40 different designs.

>Different schemes could be used to divide up the living world.

Then why aren't they? Everyone everywhere recognizes that _Hippodamia
convergens_ is a kind of ladybug, ladybugs are a kind of beetle, beetles
are a kind of insect, insects are a kind of arthropod, and arthropods are
a kind of animal. If stand by your above statement, show a different
scheme that makes as much sense. Make sure you fit weevils, flies,
centipedes, and molluscs into your scheme, too.

[Marc A. Moniz]

Mark Isaak wrote:
>
> In article <Pine.SGI.3.95.97071...@umbc9.umbc.edu>,
> david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:

> >"More than a dozen different [mammalian] groups appeared simultaneously
> >in the fossil record at the start of the Eocene, some 50 million years

> >ago. ..."
>
> You realize, don't you, that, if true, the above utterly disproves
> Creationism. And I don't just mean young earth creationism.
>
> Or do you believe that there were millions of individual creation events
> scattered over billions of years?
> --

Didn't Cuvier lose this one back in the 19th Century?

[Marc A. Moniz]

david ford wrote:
>
> Adrian <adr...@XXXabarnett.demon.co.uk> on 9 Jul 1997:
> david ford:
>
> >: Can you tell me one thing that you know is true about evolution?
> >
> > Let's see....
> > "It is a theory used to describe _observed_ natural phenomena."
> >
> > How's that?
>
> Let's see....
> We don't observe the appearance of new bauplane, but we do observe
> microevolution, i.e., horizontal change, e.g., as when after several
> generations of breeding, instead of a wolf-like thing, we get a German
> shepherd. Reference must be being made to microevolution. Yes, we
> observe it, and it's trivial, and it has no application to the question
> at hand, namely, whether new bauplane came into existence through non-
> intelligence-directed means.

So now you're redefining macrevolution to evolution at the level of the
phylum or higher? If the end result of the process is a new species
that IS macroevolution. You can say that it 'micoevolved' all you want
(and it may have), but it *is* MACROevolution.

[zoner]

Geoff Sheffield (geoff@m_l.abfcnz.com) wrote:
: zoner wrote:
: >
: > l.net>

: > Organization: GoodNet (602) 303-9500
: > Distribution:
: >
: > Cemtech (Cem...@pacbell.net.SPAMNOT) wrote:
: > : In article <Pine.SGI.3.95.970709...@umbc9.umbc.edu>,
: > : dfo...@gl.umbc.edu says...

: > : > Genesis 6:14 has God telling Noah to coat the ark with pitch. Where did

: > : > this pitch come from, since flood geology says that petroleum was formed

: > : > as a _result_ of the flood, which had not yet occurred? Flood geology: an

: > : > idea whose time not only has gone, but whose time never came. [Idea from
: > : > Alan Hayward's excellent _Creation and Evolution: Rethinking the Evidence
: > : > From Science and the Bible_ (1985), 185. Most recently published in 1995.]
: > :
: > : Excellent argument against creationism! And with only the Bible yet.
: > :
: > : Nice work David.
: >
: > Steve, why don't you stop lying and include the REST of the story? Boy
: > you evolutionist/atheists sure are deceptive!

:
: I don't think Mr. Ford agrees with your version of creation. You should
: look up his posts and respond to him directly.

Mr. Ford did NOT say the first quote, he responded to it, and the
evolutionist made it look like he said it.

:
: Here is a quote from a previous post from Mr. Ford:
:
: > Young-earth creationists, I'd like to
: > persuade you to become old-earth creationists, so please post some
: > young-earth claims for critical examination.
:
:
: I haven't been able to figure out why none of the young earth
: creationists have attempted to support their position in the
: debate with Mr. Ford.

If that is the case, I have one question for Mr. Ford. Do you beleive in
Adam and Eve and the fall of man? If so, you are claiming that there was
death BEFORE the fall of man, directly contradicting the Bible.

:
:
:
:
: >
: > :

: > :
:

[Geoff Sheffield]

zoner wrote:
>
> l.net>
> Organization: GoodNet (602) 303-9500
> Distribution:
>
> Cemtech (Cem...@pacbell.net.SPAMNOT) wrote:
> : In article <Pine.SGI.3.95.970709...@umbc9.umbc.edu>,
> : dfo...@gl.umbc.edu says...
> : > Genesis 6:14 has God telling Noah to coat the ark with pitch. Where did
> : > this pitch come from, since flood geology says that petroleum was formed
> : > as a _result_ of the flood, which had not yet occurred? Flood geology: an
> : > idea whose time not only has gone, but whose time never came. [Idea from
> : > Alan Hayward's excellent _Creation and Evolution: Rethinking the Evidence
> : > From Science and the Bible_ (1985), 185. Most recently published in 1995.]
> :
> : Excellent argument against creationism! And with only the Bible yet.
> :
> : Nice work David.
>
> Steve, why don't you stop lying and include the REST of the story? Boy
> you evolutionist/atheists sure are deceptive!

I don't think Mr. Ford agrees with your version of creation. You should
look up his posts and respond to him directly.

Here is a quote from a previous post from Mr. Ford:

> Young-earth creationists, I'd like to
> persuade you to become old-earth creationists, so please post some
> young-earth claims for critical examination.

I haven't been able to figure out why none of the young earth
creationists have attempted to support their position in the
debate with Mr. Ford.

>
> :

[Victor Eijkhout]

zo...@mail.goodnet.com (zoner) writes:

> Geoff Sheffield (geoff@m_l.abfcnz.com) wrote:

> : I haven't been able to figure out why none of the young earth

> : creationists have attempted to support their position in the
> : debate with Mr. Ford.
>

> If that is the case, I have one question for Mr. Ford. Do you beleive in
> Adam and Eve and the fall of man? If so, you are claiming that there was
> death BEFORE the fall of man, directly contradicting the Bible.

Somehow I don't think Geoff had this kind of argument
in mind. At least I was hoping for a scientific debate between two
creationist theories.

This is exegesis.

Victor.
--
405 Hilgard Ave ............................. `Mostly because I did not fancy
Department of Mathematics, UCLA ............... to predict drama and death on
Los Angeles CA 90024 .......................... Mother's day.' [Psychic quake
phone: +1 310 825 2173 / 9036 ............... predictor Dr. Tury about having
http://www.math.ucla.edu/~eijkhout missed the big 7.0 quake in Iran]

[david ford]

Richard Keatinge <ric...@keatinge.demon.co.uk> on 10 Jul 1997:

> While I'm whinging, could you make your future points rather
> more succinct, please?

Nyet.

[sregoR .M divaD]

zoner wrote:

> If that is the case, I have one question for Mr. Ford. Do you beleive in
> Adam and Eve and the fall of man? If so, you are claiming that there was
> death BEFORE the fall of man, directly contradicting the Bible.

But supported by everything we know about biology, paleontology and
anyone with half a brain who knew what any reproducing species could do
in the absence of death...
--

The Young American
===========================
"My fellow Americans, I've signed legislation that will outlaw
Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes."
--former president Ronald Reagan, about to go on the air for a radio
broadcast, unaware that the microphone was already on

[wf...@enter.netxx]

On 14 Jul 1997 19:12:22 -0400, zo...@mail.goodnet.com (zoner) wrote:

>wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>:
>: >
>: 'new' dna is not 'created'....mutations are errors in
>: transcription...or copying of dna during reproduction. thats the basis
>: of evolution.
>:
>
>We only share a fraction of the DNA of other life forms, where did the NEW
>DNA come from?

wrongo creation breath...we share approx 97-99% of our DNA with
chimps..and something like 40% with bacteria...

>
>You are right though, the basis of evolution is based in error.

yeah as a matter of fact it is...evolution is based on mutations. glad
you understand at least one point of science...even though you despise
science in general...

by the way...why do only fundamentalists support creationism? why isnt
it accepted by scientists like quantum physics? could it be a bias on
the part of creationists? if youre the typical creationist this
question will cause you to put me in your kill file.

see ya!

>

[zoner]

wf...@enter.netxx wrote:

: On 14 Jul 1997 19:12:22 -0400, zo...@mail.goodnet.com (zoner) wrote:
:
: >wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
: >:
: >: >
: >: 'new' dna is not 'created'....mutations are errors in
: >: transcription...or copying of dna during reproduction. thats the basis
: >: of evolution.
: >:
: >
: >We only share a fraction of the DNA of other life forms, where did the NEW
: >DNA come from?
:
: wrongo creation breath...we share approx 97-99% of our DNA with
: chimps..and something like 40% with bacteria...

Right, so WHERE DID THE OTHER DNA COME FROM?

:
: >
: >You are right though, the basis of evolution is based in error.

:
: yeah as a matter of fact it is...evolution is based on mutations. glad
: you understand at least one point of science...even though you despise
: science in general...

And if you would ever realize that mutations are a sorry excuse for your
theory, if anything it hurts it. In fact evolutionists have realized this
and are looking for a new mechanism.

:
: by the way...why do only fundamentalists support creationism? why isnt

: it accepted by scientists like quantum physics? could it be a bias on
: the part of creationists? if youre the typical creationist this
: question will cause you to put me in your kill file.

:

I don't put anyone in my killfile. Fundamentalists seem to be the only
ones who don't see a reason to cave into the demands of the secular world
just to fit in, we trust in God more than man, and you have yet to prove
that your theory is feasible, much less fact.

: see ya!
:

c-ya

: >
:

[atta]

In article <Pine.SGI.3.95.97071...@umbc9.umbc.edu>,
david ford approvingly quotes Gordon Rattray Taylor:

>"More than a dozen different [mammalian] groups appeared simultaneously

>in the fossil record at the start of the Eocene, . . ."

David, do you believe there was a creation event at the start of the
Eocene which was separte from the several creation events that originated
the organisms which came before and after those mammals? How many
individual creations do you think there were in all, and how spread apart
in time do you think they were?

[wf...@enter.netxx]

On 14 Jul 1997 20:35:36 -0400, zo...@mail.goodnet.com (zoner) wrote:

>wf...@enter.netxx wrote:

>:

>: wrongo creation breath...we share approx 97-99% of our DNA with
>: chimps..and something like 40% with bacteria...
>
>Right, so WHERE DID THE OTHER DNA COME FROM?

do you know how bacteria replicate? they are the ultimate in
promiscuity...they pick up DNA from just about anything lying around
and incorporate it into their own DNA....ever hear of viruses? human
DNA has virus fragments in it...product of billions of years of
evolution...

>
>And if you would ever realize that mutations are a sorry excuse for your
>theory, if anything it hurts it. In fact evolutionists have realized this
>and are looking for a new mechanism.

gee whiz i sure wish we scientists would just stop our work and go to
church so we could hear science...wadda we know...we're just too busy
putting robots on mars to learn science...

>e.
>:

>
>I don't put anyone in my killfile. Fundamentalists seem to be the only
>ones who don't see a reason to cave into the demands of the secular world
>just to fit in, we trust in God more than man, and you have yet to prove
>that your theory is feasible, much less fact.
>

oh...so all scientists are engaged in a conpiracy and are kowtowing to
some political correct idea? prove it!!! where's your documentation?
you might start by showing, if your idea is correct...why god is
necessary to quantum physics....astrophysics...chemistry....

the simpler idea is, of course, that fundies are pushing a religious
agenda to prove their notion of biblical inerrancy to be correct.
check the ICR home page to see what you need to be a scientist...you
need to believe in jesus....guess that leaves out nonscientists such
as einstein and hawking...

ive proven my case. wheres yours?

[sregoR .M divaD]

zoner wrote:
>
> wf...@enter.netxx wrote:

> : On 14 Jul 1997 19:12:22 -0400, zo...@mail.goodnet.com (zoner) wrote:
> :
> : >wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
> : >:

> : >: >
> : >: 'new' dna is not 'created'....mutations are errors in
> : >: transcription...or copying of dna during reproduction. thats the basis
> : >: of evolution.
> : >:
> : >
> : >We only share a fraction of the DNA of other life forms, where did the NEW
> : >DNA come from?
> :

> : wrongo creation breath...we share approx 97-99% of our DNA with
> : chimps..and something like 40% with bacteria...
>
> Right, so WHERE DID THE OTHER DNA COME FROM?

He doesn't say we have MORE DNA than a chimp, just that we have
DIFFERENT DNA. That's your "horizontal evolution," isn't it?

> :

> : >
> : >You are right though, the basis of evolution is based in error.
> :
> : yeah as a matter of fact it is...evolution is based on mutations. glad
> : you understand at least one point of science...even though you despise
> : science in general...
>

> And if you would ever realize that mutations are a sorry excuse for your
> theory, if anything it hurts it. In fact evolutionists have realized this
> and are looking for a new mechanism.

That's interesting. Any evolutionists here looking for a new mechanism?

> : by the way...why do only fundamentalists support creationism? why isnt
> : it accepted by scientists like quantum physics? could it be a bias on
> : the part of creationists? if youre the typical creationist this
> : question will cause you to put me in your kill file.
> :
>

> I don't put anyone in my killfile. Fundamentalists seem to be the only
> ones who don't see a reason to cave into the demands of the secular world
> just to fit in, we trust in God more than man, and you have yet to prove
> that your theory is feasible, much less fact.

In spite fact that there is no precedent to taking the bible literally
(quite the opposite, actually), fundamentalists still persist (and not
just in Christianity). I think it's a property of human psychology.
Some people who weren't raised fundamentalist like it, others who were
(like me) can't tolerate the silly ostrich style denials.

You're the one making extraordinary claims. I'm still waiting for your
extraordinary proof.

[zoner]

sregoR .M divaD (mca...@Auburn.campus.mci.net) wrote:

: zoner wrote:
: >
: > wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
: > : On 14 Jul 1997 19:12:22 -0400, zo...@mail.goodnet.com (zoner) wrote:
: > :
: > : >wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
: > : >:
: > : >: >
: > : >: 'new' dna is not 'created'....mutations are errors in
: > : >: transcription...or copying of dna during reproduction. thats the basis
: > : >: of evolution.
: > : >:
: > : >
: > : >We only share a fraction of the DNA of other life forms, where did the NEW
: > : >DNA come from?
: > :
: > : wrongo creation breath...we share approx 97-99% of our DNA with
: > : chimps..and something like 40% with bacteria...
: >
: > Right, so WHERE DID THE OTHER DNA COME FROM?
:
: He doesn't say we have MORE DNA than a chimp, just that we have
: DIFFERENT DNA. That's your "horizontal evolution," isn't it?

Oh, so now you are claiming that our DNA is just "rearranged"? If so,
then you should be able to take the DNA of a cat, and rearrange it, place
it into a fertile dog and make a dog. Are you saying that this is what
you can do?

:
: > :
: > : >

: > : >You are right though, the basis of evolution is based in error.
: > :
: > : yeah as a matter of fact it is...evolution is based on mutations. glad
: > : you understand at least one point of science...even though you despise
: > : science in general...
: >
: > And if you would ever realize that mutations are a sorry excuse for your
: > theory, if anything it hurts it. In fact evolutionists have realized this
: > and are looking for a new mechanism.
:
: That's interesting. Any evolutionists here looking for a new mechanism?
:

If they aren't, it is out of ignorance.

: > : by the way...why do only fundamentalists support creationism? why isnt

: > : it accepted by scientists like quantum physics? could it be a bias on
: > : the part of creationists? if youre the typical creationist this
: > : question will cause you to put me in your kill file.
: > :
: >
: > I don't put anyone in my killfile. Fundamentalists seem to be the only
: > ones who don't see a reason to cave into the demands of the secular world
: > just to fit in, we trust in God more than man, and you have yet to prove
: > that your theory is feasible, much less fact.
:
: In spite fact that there is no precedent to taking the bible literally
: (quite the opposite, actually), fundamentalists still persist (and not
: just in Christianity). I think it's a property of human psychology.
: Some people who weren't raised fundamentalist like it, others who were
: (like me) can't tolerate the silly ostrich style denials.
:
: You're the one making extraordinary claims. I'm still waiting for your
: extraordinary proof.

You will get your absolute proof someday, until then, you need to base
your faith in facts and reason, evolution has neither.

: --

:

[Doug Quarnstrom]

Geoff Sheffield (geoff@m_l.abfcnz.com) wrote:

: I haven't been able to figure out why none of the young earth
: creationists have attempted to support their position in the
: debate with Mr. Ford.

...because old-earth creationism is a big step toward sanity, and
not many of the insane are capable of taking that bold first step.

doug

[wf...@enter.netxx]

On 14 Jul 1997 21:21:50 -0400, zo...@mail.goodnet.com (zoner) wrote:

>: > wf...@enter.netxx wrote:

>Oh, so now you are claiming that our DNA is just "rearranged"?

its rearranged by evolution...

If so,
>then you should be able to take the DNA of a cat, and rearrange it, place
>it into a fertile dog and make a dog. Are you saying that this is what
>you can do?

i cant but evolution, in a manner of speaking can...and does....thats
what evolution is all about....and please note this is
FIGURATIVE...evolution of species takes a LONG time...

>
>You will get your absolute proof someday, until then, you need to base
>your faith in facts and reason, evolution has neither.
>
>: --

all evolution has is science.

all creationism has is its religious beliefs.

you never answered the question about why scientists accept evolution
while ONLY fundamentalists accept creationism...

wheres the proof of this 'science' conspiracy...we KNOW why
fundamentalists are creationists...they have an ideology to
support....

why would jewish, moslem, xtian and atheist scientists all accept
evolution?

bite on that one for awhile.

[John Wilkins]

In article <33CA6B...@i-2000.com>, mam...@i-2000.com wrote:

| Mark Isaak wrote:
| >
| > In article <Pine.SGI.3.95.97071...@umbc9.umbc.edu>,

| > david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
| > >"More than a dozen different [mammalian] groups appeared simultaneously

| > >in the fossil record at the start of the Eocene, some 50 million years
| > >ago. ..."
| >
| > You realize, don't you, that, if true, the above utterly disproves
| > Creationism. And I don't just mean young earth creationism.
| >
| > Or do you believe that there were millions of individual creation events
| > scattered over billions of years?
| > --
|
| Didn't Cuvier lose this one back in the 19th Century?

Cuvier died before it was lost. Louis Agassiz lost it, in several senses,
although just before he died he suddenly realised the impact and value of
the Darwinian view, although he would not renege on his special
creationism. The last real special creationist I think was his son.

[zoner]

wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
:

: On 14 Jul 1997 20:35:36 -0400, zo...@mail.goodnet.com (zoner) wrote:
:
: >wf...@enter.netxx wrote:

:
: >:

: >: wrongo creation breath...we share approx 97-99% of our DNA with
: >: chimps..and something like 40% with bacteria...
: >
: >Right, so WHERE DID THE OTHER DNA COME FROM?
:

: do you know how bacteria replicate? they are the ultimate in

: promiscuity...they pick up DNA from just about anything lying around
: and incorporate it into their own DNA....ever hear of viruses? human
: DNA has virus fragments in it...product of billions of years of
: evolution...

We are NOT bacteria, we are multicellular creatures, now tell me where the
other DNA came from. Bacteria always was and always will be bacteria,
unless you can DEMONSTRATE differently, you are not speaking
scientifically.

:
:

: >
: >And if you would ever realize that mutations are a sorry excuse for your
: >theory, if anything it hurts it. In fact evolutionists have realized this
: >and are looking for a new mechanism.
:

: gee whiz i sure wish we scientists would just stop our work and go to

: church so we could hear science...wadda we know...we're just too busy
: putting robots on mars to learn science...

:

Science is not the issue here, PSEUDO science is. Evolution is the
epitomy of pseudo science.

: >e.
: >:

: >
: >I don't put anyone in my killfile. Fundamentalists seem to be the only
: >ones who don't see a reason to cave into the demands of the secular world
: >just to fit in, we trust in God more than man, and you have yet to prove
: >that your theory is feasible, much less fact.
: >

: oh...so all scientists are engaged in a conpiracy and are kowtowing to

: some political correct idea? prove it!!! where's your documentation?
: you might start by showing, if your idea is correct...why god is
: necessary to quantum physics....astrophysics...chemistry....

:
Let's call it a BAD case of peer pressure. How can I provide
documentation on something that isn't documented? There are MANY
ex-evolutionists that admit to the great bias within the scientific
community, and it is quite obvious to a neutral observer.

: the simpler idea is, of course, that fundies are pushing a religious

: agenda to prove their notion of biblical inerrancy to be correct.
: check the ICR home page to see what you need to be a scientist...you
: need to believe in jesus....guess that leaves out nonscientists such
: as einstein and hawking...

They both recognized the need for a higher power, as their books reflect.

:
:
: ive proven my case. wheres yours?

You have proven NOTHING, try again.

:

[zoner]

wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
:

: On 14 Jul 1997 21:21:50 -0400, zo...@mail.goodnet.com (zoner) wrote:
:
: >: > wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
:

: >Oh, so now you are claiming that our DNA is just "rearranged"?
:
: its rearranged by evolution...

Yeah, a unintelligent process.

:
: If so,

: >then you should be able to take the DNA of a cat, and rearrange it, place
: >it into a fertile dog and make a dog. Are you saying that this is what
: >you can do?
:
: i cant but evolution, in a manner of speaking can...and does....thats
: what evolution is all about....and please note this is
: FIGURATIVE...evolution of species takes a LONG time...
:

You can't but some unknown process, without any intelligence and the magic
potion of TIME can. What a joke! If all that is happening is
"rearranging DNA" then it should be able to be done QUICKLY by any
geneticist in the lab, using intelligence.

: >
: >You will get your absolute proof someday, until then, you need to base

: >your faith in facts and reason, evolution has neither.
: >
: >: --
: all evolution has is science.

Evolution is not science, it is speculation.

:
: all creationism has is its religious beliefs.
:
It has God, and that is all you need.

: you never answered the question about why scientists accept evolution

: while ONLY fundamentalists accept creationism...
:
: wheres the proof of this 'science' conspiracy...we KNOW why
: fundamentalists are creationists...they have an ideology to
: support....

It is a bad case of peer pressure, not to mention that the scientific
community will never admit to pushing such a false theory for over 100
years.

:
: why would jewish, moslem, xtian and atheist scientists all accept
: evolution?

Due to weak faith in the Bible and in God.

:
: bite on that one for awhile.

Burp, excuse me.

:

[david ford]

On 14 Jul 1997, zoner wrote:
Geoff Sheffield (geoff@m_l.abfcnz.com) wrote:

> : I don't think Mr. Ford agrees with your version of creation. You should

> : look up his posts and respond to him directly.
>

> Mr. Ford did NOT say the first quote, he responded to it, and the
> evolutionist made it look like he said it.

No, the bit about Noah and pitch was posted by me.

> : I haven't been able to figure out why none of the young earth
> : creationists have attempted to support their position in the
> : debate with Mr. Ford.
>

> If that is the case, I have one question for Mr. Ford. Do you believe in

> Adam and Eve and the fall of man? If so, you are claiming that there was
> death BEFORE the fall of man, directly contradicting the Bible.

If there was no death before the Fall, then Adam's gut would have gotten
massively swollen with bacteria that didn't die and continued to grow.
Flies would take over the world-- I'm sure you heard something like this
in school-- take two flies, they breed, nothing dies, after a few days,
you have a say 5 mile high layer of flies around the earth. The notion
that there was no physical death before the Fall is absurd.

Now no spiritual death before the Fall, that'd be another matter. Have
you read the relevant passages in Romans? If not, I suggest doing so, and
find it rather hard to see just how physical death was gotten out of the
passages. The only thing I'm contradicting by saying that there _was_
physical death before the Fall is a very poor interpretation of the text
and an even poorer understanding of the implications of such a position.

[david ford]

On 14 Jul 1997, Matt Silberstein:
david ford:

> >I'm sorry to hear that. I was kinda hoping that you'd stick around to
> >defend the Darwinian religion. "The concept of organic evolution is
> >very highly prized by biologists, for many of whom it is an object of
> >genuinely religious devotion, because they regard it as a supreme
> >integrative principle."[E.G. Conklin, _Man, Real and Ideal_ (1943), 147.
> >Cited in Alan Hayward, _Creation and Evolution_ (1985), 16.]
>
> Come on David. You know better than this. The term is "religious
> devotion".

I disagree. The "genuinely" in "genuinely religious devotion" makes all
the difference in the world.

> People have religious devotion to their football teams.
> That does not make football a religion. (Though Joe was a god.) Unless
> you really want to debase the concept of religion, evolution is
> science, not religion.

Another quote. "Belief in evolution is... exactly parallel to belief in
special creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true, but
neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof."[Prof. L. H.
Matthews, foreword to a 1971 edition of Darwin's _Origin_. Whether the
writer goes on to say that the belief in evolution has been proven, I
don't know. If so, perhaps it means that it took up until around 1971 to
prove the theory. Cited in Hayward, 16.]

[Matt Silberstein]

In talk.origins david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:

>On 14 Jul 1997, Matt Silberstein:
>david ford:
>
>> >I'm sorry to hear that. I was kinda hoping that you'd stick around to
>> >defend the Darwinian religion. "The concept of organic evolution is
>> >very highly prized by biologists, for many of whom it is an object of
>> >genuinely religious devotion, because they regard it as a supreme
>> >integrative principle."[E.G. Conklin, _Man, Real and Ideal_ (1943), 147.
>> >Cited in Alan Hayward, _Creation and Evolution_ (1985), 16.]
>>
>> Come on David. You know better than this. The term is "religious
>> devotion".
>
>I disagree. The "genuinely" in "genuinely religious devotion" makes all
>the difference in the world.

The noun is "devotion". Whether he intended to have the compound
"genuinely religious" or not is besides the point. Clearly he is
referring to the devotion, he is not claiming evolution is a religion.
And it would be a strange religion indeed to be based on a "supreme
integrative principle". And even if he were making the explicit claim
that evolution was a religion I would just disagree with you both.
Providing 1,000 cites where someone makes the claim does not support
your claim. This is just a useless argument from authority. Now if you
have a quote from someone presenting the argument, then give us that.
If you have a reference for evidence to support you claim, provide
that. But simply giving a quote that you claim shows someone else
making the same bare assertion does not do much.

>
>> People have religious devotion to their football teams.
>> That does not make football a religion. (Though Joe was a god.) Unless
>> you really want to debase the concept of religion, evolution is
>> science, not religion.
>
>Another quote. "Belief in evolution is... exactly parallel to belief in
>special creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true, but
>neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof."[Prof. L. H.
>Matthews, foreword to a 1971 edition of Darwin's _Origin_. Whether the
>writer goes on to say that the belief in evolution has been proven, I
>don't know. If so, perhaps it means that it took up until around 1971 to
>prove the theory. Cited in Hayward, 16.]
>

That does sound so very confused. Since science does not engage in the
business of proof, I wonder what he meant. Science does, OTOH, engage
in the process of refutation. And on that dimension there is a
distinction between evolution and scientific creationism.

However, the more interesting point is that you seem to be claiming
that scientific creationism is a religion. Do you admit that?

[Christopher A. Lee]

In article <Pine.SGI.3.95.97071...@umbc10.umbc.edu> david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> writes:
>On 14 Jul 1997, Matt Silberstein:
>david ford:
>
>> >I'm sorry to hear that. I was kinda hoping that you'd stick around to
>> >defend the Darwinian religion. "The concept of organic evolution is
>> >very highly prized by biologists, for many of whom it is an object of
>> >genuinely religious devotion, because they regard it as a supreme
>> >integrative principle."[E.G. Conklin, _Man, Real and Ideal_ (1943), 147.
>> >Cited in Alan Hayward, _Creation and Evolution_ (1985), 16.]
>>
>> Come on David. You know better than this. The term is "religious
>> devotion".
>
>I disagree. The "genuinely" in "genuinely religious devotion" makes all
>the difference in the world.

Why was Mr Conlklin's quote supposed to convince anybody of anything at
all? It's just an assertion, not backed up by any explanation, argument
or evidence. There isn't even any context for it. It's worse than
worthless, it's a waste of time quoting it and reading it although it
shows that if you actually had anything of substance you'd have posted
that instead.

It's the classic fallacy of argument from authority. You don't say *why*
he thinks this, but he thinks it. So by golly, you do too and if it's
good enough for you, it should be good enough for us as well.

Maybe you'd rather somebody else did your thinking for you, but the rest
of us would rather think for ourselves.

But the quote shows that neither he nor you understand just *why*
evolution is accepted by scientists, and that neither you nor he
understand the scientific method that you decry.

>> People have religious devotion to their football teams.
>> That does not make football a religion. (Though Joe was a god.) Unless
>> you really want to debase the concept of religion, evolution is
>> science, not religion.
>
>Another quote. "Belief in evolution is... exactly parallel to belief in
>special creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true, but
>neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof."[Prof. L. H.
>Matthews, foreword to a 1971 edition of Darwin's _Origin_. Whether the
>writer goes on to say that the belief in evolution has been proven, I
>don't know. If so, perhaps it means that it took up until around 1971 to
>prove the theory. Cited in Hayward, 16.]

Why don't you know? Perhaps if you had actually read the original instead
of relying on a creationist quote-book you might have understood what
either Darwin or Matthews was saying.

BTW what was left out by the ellipses?

[zoner]

david ford (dfo...@gl.umbc.edu) wrote:
:

: On 14 Jul 1997, zoner wrote:
: Geoff Sheffield (geoff@m_l.abfcnz.com) wrote:
:
: > : I don't think Mr. Ford agrees with your version of creation. You should
: > : look up his posts and respond to him directly.
: >
: > Mr. Ford did NOT say the first quote, he responded to it, and the
: > evolutionist made it look like he said it.
:
: No, the bit about Noah and pitch was posted by me.
:
: > : I haven't been able to figure out why none of the young earth
: > : creationists have attempted to support their position in the
: > : debate with Mr. Ford.
: >
: > If that is the case, I have one question for Mr. Ford. Do you believe in
: > Adam and Eve and the fall of man? If so, you are claiming that there was
: > death BEFORE the fall of man, directly contradicting the Bible.
:
: If there was no death before the Fall, then Adam's gut would have gotten
: massively swollen with bacteria that didn't die and continued to grow.

Not if there wasn't any harmful bacteria, remember the universe and the
Earth were perfect, no death, no disease, don't assume that things were
the way they are now, the Bible states that it was much different.

: Flies would take over the world-- I'm sure you heard something like this

: in school-- take two flies, they breed, nothing dies, after a few days,
: you have a say 5 mile high layer of flies around the earth. The notion
: that there was no physical death before the Fall is absurd.

Then I guess you consider the Bible absurd.

:
: Now no spiritual death before the Fall, that'd be another matter. Have
: you read the relevant passages in Romans? If not, I suggest doing so, and
: find it rather hard to see just how physical death was gotten out of the
: passages. The only thing I'm contradicting by saying that there _was_
: physical death before the Fall is a very poor interpretation of the text
: and an even poorer understanding of the implications of such a position.

:

Why would there be physical death in a perfect world? I am sure that God
could handle the situation.

[Mr. M.J. Smith]

In article <5qfvio$r06$1...@news.goodnet.com>,
zoner <zo...@mail.goodnet.com> wrote:
>david ford (dfo...@gl.umbc.edu) wrote:

>: If there was no death before the Fall, then Adam's gut would have gotten
>: massively swollen with bacteria that didn't die and continued to grow.

>Not if there wasn't any harmful bacteria, remember the universe and the
>Earth were perfect, no death, no disease, don't assume that things were
>the way they are now, the Bible states that it was much different.

The word is 'commensal'. Like it or not, you (and I guess so would
Adam) have various bacteria inhabiting your gut. Without them you would
have chronic diarrhoea and soon die.

However, you are both wrong. Dead (and live) bacteria are excreted
in faeces, so Adam's gut would have not gotten massively swollen.

>: Flies would take over the world-- I'm sure you heard something like this
>: in school-- take two flies, they breed, nothing dies, after a few days,
>: you have a say 5 mile high layer of flies around the earth. The notion
>: that there was no physical death before the Fall is absurd.

>Then I guess you consider the Bible absurd.

I demonstrates (depending on the time allowed) that there must have
been death.

<cut>

>Why would there be physical death in a perfect world? I am sure that God
>could handle the situation.

If Adam and Eve were perfect, how come they succumbed to temptation?

Martin Smith.

[zoner]

Mr. M.J. Smith (mjs...@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk) wrote:
: In article <5qfvio$r06$1...@news.goodnet.com>,

: zoner <zo...@mail.goodnet.com> wrote:
: >david ford (dfo...@gl.umbc.edu) wrote:
:
: >: If there was no death before the Fall, then Adam's gut would have gotten
: >: massively swollen with bacteria that didn't die and continued to grow.
:
: >Not if there wasn't any harmful bacteria, remember the universe and the
: >Earth were perfect, no death, no disease, don't assume that things were
: >the way they are now, the Bible states that it was much different.
:
: The word is 'commensal'. Like it or not, you (and I guess so would
: Adam) have various bacteria inhabiting your gut. Without them you would
: have chronic diarrhoea and soon die.
:
: However, you are both wrong. Dead (and live) bacteria are excreted
: in faeces, so Adam's gut would have not gotten massively swollen.

You are assuming that pre-fall biology is the same as it is today, bad
assumption.

:
: >: Flies would take over the world-- I'm sure you heard something like this

: >: in school-- take two flies, they breed, nothing dies, after a few days,
: >: you have a say 5 mile high layer of flies around the earth. The notion
: >: that there was no physical death before the Fall is absurd.
:
: >Then I guess you consider the Bible absurd.
:
: I demonstrates (depending on the time allowed) that there must have
: been death.

Given your false uniformitarian world view, the world was MUCH different
in the past.

:
: <cut>

:
: >Why would there be physical death in a perfect world? I am sure that God
: >could handle the situation.
:
: If Adam and Eve were perfect, how come they succumbed to temptation?

:

Because God created them with free will.

: Martin Smith.
:
:

Also, in the future, don't copy my private email account with your posts.

:

[Doug Quarnstrom]

wf...@enter.netxx wrote:

: On 14 Jul 1997 20:35:36 -0400, zo...@mail.goodnet.com (zoner) wrote:

: >wf...@enter.netxx wrote:

: >:

: >: wrongo creation breath...we share approx 97-99% of our DNA with
: >: chimps..and something like 40% with bacteria...
: >
: >Right, so WHERE DID THE OTHER DNA COME FROM?

: do you know how bacteria replicate? they are the ultimate in
: promiscuity...they pick up DNA from just about anything lying around
: and incorporate it into their own DNA....ever hear of viruses? human
: DNA has virus fragments in it...product of billions of years of
: evolution...

From retroviruses in fact, yes?

: >:
: >
: >I don't put anyone in my killfile. Fundamentalists seem to be the only
: >ones who don't see a reason to cave into the demands of the secular world
: >just to fit in, we trust in God more than man, and you have yet to prove
: >that your theory is feasible, much less fact.
: >
: oh...so all scientists are engaged in a conpiracy and are kowtowing to
: some political correct idea? prove it!!! where's your documentation?
: you might start by showing, if your idea is correct...why god is
: necessary to quantum physics....astrophysics...chemistry....

One wishes zoner could understand the actual difference between theories
and facts.

doug

[Doug Quarnstrom]

zoner (zo...@mail.goodnet.com) wrote:

: wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
: :
: : On 14 Jul 1997 20:35:36 -0400, zo...@mail.goodnet.com (zoner) wrote:
: :
: : >wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
: :
: : >:
: : >: wrongo creation breath...we share approx 97-99% of our DNA with
: : >: chimps..and something like 40% with bacteria...
: : >
: : >Right, so WHERE DID THE OTHER DNA COME FROM?
: :
: : do you know how bacteria replicate? they are the ultimate in
: : promiscuity...they pick up DNA from just about anything lying around
: : and incorporate it into their own DNA....ever hear of viruses? human
: : DNA has virus fragments in it...product of billions of years of
: : evolution...

: We are NOT bacteria, we are multicellular creatures, now tell me where the

: other DNA came from. Bacteria always was and always will be bacteria,
: unless you can DEMONSTRATE differently, you are not speaking
: scientifically.

He is telling you that viruses can insert new dna into a host, you numbskull.
Jesus F* Christ on a hopped up honda with a blond bombshell straddling his
back and hanging on for dear life, why does anybody even bother to speak
to you. A DOG would read better.

doug

[Doug Quarnstrom]

zoner (zo...@mail.goodnet.com) wrote:

: Then I guess you consider the Bible absurd.

Not at all. What is absurd is the way the puffed up ignorant
read it.

doug

[Mark Isaak]

In article <5qfvio$r06$1...@news.goodnet.com>,
zoner <zo...@mail.goodnet.com> wrote:
>Not if there wasn't any harmful bacteria, remember the universe and the
>Earth were perfect, no death, no disease, don't assume that things were
>the way they are now, the Bible states that it was much different.

Gen. 1:31: "And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was
very good."

But there is death and disease now, and young-earth creationists don't
like that, so the creationists say the world is not good any more.
Genesis 1 is irrelevant now; we live in a different creation now, a bad
one, since God brought death and pain to us. Never mind that these same
creationists would not be alive if death did not exist; they can't be
grateful to God because God doesn't do everything exactly according to
their wishes. God's standards of perfection don't matter; the
creationists' standards are paramount. And as a result, the creationists
get to live in a Not Good world.

What a dismal religion the young-earth creationists have!

[Peter Nyikos]

hi...@picasso.ucsf.edu (Wade Hines) writes:

>Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.SC.EDU> writes:

>>Gould is speaking out of atheistic dogma when he says that
>>scientific creationism is not falsifiable. He is assuming
>>that God will never reveal, not even in a life after death,
>>that Genesis is not to be taken literally--not because he
>>is a fundamentalist, but because he does not believe in God.

>Well Gould's right out then, isn't he.

>However, I was just wondering, how many mathematical problems
>involve revealations in "life after death".

There could be an infinite number of such problems. Ever
hear of Godel's Incompleteness Theorems?

>All along, I'ld thought that science restricted itself to
>observables

The set of natural numbers is not a physical observable. [Well, YOU
were the one who brought mathematics into this!]

> which in my hopelessly limited mind was also
>restricted to life and I had ignored 'life after death' as
>a part of hte picture. Can such observations be referenced?
>Do they go as personal communications?

They will, in part, at and after the Last Judgment if not before, if
Judeo-Christian-Islamic eschatology is valid, at least in its rough
outlines.

>And when I think about it, why would you take as evidence the
>heresay of some reserector that Genesis was not to be taken
>literally.

Hearsay? Visions of the past, similar to movies but more compelling
because more intelligently done, are part of what I
had in mind.

Maybe it's just a temp playing with your mind whilst
>the author of Genesis is off to another dimension or even waiting
>behind the curtains to test your reaction?

Ever read Descartes's _Meditations_? Such a thing could
not be ruled out in principle AFAIK, but then, neither
could the theory that the whole of your life is a private
dream and all the so-called observations of science
just parts of the same dream.

>But Gould sure was off base to suggest that intervention by a
>divine power capable to working outside restrictions of physics
>is an unfalsafiable 'theory'. You've sure pegged that one.

Pointless sarcasm, since Gould was suggesting just the opposite:
that the INABILITY of a divine power to work outside the
restrictions of physics is an unfalsifiable theory.

In more direct words: Gould was writing as though atheism
had been proven to the point of being unfalsifiable.

I've run into this pattern on Usenet time and again:
efforts to paint me as the dogmatist when I am really
the one attacking dogmatism.

Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208

[Matt Silberstein]

In talk.origins Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.SC.EDU> wrote:

>hi...@picasso.ucsf.edu (Wade Hines) writes:
>
>>Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.SC.EDU> writes:
>
>>>Gould is speaking out of atheistic dogma when he says that
>>>scientific creationism is not falsifiable. He is assuming
>>>that God will never reveal, not even in a life after death,
>>>that Genesis is not to be taken literally--not because he
>>>is a fundamentalist, but because he does not believe in God.
>
>>Well Gould's right out then, isn't he.
>
>>However, I was just wondering, how many mathematical problems
>>involve revealations in "life after death".
>
>There could be an infinite number of such problems. Ever
>hear of Godel's Incompleteness Theorems?

Could be. But you invoke God and life after death revelations above.
The question is how often is such invoked in math? What you be your
response if someone invoked God or a Designer in a math paper?

>
>>All along, I'ld thought that science restricted itself to
>>observables
>
>The set of natural numbers is not a physical observable. [Well, YOU
>were the one who brought mathematics into this!]
>
>> which in my hopelessly limited mind was also
>>restricted to life and I had ignored 'life after death' as
>>a part of hte picture. Can such observations be referenced?
>>Do they go as personal communications?
>
>They will, in part, at and after the Last Judgment if not before, if
>Judeo-Christian-Islamic eschatology is valid, at least in its rough
>outlines.
>

Not Jewish at all. No such Judgement in the theology. And even so,
what does this "possibility" have to do with science? It has no more
value than IPUs.

>>And when I think about it, why would you take as evidence the
>>heresay of some reserector that Genesis was not to be taken
>>literally.
>
>Hearsay? Visions of the past, similar to movies but more compelling
>because more intelligently done, are part of what I
>had in mind.
>
> Maybe it's just a temp playing with your mind whilst
>>the author of Genesis is off to another dimension or even waiting
>>behind the curtains to test your reaction?
>
>Ever read Descartes's _Meditations_? Such a thing could
>not be ruled out in principle AFAIK, but then, neither
>could the theory that the whole of your life is a private
>dream and all the so-called observations of science
>just parts of the same dream.
>

And that has just as much scientific validity as after death
revelation.

>>But Gould sure was off base to suggest that intervention by a
>>divine power capable to working outside restrictions of physics
>>is an unfalsafiable 'theory'. You've sure pegged that one.
>
>Pointless sarcasm, since Gould was suggesting just the opposite:
>that the INABILITY of a divine power to work outside the
>restrictions of physics is an unfalsifiable theory.
>
>In more direct words: Gould was writing as though atheism
>had been proven to the point of being unfalsifiable.
>

Could you provide a quote that shows this.

>I've run into this pattern on Usenet time and again:
>efforts to paint me as the dogmatist when I am really
>the one attacking dogmatism.
>

Did you ever wonder if there was a reason for this? Or is it because
we all discuss you in private?

[Stephen]

zoner wrote:

> : all creationism has is its religious beliefs.
> :
> It has God, and that is all you need.

OK, try to send your next post without using a computer.
the glowing box in front of you was invented by a bunch of
know-nothing scientists, and should be irrelevent to your
spreading of god's "word". Just pray at the screen really
hard until the reply writes and posts itself.

[Mats Andtbacka]

wf...@enter.netxx wrote:

[...]

>wrongo creation breath...we share approx 97-99% of our DNA with
>chimps..and something like 40% with bacteria...

_40%_? i'm interested in how this is calculated. given that we've
several more chromosomes than most bacteria, surely you're not just
counting arbitrary sequences of base pairs - i mean, counting base pairs
alone, do bacteria have anywhere near 40% as much DNA as we do?
--
tough guys don't sig

[Brian Tozer.]

zoner <zo...@mail.goodnet.com> wrote in article
<5qevmh$q7q$2...@news.goodnet.com>...

> : If so,
> : >then you should be able to take the DNA of a cat, and rearrange it,
place
> : >it into a fertile dog and make a dog. Are you saying that this is
what
> : >you can do?

> : i cant but evolution, in a manner of speaking can...and does....thats
> : what evolution is all about....and please note this is
> : FIGURATIVE...evolution of species takes a LONG time...

> You can't but some unknown process, without any intelligence and the
magic
> potion of TIME can. What a joke! If all that is happening is
> "rearranging DNA" then it should be able to be done QUICKLY by any
> geneticist in the lab, using intelligence.

> Evolution is not science, it is speculation.

I am at a loss to ascertain just what mechanism you propose to account for
all the millions of species that we see in the world.
Do you agree with Karl that these evolved from the few thousand creatures
that were on the ark 4000 years ago?

Brian Tozer.

[Chris Nedin]

You should not change the title of a thread without at least an indication
in the new title.

In article <Pine.SGI.3.95.97071...@umbc9.umbc.edu>, david

says...
>
>Mike Noren <ev-mi...@SPAMSTOPnrm.se> in "Re: Transitional Fossil
> Challenge (was Re: A Challenge for Creationists)" on 12 Jul 1997:

[deleted]

>> In some cases, ie the death valley pupfish, the rift valley lakes and
>> their cichlid fish, and the amazonian rainforest, the radiation of
>> species is linked to (often repeated) recession of habitable habitat:
>> for the rift lakes and the death valley you have large lakes which've
>> partially dried up, producing numerous small lakes which are isolated
>> from each other; in the case of the amazonian rain forest you have a
>> large forest which receded during the glaciations to form numerous
>> small isolated 'woodlets'.
>>
>> When these isolated habitats once again join up, as they have in
>> amazonia and the rift lakes, many species in each clump of habitable
>> habitat will have acquired barriers for interbreeding with their old
>> conspecifics in the other isolated habitats.
>
>More precision should have been used when handling the idea of a
>"species." David is not referring to populations that can't interbreed,
>but instead, populations that are significantly structurally different.
>In most cases, paleontologists can't classify organisms based on whether
>they interbreed. They classify based on body structure, and that is the
>same way David would classify organisms.

Palaeontologists base their classification on the same criterion as
everyone else - morphology. Very few species have been tested to see if
they can or cannot interbreed. For instance, there are numerous species
of penguin, but I don't know of anyone who has gone to the trouble of
testing the interbreeding abilities by setting up the venue, providing
the right mood lighting and music, the champagne and the taxi fare to the
nearest hotel. Most extant species are classified due to morphological
criteria.

>"More than a dozen different [mammalian] groups appeared simultaneously
>in the fossil record at the start of the Eocene, some 50 million years

>ago. Moreover they appeared in many different environments - in Asia,
>in South Africa and in South America.... Most mammals arose, it would
>seem, in the remarkably short space of 12 million years. Suddenly we
>find remains of carnivores, of cetaceans (whales, dolphins), of rodents,
>of marsupials, of toothless creatures like the anteaters, of horses,
>camels, elephants, rabbits, bats and many others."[Gordon Rattray
>Taylor, _The Great Evolution Mystery_ (1983), 74, 83.]
>
>As a creationist, David would say that this sudden appearance of such
>very different things as bats and horses and anteaters in very different
>locations was the result of God's creating these things. Now, how
>exactly do evolutionists explain these numerous sudden appearances in
>terms of events causing _numerous different_ populations to become
>isolated at the _same_ time (to say nothing of how, genetically, one
>gets these very different things)? Keep in mind that we're pitting
>explanation against explanation, non-science vs. non-science.

Ah yes, Taylor. Well, at least his book was better than most other
antievolutionist material, but then that isn't saying much! Lets look
at this claim.

<-- 90+ mya *
-------------------*----------------------------- Marsupials
*
---*----------------------------- Rodents
*
??*????------------------------- Bats
*
--*----------------------------- "Rabbits"
*
-*----------------------------- "Ant Eaters"
*
?*----------------------------- "Horses"
*
* --------------------------- "Whales"
*
* ------------------------ "Elephants"
*
* -------------------- "Camels"
-------------------------------------------------
Cret | Palaeocene | Eocene | Oligocene| Miocene
65 58 34 24 Mya

Ignoring the marsupials claim which is so laughable that it is best
ignored, we have a time scale of rodents (64 mya) to camels (34 mya) of
approx. 30 million years. Contrary to Taylor's claim, most of these groups
have their origin before the Eocene and some well after the start of the
Eocene. Also this is the appearence of the oldest members of each group,
the VAST majority of forms within each group did not appear until much
later, usually in the Oligo-Miocene
So, they did not "appear simultaneously", nor "at the start of the Eocene",
nor did "most mammals ar[i]se, it would seem, in the remarkably short
space of 12 million years". Three strikes, guess he, and you, are out.

Oh, and about the "appearence in very different locations". Lessee,

Marsupials (_Alphadon_) - North America
Camels (_Poebrotherium_) - North America
Rodents (_Paramys_) - North America
Horses (_Hydracotherium_) - North America
"toothless" (?_Metacheiromys_) - North America
Bats (_Icaronycteris_) - North America
Elephants (_Moeritherium_) - Africa
Rabbit (_Eurymylus_) - Asia
Whales (_Pakicetus_) - Pakistan

Nope, wrong again. Strrriiiiiiikkkkke 4!

Chris

Sources
Benton, M.J. (1990) Vertebrate Palaeontology. Unwin Hyman, London. 377pp.

Colbert, E.H. & Morales, M. (1991) Evolution of the Vertebrates. Wiley-Liss,
New York. 470pp.

cne...@geology.adelaide.edu.au *my views only* ne...@ediacara.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------
| Dept. of Geology & Geophysics | "How can Nedin be trusted" |
| University of Adelaide | C Wieland Director, |
| South Australia 5005 | Creation Research Foundation, |
| ph: 61 8 8303 5959 | Queensland Australia |
--------------------------------------------------------------------

[Thomas Swanson]

In article <5qfvio$r06$1...@news.goodnet.com> zo...@mail.goodnet.com (zoner) writes:
>david ford (dfo...@gl.umbc.edu) wrote:
>:
>: On 14 Jul 1997, zoner wrote:
>: Geoff Sheffield (geoff@m_l.abfcnz.com) wrote:
>: > If that is the case, I have one question for Mr. Ford. Do you believe in
>: > Adam and Eve and the fall of man? If so, you are claiming that there was
>: > death BEFORE the fall of man, directly contradicting the Bible.
>:

>: If there was no death before the Fall, then Adam's gut would have gotten
>: massively swollen with bacteria that didn't die and continued to grow.
>

>Not if there wasn't any harmful bacteria, remember the universe and the
>Earth were perfect, no death, no disease, don't assume that things were
>the way they are now, the Bible states that it was much different.
>

>: Flies would take over the world-- I'm sure you heard something like this
>: in school-- take two flies, they breed, nothing dies, after a few days,
>: you have a say 5 mile high layer of flies around the earth. The notion
>: that there was no physical death before the Fall is absurd.
>

>Then I guess you consider the Bible absurd.
>

No death before the fall means nobody ate anything.

No death before the fall means that the world is overrun with all the
animals reproducing all over the place (as noted above), and if this
didnb't happen, I guess it means that the fall is responsibl;e for the
introduction of sex. Woohoo!

____________________________________________________________
Tom Swanson | "I have a cunning plan that cannot fail"
TRIUMF | S Baldrick

><DARWIN> "Your grasp of science lacks opposable thumbs."
L L B Waggoner

[Elmer Bataitis]

zoner wrote:

> Not if there wasn't any harmful bacteria, remember the universe and the=

> Earth were perfect, no death, no disease, don't assume that things were=

> the way they are now, the Bible states that it was much different.

Mark, could you please explain Genesis 1:11 to me?

> Why would there be physical death in a perfect world? I am sure that G=
od
> could handle the situation.

Again, how's about explaining Genesis 1:11?

******************************************************************
Elmer Bataitis =93Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!=94
Planetech Services -Hobbes
716-442-2884 =

******************************************************************

[zoner]

Brian Tozer. (bria...@ihug.co.nz) wrote:
: zoner <zo...@mail.goodnet.com> wrote in article

:

Through genetic variation, there is horizontal "evolution", not vertical
evolution, ie. macroevolution. Such changes can happen very quickly with
the knowledge we have of genetics, and no mutation OR natural selection
are needed.

Yes, I believe that the life that we see was saved by Noah and the Ark.

[zoner]

Elmer Bataitis ("nyli...@frontiernet.net/nylicence"@aol.com) wrote:
:

: zoner wrote:
:
: > Not if there wasn't any harmful bacteria, remember the universe and the=
:
: > Earth were perfect, no death, no disease, don't assume that things were=
:
: > the way they are now, the Bible states that it was much different.
:
: Mark, could you please explain Genesis 1:11 to me?

Who is Mark? And what don't you understand about Genesis 1:11?

:
: > Why would there be physical death in a perfect world? I am sure that G=

: od
: > could handle the situation.
:
: Again, how's about explaining Genesis 1:11?

What is your question?

:
: ******************************************************************

:

[zoner]

Mark Isaak (at...@best.comNOSPAM) wrote:
:
: In article <5qfvio$r06$1...@news.goodnet.com>,

: zoner <zo...@mail.goodnet.com> wrote:
: >Not if there wasn't any harmful bacteria, remember the universe and the

: >Earth were perfect, no death, no disease, don't assume that things were

: >the way they are now, the Bible states that it was much different.
:

: Gen. 1:31: "And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was
: very good."

And it WAS good, and perfect, UNTIL the fall of man.

:
: But there is death and disease now, and young-earth creationists don't

: like that, so the creationists say the world is not good any more.

We don't like that? The wages of sin is death, the fall of man brought
sin into God's creation, it was no longer "good" and certainly not
perfect, it began to deteriorate from that point on.

: Genesis 1 is irrelevant now; we live in a different creation now, a bad

: one, since God brought death and pain to us. Never mind that these same
: creationists would not be alive if death did not exist; they can't be
: grateful to God because God doesn't do everything exactly according to
: their wishes. God's standards of perfection don't matter; the
: creationists' standards are paramount. And as a result, the creationists
: get to live in a Not Good world.

Where are you getting this stuff? We can't be grateful to God? He
doesn't do everything according to our wishes? I am very grateful to God
and I don't expect or demand that He obey MY wishes, His will is my will.
God's standards of perfection are perfect, you need to keep reading the
Bible and get to the point of the fall of man, and read what God says.

:
: What a dismal religion the young-earth creationists have!

This has got to be a joke, if not, you are completely and utterly ignorant
of what creationists believe.

: --

:

[StevenX]

>zo...@mail.goodnet.com (zoner) wrote:

Zoner, you truly are a blithering idiot. God did NOT create them with freewill
-- they STOLE freewill when they ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and
Evil .... before that they knew nothing of evil. God created evil ... that is
if you believe any of this pathetic mumbo-jumbo.

[zoner]

StevenX (Steve...@wcoil.com) wrote:

:

As I stated in my email message to you, they were most certainly created
with a free will because they chose to disobey God's command, therefore
disobeying His will. If the didn't have thier own free will, they would
never have had the choice, and would never have disobeyed, your logic is
flawed.

[Reverend Chuck]

> : In article <5qfvio$r06$1...@news.goodnet.com>,
> : zoner <zo...@mail.goodnet.com> wrote:
> : >Not if there wasn't any harmful bacteria, remember the universe and the
> : >Earth were perfect, no death, no disease, don't assume that things were
> : >the way they are now, the Bible states that it was much different.
> :
> : Gen. 1:31: "And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was
> : very good."
>
> And it WAS good, and perfect, UNTIL the fall of man.

Now wait a goldurn second there, son! Didn't god create rats and roaches on the fifth
day... and us on the sixth? WHOOPS! BIG time error on the author's part!

[Chris Nedin]

In article <Pine.SGI.3.95.97071...@umbc10.umbc.edu>, david
says...

>
>On 14 Jul 1997, Matt Silberstein:

>> People have religious devotion to their football teams.

>> That does not make football a religion. (Though Joe was a god.) Unless
>> you really want to debase the concept of religion, evolution is
>> science, not religion.
>
>Another quote. "Belief in evolution is... exactly parallel to belief in
>special creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true, but
>neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof."[Prof. L. H.
>Matthews, foreword to a 1971 edition of Darwin's _Origin_. Whether the
>writer goes on to say that the belief in evolution has been proven, I
>don't know. If so, perhaps it means that it took up until around 1971 to
>prove the theory. Cited in Hayward, 16.]

You mean this Matthews?:

"Before I returned to New York, I went off to a previouisly arranged
conference in East Germany. On the way, stopping over in England, I spoke
to an elderly zoologist, L. Harrison Matthews, who wrote the introduction
to Darwin's _Origin_ in the Everyman edition. In phrases which have been
seized on by Creationists, Matthews argues that belief in Darwinism is like
a religious comitment. This was going to be used by the State of Arkansas
who would argue that belief in Creation-science is logically identical to
belief in evolution. Hence, since one can teach the latter, one should be
allowed to teach the former. (A more rigorous conclusion would be that
since both are religion, neither should be taught. But no matter.)

Would Matthews recant? He was happy to do so, and wrote me a strong letter
about the misuse that he felt Creationists had made of his introduction.
Reading between the lines, I got the strong impression that what motivated
Matthews in his introduction was not the logic of evolutionary theory at all.
He wanted to poke the late Sir Gavin de Beer in the eye. De Beer was a
fanatical Darwinian, and Matthews was dressing him down for the undue
strength of his feelings!" (Ruse 1984, p. 323)

Chris

Ruse, M. (1984) A philosophers day in court. 311-342. In: Science and
Creationism, A. Montague (ed.). Oxford University Press, Oxford.

[H. Brent Howatt]

In article <5qevmh$q7q$2...@news.goodnet.com>, zo...@mail.goodnet.com (zoner) wrote:
+You can't but some unknown process, without any intelligence and the magic
+potion of TIME can. What a joke! If all that is happening is
+"rearranging DNA" then it should be able to be done QUICKLY by any
+geneticist in the lab, using intelligence.

I hate to tell you this, drooling one, but it IS "done QUICKLY by any
geneticist in the lab, using intelligence."...all the time. It is called
recombinant genetics. If you would read even a newspaper, you'ld have heard
about it.

+: you never answered the question about why scientists accept evolution
+: while ONLY fundamentalists accept creationism...
+:
+: wheres the proof of this 'science' conspiracy...we KNOW why
+: fundamentalists are creationists...they have an ideology to
+: support....
+
+It is a bad case of peer pressure, not to mention that the scientific
+community will never admit to pushing such a false theory for over 100
+years.

Ah yes, the evilutionist konspiracy. It would be boring, but we get those
cool black helicopters along with the secret handshake.

+: why would jewish, moslem, xtian and atheist scientists all accept
+: evolution?
+
+Due to weak faith in the Bible and in God.

Funny, that's not what most Christian, evolutionary biologists say.

H. Brent Howatt, Director of Ins. Svc.| The first days are the hardest days,
Humboldt County Office of Education | Don't you worry any more.
Eureka, California | When life looks like Easy Street,
Behind the Redwood Curtain | There is danger at your door.
============================================================================
bho...@humboldt1.com FINGER for PGP public key
bho...@humboldt.k12.ca.us

[Wade Hines]

Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.SC.EDU> writes:

>hi...@picasso.ucsf.edu (Wade Hines) writes:

>>Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.SC.EDU> writes:

>>>Gould is speaking out of atheistic dogma when he says that
>>>scientific creationism is not falsifiable. He is assuming
>>>that God will never reveal, not even in a life after death,
>>>that Genesis is not to be taken literally--not because he
>>>is a fundamentalist, but because he does not believe in God.

>>Well Gould's right out then, isn't he.

<<< snip, but it was rightous >>>

>>But Gould sure was off base to suggest that intervention by a
>>divine power capable to working outside restrictions of physics
>>is an unfalsafiable 'theory'. You've sure pegged that one.

>Pointless sarcasm, since Gould was suggesting just the opposite:
>that the INABILITY of a divine power to work outside the
>restrictions of physics is an unfalsifiable theory.

Whoa there big fella. That is askew to any line of logic I've
seen here before. Care to give a justification of that interpretation
rather than the more standard one I've alluded to? Make sure
it's not just bias on your part but derived from Gould's writings
and hopefully not from quotes extracted from distant pages or
even multiple sources. Do that if you must, but it will detract
from the force of the point.

>In more direct words: Gould was writing as though atheism
>had been proven to the point of being unfalsifiable.

No. Open your mind. What about what Gould writes is inconsistent
with my reading? Interventiin by divine powers working outside
of the limits of physics represent phenomina that are not necessarily
measureable by physical technics. Things that one cannot measure
are unscientific. That doesn't make them bad/evil/false, it just
takes them out of the game, or more correctly, takes science out
of the game: the difference being simply a matter of perspective.

If the define power goes in, how do we have any confidence in
what we see afterwords? The molecular clock is based on an assumption
of random mutation. If divine mutation is added, the assumption fails
and so does the science.

If someone comes in and tinkers with my mass spectrometer between
my experiments, I'm left wondering what they changed and what tehy
left alone and never know how far to trust anything. Science is the
same way. Once something plays fast and loose with one rule or set
of rules, the constancy of hte others is thrown into question
rendering the whole process questionable. Thus, divine intervention
is an horrible thought to science. Rather than footnote every
claim of science with *unless some Loki trickster fooled us, such
possibilities are summarily dismissed as unscientific with the global
footnote that science doesn't work if divine tinkerers are messing
with stuff.

>I've run into this pattern on Usenet time and again:
>efforts to paint me as the dogmatist when I am really
>the one attacking dogmatism.

Hardly. You constantly invoke the Judeo/Christian/Islamic
'tradition' as a vernerable dogma. You play this twisted
reading game to ignore the standard rejection by science of
godly influences and caste it into one of militant atheism
which is a dogma of its own right in many fundamentalist
circles which is most often seen in the company of other
"if'n yur taint wi' me, yur agin me"

But them who am I to argue against one who signs himself
as a professor of mathematics ...