Allele frequency change definition: What I actually said

[Ray Martinez]

The only purpose of this topic is to set the record straight. Topic not intended for debate.

I told John Harshman that I accept allele frequency changes as occurring. Here is what I said:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/r4eVVzOL6Vg/4fJ4wTnzAAAJ

"I'm answering the question as phrased: and the answer is yes. Ernst Mayr, may I remind, said no.

My position is as follows: based on the observed fact of organized complexity, existing in species, allele frequency changes are designed, caused by an Intelligent agent; therefore these changes cannot be evolutionary."

I also issued a clarification:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/r4eVVzOL6Vg/yVTYc671AAAJ

"Clarification:

Allele frequency changes are assumed evolutionary.

I contend based on organized complexity said changes must be designed.

Only one explanation, or view, can be true, not both."

So any person claiming I issued a retraction is shown to be mistaken. And any person claiming I accept any form of evolution as existing or occurring is also shown to be mistaken.

Ray (species immutabilist)

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 09/19/2016 10:38 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> The only purpose of this topic is to set the record straight. Topic not intended for debate.

As you well know that's not how usenet works. There will be debate
whether you intend so or not. Two attempts to follow up to you on that
thread failed so I will consolidate them here...

> I told John Harshman that I accept allele frequency changes as occurring. Here is what I said:
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/r4eVVzOL6Vg/4fJ4wTnzAAAJ
>
> "I'm answering the question as phrased: and the answer is yes. Ernst Mayr, may I remind, said no.
>
> My position is as follows: based on the observed fact of organized complexity, existing in species, allele frequency changes are designed, caused by an Intelligent agent; therefore these changes cannot be evolutionary."
>
> I also issued a clarification:
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/r4eVVzOL6Vg/yVTYc671AAAJ
>
> "Clarification:
>
> Allele frequency changes are assumed evolutionary.
>
> I contend based on organized complexity said changes must be designed.
>
> Only one explanation, or view, can be true, not both."
>
> So any person claiming I issued a retraction is shown to be mistaken. And any person claiming I accept any form of evolution as existing or occurring is also shown to be mistaken.

Yet your sidesteps are nonsense. So you acknowledge that allelic
frequencies change in populations over time but attribute this to God
because resulting "organized complexity". You are positing a
micromanager God. One problem. In the case of genetic drift where is
said directionality or intelligent agency? God is doing nothing more
than drawing multicolored jellybeans from a jar to place in another jar
or rolling the dice. Genetic drift is a concept you will need to grapple
with alongside neutral alleles. Evolution happens at the molecular
level. You seem also to sidestep this fact with your uneducated "without
morphological change evolution has not occurred." You must also deal
with the fact that your micromanaging God decided to include remnant
yolking genes in the human genome. This fact screams evolution, not
intelligent design.

You also present a false dichotomy in that instead of either evolution
or God, God could either direct evolution as he sees fit or delegate the
natural world to laws he set in motion and step back to watc the
results. I don't believe this theistic or deistic stuff, but you cannot
rule it out with any warrant if you invoke a deity.

It seems to me your embrace of said allelic frequency changes is of
recent mint and your are trying to square it with your warped fixist
worldview. But if God ustilizes allelic frequency changes in population
to do his bidding, fixity or immutabilism goes out the window because
God becomes the author of change in populations and therefore in
species. God could likewise utilize these processes to influence
speciation. That would make one wonder how incomplete and imperfect the
creation was from the start that a micromanager must continually tweak
the results, but that's your problem not mine.

In effect the chain of events you set in motion on this thread, if you
are honest with yourself, topples your adherence to species immutabilism
and puts you in the microevolution camp with other IDeologues. I can see
this even if you evade.

We know that natural selection and genetic drift relate nicely to
allelic frequency changes in populations over time. Your theistic
micromanager seems a bit contrived and eccentric in this context. You
are clutching at straws hoping to make yourself sound authentic.

Sorry but the organized complexity route you take, just like the
panadaptationism of some Darwinists, gets slammed into the cruel rocky
outcrops of things like genetic drift as sampling errors or the random
fluctuation of neutral alleles toward fixation or elimination.

> Ray (species immutabilist)
>

Species immutabilist=ostrich with head in sand avoiding reality

Your micromanaging God uses alleles to change species at will*.
Therefore you are refuted by your own nonsense.

*-since he couldn't get creation right the first time nor fully grasped
what foreknowledge fully entailed (=original sin and crafty snake**)

**- wasn't that the snake who robbed Gilgamesh of immortality also?

[John Harshman]

On 9/19/16 7:38 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> The only purpose of this topic is to set the record straight. Topic not intended for debate.
>
> I told John Harshman that I accept allele frequency changes as occurring. Here is what I said:
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/r4eVVzOL6Vg/4fJ4wTnzAAAJ
>
> "I'm answering the question as phrased: and the answer is yes. Ernst Mayr, may I remind, said no.

Ernst Mayr, may I remind, said no to a quite different question. It's
your problem that you somehow can't tell the difference.

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 09/19/2016 11:02 PM, John Harshman wrote:
> On 9/19/16 7:38 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> The only purpose of this topic is to set the record straight. Topic
>> not intended for debate.
>>
>> I told John Harshman that I accept allele frequency changes as
>> occurring. Here is what I said:
>>
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/r4eVVzOL6Vg/4fJ4wTnzAAAJ
>>
>> "I'm answering the question as phrased: and the answer is yes. Ernst
>> Mayr, may I remind, said no.
>
> Ernst Mayr, may I remind, said no to a quite different question. It's
> your problem that you somehow can't tell the difference.

He also fails to recognize how much he conceded to you. He tries to tidy
things up with an allusion to God calling the allelic shots, but that
eventually gives way to either an inept micromanager who failed to get
things right at the start nor foresaw things like milk production
requiring widespread lactase persistence. Remnant yolikng genes are
likewise problematic for Ray's anal retentive micromanager. How do we
square Ray's allelically concerned designer with genetic drift or
generational fluctuations of neutral alleles toward extinction or
fixation? Does his God play with dice or the lottery or roulette? Or
does he mess around with bean bags without concern for their actual
content except in cases when he thinks an allelic variant migght be
kinda nifty in a foreseen circumstance he likewise crafts (for the fun
of it?). Did God put chettahs and Florida panthers in such bleak
bottlenecked circumstances? Why? Does god love inbreeding?

We are left with more standoffish delegator.

[Rolf]

 

 

"*Hemidactylus*" <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote in message news:W46dnehGAc08Nn3K...@giganews.com...

What I find most problematic with the way Ray seem to view observed evolution is that it assign to God the role of a janitor, eternally busy to fix genomes in response to environmental stress. How could it be otherwise, if life should be unable to cope by  its own "volition"?

 

Species immutability is the recipe for guaranteed extinction. The geologic/palaeontologic/genetic evidence is evidence that Ray is wrong.

 

Evolution is nature taking care of itself. 

 

Rolf

[Dana Tweedy]

On 9/19/16 8:38 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> The only purpose of this topic is to set the record straight. Topic not intended for debate.

too bad. You don't get to set those kind of terms.

>
> I told John Harshman that I accept allele frequency changes as occurring. Here is what I said:
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/r4eVVzOL6Vg/4fJ4wTnzAAAJ
>
> "I'm answering the question as phrased: and the answer is yes. Ernst Mayr, may I remind, said no.
>
> My position is as follows: based on the observed fact of organized complexity, existing in species, allele frequency changes are designed, caused by an Intelligent agent; therefore these changes cannot be evolutionary."
>
> I also issued a clarification:
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/r4eVVzOL6Vg/yVTYc671AAAJ
>
> "Clarification:
>
> Allele frequency changes are assumed evolutionary.

No, evolution is DEFINED as allele frequency changes. They are not
assumed to be "evolutionary".

>
> I contend based on organized complexity said changes must be designed.

You can "contend" all you like, but you are just assuming your own
conclusion. Non directed causes can, and do produce organization, and
complexity.

>
> Only one explanation, or view, can be true, not both."

Wrong again.

>
> So any person claiming I issued a retraction is shown to be mistaken.

Actually, you are just showing you are trying to pretend evolution is
something else.

> And any person claiming I accept any form of evolution as existing or occurring is also shown to be mistaken.

Except that allele frequency change is evolution. If you say that
allele frequency changes occur, then you are accepting that evolution
exists, and occurs.



>
> Ray (species immutabilist)

If allele changes occur, species cannot be immutible. It's that simple.

DJT


>

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 10:30:02 PM UTC-4, Dana Tweedy wrote:

> If allele changes occur, species cannot be immutible. It's that simple.
>
> DJT

You need to clarify what you mean by "immut[a]ble." Can a species
remain the same species and still be "mutable"?

Peter Nyikos

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 20:27:54 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net>:

Dana doesn't need to clarify it; Ray does, since it's his
term. Ray is usually confused regarding what he means, but
hope springs eternal.
--

Bob C.

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

- Isaac Asimov

[Glenn]

"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:u588ub9396hb5u84u...@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 20:27:54 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net>:
>
>>On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 10:30:02 PM UTC-4, Dana Tweedy wrote:
>>
>>> If allele changes occur, species cannot be immutible. It's that simple.
>>>
>>> DJT
>>
>>You need to clarify what you mean by "immut[a]ble." Can a species
>>remain the same species and still be "mutable"?
>
> Dana doesn't need to clarify it; Ray does, since it's his
> term.

Actually Dana does need to clarify since he made the claim, juvenile troll.

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 09/20/2016 10:29 PM, Dana Tweedy wrote:
> On 9/19/16 8:38 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> The only purpose of this topic is to set the record straight. Topic
>> not intended for debate.
>
> too bad. You don't get to set those kind of terms.
>
>
>>
>> I told John Harshman that I accept allele frequency changes as
>> occurring. Here is what I said:
>>
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/r4eVVzOL6Vg/4fJ4wTnzAAAJ
>>
>> "I'm answering the question as phrased: and the answer is yes. Ernst
>> Mayr, may I remind, said no.
>>
>> My position is as follows: based on the observed fact of organized
>> complexity, existing in species, allele frequency changes are
>> designed, caused by an Intelligent agent; therefore these changes
>> cannot be evolutionary."
>>
>> I also issued a clarification:
>>
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/r4eVVzOL6Vg/yVTYc671AAAJ
>>
>> "Clarification:
>>
>> Allele frequency changes are assumed evolutionary.
>
> No, evolution is DEFINED as allele frequency changes. They are not
> assumed to be "evolutionary".

And there are known ways of causing such change such as selection and
drift. Ray posits Goddidit as a cause, but is God a micromanager? You're
a theistic evolutionist. Wouldn't you agree God would be more of a
delegator than Ray contends?

>>
>> I contend based on organized complexity said changes must be designed.
>
> You can "contend" all you like, but you are just assuming your own
> conclusion. Non directed causes can, and do produce organization, and
> complexity.

And God can just let things happen as they do, based on delegatted
authority to natural laws. Ray may be afraid of killing God via natural
causation (=atheism).

>>
>> Only one explanation, or view, can be true, not both."
>
> Wrong again.

Nuance and considering multiple alternatives are not his strong suit.
Strict dichotomy instead!

>>
>> So any person claiming I issued a retraction is shown to be mistaken.
>
> Actually, you are just showing you are trying to pretend evolution is
> something else.
>
>
>> And any person claiming I accept any form of evolution as existing or
>> occurring is also shown to be mistaken.
>
> Except that allele frequency change is evolution. If you say that
> allele frequency changes occur, then you are accepting that evolution
> exists, and occurs.

I would hold that you are *the* authority on Ray. If you've followed my
recent followup to him after he conceded allelic frequency change to
Harshman, would you say I fleshed out the implications of that fairly?

Glad to see you haven't given up on Ray. I was wondering if you had
taken a break or retired.

Has Ray ever gone as far as acknowledging that allelic frequency changes
occur like he has recently? Is this a softening of his strict
immutabilist position compared to the past? I thought it novel myself.

>>
>> Ray (species immutabilist)
>
> If allele changes occur, species cannot be immutible. It's that simple.

That's my take on the matter. Wonder what Harshman thinks even if he is
a cladist ;-)

[*Hemidactylus*]

You tell us you're the set theorist. Can a set change (or fluctuate
meanwise) over time without becoming a different set? Species are
defined in the field by key characters and theoretically by genic
incompatibility (or other aspects of reduced or negligible
interbreeding). Species are comprised of populations (=subsets). These
can change over time. Remove some of these subsets and the species
changes without affecting interbreeding. Take a species of snake with
various subspecies. There's gotta be some average description of said
species that gets distorted if you kill off all subspecies but one. And
the generation of said subspecies via regional variation shows that
species was capable of changing from within. Given time one of these
subunits could branch off and do its own thing and become a full fledged
species. Incipience abounds.

The key characters concept may be problematic. That's perhaps an
intersubjective thing where expert define what can be called out in the
field for identification purposes. And classification schema can change
based on prevailing mindsets.

But in a range of acceptable variation a species can shift as a whole
from the low end to high end on a trait without crossing a threshold. Is
that stasis? We are getting into Platonic realms of idealism and
archetypes here. At the level of phylum I see archetypes, not at the
mundane level where the rubber meets the road of population genetics and
evolution where speciation happens.

And interbreeding itself is a threshold aspect as a subset population
could after long term geographic isolation reach a point where
interbreeding is less likely or less successful in producing fertile
surviving offspring. And this threshold can be crossed without much
change in defining key characters, which makes field calls more
difficult. Two species could appear identical morphologically (hint hint
to Ray) yet no longer interbreed successfully.

[*Hemidactylus*]

What exactly do you have to add to this conversation besides snark and
the occasional copy/paste quote? Back to the kids table with the likes
of you. Even Ray approached issues with more seriousness.

[*Hemidactylus*]

The micromanager God as janitor intervenes to clean up his own mess.
That explains the crucifixion. The delegator God let's things go as they
will.

[Dana Tweedy]

By "immutable" I mean "unchanging". Yes, a species can remain the same
species and still be mutable. One of the best examples of this is the
domestic dog. There are myriad dog breeds, of different shapes, sizes,
and behaviors, but all are the same species as the Gray Wolf, Canis lupus.

If Ray's claim that species are immutable were true, all offspring would
be exact copies of their parents. No variation would be possible within
a species.


DJT

[jillery]

On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 19:51:15 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Species immutability is defined as follows: each species, past and present, created independently.
>
>I obtained my defintion from ex-species immutabilist, Charles Darwin (reference available upon request).
>
>And it should be noted that variation, accepted to exist by everyone, does not harm or contradict immutability. And variation, in and of itself, is not evolution or a synonym for evolution.


IIUC you're saying above that both "immutability" and "variation" are
strictly a matter of definition. So if there's enough variation to
create a new species, then you can just ignore it. Is that right?
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[Ray Martinez]

Species immutability is defined as follows: each species, past and present, created independently.

I obtained my definition from ex-species immutabilist, Charles Darwin (reference available upon request).

And it should be noted that variation, accepted to exist by everyone, does not harm or contradict immutability. And variation, in and of itself, is not evolution or a synonym for evolution.

Ray

[Glenn]

"*Hemidactylus*" <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote in message news:Mfadne6wg7dZ_3nK...@giganews.com...

You and Bob go get a room. Bob gets to be on top.

[jillery]

On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 21:21:18 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

You sound jealous.

[raven1]

On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 20:14:46 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>Species immutability is defined as follows: each species, past and present, created independently.

That's a very idiosyncratic definition of "immutability" you have.

>I obtained my definition from ex-species immutabilist, Charles Darwin (reference available upon request).

Yes, please.

>And it should be noted that variation, accepted to exist by everyone, does not harm or contradict immutability.

You don't see that "variation" and "immutability" are mutually
exclusive?

>And variation, in and of itself, is not evolution or a synonym for evolution.

It's an antonym of immutability.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 13:03:24 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:

You seem to have missed the point that Dana used *Ray's*
term, and Ray has never clearly stated what he means by it.
I'd assume Dana is using the common definition ("Unchanging
over time or unable to be changed"), which doesn't accord
with Ray's stated acceptance of what's usually referred to
as "microevolution" (allele change within a population). If
Ray means that there's some sort of barrier which prevents
additional change from resulting, given the right
environmental conditions, in speciation, he needs to state
that, and show that the barrier exists. But in any case, he
needs to define "immutable" as *he* uses it.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 18:42:07 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid>:

>On 09/20/2016 10:29 PM, Dana Tweedy wrote:
>> On 9/19/16 8:38 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> The only purpose of this topic is to set the record straight. Topic
>>> not intended for debate.
>>
>> too bad. You don't get to set those kind of terms.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I told John Harshman that I accept allele frequency changes as
>>> occurring. Here is what I said:
>>>
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/r4eVVzOL6Vg/4fJ4wTnzAAAJ
>>>
>>> "I'm answering the question as phrased: and the answer is yes. Ernst
>>> Mayr, may I remind, said no.
>>>
>>> My position is as follows: based on the observed fact of organized
>>> complexity, existing in species, allele frequency changes are
>>> designed, caused by an Intelligent agent; therefore these changes
>>> cannot be evolutionary."
>>>
>>> I also issued a clarification:
>>>
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/r4eVVzOL6Vg/yVTYc671AAAJ
>>>
>>> "Clarification:
>>>
>>> Allele frequency changes are assumed evolutionary.
>>
>> No, evolution is DEFINED as allele frequency changes. They are not
>> assumed to be "evolutionary".
>
>And there are known ways of causing such change such as selection and
>drift. Ray posits Goddidit as a cause, but is God a micromanager? You're
>a theistic evolutionist. Wouldn't you agree God would be more of a
>delegator than Ray contends?

Ray not only believes God is a micromanager, he insists God
is restricted in His actions to what *Ray* accepts.

>>> I contend based on organized complexity said changes must be designed.
>>
>> You can "contend" all you like, but you are just assuming your own
>> conclusion. Non directed causes can, and do produce organization, and
>> complexity.
>
>And God can just let things happen as they do, based on delegatted
>authority to natural laws.

Once more I find this quote from Louann Miller, back in Sept
2000 right here in t.o, to be relevant:

Not mine, but a quote from a gent in another newsgroup, used
by permission.

"Any deity worthy of a graven image can cobble up a working
universe complete with fake fossils in under a week - hey,
if you're not omnipotent, there's no real point in being a
god. But to start with a big ball of elementary particles
and end up with the duckbill platypus without constant
twiddling requires a degree of subtlety and the ability to
Think Things Through: exactly the qualities I'm looking for
when I'm shopping for a Supreme Being." - Lee DeRaud

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 21:21:18 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:

Ah, yet another mature, cogent and thoughtful post from
Glenn.

Well, as mature, cogent and thoughtful as usual for Glenn.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 19:51:15 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:

>Species immutability is defined as follows: each species, past and present, created independently.

Origin of something has nothing to do with mutability. Your
definition is unique, to say the least.

>I obtained my defintion from ex-species immutabilist, Charles Darwin (reference available upon request).
>
>And it should be noted that variation, accepted to exist by everyone, does not harm or contradict immutability. And variation, in and of itself, is not evolution or a synonym for evolution.

Even if the variation causes a split in the original
species, and after time results in two groups which are not
interfertile?

[Glenn]

"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:49taub9bnms5v69gc...@4ax.com...

Now Hemi can be on top.

[Glenn]

"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:08saubl3gkp8v1om4...@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 13:03:24 -0700, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:
>
>>
>>"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:u588ub9396hb5u84u...@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 20:27:54 -0700 (PDT), the following
>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
>>> <nyi...@bellsouth.net>:
>>>
>>>>On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 10:30:02 PM UTC-4, Dana Tweedy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If allele changes occur, species cannot be immutible. It's that simple.
>>>>>
>>>>> DJT
>>>>
>>>>You need to clarify what you mean by "immut[a]ble." Can a species
>>>>remain the same species and still be "mutable"?
>>>
>>> Dana doesn't need to clarify it; Ray does, since it's his
>>> term.
>>
>>Actually Dana does need to clarify since he made the claim, juvenile troll.
>
> You seem to have missed the point that Dana used *Ray's*
> term, and Ray has never clearly stated what he means by it.

That's my Bob!

[jillery]

On Fri, 23 Sep 2016 12:28:46 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>

Now you sound really jealous.

[Ray Martinez]

On Friday, September 23, 2016 at 9:50:03 AM UTC-7, raven1 wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 20:14:46 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Species immutability is defined as follows: each species, past and present, created independently.
> >
> That's a very idiosyncratic definition of "immutability" you have.

It appears peculiar to those who don't know the basic history of Creationism in science.

>
> >I obtained my definition from ex-species immutabilist, Charles Darwin (reference available upon request).
>
> Yes, please.

On The Origin 1859:6; London: John Murray.

>
> >And it should be noted that variation, accepted to exist by everyone, does not harm or contradict immutability.
> >
> You don't see that "variation" and "immutability" are mutually
> exclusive?

This particular comment implies variation an effect of evolutionary processes. But the claims of evolution are not the subject here. The subject here is the claims of pre-1859 Victorian Creationism, which held to species immutability based on the fact that each species, past and present, was created independently. Discovery of variation or the rise of variation as an important biological concept does not harm immutability. The only thing that harms immutability is the alleged existence of un-directed material processes like natural selection. Mere existence of the fact that no two individuals are exactly alike does not harm the claim of fact that each species, past and present, were created independently.

>
> >And variation, in and of itself, is not evolution or a synonym for evolution.
>
> It's an antonym of immutability.

Evasion noted.

Ray

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 23 Sep 2016 12:28:06 -0700, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:

>
>"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:08saubl3gkp8v1om4...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 13:03:24 -0700, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:
>>
>>>
>>>"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:u588ub9396hb5u84u...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 20:27:54 -0700 (PDT), the following
>>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
>>>> <nyi...@bellsouth.net>:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 10:30:02 PM UTC-4, Dana Tweedy wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> If allele changes occur, species cannot be immutible. It's that simple.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> DJT
>>>>>
>>>>>You need to clarify what you mean by "immut[a]ble." Can a species
>>>>>remain the same species and still be "mutable"?
>>>>
>>>> Dana doesn't need to clarify it; Ray does, since it's his
>>>> term.
>>>
>>>Actually Dana does need to clarify since he made the claim, juvenile troll.
>>
>> You seem to have missed the point that Dana used *Ray's*
>> term, and Ray has never clearly stated what he means by it.
>
>That's my Bob!

Nice snippage! That's (thankfully not my) Glenn!

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 23 Sep 2016 12:28:46 -0700, the following appeared

>Now Hemi can be on top.

And Another! Glenn, as always, is on the bottom of the
discussion...

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 23 Sep 2016 11:21:37 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

Care to address what I wrote without snipping, Glenn?

[raven1]

On Fri, 23 Sep 2016 16:13:31 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez

<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Friday, September 23, 2016 at 9:50:03 AM UTC-7, raven1 wrote:
>> On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 20:14:46 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Species immutability is defined as follows: each species, past and present, created independently.
>> >
>> That's a very idiosyncratic definition of "immutability" you have.
>
>It appears peculiar to those who don't know the basic history of Creationism in science.

It appears peculiar to anyone who uses the standard definitions of
English words.

>> >I obtained my definition from ex-species immutabilist, Charles Darwin (reference available upon request).
>>
>> Yes, please.
>
>On The Origin 1859:6; London: John Murray.

That's not very helpful. Can you give a quote?

>> >And it should be noted that variation, accepted to exist by everyone, does not harm or contradict immutability.
>> >
>> You don't see that "variation" and "immutability" are mutually
>> exclusive?
>
>This particular comment implies variation an effect of evolutionary processes.

No, it implies that words have meanings. If something is immutable, it
cannot vary, by definition.

> But the claims of evolution are not the subject here. The subject here is the claims of pre-1859 Victorian Creationism

No, the subject is that you can't simultaneously claim that something
is variable and immutable. They are mutually exclusive.

>, which held to species immutability based on the fact that each species, past and present, was created independently.

That does not follow.

> Discovery of variation or the rise of variation as an important biological concept does not harm immutability.

Yes, it does. You can have variation, or you can have immutability.
Again, they are mutually exclusive, by definition.

>The only thing that harms immutability

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it
means.

> is the alleged existence of un-directed material processes like natural selection

> Mere existence of the fact that no two individuals are exactly alike does not harm
> the claim of fact that each species, past and present, were created independently.

Which is utterly irrelevant to whether or not they are immutable.

>> >And variation, in and of itself, is not evolution or a synonym for evolution.
>>
>> It's an antonym of immutability.
>

>Evasion noted,

There's no evasion, Ray. You can have variation or immutability, not
both.

[Glenn]

"raven1" <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote in message news:c2pfubh1da30s3gm7...@4ax.com...

> On Fri, 23 Sep 2016 16:13:31 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Friday, September 23, 2016 at 9:50:03 AM UTC-7, raven1 wrote:
>>> On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 20:14:46 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>>> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >Species immutability is defined as follows: each species, past and present, created independently.
>>> >
>>> That's a very idiosyncratic definition of "immutability" you have.
>>
>>It appears peculiar to those who don't know the basic history of Creationism in science.
>
> It appears peculiar to anyone who uses the standard definitions of
> English words.
>

Larry and Chuck appear peculiar.

http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2009/02/darwin-i-am-fully-convinced-that.html

[Ray Martinez]

Thanks for posting that link.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 8:10:03 AM UTC-7, raven1 wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Sep 2016 16:13:31 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, September 23, 2016 at 9:50:03 AM UTC-7, raven1 wrote:
> >> On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 20:14:46 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
> >> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Species immutability is defined as follows: each species, past and present, created independently.
> >> >
> >> That's a very idiosyncratic definition of "immutability" you have.
> >
> >It appears peculiar to those who don't know the basic history of Creationism in science.
> >
> It appears peculiar to anyone who uses the standard definitions of
> English words.
>

Evasion of point while implying the standard non-scientific definition is the only valid definition. And it goes without saying: English words have more than one valid definition.

> >> >I obtained my definition from ex-species immutabilist, Charles Darwin (reference available upon request).
> >>
> >> Yes, please.
> >
> >On The Origin 1859:6; London: John Murray.
>
> That's not very helpful. Can you give a quote?

I'm only obligated to do what I have done, which is give a valid reference. Your request seems to imply an inability to find the definition on one page of text. If true you're unqualified to participate in these types of discussions and/or debates.

>
> >> >And it should be noted that variation, accepted to exist by everyone, does not harm or contradict immutability.
> >> >
> >> You don't see that "variation" and "immutability" are mutually
> >> exclusive?
> >
> >This particular comment implies variation an effect of evolutionary processes.
>
> No, it implies that words have meanings. If something is immutable, it
> cannot vary, by definition.

Again, Raven, an Evolutionist, uses the concept of variation as a verb when in fact it is a noun. Raven uses variation as a verb because, like I observed, he is actually conveying the claims of evolutionary theory. But the claims of evolutionary theory are NOT at issue here; at issue here are the claims of pre-1859 Creationism.

Species consist of individuals that are not identical, but vary slightly in structural appearance. These individuals are born this way. Hence species are, in fact, a population of unique organisms that breed with one another. So variation----the thing itself----does not harm SPECIES immutability. Evolutionary theory has an explanation of variation as does Creationism. But these explanations are not the subject here. The subject here is species immutability, which is defined as each species, past and present, created independently. When understood correctly immutability is clearly seen. If each species is created then no species can evolve. So the definition of species immutability shuts down evolution at the species level.

>
> > But the claims of evolution are not the subject here. The subject here is the claims of pre-1859 Victorian Creationism
> >
> No, the subject is that you can't simultaneously claim that something
> is variable and immutable. They are mutually exclusive.

The first word of your sentence is clearly false: the subject here is the definition of immutability which is a claim and concept of Creationism. The remainder of your comment was addressed above.

>
> >, which held to species immutability based on the fact that each species, past and present, was created independently.
> >
> That does not follow.

In other words you don't understand. Again, I've obtained my definition from Darwin. See the link Glenn first posted. Larry Moran said it as well, he understands the CLAIM.

When each species, past and present, is created, no species ever changes into a different species because each species is created; hence immutability (Darwin 1859:6; London: Jon Murray; conveying the main claim of Creationism).

>
> > Discovery of variation or the rise of variation as an important biological concept does not harm immutability.
> >
> Yes, it does. You can have variation, or you can have immutability.
> Again, they are mutually exclusive, by definition.
>
> >The only thing that harms immutability
>
> You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it
> means.

Then you think wrong.

>
> > is the alleged existence of un-directed material processes like natural selection
> > Mere existence of the fact that no two individuals are exactly alike does not harm
> > the claim of fact that each species, past and present, were created independently.
>
> Which is utterly irrelevant to whether or not they are immutable.

You surely don't understand. IF undirected material processes don't exist, and they don't, then species remain immutable, which is what science accepted prior to November of 1859. Prior to this date science never accepted the existence of un-directed material processes. Seen clearly in the fact that species were held to be immutable, created independently, which presupposes supernatural causation (Darwin 1859:6; London: John Murray).

There isn't anything complicated here at all. The problem here is that Raven doesn't know basic history of Darwinism and Creationism. And he is using variation as a verb when in fact it is a noun.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/variation?s=t

>
> >> >And variation, in and of itself, is not evolution or a synonym for evolution.
> >>
> >> It's an antonym of immutability.
> >
> >Evasion noted,
>
> There's no evasion, Ray. You can have variation or immutability, not
> both.

Already addressed.

Raven is evading the fact that variation and evolution are two different concepts, they are NOT synonyms. Raven's usage of variation renders variation a synonym for evolution, which, in fact, is error.

When it's understood that variation is a noun, and when it's understood that variation simply conveys that species consist of individuals that are not identical, species immutability is not the least bit harmed.

Ray

[jillery]

On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 14:05:34 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez

<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 10:35:03 AM UTC-7, Glenn wrote:
>> "raven1" <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote in message news:c2pfubh1da30s3gm7...@4ax.com...
>> > On Fri, 23 Sep 2016 16:13:31 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>> > <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Friday, September 23, 2016 at 9:50:03 AM UTC-7, raven1 wrote:
>> >>> On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 20:14:46 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>> >>> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> >
>> >>> >Species immutability is defined as follows: each species, past and present, created independently.
>> >>> >
>> >>> That's a very idiosyncratic definition of "immutability" you have.
>> >>
>> >>It appears peculiar to those who don't know the basic history of Creationism in science.
>> >
>> > It appears peculiar to anyone who uses the standard definitions of
>> > English words.
>> >
>> Larry and Chuck appear peculiar.
>>
>> http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2009/02/darwin-i-am-fully-convinced-that.html
>
>Thanks for posting that link.

Darwin identified two separate and independent concepts with which he
disagrees; 1) species were created independently, and 2) species are
immutable. It is a perverse misrepresentation to claim that Darwin
defined one concept by using the other.

[r3p...@gmail.com]

Darwin did in fact define species immutability when he said "most naturalists" accepted each species created independently. It's all there in one thought. In fact when he said each species created independently he summarizes when he THEN writes species are not immutable.

To deny his straightforward and uncomplicated conveyance equates to inexcusable ignorance or premeditated dishonesty. The latter most likely in the case of Jillery.

Ray

[jillery]

Apparently my inexcusable ignorance/premeditated dishonestly is the
excuse you use to cowardly delete my comments without attribution.

You make your opinion clear and explicit. Your problem is you have
neither the authority, power, or persuasion to turn your opinion into
fact.

<http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2009/02/darwin-i-am-fully-convinced-that.html>

*************************************
Although much remains obscure, and will long remain obscure, I can
entertain no doubt, after the most deliberate study and dispassionate
judgement of which I am capable, that the view which most naturalists
entertain, and which I formerly entertained — namely, that each
species has been independently created — is erroneous. I am fully
convinced that species are not immutable; but that those belonging to
what are called the same genera are lineal descendants of some other
and generally extinct species, in the same manner as the acknowledged
varieties of any one species are the descendants of that species.
Furthermore, I am convinced that Natural Selection has been the main
but not exclusive means of modification.
*************************************

[raven1]

On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 14:55:10 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez

<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 8:10:03 AM UTC-7, raven1 wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 Sep 2016 16:13:31 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Friday, September 23, 2016 at 9:50:03 AM UTC-7, raven1 wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 20:14:46 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>> >> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >Species immutability is defined as follows: each species, past and present, created independently.
>> >> >
>> >> That's a very idiosyncratic definition of "immutability" you have.
>> >
>> >It appears peculiar to those who don't know the basic history of Creationism in science.
>> >
>> It appears peculiar to anyone who uses the standard definitions of
>> English words.
>>
>
>Evasion of point

I see "evasion" is another word you have your own personal definition
for.

> while implying the standard non-scientific definition is the only valid definition. And it goes without saying: English words have more than one valid definition.

I'm sure that's true. But this particular one appears to be unique to
you, Humpty-Dumpty.

>> >> >I obtained my definition from ex-species immutabilist, Charles Darwin (reference available upon request).
>> >>
>> >> Yes, please.
>> >
>> >On The Origin 1859:6; London: John Murray.
>>
>> That's not very helpful. Can you give a quote?
>
>I'm only obligated to do what I have done, which is give a valid reference.

ROTFLMFAO! And you have the chutzpah to accuse *me* of evasion??
Seriously Ray?

> Your request seems to imply an inability to find the definition on one page of text. If true you're unqualified to participate in these types of discussions and/or debates.

Or it could be that I have neither the specific text at hand, nor any
possible way of knowing what you might be referring to. I suspect that
I'm not the only one in that situation, so it might help if you
actually provide a quote.

>> >> >And it should be noted that variation, accepted to exist by everyone, does not harm or contradict immutability.
>> >> >
>> >> You don't see that "variation" and "immutability" are mutually
>> >> exclusive?
>> >
>> >This particular comment implies variation an effect of evolutionary processes.
>>
>> No, it implies that words have meanings. If something is immutable, it
>> cannot vary, by definition.
>
>Again, Raven, an Evolutionist, uses the concept of variation as a verb when in fact it is a noun. Raven uses variation as a verb because, like I observed, he is actually conveying the claims of evolutionary theory. But the claims of evolutionary theory are NOT at issue here; at issue here are the claims of pre-1859 Creationism.

You seem to be missing the point rather badly. My concern here is
neither evolution nor Creationism; it's the English language, and your
abuse of it.

[Glenn]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:dmojubto0dhslt4e1...@4ax.com...

Chewing your leg off again?

"I have now recapitulated the chief facts and considerations which have thoroughly convinced me that species have changed, and are still slowly changing by the preservation and accumulation of successive slight favourable variations. Why, it may be asked, have all the most eminent living naturalists and geologists rejected this view of the mutability of species? It cannot be asserted that organic beings in a state of nature are subject to no variation; it cannot be proved that the amount of variation in the course of long ages is a limited quantity; no clear distinction has been, or can be, drawn between species and well-marked varieties. It cannot be maintained that species when intercrossed are invariably sterile, and varieties invariably fertile; or that sterility is a special endowment and sign of creation. The belief that species were immutable productions was almost unavoidable as long as the history of the world was thought to be of short duration; and now that we have acquired some idea of the lapse of time, we are too apt to assume, without proof, that the geological record is so perfect that it would have afforded us plain evidence of the mutation of species, if they had undergone mutation. "

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter14.html

[jillery]

On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 08:12:35 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>
>"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:dmojubto0dhslt4e1...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 14:05:34 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 10:35:03 AM UTC-7, Glenn wrote:
>>>> "raven1" <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote in message news:c2pfubh1da30s3gm7...@4ax.com...
>>>> > On Fri, 23 Sep 2016 16:13:31 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>>>> > <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >>On Friday, September 23, 2016 at 9:50:03 AM UTC-7, raven1 wrote:
>>>> >>> On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 20:14:46 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>>>> >>> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> >
>>>> >>> >Species immutability is defined as follows: each species, past and present, created independently.
>>>> >>> >
>>>> >>> That's a very idiosyncratic definition of "immutability" you have.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>It appears peculiar to those who don't know the basic history of Creationism in science.
>>>> >
>>>> > It appears peculiar to anyone who uses the standard definitions of
>>>> > English words.
>>>> >
>>>> Larry and Chuck appear peculiar.
>>>>
>>>> http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2009/02/darwin-i-am-fully-convinced-that.html
>>>
>>>Thanks for posting that link.
>>
>>
>> Darwin identified two separate and independent concepts with which he
>> disagrees; 1) species were created independently, and 2) species are
>> immutable. It is a perverse misrepresentation to claim that Darwin
>> defined one concept by using the other.
>> --
>Chewing your leg off again?

Apparently you have me confused with your momma.

>"I have now recapitulated the chief facts and considerations which have thoroughly convinced me that species have changed, and are still slowly changing by the preservation and accumulation of successive slight favourable variations. Why, it may be asked, have all the most eminent living naturalists and geologists rejected this view of the mutability of species? It cannot be asserted that organic beings in a state of nature are subject to no variation; it cannot be proved that the amount of variation in the course of long ages is a limited quantity; no clear distinction has been, or can be, drawn between species and well-marked varieties. It cannot be maintained that species when intercrossed are invariably sterile, and varieties invariably fertile; or that sterility is a special endowment and sign of creation. The belief that species were immutable productions was almost unavoidable as long as the history of the world was thought to be of short duration; and now that we hav
e
>acquired some idea of the lapse of time, we are too apt to assume, without proof, that the geological record is so perfect that it would have afforded us plain evidence of the mutation of species, if they had undergone mutation. "
>
>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter14.html

Right here would have been a good place for you to have said where
your quoted paragraph above says anything about species being created
independently.

Don't you get cold from all those points whooshing over your head all
the time?

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 21:30:54 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by r3p...@gmail.com:

>Darwin did in fact define species immutability when he said "most naturalists" accepted each species created independently.

I assume you're using "after their own kind" to justify
species immutability as a Biblical notion? Unless the phrase
"in perpetuity" appears in that notion, which it doesn't, it
says nothing about mutability. And since no creature has
*ever*, AFAIK, produced viable offspring with which it
cannot breed, every creature has always reproduced "after
its own kind". Speciation takes far more than a single
generation.

> It's all there in one thought. In fact when he said each species created independently he summarizes when he THEN writes species are not immutable.

He was far more intelligent than you are, and knew what the
language he used meant.

>To deny his straightforward and uncomplicated conveyance equates to inexcusable ignorance or premeditated dishonesty.

Oh, it equates to inexcusable ignorance all right; yours.
I'll leave the determination of your motives to you.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 08:12:35 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:

>
>"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:dmojubto0dhslt4e1...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 14:05:34 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 10:35:03 AM UTC-7, Glenn wrote:
>>>> "raven1" <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote in message news:c2pfubh1da30s3gm7...@4ax.com...
>>>> > On Fri, 23 Sep 2016 16:13:31 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>>>> > <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >>On Friday, September 23, 2016 at 9:50:03 AM UTC-7, raven1 wrote:
>>>> >>> On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 20:14:46 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>>>> >>> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> >
>>>> >>> >Species immutability is defined as follows: each species, past and present, created independently.
>>>> >>> >
>>>> >>> That's a very idiosyncratic definition of "immutability" you have.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>It appears peculiar to those who don't know the basic history of Creationism in science.
>>>> >
>>>> > It appears peculiar to anyone who uses the standard definitions of
>>>> > English words.
>>>> >
>>>> Larry and Chuck appear peculiar.
>>>>
>>>> http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2009/02/darwin-i-am-fully-convinced-that.html
>>>
>>>Thanks for posting that link.
>>
>>
>> Darwin identified two separate and independent concepts with which he
>> disagrees; 1) species were created independently, and 2) species are
>> immutable. It is a perverse misrepresentation to claim that Darwin
>> defined one concept by using the other.

>Chewing your leg off again?

Not so one would notice.

>"I have now recapitulated the chief facts and considerations which have thoroughly convinced me that species have changed, and are still slowly changing by the preservation and accumulation of successive slight favourable variations. Why, it may be asked, have all the most eminent living naturalists and geologists rejected this view of the mutability of species? It cannot be asserted that organic beings in a state of nature are subject to no variation; it cannot be proved that the amount of variation in the course of long ages is a limited quantity; no clear distinction has been, or can be, drawn between species and well-marked varieties. It cannot be maintained that species when intercrossed are invariably sterile, and varieties invariably fertile; or that sterility is a special endowment and sign of creation. The belief that species were immutable productions was almost unavoidable as long as the history of the world was thought to be of short duration; and now that we hav
e
>acquired some idea of the lapse of time, we are too apt to assume, without proof, that the geological record is so perfect that it would have afforded us plain evidence of the mutation of species, if they had undergone mutation. "

Just curious... In what way does that show that Jillery was
incorrect, since it supports Darwin's rejection of species
immutability, or that he used one observation to support the
other?

>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter14.html

Yes, that's a direct excerpt from "On the Origin of
Species". How does it refute Jillery's post?

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 24 Sep 2016 11:01:52 -0700, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

>On Fri, 23 Sep 2016 11:21:37 -0700, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
>
>Care to address what I wrote without snipping, Glenn?

Guess not...

[Glenn]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:8falub9j08f83afgo...@4ax.com...

Or Darwin went over your head. Or you went over Darwin's head.

[jillery]

On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 12:36:49 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>

Nope. And you still haven't said how your quoted paragraph proves
what you and Ray say.

[Glenn]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:b2ulub948dne8a5sm...@4ax.com...

Of course it does.

[Burkhard]

r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> Darwin did in fact define species immutability when he said "most naturalists" accepted each species created independently.

Only he didn't. What he says on the page you cited is not a definition
of immutability, he gives an explanation of what (according to the
tradition) causes immutability, two very different things

Explanations can be right or wrong, definitions can't (they can be
helpful or unhelpful; generally accepted or idiosyncratic; ordinary
meaning or technical meaning; but not true or false)

You've also confused definitions with factual statements in your posts
about Behe and IC, where you wrongly claimed that according to him
"can't evolve" was a part of the definition of IC rather than one of the
consequences of being IC.

You make the same mistake here again. The Darwin quote does not say what
"immutable" means, but what causes immutability

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 11:00:10 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

>On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 21:30:54 -0700 (PDT), the following
>appeared in talk.origins, posted by r3p...@gmail.com:
>
>>Darwin did in fact define species immutability when he said "most naturalists" accepted each species created independently.
>
>I assume you're using "after their own kind" to justify
>species immutability as a Biblical notion? Unless the phrase
>"in perpetuity" appears in that notion, which it doesn't, it
>says nothing about mutability. And since no creature has
>*ever*, AFAIK, produced viable offspring with which it
>cannot breed, every creature has always reproduced "after
>its own kind". Speciation takes far more than a single
>generation.

[Crickets...]

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 20:27:18 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:

>Of course it does.

Well, *that* certainly explains your (false) assertion.
Proof by further assertion...

And no, as I explained elsethread, the paragraph you quoted
supports Jillery's contention, not Ray's. Perhaps the
negations went over your head?

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 11:08:09 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

[Crickets...]

>>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter14.html
>
>Yes, that's a direct excerpt from "On the Origin of
>Species". How does it refute Jillery's post?

[Crickets...]

[Ray Martinez]

On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 11:05:03 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 21:30:54 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by r3p...@gmail.com:
>
> >Darwin did in fact define species immutability when he said "most naturalists" accepted each species created independently.
>
> I assume you're using "after their own kind" to justify
> species immutability as a Biblical notion?

Absolutely not. I'm not a YEC. There's no such thing as a "created kind."

> Unless the phrase
> "in perpetuity" appears in that notion, which it doesn't, it
> says nothing about mutability. And since no creature has
> *ever*, AFAIK, produced viable offspring with which it
> cannot breed, every creature has always reproduced "after
> its own kind". Speciation takes far more than a single
> generation.
>

Teleological and evolutionary concepts mixed together (= confusion).

> > It's all there in one thought. In fact when he said each species created independently he summarizes when he THEN writes species are not immutable.
>
> He was far more intelligent than you are, and knew what the
> language he used meant.

Non-sequitur via rant. Bob is refuted and won't admit. Darwin summarized independent creation as synonymous with species immutability; hence the source of my definition. Again, there is absolutely nothing complicated here. The fact that Bob and other Evolutionists won't acknowledge the straightforward definition is because they are dishonest, like we have always said. If Evolutionists would deny an uncomplicated definition seen in the Origin then how much more would they attempt to corrupt complicated scientific evidence? This is precisely why we are anti-evolution: Evolutionists are veritably dishonest.

>
> >To deny his straightforward and uncomplicated conveyance equates to inexcusable ignorance or premeditated dishonesty.
>
> Oh, it equates to inexcusable ignorance all right; yours.
> I'll leave the determination of your motives to you.
> --
>
> Bob C.
>
> "The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
> the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
> 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
>
> - Isaac Asimov

Ray

[jillery]

On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 15:10:08 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 11:05:03 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 21:30:54 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by r3p...@gmail.com:
>>
>> >Darwin did in fact define species immutability when he said "most naturalists" accepted each species created independently.
>>
>> I assume you're using "after their own kind" to justify
>> species immutability as a Biblical notion?
>
>Absolutely not. I'm not a YEC. There's no such thing as a "created kind."

Are you saying that you don't believe God created immutable species
independently? Because my understanding is that's what most people
mean when they say "created kind". Or are you just complaining about
the words?

>> Unless the phrase
>> "in perpetuity" appears in that notion, which it doesn't, it
>> says nothing about mutability. And since no creature has
>> *ever*, AFAIK, produced viable offspring with which it
>> cannot breed, every creature has always reproduced "after
>> its own kind". Speciation takes far more than a single
>> generation.
>>
>
>Teleological and evolutionary concepts mixed together (= confusion).
>
>> > It's all there in one thought. In fact when he said each species created independently he summarizes when he THEN writes species are not immutable.
>>
>> He was far more intelligent than you are, and knew what the
>> language he used meant.
>
>Non-sequitur via rant. Bob is refuted and won't admit.

You're talking about that fellow you see in the mirror again.

>Darwin summarized independent creation as synonymous with species immutability; hence the source of my definition. Again, there is absolutely nothing complicated here. The fact that Bob and other Evolutionists won't acknowledge the straightforward definition is because they are dishonest, like we have always said. If Evolutionists would deny an uncomplicated definition seen in the Origin then how much more would they attempt to corrupt complicated scientific evidence? This is precisely why we are anti-evolution: Evolutionists are veritably dishonest.
>
>>
>> >To deny his straightforward and uncomplicated conveyance equates to inexcusable ignorance or premeditated dishonesty.
>>
>> Oh, it equates to inexcusable ignorance all right; yours.
>> I'll leave the determination of your motives to you.
>> --
>>
>> Bob C.
>>
>> "The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
>> the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
>> 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
>>
>> - Isaac Asimov
>
>Ray

[jillery]

On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 11:10:20 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

Glenn is in another one of his moods. It must be hormonal.

[Glenn]

"Burkhard" <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in message news:nsgfdv$s4v$1...@dont-email.me...

> r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Darwin did in fact define species immutability when he said "most naturalists" accepted each species created independently.
>
> Only he didn't. What he says on the page you cited is not a definition
> of immutability, he gives an explanation of what (according to the
> tradition) causes immutability, two very different things

Not a very objective analysis for one who is aware of the uses of the words.

>
> Explanations can be right or wrong, definitions can't (they can be
> helpful or unhelpful; generally accepted or idiosyncratic; ordinary
> meaning or technical meaning; but not true or false)

So "any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next" is neither true or false, is not a definition of evolution, but rather an explanation?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html

>
> You've also confused definitions with factual statements in your posts
> about Behe and IC, where you wrongly claimed that according to him
> "can't evolve" was a part of the definition of IC rather than one of the
> consequences of being IC.
>
> You make the same mistake here again. The Darwin quote does not say what
> "immutable" means, but what causes immutability

Actually, in that quote he did implicitly define species immutability. So you believe either identifying a creator or observing that species do not change suffices as a scientific cause?

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 15:10:08 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:

>On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 11:05:03 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 21:30:54 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by r3p...@gmail.com:
>>
>> >Darwin did in fact define species immutability when he said "most naturalists" accepted each species created independently.
>>
>> I assume you're using "after their own kind" to justify
>> species immutability as a Biblical notion?
>
>Absolutely not. I'm not a YEC. There's no such thing as a "created kind."

<Boggle>

>> Unless the phrase
>> "in perpetuity" appears in that notion, which it doesn't, it
>> says nothing about mutability. And since no creature has
>> *ever*, AFAIK, produced viable offspring with which it
>> cannot breed, every creature has always reproduced "after
>> its own kind". Speciation takes far more than a single
>> generation.
>>
>
>Teleological and evolutionary concepts mixed together (= confusion).

Yes, you are confused. What I posted is correct.

>> > It's all there in one thought. In fact when he said each species created independently he summarizes when he THEN writes species are not immutable.
>>
>> He was far more intelligent than you are, and knew what the
>> language he used meant.
>
>Non-sequitur via rant.

Hardly a non-sequitur; he knew that separate creation had
nothing to do with immutability, which you can't seem to
grasp.

> Bob is refuted and won't admit. Darwin summarized independent creation as synonymous with species immutability;

No, he did not; they are separate issues which he addressed
separately. Learn to read for comprehension.

> hence the source of my definition. Again, there is absolutely nothing complicated here. The fact that Bob and other Evolutionists won't acknowledge the straightforward definition is because they are dishonest, like we have always said. If Evolutionists would deny an uncomplicated definition seen in the Origin then how much more would they attempt to corrupt complicated scientific evidence? This is precisely why we are anti-evolution: Evolutionists are veritably dishonest.
>
>>
>> >To deny his straightforward and uncomplicated conveyance equates to inexcusable ignorance or premeditated dishonesty.
>>
>> Oh, it equates to inexcusable ignorance all right; yours.
>> I'll leave the determination of your motives to you.

Again, the ignorance is yours.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 29 Sep 2016 03:40:13 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

....or drug-induced. Or "just Glenn".

[jillery]

On Thu, 29 Sep 2016 08:33:45 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>
>"Burkhard" <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in message news:nsgfdv$s4v$1...@dont-email.me...
>> r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Darwin did in fact define species immutability when he said "most naturalists" accepted each species created independently.
>>
>> Only he didn't. What he says on the page you cited is not a definition
>> of immutability, he gives an explanation of what (according to the
>> tradition) causes immutability, two very different things
>
>Not a very objective analysis for one who is aware of the uses of the words.
>>
>> Explanations can be right or wrong, definitions can't (they can be
>> helpful or unhelpful; generally accepted or idiosyncratic; ordinary
>> meaning or technical meaning; but not true or false)
>
>So "any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next" is neither true or false, is not a definition of evolution, but rather an explanation?
>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html
>>
>> You've also confused definitions with factual statements in your posts
>> about Behe and IC, where you wrongly claimed that according to him
>> "can't evolve" was a part of the definition of IC rather than one of the
>> consequences of being IC.
>>
>> You make the same mistake here again. The Darwin quote does not say what
>> "immutable" means, but what causes immutability
>
>Actually, in that quote he did implicitly define species immutability.

Right here would have been a good place for you to say how anyone can
implicitly define something. My understanding is the quote either
defines it explicitly or you inferred it.

>So you believe either identifying a creator or observing that species do not change suffices as a scientific cause?

That's Glenn, Non Sequiturs "R" Us.

[Glenn]

"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:p0jqub11ths57i44d...@4ax.com...

So if every species is a separate creation that do not originate by speciation, "immutable" is an entirely irrelevant term, especially with respect to "species immutability". Got it.

>
>> Bob is refuted and won't admit. Darwin summarized independent creation as synonymous with species immutability;
>
> No, he did not; they are separate issues which he addressed
> separately. Learn to read for comprehension.

What irony!

[Glenn]

"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:pajqub5kq38ad54nm...@4ax.com...

Just exactly what have I said in this thread, Bob? You're the scientific one, please tell me.

[jillery]

On Thu, 29 Sep 2016 13:27:32 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

No, you still don't get it. Even if there was separate creation
during Genesis, that doesn't mean species could not evolve afterward.
They are independenct concepts. And Darwin didn't define either one
in the text you cited.

>>> Bob is refuted and won't admit. Darwin summarized independent creation as synonymous with species immutability;
>>
>> No, he did not; they are separate issues which he addressed
>> separately. Learn to read for comprehension.
>
>What irony!

You have no idea.

[jillery]

On Thu, 29 Sep 2016 13:30:03 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

It was me who posted that comment above, not Bob. To answer your
question, your original comment was "Chuck and Larry appear peculiar",
which implies that Charles Darwin and Larry Moran didn't/don't know
the history of Creationism in science. And you also babbled your usual
non sequiturs. That's all up there in the quoted text, in case you
want to recover from your convenient amnesia.

Of course, you could claim you didn't mean to imply that, but that
would mean your posts are completely irrelevant. That's not much of a
difference, but it's something.

[Glenn]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:v88rubt1dhacdshft...@4ax.com...

What something might "mean" isn't the issue, and as usual your responses are irrelevant, and not worth replying to.

>
>
>>>> Bob is refuted and won't admit. Darwin summarized independent creation as synonymous with species immutability;
>>>
>>> No, he did not; they are separate issues which he addressed
>>> separately. Learn to read for comprehension.
>>
>>What irony!
>
>
> You have no idea.
>

I think I do, as do you. To make such claims reinforces your image as being a blind idiot.

[Glenn]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:q98rub5egr9elp0l4...@4ax.com...

The opinion of one who starts off answering the question with an admission that what you think is implied is what is *said*.
You know why I don't reply to you often, Jillery? You're dishonest, stupid and boring.

[r3p...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 10:20:04 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 15:10:08 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
> <pyram...@yahoo.com>:
>
> >On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 11:05:03 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
> >> On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 21:30:54 -0700 (PDT), the following
> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by r3p...@gmail.com:
> >>
> >> >Darwin did in fact define species immutability when he said "most naturalists" accepted each species created independently.
> >>
> >> I assume you're using "after their own kind" to justify
> >> species immutability as a Biblical notion?
> >
> >Absolutely not. I'm not a YEC. There's no such thing as a "created kind."
>
> <Boggle>
>

Created kind does not entail immutability, YECs are not species immutabilists, Bob.

> >> Unless the phrase
> >> "in perpetuity" appears in that notion, which it doesn't, it

> >> says nothing about mutability. And sinche no creature has

You're denying what Darwin said. Again, he conveyed independent creation THEN he referred to the entire conveyance as immutability.

Ray

[jillery]

On Thu, 29 Sep 2016 18:28:59 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

Right here would have been a good place for you to say what you think
is the issue. Failing that suggests you have no idea what you're
talking about.

>and as usual your responses are irrelevant, and not worth replying to.

That you did reply puts the lie to your claim.

>>>>> Bob is refuted and won't admit. Darwin summarized independent creation as synonymous with species immutability;
>>>>
>>>> No, he did not; they are separate issues which he addressed
>>>> separately. Learn to read for comprehension.
>>>
>>>What irony!
>>
>>
>> You have no idea.
>>
>I think I do, as do you. To make such claims reinforces your image as being a blind idiot.

As usual, Glenn loses all interest in whatever point he thinks he made
in order to indulge in non sequiturs and personal attacks. Way to go,
Glenn.

[r3p...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 6:10:03 AM UTC-7, Burkhard wrote:
> r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Darwin did in fact define species immutability when he said "most naturalists" accepted each species created independently.
>
> Only he didn't. What he says on the page you cited is not a definition
> of immutability, he gives an explanation of what (according to the
> tradition) causes immutability, two very different things
>
> Explanations can be right or wrong, definitions can't (they can be
> helpful or unhelpful; generally accepted or idiosyncratic; ordinary
> meaning or technical meaning; but not true or false)
>
> You've also confused definitions with factual statements in your posts
> about Behe and IC, where you wrongly claimed that according to him
> "can't evolve" was a part of the definition of IC rather than one of the
> consequences of being IC.
>
> You make the same mistake here again. The Darwin quote does not say what
> "immutable" means, but what causes immutability

Your claim about causation is undeniably true, but to say what Darwin said to exclude a definition of immutability is asserted without rhyme, reason, or argument. Darwin, in the quotation, described independent creation then referred to what he described as immutability. So one can rightly define immutability as independent creation of each species.

Ray

[jillery]

On Thu, 29 Sep 2016 19:59:10 -0700 (PDT), r3p...@gmail.com wrote:

>On Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 6:10:03 AM UTC-7, Burkhard wrote:
>> r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > Darwin did in fact define species immutability when he said "most naturalists" accepted each species created independently.
>>
>> Only he didn't. What he says on the page you cited is not a definition
>> of immutability, he gives an explanation of what (according to the
>> tradition) causes immutability, two very different things
>>
>> Explanations can be right or wrong, definitions can't (they can be
>> helpful or unhelpful; generally accepted or idiosyncratic; ordinary
>> meaning or technical meaning; but not true or false)
>>
>> You've also confused definitions with factual statements in your posts
>> about Behe and IC, where you wrongly claimed that according to him
>> "can't evolve" was a part of the definition of IC rather than one of the
>> consequences of being IC.
>>
>> You make the same mistake here again. The Darwin quote does not say what
>> "immutable" means, but what causes immutability
>
>Your claim about causation is undeniably true, but to say what Darwin said to exclude a definition of immutability is asserted without rhyme, reason, or argument. Darwin, in the quotation, described independent creation then referred to what he described as immutability. So one can rightly define immutability as independent creation of each species.

That's what you might have done to define immutability as independent
creation of species, but that's not what Darwin did, your mutiliation
of the King's English notwithstanding.

[Burkhard]

r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 6:10:03 AM UTC-7, Burkhard wrote:
>> r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Darwin did in fact define species immutability when he said "most naturalists" accepted each species created independently.
>>
>> Only he didn't. What he says on the page you cited is not a definition
>> of immutability, he gives an explanation of what (according to the
>> tradition) causes immutability, two very different things
>>
>> Explanations can be right or wrong, definitions can't (they can be
>> helpful or unhelpful; generally accepted or idiosyncratic; ordinary
>> meaning or technical meaning; but not true or false)
>>
>> You've also confused definitions with factual statements in your posts
>> about Behe and IC, where you wrongly claimed that according to him
>> "can't evolve" was a part of the definition of IC rather than one of the
>> consequences of being IC.
>>
>> You make the same mistake here again. The Darwin quote does not say what
>> "immutable" means, but what causes immutability
>
> Your claim about causation is undeniably true, but to say what Darwin said to exclude a definition of immutability is asserted without rhyme, reason, or argument.

The argument and evidence is simple: the text simply does not give a
definition. Definitions are typically introduced as "For the purpose of
this study, I define X as Y" or "with X, we mean Y", or "X stands for
the more complex Y" or some other easily recognizable expression that
the author is introducing a definition.

Darwin does none of this, rather the text plainly postulates a
consequence of creation, i.e. immutability

>
>Darwin, in the quotation, described independent creation then referred to what he described as immutability.

Yes, but he does not define one through the other

>So one can rightly define immutability as independent creation of each species.

Only one can't, and Darwin doesn't. He states an (alleged) consequence
of independent creation, that is immutability.

As a simple thought experiment, we could have found out that species are
indeed immutable, but for reasons other than independent creation (e.g.
a more robust DNA with no mutations, or a "reset button" that reverts to
the original form of a species once too many mutations are accumulated.

Even though in this case species would not change (hence be for all
intents and purposes immutable), they still would not have been created. ]

Conversely, god could of course have created species that are highly
mutable (omnipotent, remember)

So "independent created" and "immutable" are connected through a
contingent empirical fact - God chose to create species as immutable,
that is why they are that way.

But that is a causal explanation, not a definition that merely
determines word meaning but does not say anything about the world

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 29 Sep 2016 13:27:32 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:

You seem to think "was" and "is" (or "were" and "are") are
synonyms. They aren't.

>>> Bob is refuted and won't admit. Darwin summarized independent creation as synonymous with species immutability;
>>
>> No, he did not; they are separate issues which he addressed
>> separately. Learn to read for comprehension.
>
>What irony!

They were indeed separate issues; they were even listed that
way, and addressed them independently. Learn to read for
comprehension.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 29 Sep 2016 18:28:59 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:

Really? Well, that explains most of your posts...

> and as usual your responses are irrelevant, and not worth replying to.
>>
>>
>>>>> Bob is refuted and won't admit. Darwin summarized independent creation as synonymous with species immutability;
>>>>
>>>> No, he did not; they are separate issues which he addressed
>>>> separately. Learn to read for comprehension.
>>>
>>>What irony!
>>
>>
>> You have no idea.
>>
>I think I do, as do you. To make such claims reinforces your image as being a blind idiot.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 29 Sep 2016 13:30:03 -0700, the following appeared

No problem; it's a quote and the reference from which the
quote came, right there above "Right here would have been a
good place...". You're welcome.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 29 Sep 2016 22:57:51 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

Needlessly restrictive, IMHO; the first three words of your
last sentence are not required.

>>and as usual your responses are irrelevant, and not worth replying to.
>
>
>That you did reply puts the lie to your claim.
>
>
>>>>>> Bob is refuted and won't admit. Darwin summarized independent creation as synonymous with species immutability;
>>>>>
>>>>> No, he did not; they are separate issues which he addressed
>>>>> separately. Learn to read for comprehension.
>>>>
>>>>What irony!
>>>
>>>
>>> You have no idea.
>>>
>>I think I do, as do you. To make such claims reinforces your image as being a blind idiot.
>
>
>As usual, Glenn loses all interest in whatever point he thinks he made
>in order to indulge in non sequiturs and personal attacks. Way to go,
>Glenn.
--

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 29 Sep 2016 19:40:16 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by r3p...@gmail.com:

>On Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 10:20:04 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 15:10:08 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>> <pyram...@yahoo.com>:
>>
>> >On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 11:05:03 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 21:30:54 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by r3p...@gmail.com:
>> >>
>> >> >Darwin did in fact define species immutability when he said "most naturalists" accepted each species created independently.
>> >>
>> >> I assume you're using "after their own kind" to justify
>> >> species immutability as a Biblical notion?
>> >
>> >Absolutely not. I'm not a YEC. There's no such thing as a "created kind."
>>
>> <Boggle>

>Created kind does not entail immutability, YECs are not species immutabilists, Bob.

Funny, but that ("Created kind does not entail
immutability") is exactly what everyone except you has been
saying, and exactly why your original contention that Darwin
said it does was incorrect. Or does your statement above,

"Darwin did in fact define species immutability when he said
'most naturalists' accepted each species created

independently" have some other meaning than that special
creation *does* so imply?

And no one claimed YECs are by definition species
immutabilists; I have no idea where that non sequitur came
from.

[Burkhard]

There is a category of "implicit definition", though it is used mainly
in mathematics. An implicit definition is one that does not state
necessary and sufficient conditions explicitly, but through a set or
axioms that delimit uniquely the interpretation of the term.

The classical example are the axioms of Euclidean geometry that define
implicitly the primitive geometrical signs (such as "point" or "line")
that the axioms uses. In mathematics that distinction became important
after Hilbert who argued that many mathematical terms such as “straight
line” are difficult to define explicitly, but that we can achieve the
same result by defining them implicitly as: "whatever entities satisfy
the formal axioms formulated by means of them". So both Euclidean and
non-Euclidean geometry use the word "point", but it means different
things because the axioms in which the term appears differ.

You can extend the same idea to physics, or whenever you have a fully
axiomatised theory - the totality of axioms can then also define some of
the terms that are used in them.

But that of course is not the case here, and Darwin does not define in
this one sentence "immutability:, he clearly and simply reports the
explanation that creationists of his day gave for the observation that
species appear static to (some) human observers. (aka observers who
spend their time locked away in universities or monasteries - farmers
knew better even then)

And of course, what Darwin says here is also much more interesting than
a definition would have been. So as usual, Ray is confused and Glen is
simply contrarian for the heck of it.

>
>
>> So you believe either identifying a creator or observing that species do not change suffices as a scientific cause?
>
>
> That's Glenn, Non Sequiturs "R" Us.

Yes indeed. Or serious lack of reading comprehension.

[jillery]

On Fri, 30 Sep 2016 17:13:45 +0100, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

I'll keep the above in mind if ever I run into any of those cases. Too
bad for Glenn this case here is not one of them.

[Ray Martinez]

You're the one who introduced "created kind" into the debate. As for your other points, after reading them several times, I have no idea as to what you're talking about. If you repeat your points without explanation I shall ignore.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Friday, September 30, 2016 at 4:20:00 AM UTC-7, Burkhard wrote:
> r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 6:10:03 AM UTC-7, Burkhard wrote:
> >> r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> Darwin did in fact define species immutability when he said "most naturalists" accepted each species created independently.
> >>
> >> Only he didn't. What he says on the page you cited is not a definition
> >> of immutability, he gives an explanation of what (according to the
> >> tradition) causes immutability, two very different things
> >>
> >> Explanations can be right or wrong, definitions can't (they can be
> >> helpful or unhelpful; generally accepted or idiosyncratic; ordinary
> >> meaning or technical meaning; but not true or false)
> >>
> >> You've also confused definitions with factual statements in your posts
> >> about Behe and IC, where you wrongly claimed that according to him
> >> "can't evolve" was a part of the definition of IC rather than one of the
> >> consequences of being IC.
> >>
> >> You make the same mistake here again. The Darwin quote does not say what
> >> "immutable" means, but what causes immutability
> >
> > Your claim about causation is undeniably true, but to say what Darwin said to exclude a definition of immutability is asserted without rhyme, reason, or argument.
>
> The argument and evidence is simple: the text simply does not give a
> definition.

Never said the text at issue offered a formal definition. What I did say: What's written, by Darwin, conveys my definition of species immutability.

> Definitions are typically introduced as "For the purpose of
> this study, I define X as Y" or "with X, we mean Y", or "X stands for
> the more complex Y" or some other easily recognizable expression that
> the author is introducing a definition.

I understand; but I'm now clarifying what I said. What Darwin wrote equates to a good definition of species immutability. Neither "immutability" nor "species" appear in the definition. And the proposed definition clearly conveys what is meant by species immutability. If each species is created then the concept of speciation does not exist in nature.

>
> Darwin does none of this, rather the text plainly postulates a
> consequence of creation, i.e. immutability

Answered above.

>
> >
> >Darwin, in the quotation, described independent creation then referred to what he described as immutability.
> >

> Yes....

Thanks.

> ....but he does not define one through the other

Not formally, I agree. He does not actually say anything about a definition, but strongly implies when he writes each species created independently THEN refers to all of the same as species immutability, which he says is not true.

It seems your protest is based only on absence of explicit mentioning of a definition while ignoring the brilliance of the conveyance as **also** implying a definition.

>
> >So one can rightly define immutability as independent creation of each species.
> >
> Only one can't, and Darwin doesn't. He states an (alleged) consequence
> of independent creation, that is immutability.

Said consequence, however true, doesn't exclude an implied definition. Since your argument is based on the fact that Darwin didn't actually say he was defining immutability, you can't use the consequence to imply exclusion of a definition. Since the consequence is actually implied, other implications can be valid as well.

>
> As a simple thought experiment, we could have found out that species are
> indeed immutable, but for reasons other than independent creation (e.g.
> a more robust DNA with no mutations, or a "reset button" that reverts to
> the original form of a species once too many mutations are accumulated.
>
> Even though in this case species would not change (hence be for all
> intents and purposes immutable), they still would not have been created. ]
>
> Conversely, god could of course have created species that are highly
> mutable (omnipotent, remember)
>
> So "independent created" and "immutable" are connected through a
> contingent empirical fact - God chose to create species as immutable,
> that is why they are that way.
>
> But that is a causal explanation, not a definition that merely
> determines word meaning but does not say anything about the world
>

I see no relevance between your thought experiment and the issue at hand.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

ERROR.

I retract the part about species not appearing in the definition.

Ray

[....]

[Ray Martinez]

What I should have said was that neither "immutability" nor "species" appear in the phrase "independent creation."

When it's understood what "independent creation" means then "species immutability" should be understood as being spoken of as well.

Ray

[r3p...@gmail.com]

I think it important to point out that Bob Casanova, Jillery, and Glenn are Evolutionists; and that Glenn, unlike Jillery and Bob, is honest and objective.

Ray

[jillery]

Then right here would have been a good place for you to say what you
think "independent creation" means, and how it implies species
immutability. Failing that, you're just in broken-record mode.

[jillery]

Since there is no definition in the cited text, it logically follows
that species doesn't appear in it, a trivial truism.

[jillery]

On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 18:05:47 -0700 (PDT), r3p...@gmail.com wrote:

>I think it important to point out that Bob Casanova, Jillery, and Glenn are Evolutionists; and that Glenn, unlike Jillery and Bob, is honest and objective.

You're an intellectual criminal who will say anything and do anything
to avoid admitting a point that undermines your beliefs. So your
opinions on who is honest are equally suspect.

My impression is Glenn is a machine which posts from time to time
random and irrelevant comments and quotes, something like the arcade
fortune tellers, so the word doesn't even apply to him.

[Burkhard]

Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Friday, September 30, 2016 at 4:20:00 AM UTC-7, Burkhard wrote:
>> r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 6:10:03 AM UTC-7, Burkhard wrote:
>>>> r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> Darwin did in fact define species immutability when he said "most naturalists" accepted each species created independently.
>>>>
>>>> Only he didn't. What he says on the page you cited is not a definition
>>>> of immutability, he gives an explanation of what (according to the
>>>> tradition) causes immutability, two very different things
>>>>
>>>> Explanations can be right or wrong, definitions can't (they can be
>>>> helpful or unhelpful; generally accepted or idiosyncratic; ordinary
>>>> meaning or technical meaning; but not true or false)
>>>>
>>>> You've also confused definitions with factual statements in your posts
>>>> about Behe and IC, where you wrongly claimed that according to him
>>>> "can't evolve" was a part of the definition of IC rather than one of the
>>>> consequences of being IC.
>>>>
>>>> You make the same mistake here again. The Darwin quote does not say what
>>>> "immutable" means, but what causes immutability
>>>
>>> Your claim about causation is undeniably true, but to say what Darwin said to exclude a definition of immutability is asserted without rhyme, reason, or argument.
>>
>> The argument and evidence is simple: the text simply does not give a
>> definition.
>
> Never said the text at issue offered a formal definition. What I did say: What's written, by Darwin, conveys my definition of species immutability.

You said it contained a definition, I showed you that it doesn't.

>
>> Definitions are typically introduced as "For the purpose of
>> this study, I define X as Y" or "with X, we mean Y", or "X stands for
>> the more complex Y" or some other easily recognizable expression that
>> the author is introducing a definition.
>
> I understand; but I'm now clarifying what I said. What Darwin wrote equates to a good definition of species immutability. Neither "immutability" nor "species" appear in the definition. And the proposed definition clearly conveys what is meant by species immutability. If each species is created then the concept of speciation does not exist in nature.

And once again that is stating an (alleged) consequence of species
immutability, but not a definition.

If it had been meant as a definition, it would have been piss poor
indeed, both for scientific and theological purposes.

For starters, definitions establish synonyms, and synonyms can be
exchanged salva veritate in all contexts. Which means you can now prove
that "God could not have created species to be mutable" is true - proof
by definition that God's powers are significantly limited.

The "definition" does not tell you anything about what the person
proposing it thinks a species is, how much variation he considers
consistent with "immutability", and if e.g. things such as mass
extinction are counterexamples (A species that is extinct has changed a
lot, you know, in one way of looking at it).

That is for a good definition of species immutability, we should get at
least some idea how a world with immutable species looks different from
one with mutable ones

>
>>
>> Darwin does none of this, rather the text plainly postulates a
>> consequence of creation, i.e. immutability
>
> Answered above.
>
>>
>> >
>>> Darwin, in the quotation, described independent creation then referred to what he described as immutability.
>>>
>> Yes....
>
> Thanks.
>
>> ....but he does not define one through the other
>
> Not formally, I agree. He does not actually say anything about a definition, but strongly implies when he writes each species created independently THEN refers to all of the same as species immutability, which he says is not true.

Indeed. As you say, he indicates that he does not think that the
statement is true. Which is the best evidence you can think of that he
did not consider it a definition. Definitions aren't true or false, they
are mere conventional abbreviations.

So by saying that e considers the statement false, he also treats it as
something different from a definition - that is, as a factual claim
about the world.

>
> It seems your protest is based only on absence of explicit mentioning of a definition while ignoring the brilliance of the conveyance as **also** implying a definition.

No, my protest is based on your continuing confusion between definitions
and statements of facts, hypothesis or explanations.

>
>>
>>> So one can rightly define immutability as independent creation of each species.
>>>
>> Only one can't, and Darwin doesn't. He states an (alleged) consequence
>> of independent creation, that is immutability.
>
> Said consequence, however true, doesn't exclude an implied definition. Since your argument is based on the fact that Darwin didn't actually say he was defining immutability,

Not just on that, though it is a strong indicator. Scientists tend to
say when they introduce a definition. But at least as important is how
he treat the statement - that is as something that is he thinks is
actually false.

> you can't use the consequence to imply exclusion of a definition. Since the consequence is actually implied, other implications can be valid as well.

No idea what you try to say here.

>
>>
>> As a simple thought experiment, we could have found out that species are
>> indeed immutable, but for reasons other than independent creation (e.g.
>> a more robust DNA with no mutations, or a "reset button" that reverts to
>> the original form of a species once too many mutations are accumulated.
>>
>> Even though in this case species would not change (hence be for all
>> intents and purposes immutable), they still would not have been created. ]
>>
>> Conversely, god could of course have created species that are highly
>> mutable (omnipotent, remember)
>>
>> So "independent created" and "immutable" are connected through a
>> contingent empirical fact - God chose to create species as immutable,
>> that is why they are that way.
>>
>> But that is a causal explanation, not a definition that merely
>> determines word meaning but does not say anything about the world
>>
>
> I see no relevance between your thought experiment and the issue at hand.

That does not surprise me. The reason is that you don't understand what
definitions are, and what role they play in scientific theories.

My thought experiments show that "being created" is neither necessary
nor sufficient for species to be immutable. Since definitions give
necessary and sufficient conditions, it can't be a definition of species
immutability.


>
> Ray
>

[Glenn]

"Burkhard" <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in message news:nt09lb$73u$1...@dont-email.me...
> Ray Martinez wrote:
snip

>> I see no relevance between your thought experiment and the issue at hand.
>
> That does not surprise me. The reason is that you don't understand what
> definitions are, and what role they play in scientific theories.
>
> My thought experiments show that "being created" is neither necessary
> nor sufficient for species to be immutable. Since definitions give
> necessary and sufficient conditions, it can't be a definition of species
> immutability.
>

You've jaw jacked yourself into a real pickle, conceptually speaking.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 14:57:17 -0700 (PDT), the following

No, Ray, that specific term was yours; it's even still
visible above. I referred to "after their own kind".

> As for your other points, after reading them several times, I have no idea as to what you're talking about.

As usual.

> If you repeat your points without explanation I shall ignore.

Again as usual, and probably your best choice.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 4 Oct 2016 07:15:24 -0700, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:

Given that what he wrote is correct, you would think so.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 18:05:47 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by r3p...@gmail.com:

>I think it important to point out that Bob Casanova, Jillery, and Glenn are Evolutionists; and that Glenn, unlike Jillery and Bob, is honest and objective.

And I think it's important to point out that Ray has the
ludicrous notion that acceptance of the massive evidence for
evolution means that one is an atheist, by definition, as he
has stated many times, and that he flatly ignores any post
which points out that many religious people accept that
evidence. Neither is indicative of objectivity.

And as for Glenn's "objectivity" I can only assume Ray is
suffering from rectal optirosis or context-dependent willful
blindness.

[Glenn]

"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:ult7vb9qmq6mr78sq...@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 4 Oct 2016 07:15:24 -0700, the following appeared in
> talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:
>
>>"Burkhard" <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in message news:nt09lb$73u$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>snip
>>>> I see no relevance between your thought experiment and the issue at hand.
>>>
>>> That does not surprise me. The reason is that you don't understand what
>>> definitions are, and what role they play in scientific theories.
>>>
>>> My thought experiments show that "being created" is neither necessary
>>> nor sufficient for species to be immutable. Since definitions give
>>> necessary and sufficient conditions, it can't be a definition of species
>>> immutability.
>
>>You've jaw jacked yourself into a real pickle, conceptually speaking.
>
> Given that what he wrote is correct, you would think so.
> --

Why would I think so? Are you claiming that I know what he wrote is correct?

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 4 Oct 2016 12:08:35 -0700, the following appeared in

talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:

>
>"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:ult7vb9qmq6mr78sq...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 4 Oct 2016 07:15:24 -0700, the following appeared in
>> talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:
>>
>>>"Burkhard" <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in message news:nt09lb$73u$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>snip
>>>>> I see no relevance between your thought experiment and the issue at hand.
>>>>
>>>> That does not surprise me. The reason is that you don't understand what
>>>> definitions are, and what role they play in scientific theories.
>>>>
>>>> My thought experiments show that "being created" is neither necessary
>>>> nor sufficient for species to be immutable. Since definitions give
>>>> necessary and sufficient conditions, it can't be a definition of species
>>>> immutability.
>>
>>>You've jaw jacked yourself into a real pickle, conceptually speaking.

>> Given that what he wrote is correct, you would think so.

>Why would I think so? Are you claiming that I know what he wrote is correct?

Nope, I'm claiming that regardless of what you know or think
you know, your default response to any post with which you
disagree is denial, and you issue proclamations such as the
above on that basis.

Of course, you can easily refute that by explaining exactly
how his accurate statement amounts to " jaw jacking himself
into a real pickle".

[Cubist]

On Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 7:45:00 PM UTC-7, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> Created kind does not entail immutability, YECs are not species immutabilists, Bob.

While it's true that YECs are not *necessarily* species immutabilists, it is also true that many YECs have, as a matter of historical fact, *been* species immutabilists. There was a time when many YECs took the Creationist term-of-art "fixity of kinds" to mean that there weren't even any variations *within* a kind, after all. Nowadays, most Creationists appear to have loosened up a bit, to the point where they would grant that "fixity of kinds" *does* allow for variation within a kind.

[Glenn]

"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:nvdavblo87pgdrpji...@4ax.com...

Why do I need to "refute" anything you say? Perhaps you should take a hint from your buttbuddy Jillery and support your claim. Conceptually speaking.

[jillery]

Or you could take a hint and support your claim. It's not like you
haven't been asked only a bazillion times.

And there's no reason to mention me here, except to drag me into your
stupid troll. Apparently that's something you picked up from your
strange bedfellows. But don't worry, they might have found a cure for
it by now.

[Ray Martinez]

Evolutionary theory, the thing itself, uses the evidence interpreting philosophy known as Naturalism/Materialism. Therefore anyone accepting these twin philosophies does, in fact, accept their main assumption: God absent from material nature. So the fact of acceptance, by persons claiming to be Christians, contradicts their claim professing Christianity.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

So we have two ambiguities seen in the message above: 1) meaning of kind, and 2) variation within kind.

YECs today do not define kind to mean species, but a wide range of species that are morphologically similar. Thus variation in this scheme does not convey variation as accepted by science since the days of Darwin.

Ray

[jillery]

Incorrect. The main assumption of naturalism/materialism is that God
isn't required to explain nature. Christianity isn't based on
explaining nature. Those parts of Christianity which require God to
explain are by definition supernatural, ie outside of nature. So the
veracity of Christianity isn't altered by naturalism/materialism.
Conflicts arise when Christians insist on using God to explain nature.

[Burkhard]

Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 11:39:46 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 18:05:47 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by r3p...@gmail.com:
>>
>>> I think it important to point out that Bob Casanova, Jillery, and Glenn are Evolutionists; and that Glenn, unlike Jillery and Bob, is honest and objective.
>>
>> And I think it's important to point out that Ray has the
>> ludicrous notion that acceptance of the massive evidence for
>> evolution means that one is an atheist, by definition, as he
>> has stated many times, and that he flatly ignores any post
>> which points out that many religious people accept that
>> evidence. Neither is indicative of objectivity.
>>
>> And as for Glenn's "objectivity" I can only assume Ray is
>> suffering from rectal optirosis or context-dependent willful
>> blindness.
>> --
>>
>> Bob C.
>>
>> "The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
>> the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
>> 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
>>
>> - Isaac Asimov
>
> Evolutionary theory, the thing itself, uses the evidence interpreting philosophy known as Naturalism/Materialism.

No, science is metaphysically neutral. You can be a realist,
constructivist, structural realist, idealist or whatever when you take a
philosophical stance about the ToE (or any other scientific theory for
that matter).

The empirical content remains the same, how different philosophies
interpret it afterwards can differ widely.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 18:13:24 -0700, the following appeared in

>Why do I need to "refute" anything you say? Perhaps you should take a hint from your buttbuddy Jillery and support your claim.

Nope; sorry. You stated Burkhard's post had "jaw jacked him
into a real pickle", which is far from apparent given that
his post, that " 'being created' is neither necessary
nor sufficient for species to be immutable", is correct by
definition. So it's up to you to support your assertion by
showing that it's incorrect. Good luck with that.

> Conceptually speaking.

So, you can't support your assertion, "conceptually
speaking" or otherwise? Again? OK.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 19:31:06 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:

>On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 11:39:46 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 18:05:47 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by r3p...@gmail.com:
>>
>> >I think it important to point out that Bob Casanova, Jillery, and Glenn are Evolutionists; and that Glenn, unlike Jillery and Bob, is honest and objective.
>>
>> And I think it's important to point out that Ray has the
>> ludicrous notion that acceptance of the massive evidence for
>> evolution means that one is an atheist, by definition, as he
>> has stated many times, and that he flatly ignores any post
>> which points out that many religious people accept that
>> evidence. Neither is indicative of objectivity.
>>
>> And as for Glenn's "objectivity" I can only assume Ray is
>> suffering from rectal optirosis or context-dependent willful
>> blindness.

>Evolutionary theory, the thing itself, uses the evidence interpreting philosophy known as Naturalism/Materialism.

Of course; all of science does the same, and makes the
initial assumption that events in nature can be explained
via natural processes, from the movement of the planets to
natural selection among variants. And then scientists do
research to find how those natural processes work. So far,
*nothing* has shown a need for a deus ex machina of any
sort, including a micro-managing God who operates in a way
you like.

> Therefore anyone accepting these twin philosophies does, in fact, accept their main assumption: God absent from material nature.

Not necessarily; they can make the assumption that God gave
us the brains with which to observe and analyze His
creation. Some of us (check a mirror) seem unable to use
those brains as He intended.

> So the fact of acceptance, by persons claiming to be Christians, contradicts their claim professing Christianity.

Accepting Christ has nothing to do with species immutability
or evolution. Your fixed belief that God *cannot* do
anything other than in ways you can understand and accept is
your problem, not a problem for others. Simply put, most
Christians don't accept your authority to limit God.