Harshman, Noor, and Eddie on the horse sequence

[Peter Nyikos]

John Harshman has been encouraging me to see what Noor said about
evolution, because Eddie had some criticisms of it. But first
I saw what Eddie had actually said, and saw some unexpected things.

On Wednesday, May 4, 2016 at 11:58:22 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 5/4/16 6:54 AM, Steady Eddie wrote:
> > Okay, here is Mo Noor's second preview lecture on his course "Introduction to Genetics and Evolution" -
> >
> > Lecture 2 - Basic Principles and Evidence For Evolution
> > https://www.coursera.org/learn/genetics-evolution/lecture/K8SDd/basic-principles-and-evidence-for-evolution-g

Was this on the video you linked, John?

> > Here, Mo begins to carefully "extend" his definition of evolution from examples of micro-evolution, or
> > adaptation, such as the peppered moth and asphalt-phobic squirrels, to macro-evolution.
> >
> > He begins by showing the 60-million year lineage of the modern horse.
> > He uses the iconic horse lineage, even though this has been exposed as a hoax - there ARE NO
> > FOSSILS OF HORSE ANCESTORS!
>
> Explain.

He did, John, but you read things into what was written that
aren't there, just as you and Norman and Isaak read things
into Larry Moran's favorite definition of "evolution" that
aren't there.

> > Mo adroitly acknowledges this fact, then keeps right on going, as if it is a minor technicality!
> >
> > His words are:
> > "These pictures, by the way, don't NECESSARILY depict ACTUAL HORSE ANCESTORS..."
> > LOL!
> > "...BUT, they show FOSSILS THAT WERE PRESENT AT THE SAME TIME as the PRESUMED HORSE
> > ANCESTORS"
> > LOL!
> >
> > So, what is such an admitted IMAGINARY LINEAGE doing in an introductory evolution course?
> > What does it demonstrate, other than the hubris of Darwinists who think the student will
> > passively accept ANYTHING they say as fact?

IF Steady Eddie isn't leaving out anything pertinent by Dr. Noor (and that's
a big IF) it strongly suggests that Noor did not prepare his talk ahead
of time. And it demonstrates that Noor forgot to say that he wasn't
talking about any old fossils that were present at the same time.

He was talking about fossils that are so similar to what might be
expected of ancestors that some species in the sequence
may well be directly ancestral to others. Kathleen Hunt, in
her Talk.Origins FAQ on the horse family, makes an especially
strong case for the sequence Hyracotherium-Orohippus-Epihippus
and for various direct descents within the genus Merychippus.

> He's referring to the fact that we can't tell whether a given fossil is
> an ancestor or the ancestor's cousin (and I mean that at the species
> level, not just the individual level).

Wrong. You are going beyond the actual text and assuming,
IMO correctly, that he WANTED to refer to it.

In fact, your assumption is so strong, you didn't even see
that there was any need to tell Eddie what Noor's intended
meaning was. In fact, even after he called your attention
to Noor's mis-stated second sentence, you were blind to the fact that
there was any sort of communication problem.

On another thread recently, I told you that you reminded
me of the cat in Collodi's original _Pinocchio_. I had
a very specific sentence in mind, near the end, relevant here too.
Did you guess what it was? And did YOU have something specific
in mind when you said I reminded you of _____________?

[Sorry, I've forgotten what it was. But you should remember,
unless it was just a retort of the "Oh yeah? Well, your
mother wears old army boots" genere.]


> There may well be fossils of
> horse ancestors; in fact it's quite likely. But there's no way to be
> sure which fossils are or are not.

And there's no way to be sure that a sister group is really a
sister group. But you have no trouble with innumerable pronouncements
to that effect. [Unless they happen to be wrong, like in the peer-reviewed
hypothesis that monotremes are the sister group of eutherians.]

> And he's also right that it doesn't matter.

I don't get that from what Eddie quoted. Did you?

But I'm sure Noor THINKS that it doesn't matter, and he's
quite correct about it, as are you below.

> Even collateral relatives
> are good evidence for a family tree, just as one could get a good idea
> of your relationships by studying your uncles, aunts, and siblings.
>
> Your problem is that you passively reject everything he says.

Hyperbolic use of "everything" noted.

YOUR problem is that you didn't pay attention to what
Eddie quoted from what Noor says.

> If you
> took your fingers out of your ears you might actually learn something.
> And, by the way, you don't have to yell.

Too bad even yelling wasn't enough to keep voices out of
your head, causing you to hear something else than what Eddie yelled.

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

[John Harshman]

On 9/14/16 1:58 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> John Harshman has been encouraging me to see what Noor said about
> evolution, because Eddie had some criticisms of it. But first
> I saw what Eddie had actually said, and saw some unexpected things.
>
> On Wednesday, May 4, 2016 at 11:58:22 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 5/4/16 6:54 AM, Steady Eddie wrote:
>>> Okay, here is Mo Noor's second preview lecture on his course "Introduction to Genetics and Evolution" -
>>>
>>> Lecture 2 - Basic Principles and Evidence For Evolution
>>> https://www.coursera.org/learn/genetics-evolution/lecture/K8SDd/basic-principles-and-evidence-for-evolution-g
>
> Was this on the video you linked, John?

No. I believe the video I linked was taken from the first lecture. You
still haven't looked at it?

>>> Here, Mo begins to carefully "extend" his definition of evolution from examples of micro-evolution, or
>>> adaptation, such as the peppered moth and asphalt-phobic squirrels, to macro-evolution.
>>>
>>> He begins by showing the 60-million year lineage of the modern horse.
>>> He uses the iconic horse lineage, even though this has been exposed as a hoax - there ARE NO
>>> FOSSILS OF HORSE ANCESTORS!
>>
>> Explain.
>
> He did, John, but you read things into what was written that
> aren't there, just as you and Norman and Isaak read things
> into Larry Moran's favorite definition of "evolution" that
> aren't there.

Such as?

>>> Mo adroitly acknowledges this fact, then keeps right on going, as if it is a minor technicality!
>>>
>>> His words are:
>>> "These pictures, by the way, don't NECESSARILY depict ACTUAL HORSE ANCESTORS..."
>>> LOL!
>>> "...BUT, they show FOSSILS THAT WERE PRESENT AT THE SAME TIME as the PRESUMED HORSE
>>> ANCESTORS"
>>> LOL!
>>>
>>> So, what is such an admitted IMAGINARY LINEAGE doing in an introductory evolution course?
>>> What does it demonstrate, other than the hubris of Darwinists who think the student will
>>> passively accept ANYTHING they say as fact?
>
> IF Steady Eddie isn't leaving out anything pertinent by Dr. Noor (and that's
> a big IF) it strongly suggests that Noor did not prepare his talk ahead
> of time. And it demonstrates that Noor forgot to say that he wasn't
> talking about any old fossils that were present at the same time.

What's the point of you speculating about what might have led Mo to say
what you speculate he might have said? Shouldn't you at least find out
first what he actually said?

> He was talking about fossils that are so similar to what might be
> expected of ancestors that some species in the sequence
> may well be directly ancestral to others. Kathleen Hunt, in
> her Talk.Origins FAQ on the horse family, makes an especially
> strong case for the sequence Hyracotherium-Orohippus-Epihippus
> and for various direct descents within the genus Merychippus.

That is your speculation about what he might have meant by what he might
have said.

>> He's referring to the fact that we can't tell whether a given fossil is
>> an ancestor or the ancestor's cousin (and I mean that at the species
>> level, not just the individual level).
>
> Wrong. You are going beyond the actual text and assuming,
> IMO correctly, that he WANTED to refer to it.
>
> In fact, your assumption is so strong, you didn't even see
> that there was any need to tell Eddie what Noor's intended
> meaning was. In fact, even after he called your attention
> to Noor's mis-stated second sentence, you were blind to the fact that
> there was any sort of communication problem.
>
> On another thread recently, I told you that you reminded
> me of the cat in Collodi's original _Pinocchio_. I had
> a very specific sentence in mind, near the end, relevant here too.
> Did you guess what it was? And did YOU have something specific
> in mind when you said I reminded you of _____________?
>
> [Sorry, I've forgotten what it was. But you should remember,
> unless it was just a retort of the "Oh yeah? Well, your
> mother wears old army boots" genere.]

You have become lost in your own digression. Solution: stop with all the
digressions.

>> There may well be fossils of
>> horse ancestors; in fact it's quite likely. But there's no way to be
>> sure which fossils are or are not.
>
> And there's no way to be sure that a sister group is really a
> sister group. But you have no trouble with innumerable pronouncements
> to that effect. [Unless they happen to be wrong, like in the peer-reviewed
> hypothesis that monotremes are the sister group of eutherians.]

Is there any reason for me to intrude on your monologue? As I have
mentioned before, sister group relationships are always relative to what
is known and/or included in an analysis, and those who do this sort of
thing are well aware of that.

>> And he's also right that it doesn't matter.
>
> I don't get that from what Eddie quoted. Did you?

Yes. Otherwise, he would have no reason to bring up the fossils.

> But I'm sure Noor THINKS that it doesn't matter, and he's
> quite correct about it, as are you below.
>
>> Even collateral relatives
>> are good evidence for a family tree, just as one could get a good idea
>> of your relationships by studying your uncles, aunts, and siblings.
>>
>> Your problem is that you passively reject everything he says.
>
> Hyperbolic use of "everything" noted.

Why note it?

> YOUR problem is that you didn't pay attention to what
> Eddie quoted from what Noor says.

Of course I paid attention. Do you have some argument to make here?

>> If you
>> took your fingers out of your ears you might actually learn something.
>> And, by the way, you don't have to yell.
>
> Too bad even yelling wasn't enough to keep voices out of
> your head, causing you to hear something else than what Eddie yelled.

This seems merely an exercise in telling me that I'm wrong about
something, without ever managing to explain what or why.

[Peter Nyikos]

Can YOU think of a better explanation why he would leave out vitally
pertinent descriptions?

> Shouldn't you at least find out
> first what he actually said?

That's what you should be doing, John. You should be telling me that
Mo DID say something pertinent. But you aren't doing that.

> > He was talking about fossils that are so similar to what might be
> > expected of ancestors that some species in the sequence
> > may well be directly ancestral to others. Kathleen Hunt, in
> > her Talk.Origins FAQ on the horse family, makes an especially
> > strong case for the sequence Hyracotherium-Orohippus-Epihippus
> > and for various direct descents within the genus Merychippus.
>
> That is your speculation about what he might have meant by what he might
> have said.

Completely wrong. If Noor was showing the traditional horse sequence, he had
to be talking about such things. You may quarrel with my
opinions about the "so similar" part, but unless Noor was
showing some very sub-optimal pictures, that is what he was showing.

WAS he showing some very sub-optimal pictures?

> >> He's referring to the fact that we can't tell whether a given fossil is
> >> an ancestor or the ancestor's cousin (and I mean that at the species
> >> level, not just the individual level).
> >
> > Wrong. You are going beyond the actual text and assuming,
> > IMO correctly, that he WANTED to refer to it.

Here you forgot to accuse me of speculating. :-)

Seriously, you forgot to deny this, and are in the position
of spouting Pee Wee Hermanisms up there.

> > In fact, your assumption is so strong, you didn't even see
> > that there was any need to tell Eddie what Noor's intended
> > meaning was. In fact, even after he called your attention
> > to Noor's mis-stated second sentence, you were blind to the fact that
> > there was any sort of communication problem.

No comment from you here either.

<snip of things to be dealt with later. Duty calls.>

> > YOUR problem is that you didn't pay attention to what
> > Eddie quoted from what Noor says.
>
> Of course I paid attention. Do you have some argument to make here?

Yes. See the things you ignored above.

> >> If you
> >> took your fingers out of your ears you might actually learn something.
> >> And, by the way, you don't have to yell.
> >
> > Too bad even yelling wasn't enough to keep voices out of
> > your head, causing you to hear something else than what Eddie yelled.
>
> This seems merely an exercise in telling me that I'm wrong about
> something, without ever managing to explain what or why.

Then you are seriously deluded.

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

http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

[John Harshman]

Please be specific. What vitally pertinent descriptions do you think he
left out? Why are they vitally pertinent? Why, absent actually
listening, can you say he left them out?

>> Shouldn't you at least find out
>> first what he actually said?
>
> That's what you should be doing, John. You should be telling me that
> Mo DID say something pertinent. But you aren't doing that.

Why is this my job?

>>> He was talking about fossils that are so similar to what might be
>>> expected of ancestors that some species in the sequence
>>> may well be directly ancestral to others. Kathleen Hunt, in
>>> her Talk.Origins FAQ on the horse family, makes an especially
>>> strong case for the sequence Hyracotherium-Orohippus-Epihippus
>>> and for various direct descents within the genus Merychippus.
>>
>> That is your speculation about what he might have meant by what he might
>> have said.
>
> Completely wrong. If Noor was showing the traditional horse sequence, he had
> to be talking about such things. You may quarrel with my
> opinions about the "so similar" part, but unless Noor was
> showing some very sub-optimal pictures, that is what he was showing.
>
> WAS he showing some very sub-optimal pictures?

Why do you refuse to look at the source?

>>>> He's referring to the fact that we can't tell whether a given fossil is
>>>> an ancestor or the ancestor's cousin (and I mean that at the species
>>>> level, not just the individual level).
>>>
>>> Wrong. You are going beyond the actual text and assuming,
>>> IMO correctly, that he WANTED to refer to it.
>
> Here you forgot to accuse me of speculating. :-)
>
> Seriously, you forgot to deny this, and are in the position
> of spouting Pee Wee Hermanisms up there.
>
>>> In fact, your assumption is so strong, you didn't even see
>>> that there was any need to tell Eddie what Noor's intended
>>> meaning was. In fact, even after he called your attention
>>> to Noor's mis-stated second sentence, you were blind to the fact that
>>> there was any sort of communication problem.
>
> No comment from you here either.

OK, I'll comment. The communication problem is Eddie's. He came to the
lecture not with the purpose of understanding evolution but with the
purpose of finding something to attack. Understanding what Mo said was
not relevant to his purpose. In this way, he seems similar to you.

> <snip of things to be dealt with later. Duty calls.>
>
>>> YOUR problem is that you didn't pay attention to what
>>> Eddie quoted from what Noor says.
>>
>> Of course I paid attention. Do you have some argument to make here?
>
> Yes. See the things you ignored above.

You are very bad at making your point clear.

>>>> If you
>>>> took your fingers out of your ears you might actually learn something.
>>>> And, by the way, you don't have to yell.
>>>
>>> Too bad even yelling wasn't enough to keep voices out of
>>> your head, causing you to hear something else than what Eddie yelled.
>>
>> This seems merely an exercise in telling me that I'm wrong about
>> something, without ever managing to explain what or why.
>
> Then you are seriously deluded.

And yet you, so far, ignore all attempts to get you to explain what you
mean.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 5:25:03 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 9/14/16 1:58 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

Short on time, I reply only to one snippet and save the rest for
later posts.

[Harshman, to Steady Eddie:]

> >> Even collateral relatives
> >> are good evidence for a family tree, just as one could get a good idea
> >> of your relationships by studying your uncles, aunts, and siblings.
> >>
> >> Your problem is that you passively reject everything he says.
> >
> > Hyperbolic use of "everything" noted.
>
> Why note it?

Well, for one thing, it illustrates a contrast between you and me.

I suffer fools gladly, but knaves with difficulty or not at all.

You suffer knaves gladly, but fools [case in point: Eddie] with
difficulty or not at all.

There are other reasons, if you are curious, but I'm really pressed
for time; duty calls.

To end on a positive note: unlike Eddie, we are both very fond
of paleontology and have been so for the vast majority of our lives.
And I'll always be grateful for the way you help keep
sci.bio.paleontology alive.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

Univ. of South Carolina

[John Harshman]

On 9/15/16 6:36 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 5:25:03 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 9/14/16 1:58 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
> Short on time, I reply only to one snippet and save the rest for
> later posts.
>
> [Harshman, to Steady Eddie:]
>>>> Even collateral relatives
>>>> are good evidence for a family tree, just as one could get a good idea
>>>> of your relationships by studying your uncles, aunts, and siblings.
>>>>
>>>> Your problem is that you passively reject everything he says.
>>>
>>> Hyperbolic use of "everything" noted.
>>
>> Why note it?
>
> Well, for one thing, it illustrates a contrast between you and me.

Ah, so it's all part of buffing up your virtue by contrast.

> I suffer fools gladly, but knaves with difficulty or not at all.
>
> You suffer knaves gladly, but fools [case in point: Eddie] with
> difficulty or not at all.
>
> There are other reasons, if you are curious, but I'm really pressed
> for time; duty calls.
>
> To end on a positive note: unlike Eddie, we are both very fond
> of paleontology and have been so for the vast majority of our lives.
> And I'll always be grateful for the way you help keep
> sci.bio.paleontology alive.

Glad to. If you would act here more like you do there, everyone would
benefit.

[jillery]

On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 08:10:51 -0700, John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:

>On 9/15/16 6:36 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 5:25:03 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>> On 9/14/16 1:58 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>
>> Short on time, I reply only to one snippet and save the rest for
>> later posts.
>>
>> [Harshman, to Steady Eddie:]
>>>>> Even collateral relatives
>>>>> are good evidence for a family tree, just as one could get a good idea
>>>>> of your relationships by studying your uncles, aunts, and siblings.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your problem is that you passively reject everything he says.
>>>>
>>>> Hyperbolic use of "everything" noted.
>>>
>>> Why note it?
>>
>> Well, for one thing, it illustrates a contrast between you and me.
>
>Ah, so it's all part of buffing up your virtue by contrast.
>
>> I suffer fools gladly, but knaves with difficulty or not at all.

Still having problems recognizing that pettifogger you see in the
mirror?

>> You suffer knaves gladly, but fools [case in point: Eddie] with
>> difficulty or not at all.
>>
>> There are other reasons, if you are curious, but I'm really pressed
>> for time; duty calls.
>>
>> To end on a positive note: unlike Eddie, we are both very fond
>> of paleontology and have been so for the vast majority of our lives.
>> And I'll always be grateful for the way you help keep
>> sci.bio.paleontology alive.
>
>Glad to. If you would act here more like you do there, everyone would
>benefit.

I have visited s.b.p. from time-to-time. I haven't noticed much of a
difference in his behavior between there and here.
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 12:40:02 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 08:10:51 -0700, John Harshman
> <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >On 9/15/16 6:36 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 5:25:03 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>> On 9/14/16 1:58 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>
> >> Short on time, I reply only to one snippet and save the rest for
> >> later posts.
> >>
> >> [Harshman, to Steady Eddie:]
> >>>>> Even collateral relatives
> >>>>> are good evidence for a family tree, just as one could get a good idea
> >>>>> of your relationships by studying your uncles, aunts, and siblings.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Your problem is that you passively reject everything he says.
> >>>>
> >>>> Hyperbolic use of "everything" noted.
> >>>
> >>> Why note it?
> >>
> >> Well, for one thing, it illustrates a contrast between you and me.
> >
> >Ah, so it's all part of buffing up your virtue by contrast.
> >
> >> I suffer fools gladly, but knaves with difficulty or not at all.
>
>
> Still having problems recognizing that pettifogger you see in the
> mirror?

Unsupported Pee Wee Hermanism noted.

>
> >> You suffer knaves gladly, but fools [case in point: Eddie] with
> >> difficulty or not at all.
> >>
> >> There are other reasons, if you are curious, but I'm really pressed
> >> for time; duty calls.
> >>
> >> To end on a positive note: unlike Eddie, we are both very fond
> >> of paleontology and have been so for the vast majority of our lives.
> >> And I'll always be grateful for the way you help keep
> >> sci.bio.paleontology alive.
> >
> >Glad to. If you would act here more like you do there, everyone would
> >benefit.

Harshman would love that. He and others could just go on making wild
accusations and indulging in all kinds of dirty debating tactics
against me, without fear of me exposing their chicanery and hypocrisy.

Meanwhile, newcomers like George Kaplan would start
wondering just who is right in the recounting of Usenet history:
I all by my lonesome, or an ever increasing number of people
repeating canards about me.

Many of those canards would be of the "Peter can't prove a negative"
variety, like the false claim that many people have seen me post bigoted
stuff on gays. The ONLY way to defend myself against that kind
of scuttlebutt is to expose the dishonesty and hypocrisy of the
people responsible for it.

>
> I have visited s.b.p. from time-to-time. I haven't noticed much of a
> difference in his behavior between there and here.

If your last visit was over a year ago, it was probably because
we hadn't yet made our agreement to lay our talk.origins grievances
aside and to treat s.b.p. like a kind of embassy, with us playing
the role of the best of ambassadors.

Since then, the only person who has behaved in a nasty fashion there
has been Thrinaxodon/Oxyaena, who never "signed into" our agreement
and isn't expected to do so. [Correction: there was one exception by
someone who unjustly excoriated me in violation of his agreement.]

Feel free any time to drop by s.b.p. and see if you can
find any behavior by me that you can criticize. You can either
voice your criticism there or export it to talk.origins.
There is one active thread there right now and I hope to
start one or two more in the next week.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

Univ. of S. Carolina

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 6:05:03 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 9/14/16 2:53 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 5:25:03 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 9/14/16 1:58 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, May 4, 2016 at 11:58:22 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>> On 5/4/16 6:54 AM, Steady Eddie wrote:
> >>>>> Okay, here is Mo Noor's second preview lecture on his course "Introduction to Genetics and Evolution" -
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Lecture 2 - Basic Principles and Evidence For Evolution
> >>>>> https://www.coursera.org/learn/genetics-evolution/lecture/K8SDd/basic-principles-and-evidence-for-evolution-g
> >>>
> >>> Was this on the video you linked, John?
> >>
> >> No. I believe the video I linked was taken from the first lecture. You
> >> still haven't looked at it?
> >>
> >>>>> Here, Mo begins to carefully "extend" his definition of evolution from examples of micro-evolution, or
> >>>>> adaptation, such as the peppered moth and asphalt-phobic squirrels, to macro-evolution.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> He begins by showing the 60-million year lineage of the modern horse.
> >>>>> He uses the iconic horse lineage, even though this has been exposed as a hoax - there ARE NO
> >>>>> FOSSILS OF HORSE ANCESTORS!
> >>>>
> >>>> Explain.
> >>>
> >>> He did, John, but you read things into what was written that
> >>> aren't there, just as you and Norman and Isaak read things
> >>> into Larry Moran's favorite definition of "evolution" that
> >>> aren't there.
> >>
> >> Such as?

I've been talking about them on the thread, The creationism-friendly
definition of "evolution." I've asked Isaak to let me know when
the three of you get y'all's act together on just WHAT Moran's
intended meaning of "population" was, but he obviously isn't up
to the task. Are you?

> >>>>> Mo adroitly acknowledges this fact, then keeps right on going, as if it is a minor technicality!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> His words are:
> >>>>> "These pictures, by the way, don't NECESSARILY depict ACTUAL HORSE ANCESTORS..."
> >>>>> LOL!
> >>>>> "...BUT, they show FOSSILS THAT WERE PRESENT AT THE SAME TIME as the PRESUMED HORSE
> >>>>> ANCESTORS"
> >>>>> LOL!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So, what is such an admitted IMAGINARY LINEAGE doing in an introductory evolution course?
> >>>>> What does it demonstrate, other than the hubris of Darwinists who think the student will
> >>>>> passively accept ANYTHING they say as fact?
>
> >>> IF Steady Eddie isn't leaving out anything pertinent by Dr. Noor (and that's
> >>> a big IF) it strongly suggests that Noor did not prepare his talk ahead
> >>> of time. And it demonstrates that Noor forgot to say that he wasn't
> >>> talking about any old fossils that were present at the same time.

> >> What's the point of you speculating about what might have led Mo to say
> >> what you speculate he might have said?
> >
> > Can YOU think of a better explanation why he would leave out vitally
> > pertinent descriptions?
>
> Please be specific. What vitally pertinent descriptions do you think he
> left out?

"he wasn't talking about any old fossils that were present

at the same time." [repeated from above, three posts ago]
and

"He was talking about fossils that are so similar to what might be
expected of ancestors that some species in the sequence

may well be directly ancestral to others." [repeated from below]

> Why are they vitally pertinent?

Now that I've repeated what you should have picked up on from
the get-go, can you see?

> Why, absent actually
> listening, can you say he left them out?

Why, having actually listened, can you say he did? Or did he
make them explicitly [or at least something strong along the same lines]?

If the answer to the latter question is Yes, why the hell
are you wasting my time? Why did you waste Eddie's time way
back in May, by not telling him this? Why did you ignore
the actual wording of what he was quoting? Why did you just indulge in
generalities that simply talked past that wording?

> >> Shouldn't you at least find out
> >> first what he actually said?
> >
> > That's what you should be doing, John. You should be telling me that
> > Mo DID say something pertinent. But you aren't doing that.
>
> Why is this my job?

Because you are the one who is championing Noor, and because you
presumably know plenty of stuff that you are coyly concealing from us.

> >>> He was talking about fossils that are so similar to what might be
> >>> expected of ancestors that some species in the sequence
> >>> may well be directly ancestral to others. Kathleen Hunt, in
> >>> her Talk.Origins FAQ on the horse family, makes an especially
> >>> strong case for the sequence Hyracotherium-Orohippus-Epihippus
> >>> and for various direct descents within the genus Merychippus.
> >>
> >> That is your speculation about what he might have meant by what he might
> >> have said.
> >
> > Completely wrong. If Noor was showing the traditional horse sequence, he had
> > to be talking about such things. You may quarrel with my
> > opinions about the "so similar" part, but unless Noor was
> > showing some very sub-optimal pictures, that is what he was showing.
> >
> > WAS he showing some very sub-optimal pictures?
>
> Why do you refuse to look at the source?

See what I mean about you playing coy? I asked you a perfectly
straightforward question, and you duck it.

Could it be that YOU never looked at the source, and you are
trying to make me do YOUR research for you?

> >>>> He's referring to the fact that we can't tell whether a given fossil is
> >>>> an ancestor or the ancestor's cousin (and I mean that at the species
> >>>> level, not just the individual level).
> >>>
> >>> Wrong. You are going beyond the actual text and assuming,
> >>> IMO correctly, that he WANTED to refer to it.
> >
> > Here you forgot to accuse me of speculating. :-)
> >
> > Seriously, you forgot to deny this, and are in the position
> > of spouting Pee Wee Hermanisms up there.

Still no denial. See what I mean about you playing coy, and
wasting my time? [and that of everyone else following this thread]

Concluded in next reply, which might only come tomorrow. Duty calls.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

U. of S. Carolina

[John Harshman]

There is no "creationism-friendly" definition. That's your spin. You
refer to the most common definition in use by biologists.

What am I reading into that definition that isn't there? A population is
a gene pool, a group of individuals connected by gene flow. Since there
are more and less restricted connections, one can talk of populations on
several levels: local populations or demes, groups of demes that
regularly exchange migrants, wide-scale groups some of whose members are
connected only by long chains of intermediates. Why would this be unclear?

>>>>>>> Mo adroitly acknowledges this fact, then keeps right on going, as if it is a minor technicality!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> His words are:
>>>>>>> "These pictures, by the way, don't NECESSARILY depict ACTUAL HORSE ANCESTORS..."
>>>>>>> LOL!
>>>>>>> "...BUT, they show FOSSILS THAT WERE PRESENT AT THE SAME TIME as the PRESUMED HORSE
>>>>>>> ANCESTORS"
>>>>>>> LOL!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, what is such an admitted IMAGINARY LINEAGE doing in an introductory evolution course?
>>>>>>> What does it demonstrate, other than the hubris of Darwinists who think the student will
>>>>>>> passively accept ANYTHING they say as fact?
>>
>>>>> IF Steady Eddie isn't leaving out anything pertinent by Dr. Noor (and that's
>>>>> a big IF) it strongly suggests that Noor did not prepare his talk ahead
>>>>> of time. And it demonstrates that Noor forgot to say that he wasn't
>>>>> talking about any old fossils that were present at the same time.
>
>>>> What's the point of you speculating about what might have led Mo to say
>>>> what you speculate he might have said?
>>>
>>> Can YOU think of a better explanation why he would leave out vitally
>>> pertinent descriptions?
>>
>> Please be specific. What vitally pertinent descriptions do you think he
>> left out?
>
> "he wasn't talking about any old fossils that were present
> at the same time." [repeated from above, three posts ago]

That isn't vitally important. It's the sort of thing any reasonable
person who's been paying attention ought to understand without saying.

> and
> "He was talking about fossils that are so similar to what might be
> expected of ancestors that some species in the sequence
> may well be directly ancestral to others." [repeated from below]

Not important at all. They just have to show intermediate states.

>> Why are they vitally pertinent?
>
> Now that I've repeated what you should have picked up on from
> the get-go, can you see?

No. To repeat: the first goes without saying and the second isn't necessary.

>> Why, absent actually
>> listening, can you say he left them out?
>
> Why, having actually listened, can you say he did? Or did he
> make them explicitly [or at least something strong along the same lines]?

Why won't you go to the source?

> If the answer to the latter question is Yes, why the hell
> are you wasting my time? Why did you waste Eddie's time way
> back in May, by not telling him this? Why did you ignore
> the actual wording of what he was quoting? Why did you just indulge in
> generalities that simply talked past that wording?

This argument isn't about anything important or interesting, except in
your mind.

>>>> Shouldn't you at least find out
>>>> first what he actually said?
>>>
>>> That's what you should be doing, John. You should be telling me that
>>> Mo DID say something pertinent. But you aren't doing that.
>>
>> Why is this my job?
>
> Because you are the one who is championing Noor, and because you
> presumably know plenty of stuff that you are coyly concealing from us.

And you're the one who is attacking him. Shouldn't you know what he said
if you want to attack it?

>>>>> He was talking about fossils that are so similar to what might be
>>>>> expected of ancestors that some species in the sequence
>>>>> may well be directly ancestral to others. Kathleen Hunt, in
>>>>> her Talk.Origins FAQ on the horse family, makes an especially
>>>>> strong case for the sequence Hyracotherium-Orohippus-Epihippus
>>>>> and for various direct descents within the genus Merychippus.
>>>>
>>>> That is your speculation about what he might have meant by what he might
>>>> have said.
>>>
>>> Completely wrong. If Noor was showing the traditional horse sequence, he had
>>> to be talking about such things. You may quarrel with my
>>> opinions about the "so similar" part, but unless Noor was
>>> showing some very sub-optimal pictures, that is what he was showing.
>>>
>>> WAS he showing some very sub-optimal pictures?
>>
>> Why do you refuse to look at the source?
>
> See what I mean about you playing coy? I asked you a perfectly
> straightforward question, and you duck it.
>
> Could it be that YOU never looked at the source, and you are
> trying to make me do YOUR research for you?

I'm trying to make you do your research for yourself.

>>>>>> He's referring to the fact that we can't tell whether a given fossil is
>>>>>> an ancestor or the ancestor's cousin (and I mean that at the species
>>>>>> level, not just the individual level).
>>>>>
>>>>> Wrong. You are going beyond the actual text and assuming,
>>>>> IMO correctly, that he WANTED to refer to it.
>>>
>>> Here you forgot to accuse me of speculating. :-)
>>>
>>> Seriously, you forgot to deny this, and are in the position
>>> of spouting Pee Wee Hermanisms up there.
>
> Still no denial. See what I mean about you playing coy, and
> wasting my time? [and that of everyone else following this thread]

What am I supposed to be denying? What he was talking about should be
clear to any educated person, even you.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 5:00:02 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 9/15/16 1:35 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 6:05:03 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 9/14/16 2:53 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 5:25:03 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>> On 9/14/16 1:58 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, May 4, 2016 at 11:58:22 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>>>> On 5/4/16 6:54 AM, Steady Eddie wrote:
> >>>>>>> Okay, here is Mo Noor's second preview lecture on his course "Introduction to Genetics and Evolution" -
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Lecture 2 - Basic Principles and Evidence For Evolution
> >>>>>>> https://www.coursera.org/learn/genetics-evolution/lecture/K8SDd/basic-principles-and-evidence-for-evolution-g

> >>>>>>> Here, Mo begins to carefully "extend" his definition of evolution from examples of micro-evolution, or
> >>>>>>> adaptation, such as the peppered moth and asphalt-phobic squirrels, to macro-evolution.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> He begins by showing the 60-million year lineage of the modern horse.
> >>>>>>> He uses the iconic horse lineage, even though this has been exposed as a hoax - there ARE NO
> >>>>>>> FOSSILS OF HORSE ANCESTORS!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Explain.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> He did, John, but you read things into what was written that
> >>>>> aren't there, just as you and Norman and Isaak read things
> >>>>> into Larry Moran's favorite definition of "evolution" that
> >>>>> aren't there.
> >>>>
> >>>> Such as?
> >
> > I've been talking about them on the thread, The creationism-friendly
> > definition of "evolution." I've asked Isaak to let me know when
> > the three of you get y'all's act together on just WHAT Moran's
> > intended meaning of "population" was, but he obviously isn't up
> > to the task. Are you?

You ducked this question, which made no mention of whether
the definition was creationism-friendly or not:

> There is no "creationism-friendly" definition.

The STANDARD definition of "evolution" is the creationism-friendly one
that is taken from population genetics:

Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes
in a population spread over many generations.

You spin-doctored it by taking the concept of a lineage and
attaching the word "population" to it. You yourself admitted
that "nobody" talks in that way, and of course that includes
the people responsible for adopting the definition.

By YOUR "definition" every living animal, plant, fungus or protist
is in the same "population" as the first eukaryote that lived
billions of years ago.

> That's your spin.

Come off it. My only mistake was to let your stubbornness frame the
terms of the debate in the OP of the "creationism-friendly" thread.

You had claimed on another thread that the concept of "speciation" was
included in that standard definition, and I said that the definition
no more includes speciation than it includes the existence of God.

You repeatedly resisted that analogy, and so my OP was centered
in showing how I was right, and your resistance disappeared.

But I should have also emphasized that the definition is
INCOMPATIBLE with the kind of evolution that occurs on a grand
scale. It was only by attaching the word "population" to the
concept of a lineage that you could get around this incompatibility.

> You refer to the most common definition in use by biologists.
>
> What am I reading into that definition that isn't there? A population is
> a gene pool, a group of individuals connected by gene flow. Since there
> are more and less restricted connections, one can talk of populations on
> several levels: local populations or demes, groups of demes that
> regularly exchange migrants, wide-scale groups some of whose members are
> connected only by long chains of intermediates. Why would this be unclear?

Because "wide-scale" gives no hint of the fact that you
have suddenly switched from the geographic concepts that
preceded it to a temporal (time-dimension) concept.

You never hint that your "long chains of intermediates" encompasses
billions of years by YOUR spin-doctored definition, taking it totally
outside the realm of population genetics.

It also makes a mind-blowing contrast with the "levels" that preceded it,
which ARE very much a part of population genetics.

And now, back to the question you ducked: I don't think you are up
to getting your act together with that of Isaak and Norman.
Or do you REALLY think they are comfortable with your definition of
"population"?

Remainder deleted, to be replied to later.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

PS Do you think Larry Moran would approve of the word games you played
with "population"? How about a professional population biologist?
[Larry is a biochemist.]

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 6:05:03 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 9/14/16 2:53 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 5:25:03 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 9/14/16 1:58 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> John Harshman has been encouraging me to see what Noor said about
> >>> evolution, because Eddie had some criticisms of it. But first
> >>> I saw what Eddie had actually said, and saw some unexpected things.
> >>>
> >>> On Wednesday, May 4, 2016 at 11:58:22 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>> On 5/4/16 6:54 AM, Steady Eddie wrote:
> >>>>> Okay, here is Mo Noor's second preview lecture on his course "Introduction to Genetics and Evolution" -
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Lecture 2 - Basic Principles and Evidence For Evolution
> >>>>> https://www.coursera.org/learn/genetics-evolution/lecture/K8SDd/basic-principles-and-evidence-for-evolution-g

Repeating things from my first reply, for continuity:

> >>>>> Here, Mo begins to carefully "extend" his definition of evolution from examples of micro-evolution, or
> >>>>> adaptation, such as the peppered moth and asphalt-phobic squirrels, to macro-evolution.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> He begins by showing the 60-million year lineage of the modern horse.
> >>>>> He uses the iconic horse lineage,

<snip for focus>

> >>>>> His words are:
> >>>>> "These pictures, by the way, don't NECESSARILY depict ACTUAL HORSE ANCESTORS..."
> >>>>> LOL!
> >>>>> "...BUT, they show FOSSILS THAT WERE PRESENT AT THE SAME TIME as the PRESUMED HORSE
> >>>>> ANCESTORS"
> >>>>> LOL!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So, what is such an admitted IMAGINARY LINEAGE doing in an introductory evolution course?
> >>>>> What does it demonstrate, other than the hubris of Darwinists who think the student will
> >>>>> passively accept ANYTHING they say as fact?
> >>>
> >>> IF Steady Eddie isn't leaving out anything pertinent by Dr. Noor (and that's
> >>> a big IF) it strongly suggests that Noor did not prepare his talk ahead
> >>> of time. And it demonstrates that Noor forgot to say that he wasn't
> >>> talking about any old fossils that were present at the same time.

<snip for continuity>

> >>> He was talking about fossils that are so similar to what might be
> >>> expected of ancestors that some species in the sequence
> >>> may well be directly ancestral to others. Kathleen Hunt, in
> >>> her Talk.Origins FAQ on the horse family, makes an especially
> >>> strong case for the sequence Hyracotherium-Orohippus-Epihippus
> >>> and for various direct descents within the genus Merychippus.

<snip of things dealt with in my first reply>

> >>>> He's referring to the fact that we can't tell whether a given fossil is
> >>>> an ancestor or the ancestor's cousin (and I mean that at the species
> >>>> level, not just the individual level).
> >>>
> >>> Wrong. You are going beyond the actual text and assuming,
> >>> IMO correctly, that he WANTED to refer to it.
> >
> > Here you forgot to accuse me of speculating. :-)
> >
> > Seriously, you forgot to deny this, and are in the position
> > of spouting Pee Wee Hermanisms up there.

And now we come to where I left off in my first reply. I had written:

> >>> In fact, your assumption is so strong, you didn't even see
> >>> that there was any need to tell Eddie what Noor's intended
> >>> meaning was. In fact, even after he called your attention
> >>> to Noor's mis-stated second sentence, you were blind to the fact that
> >>> there was any sort of communication problem.
> >
> > No comment from you here either.
>
> OK, I'll comment. The communication problem is Eddie's.

What you say next is a Ray Martinez-ism, except that Ray
Martinez didn't accuse you of the communication problem he
was having:

> He came to the
> lecture not with the purpose of understanding evolution but with the
> purpose of finding something to attack.

This is far more blatant an *ad hominem* fallacy than the one
that Martinez gave for retracting his earlier answer that
the population genetics definition of "evolution" was something
that he could agree with. His reaspm for the retraction was
that YOU, who had asked whether it was acceptable, had a concept of
"evolution" in mind that disagreed with the literal wording of
your question.

> Understanding what Mo said was
> not relevant to his purpose.

You are speculating about motivation, something you keep criticizing
when others do it, and ignoring the fact that what Eddie quoted
was not relevant to YOUR purposes, one of which was to denigrate
Eddie by hook or crook.

And so you "misunderstood" what Eddie actually quoted.

> In this way, he seems similar to you.

I defy you to come up with an example that doesn't pale
into insignificance compared to the way you've been treating
what Eddie wrote.

> >>> YOUR problem is that you didn't pay attention to what
> >>> Eddie quoted from what Noor says.
> >>
> >> Of course I paid attention. Do you have some argument to make here?
> >
> > Yes. See the things you ignored above.
>
> You are very bad at making your point clear.

Only to someone with the kind of attitude towards me that you
have towards Eddie. You are just as determined not to deal with
the plain meaning of what I wrote as you have been determined
not to deal with the plain meaning of what Eddie quoted.

Exactly as Martinez decided not to deal with the plain meaning
of what you had asked him. It is you and Martinez who are
similar, not Eddie and I.

> >>>> If you
> >>>> took your fingers out of your ears you might actually learn something.

You never made good on this taunt: you never provided anything by
Noor that would say what you are implying he said. Yes, SAID:
you weren't lying that Eddie might learn something if he had listened
to more of what Noor said about those fossils, did you?

> >>>> And, by the way, you don't have to yell.
> >>>
> >>> Too bad even yelling wasn't enough to keep voices out of
> >>> your head, causing you to hear something else than what Eddie yelled.
> >>
> >> This seems merely an exercise in telling me that I'm wrong about
> >> something, without ever managing to explain what or why.
> >
> > Then you are seriously deluded.
>
> And yet you, so far, ignore all attempts to get you to explain what you
> mean.

See above. Key words: "determined not to".

Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

Cite one statement Steady Eddie posted which you believe is
substantive and relevant to the topic it's posted to, and
substantially correct, and state clearly and cogently the basis for
that belief.

[John Harshman]

I thought it was a rhetorical question.

> which made no mention of whether
> the definition was creationism-friendly or not:
>
>> There is no "creationism-friendly" definition.
>
> The STANDARD definition of "evolution" is the creationism-friendly one
> that is taken from population genetics:
>
> Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes
> in a population spread over many generations.

It should be obvious that I'm rejecting your "creation-friendly" label,
which is clearly intended to be pejorative.

> You spin-doctored it by taking the concept of a lineage and
> attaching the word "population" to it. You yourself admitted
> that "nobody" talks in that way, and of course that includes
> the people responsible for adopting the definition.
>
> By YOUR "definition" every living animal, plant, fungus or protist
> is in the same "population" as the first eukaryote that lived
> billions of years ago.

What's the problem with that?

>> That's your spin.
>
> Come off it. My only mistake was to let your stubbornness frame the
> terms of the debate in the OP of the "creationism-friendly" thread.
>
> You had claimed on another thread that the concept of "speciation" was
> included in that standard definition, and I said that the definition
> no more includes speciation than it includes the existence of God.

I don't recall claiming that the concept of speciation is included in
the definition. If I did, I was wrong. What I should have said is that
the standard definition encompasses the processes involved in
speciation. That is, the standard definition does not fail to encompass
speciation.

> You repeatedly resisted that analogy, and so my OP was centered
> in showing how I was right, and your resistance disappeared.

I don't recall anything I would characterize that way. Perhaps one of
our interpretations of events is mistaken.

> But I should have also emphasized that the definition is
> INCOMPATIBLE with the kind of evolution that occurs on a grand
> scale. It was only by attaching the word "population" to the
> concept of a lineage that you could get around this incompatibility.

In what way is the definition incompatible with grand scale evolution?

>> You refer to the most common definition in use by biologists.
>>
>> What am I reading into that definition that isn't there? A population is
>> a gene pool, a group of individuals connected by gene flow. Since there
>> are more and less restricted connections, one can talk of populations on
>> several levels: local populations or demes, groups of demes that
>> regularly exchange migrants, wide-scale groups some of whose members are
>> connected only by long chains of intermediates. Why would this be unclear?
>
> Because "wide-scale" gives no hint of the fact that you
> have suddenly switched from the geographic concepts that
> preceded it to a temporal (time-dimension) concept.

It doesn't because I didn't. Still talking about a single time-slice at
that point.

> You never hint that your "long chains of intermediates" encompasses
> billions of years by YOUR spin-doctored definition, taking it totally
> outside the realm of population genetics.

How does that take it outside the realm of population genetics?

> It also makes a mind-blowing contrast with the "levels" that preceded it,
> which ARE very much a part of population genetics.
>
> And now, back to the question you ducked: I don't think you are up
> to getting your act together with that of Isaak and Norman.
> Or do you REALLY think they are comfortable with your definition of
> "population"?

Why should it matter?

> PS Do you think Larry Moran would approve of the word games you played
> with "population"? How about a professional population biologist?
> [Larry is a biochemist.]

You consistently confuse "population biologist" with "population
geneticist". I played no word games. I do not intend to predict what
Larry Moran might approve of.

[John Harshman]

I think you need to refresh your memory of what "ad hominem" means.
Otherwise I find only an attempt to associate me with Ray.

>> Understanding what Mo said was
>> not relevant to his purpose.
>
> You are speculating about motivation, something you keep criticizing
> when others do it, and ignoring the fact that what Eddie quoted
> was not relevant to YOUR purposes, one of which was to denigrate
> Eddie by hook or crook.

No, I keep criticizing when *you* do it about *me*, specifically,
because you are so bad at it. As you demonstrate above.

> And so you "misunderstood" what Eddie actually quoted.
>
>> In this way, he seems similar to you.
>
> I defy you to come up with an example that doesn't pale
> into insignificance compared to the way you've been treating
> what Eddie wrote.

I defy you to get a grip.

Boy, that was a waste of everyone's time. I may reply again if you start
discussing anything substantive.

[Peter Nyikos]

<snip for continuity>

> >>>>>> He's referring to the fact that we can't tell whether a given fossil is
> >>>>>> an ancestor or the ancestor's cousin (and I mean that at the species
> >>>>>> level, not just the individual level).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Wrong. You are going beyond the actual text and assuming,
> >>>>> IMO correctly, that he WANTED to refer to it.

You never addressed what I wrote above, John, despite my repeatedly
calling your attention to it.

> >>>>> In fact, your assumption is so strong, you didn't even see
> >>>>> that there was any need to tell Eddie what Noor's intended
> >>>>> meaning was. In fact, even after he called your attention
> >>>>> to Noor's mis-stated second sentence, you were blind to the fact that
> >>>>> there was any sort of communication problem.
> >>>
> >>> No comment from you here either.
> >>
> >> OK, I'll comment. The communication problem is Eddie's.
> >
> > What you say next is a Ray Martinez-ism, except that Ray
> > Martinez didn't accuse you of the communication problem he
> > was having:
> >
> >> He came to the
> >> lecture not with the purpose of understanding evolution but with the
> >> purpose of finding something to attack.
> >
> > This is far more blatant an *ad hominem* fallacy than the one
> > that Martinez gave for retracting his earlier answer that
> > the population genetics definition of "evolution" was something

> > that he could agree with. His reasom for the retraction was

> > that YOU, who had asked whether it was acceptable, had a concept of
> > "evolution" in mind that disagreed with the literal wording of
> > your question.
>
> I think you need to refresh your memory of what "ad hominem" means.

You are either being insincere here, or YOU need to look
up what "ad hominem" means. Yours is a classic example
of an attack on someone instead of dealing
with what he actually wrote, in your quest to lay
the blame for a communication breakdown on him.

> Otherwise I find only an attempt to associate me with Ray.

You attempted to "associate me with" Eddie in the same way, see
below. ("In this way, he seems similar to you.")

I used "scare quotes" in the main sentence because I resent
your attempt at smearing me with guilt by association.

> >> Understanding what Mo said was
> >> not relevant to his purpose.
> >
> > You are speculating about motivation, something you keep criticizing
> > when others do it, and ignoring the fact that what Eddie quoted
> > was not relevant to YOUR purposes, one of which was to denigrate
> > Eddie by hook or crook.
>
> No, I keep criticizing when *you* do it about *me*,

Thank you for putting this on the level of individuals. Your
morality is intensely individual-oriented, instead of being
principle-oriented. Yes, you keep criticizing *me*; and you
can do it with impunity: you have a number of loyal fans
here, whereas I have none. And you play a big role in that "none",
thanks to perennially denigrating me as you do here.

> specifically,
> because you are so bad at it. As you demonstrate above.

You need to look up the word "motivation." It doesn't mean
what you seem to think it does. Except for my charge of you
trying to denigrate Eddie by hook or crook [1], which you
made no attempt to defend yourself against, I made no claims about
motivation; I merely described your behavior and noted
that you were being fallacious.

[1] The "Except... is meeting your idea of "motivation"
halfway. I didn't talk about your motivation for the behavior
with which I charged you. I have no idea whether you have a
personal animus against Eddie, or whether you are like a Mafia
hit man ("Nothing personal, just business") or whatever.

Concluded in next reply to this post of yours.

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

<snip of things dealt with in my first reply to this post>

> >> OK, I'll comment. The communication problem is Eddie's.

> >> Understanding what Mo said was
> >> not relevant to his purpose.
> >
> > You are speculating about motivation, something you keep criticizing
> > when others do it, and ignoring the fact that what Eddie quoted
> > was not relevant to YOUR purposes, one of which was to denigrate
> > Eddie by hook or crook.

Now we come to where I left off in my first reply to this post:

> > And so you "misunderstood" what Eddie actually quoted.
> >
> >> In this way, he seems similar to you.
> >
> > I defy you to come up with an example that doesn't pale
> > into insignificance compared to the way you've been treating
> > what Eddie wrote.
>
> I defy you to get a grip.

Casting aspersions on my emotional state, are you?

> >>>>> YOUR problem is that you didn't pay attention to what
> >>>>> Eddie quoted from what Noor says.
> >>>>
> >>>> Of course I paid attention. Do you have some argument to make here?
> >>>
> >>> Yes. See the things you ignored above.
> >>
> >> You are very bad at making your point clear.
> >
> > Only to someone with the kind of attitude towards me that you
> > have towards Eddie. You are just as determined not to deal with
> > the plain meaning of what I wrote as you have been determined
> > not to deal with the plain meaning of what Eddie quoted.
> >
> > Exactly as Martinez decided not to deal with the plain meaning
> > of what you had asked him. It is you and Martinez who are
> > similar, not Eddie and I.

[To Eddie, you wrote:]

> >>>>>> If you
> >>>>>> took your fingers out of your ears you might actually learn something.
> >
> > You never made good on this taunt: you never provided anything by
> > Noor that would say what you are implying he said. Yes, SAID:
> > you weren't lying that Eddie might learn something if he had listened
> > to more of what Noor said about those fossils, did you?

No reply to this. You've been badgering me to look at a video
that is irrelevant to this whole issue, yet you've repeatedly
avoided quoting anything that would give a NO answer to this
question of mine.

> >>>>>> And, by the way, you don't have to yell.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Too bad even yelling wasn't enough to keep voices out of
> >>>>> your head, causing you to hear something else than what Eddie yelled.
> >>>>
> >>>> This seems merely an exercise in telling me that I'm wrong about
> >>>> something, without ever managing to explain what or why.
> >>>
> >>> Then you are seriously deluded.
> >>
> >> And yet you, so far, ignore all attempts to get you to explain what you
> >> mean.
> >
> > See above. Key words: "determined not to".
>
> Boy, that was a waste of everyone's time.

So defending myself against denigration by you is a waste of
everyone's time, eh? Are so sure of being able
to smear me on three counts (guilt my association [1],
emotional instability, and judging motivation badly "above" [1])
that I am wasting everyone's time by trying
to defend myself against these insinuations?

[1] as explained in my first reply to this post.

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, September 16, 2016 at 6:00:03 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 9/16/16 11:34 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 5:00:02 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 9/15/16 1:35 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 6:05:03 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>> On 9/14/16 2:53 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 5:25:03 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>>>> On 9/14/16 1:58 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, May 4, 2016 at 11:58:22 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 5/4/16 6:54 AM, Steady Eddie wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Okay, here is Mo Noor's second preview lecture on his course "Introduction to Genetics and Evolution" -
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Lecture 2 - Basic Principles and Evidence For Evolution
> >>>>>>>>> https://www.coursera.org/learn/genetics-evolution/lecture/K8SDd/basic-principles-and-evidence-for-evolution-g
> >>>>>>>>> Here, Mo begins to carefully "extend" his definition of evolution from examples of micro-evolution, or
> >>>>>>>>> adaptation, such as the peppered moth and asphalt-phobic squirrels, to macro-evolution.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> He begins by showing the 60-million year lineage of the modern horse.
> >>>>>>>>> He uses the iconic horse lineage, even though this has been exposed as a hoax - there ARE NO
> >>>>>>>>> FOSSILS OF HORSE ANCESTORS!

I've snipped a bunch, in which you did some REAL time-wasting
this time around.

> > You had claimed on another thread that the concept of "speciation" was
> > included in that standard definition, and I said that the definition
> > no more includes speciation than it includes the existence of God.
>
> I don't recall claiming that the concept of speciation is included in
> the definition. If I did, I was wrong. What I should have said is that
> the standard definition encompasses the processes involved in
> speciation. That is, the standard definition does not fail to encompass
> speciation.

Thanks for removing the ambiguity in my "includes". But you cannot
prove your clarification, inasmuch as you cannot find anyone who
treats "population" the way you do.

> > You repeatedly resisted that analogy, and so my OP was centered
> > in showing how I was right, and your resistance disappeared.
>
> I don't recall anything I would characterize that way. Perhaps one of
> our interpretations of events is mistaken.

We can settle this later. I'm planning to do another thread on
the population genetics definition of "evolution," which will
also explain what I said next.

>
> > But I should have also emphasized that the definition is
> > INCOMPATIBLE with the kind of evolution that occurs on a grand
> > scale. It was only by attaching the word "population" to the
> > concept of a lineage that you could get around this incompatibility.
>
> In what way is the definition incompatible with grand scale evolution?
>
> >> You refer to the most common definition in use by biologists.
> >>
> >> What am I reading into that definition that isn't there? A population is
> >> a gene pool, a group of individuals connected by gene flow. Since there
> >> are more and less restricted connections, one can talk of populations on
> >> several levels: local populations or demes, groups of demes that
> >> regularly exchange migrants, wide-scale groups some of whose members are
> >> connected only by long chains of intermediates. Why would this be unclear?
> >
> > Because "wide-scale" gives no hint of the fact that you
> > have suddenly switched from the geographic concepts that
> > preceded it to a temporal (time-dimension) concept.
>
> It doesn't because I didn't. Still talking about a single time-slice at
> that point.

If so, you never went beyond that, and while you seem reasonably
clear up there to anyone who never heard of your recently concocted
concept of "population," what you wrote is seriously misleading.

> > You never hint that your "long chains of intermediates" encompasses
> > billions of years by YOUR spin-doctored definition, taking it totally
> > outside the realm of population genetics.
>
> How does that take it outside the realm of population genetics?
>
> > It also makes a mind-blowing contrast with the "levels" that preceded it,
> > which ARE very much a part of population genetics.
> >
> > And now, back to the question you ducked: I don't think you are up
> > to getting your act together with that of Isaak and Norman.
> > Or do you REALLY think they are comfortable with your definition of
> > "population"?
>
> Why should it matter?

Because you've invested a great deal of brainwork and time into
it, when you could have made much better use of both.

> > PS Do you think Larry Moran would approve of the word games you played
> > with "population"? How about a professional population biologist?
> > [Larry is a biochemist.]
>
> You consistently confuse "population biologist" with "population
> geneticist".

Isn't interspecies interaction, as in predator-prey studies, part
of population biology? You know, like how the number of owls
fluctuates with the number of rabbits, but with a time lag.

> I played no word games. I do not intend to predict what
> Larry Moran might approve of.

Larry would ignore me if I tried to approach him, but perhaps YOU
could get him to give his opinion on HOW you went to bat
for his favorite definition of "evolution."

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics

U. of S. Carolina, Columbia -- standard disclaimer--
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

[John Harshman]

That isn't relevant. All that's needed is that speciation results from
allele frequency change in populations. Of course a population must
include multiple generations in order for there to be any such change,
though not necessarily over millions of years. Still, each generation is
part of the same population as the next, and there is no point at which
you can say "here is the point at which one population ends and another
begins". All of which means that speciation is allele frequency change
in populations. Why do you disagree, assuming you do?

>>> You repeatedly resisted that analogy, and so my OP was centered
>>> in showing how I was right, and your resistance disappeared.
>>
>> I don't recall anything I would characterize that way. Perhaps one of
>> our interpretations of events is mistaken.
>
> We can settle this later. I'm planning to do another thread on
> the population genetics definition of "evolution," which will
> also explain what I said next.

Good. It desperately needs explanation.

>>> But I should have also emphasized that the definition is
>>> INCOMPATIBLE with the kind of evolution that occurs on a grand
>>> scale. It was only by attaching the word "population" to the
>>> concept of a lineage that you could get around this incompatibility.
>>
>> In what way is the definition incompatible with grand scale evolution?
>>
>>>> You refer to the most common definition in use by biologists.
>>>>
>>>> What am I reading into that definition that isn't there? A population is
>>>> a gene pool, a group of individuals connected by gene flow. Since there
>>>> are more and less restricted connections, one can talk of populations on
>>>> several levels: local populations or demes, groups of demes that
>>>> regularly exchange migrants, wide-scale groups some of whose members are
>>>> connected only by long chains of intermediates. Why would this be unclear?
>>>
>>> Because "wide-scale" gives no hint of the fact that you
>>> have suddenly switched from the geographic concepts that
>>> preceded it to a temporal (time-dimension) concept.
>>
>> It doesn't because I didn't. Still talking about a single time-slice at
>> that point.
>
> If so, you never went beyond that, and while you seem reasonably
> clear up there to anyone who never heard of your recently concocted
> concept of "population," what you wrote is seriously misleading.

What is misleading?

>>> You never hint that your "long chains of intermediates" encompasses
>>> billions of years by YOUR spin-doctored definition, taking it totally
>>> outside the realm of population genetics.
>>
>> How does that take it outside the realm of population genetics?
>>
>>> It also makes a mind-blowing contrast with the "levels" that preceded it,
>>> which ARE very much a part of population genetics.
>>>
>>> And now, back to the question you ducked: I don't think you are up
>>> to getting your act together with that of Isaak and Norman.
>>> Or do you REALLY think they are comfortable with your definition of
>>> "population"?
>>
>> Why should it matter?
>
> Because you've invested a great deal of brainwork and time into
> it, when you could have made much better use of both.

Surely that's my problem, if it's a problem at all, not theirs.

>>> PS Do you think Larry Moran would approve of the word games you played
>>> with "population"? How about a professional population biologist?
>>> [Larry is a biochemist.]
>>
>> You consistently confuse "population biologist" with "population
>> geneticist".
>
> Isn't interspecies interaction, as in predator-prey studies, part
> of population biology? You know, like how the number of owls
> fluctuates with the number of rabbits, but with a time lag.

Yes, but that isn't what we're talking about here.

>> I played no word games. I do not intend to predict what
>> Larry Moran might approve of.
>
> Larry would ignore me if I tried to approach him, but perhaps YOU
> could get him to give his opinion on HOW you went to bat
> for his favorite definition of "evolution."

You might with profit consider why Larry would ignore you. It would not
be a mitzvah to try to entangle him in argument with you.

Perhaps you could explain just why speciation is not "allele frequency
change in populations", assuming that's the nature of your complaint.

[Ray Martinez]

> that he could agree with. His [reason] for the retraction was

> that YOU, who had asked whether it was acceptable, had a concept of
> "evolution" in mind that disagreed with the literal wording of
> your question.
>

I blindly answer a straightforward question while acknowledging that I don't know the issue between you and John and this is what I get?

I never issued a retraction, it was a clarification. IF my original straightforward answer harmed immutability then why did you and John quit the debate? Why didn't one or both of you move in for the kill and show how immutability became falsified? You both quit the debate because my true position, seen in its entirety, bolstered my view of immutability.

Mind you, I have in support of my view Erst Mayr, and other unaddressed arguments. When I gave John Harshman an honest straightforward answer to his finely crafted question I should have received an immediate reply from someone asking: How does your answer square with immutability?

If you persist in misrepresenting my original straightforward answer as a retraction, I will be forced to create a topic that I can link to in the future as a defense.

> > Understanding what Mo said was
> > not relevant to his purpose.
>
> You are speculating about motivation, something you keep criticizing
> when others do it, and ignoring the fact that what Eddie quoted
> was not relevant to YOUR purposes, one of which was to denigrate
> Eddie by hook or crook.
>
> And so you "misunderstood" what Eddie actually quoted.
>
> > In this way, he seems similar to you.
>
> I defy you to come up with an example that doesn't pale
> into insignificance compared to the way you've been treating
> what Eddie wrote.
>
> > >>> YOUR problem is that you didn't pay attention to what
> > >>> Eddie quoted from what Noor says.
> > >>
> > >> Of course I paid attention. Do you have some argument to make here?
> > >
> > > Yes. See the things you ignored above.
> >
> > You are very bad at making your point clear.
>
> Only to someone with the kind of attitude towards me that you
> have towards Eddie. You are just as determined not to deal with
> the plain meaning of what I wrote as you have been determined
> not to deal with the plain meaning of what Eddie quoted.
>
> Exactly as Martinez decided not to deal with the plain meaning
> of what you had asked him. It is you and Martinez who are
> similar, not Eddie and I.

Not true. Both you and John dropped the issue because you saw my clarification. If you guys had strong confidence in the allele change definition you would have attempted to falsify immutabilism on the spot, but you didn't. Once you became aware of my entire argument you lost interest.

Ray

[....]

[Ray Martinez]

CORRECTION: not "original straightforward answer" but my clarification.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

[What's written below, by Darwinian scientist John Harshman, is almost unbelievable. I'm a Paleyan Creationist and I will now critique what John Harshman has said.]

>
> That isn't relevant. All that's needed is that speciation results from
> allele frequency change in populations.

Good thing I was sitting down when I read this. JH solves the entire problem of speciation in one sentence! And I'm wondering if what he said is original thought or an accepted view?

Mere acceptance of allele change definition, according to JH, means speciation has occurred?!?! Darwinists have always argued acceptance of said definition equates to acceptance that evolution occurs, now JH says acceptance also equates to acceptance that speciation has occurred. So we need not worry any longer as to HOW speciation actually occurs, JH says it must occur if allele frequency changes occur. But when one takes the time to read how Darwinists explain speciation one discovers a huge struggle where one is left completely unsatisfied. When the crucial part of the explanation is finally arrived at----the part where speciation is supposed to occur----they have no explanation. See Jerry Coyne's "Why Evolution is True" to confirm what I say. Coyne also readily admits the main challenge facing evolutionary science is how reproductive anatomy, in species, evolves. I offer John Harshman's contention that acceptance of allele frequency changes as occurring equates to speciation as having occurred, in support----that's why he MUST argue speciation true by way of the genetic definition of evolution: Darwinists can't actually explain speciation. They are trapped.

> Of course a population must
> include multiple generations in order for there to be any such change,
> though not necessarily over millions of years. Still, each generation is
> part of the same population as the next, and there is no point at which
> you can say "here is the point at which one population ends and another
> begins". All of which means that speciation is allele frequency change
> in populations. Why do you disagree, assuming you do?
>

Ray

[....]

[John Harshman]

I will give you the courtesy of a single reply. Of course it's the
accepted view.

> Mere acceptance of allele change definition, according to JH, means
> speciation has occurred?!?!

No. I said nothing of the sort. All (almost all) speciation happens
through allele frequency change in populations, but not all, in fact not
most, allele frequency change in populations results in speciation. You
are perfectly free to agree that allele frequencies change without
agreeing that speciation happens. Though of course the evidence that it
does is overwhelming.

> Darwinists have always argued acceptance
> of said definition equates to acceptance that evolution occurs, now
> JH says acceptance also equates to acceptance that speciation has
> occurred.

That is your personal hallucination, I'm afraid.

> So we need not worry any longer as to HOW speciation
> actually occurs, JH says it must occur if allele frequency changes
> occur. But when one takes the time to read how Darwinists explain
> speciation one discovers a huge struggle where one is left completely
> unsatisfied. When the crucial part of the explanation is finally
> arrived at----the part where speciation is supposed to occur----they
> have no explanation. See Jerry Coyne's "Why Evolution is True" to
> confirm what I say. Coyne also readily admits the main challenge
> facing evolutionary science is how reproductive anatomy, in species,
> evolves.

You don't understand Coyne's book either, I suspect. If you really want
to know how speciation works, you should read his (and H. Allen Orr's)
book Speciation.

> I offer John Harshman's contention that acceptance of allele
> frequency changes as occurring equates to speciation as having
> occurred, in support----that's why he MUST argue speciation true by
> way of the genetic definition of evolution: Darwinists can't actually
> explain speciation. They are trapped.

"Darwinists" can explain speciation quite well; again I ask you to
consult Coyne and Orr.

So, to recap: you have completely misunderstood what I said, and your
entire rant is based on that misunderstanding.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Monday, September 19, 2016 at 10:30:03 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 9/19/16 6:39 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Monday, September 19, 2016 at 2:50:02 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 9/19/16 1:52 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> On Friday, September 16, 2016 at 6:00:03 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>> On 9/16/16 11:34 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

> >>>>> You had claimed on another thread that the concept of "speciation" was
> >>>>> included in that standard definition, and I said that the definition
> >>>>> no more includes speciation than it includes the existence of God.
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't recall claiming that the concept of speciation is included in
> >>>> the definition. If I did, I was wrong. What I should have said is that
> >>>> the standard definition encompasses the processes involved in
> >>>> speciation.

And that's incorrect, see examples below.

> >>>> That is, the standard definition does not fail to encompass
> >>>> speciation.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for removing the ambiguity in my "includes". But you cannot
> >>> prove your clarification, inasmuch as you cannot find anyone who
> >>> treats "population" the way you do.
> >
> > [What's written below, by Darwinian scientist John Harshman, is almost unbelievable. I'm a Paleyan Creationist and I will now critique what John Harshman has said.]
> >
> >>
> >> That isn't relevant. All that's needed is that speciation results from
> >> allele frequency change in populations.

But that is not what the definition talks about. It restricts
evolution to something that takes place *in* a population.

Also, can you find an example of a speciation that involved only
the change in the frequency of *existing* alleles without the
creation of new ones?

But more to the point, can you find a speciation which did not
involve actual changes in chromosomes above the allele level,
like the change in chromosome number by one of {chimp, human}
from that of their common ancestor? and the one of {horse, donkey}
from that of *their* common ancestor?

> > Good thing I was sitting down when I read this. JH solves the entire
> > problem of speciation in one sentence! And I'm wondering if what he
> > said is original thought or an accepted view?
>
> I will give you the courtesy of a single reply. Of course it's the
> accepted view.

Of evolution, but not of the meaning of the population genetics
definition, which is NOT a description of evolution as it is
commonly understood. [See, for example, the chromosomal changes
remarked on above.]

> > Mere acceptance of allele change definition, according to JH, means
> > speciation has occurred?!?!
>
> No. I said nothing of the sort. All (almost all) speciation happens
> through allele frequency change in populations,

Backpedal "(almost all)" noted. But until you give some reason to believe
that even this much is true, we may be in for a lot more backpedaling
from you. [See above again.]

> but not all, in fact not
> most, allele frequency change in populations results in speciation. You
> are perfectly free to agree that allele frequencies change without
> agreeing that speciation happens. Though of course the evidence that it
> does is overwhelming.

And I wholeheartedly agree with that last sentence, not that one
would think it from something that is enshrined in the OP of the thread,
"Chez Watt: a muted form of yelling?"

> > Darwinists have always argued acceptance
> > of said definition equates to acceptance that evolution occurs, now
> > JH says acceptance also equates to acceptance that speciation has
> > occurred.
>
> That is your personal hallucination, I'm afraid.

It's not a hallucination, it's an attempt to make sense
of a claim that happens to be false.

But more to the point, Ray's statements suggest the cognitive dissonance
that the un-named creationist must have felt when Larry Moran tried to
create the impression that when evolution is properly defined, the dispute
between science and religion disappears.

I've snipped the rest. What you wrote there, John, is just covering
old ground, some of which appears above.

Peter Nyikos
Professor of Mathematics

[John Harshman]

The importance of this distinction escapes me. Speciation does indeed
involve allele frequency change in either one population or in two. And
if two, that's just two examples of evolution happening.

> Also, can you find an example of a speciation that involved only
> the change in the frequency of *existing* alleles without the
> creation of new ones?

The genetics of most examples of speciation are not known. Now,
technically, a single mutation is a change in allele frequency from 0 to
1/(2N). We could argue about whether that single mutation ought to count
as evolution if you liked. I don't think it's important.

> But more to the point, can you find a speciation which did not
> involve actual changes in chromosomes above the allele level,
> like the change in chromosome number by one of {chimp, human}
> from that of their common ancestor? and the one of {horse, donkey}
> from that of *their* common ancestor?

Yes. Most speciation doesn't involve a change in chromosome number, and
in fact there's absolutely no evidence that either of the changes you
mention had anything to do with speciation. How is this relevant to any
point? I'll admit that it's a stretch to call a chromosomal fusion or
fission an allele, but then again they become fixed by the ordinary
processes affecting things we usually call alleles.

>>> Good thing I was sitting down when I read this. JH solves the entire
>>> problem of speciation in one sentence! And I'm wondering if what he
>>> said is original thought or an accepted view?
>>
>> I will give you the courtesy of a single reply. Of course it's the
>> accepted view.
>
> Of evolution, but not of the meaning of the population genetics
> definition, which is NOT a description of evolution as it is
> commonly understood. [See, for example, the chromosomal changes
> remarked on above.]

When you say "commonly understood", who are you thinking of? And was
your objection a quibble about what "allele" means all along? Larry
Moran doesn't even talk about alleles.

I'm wondering if you have some view of chromosomal mutations as a sort
of macroevolutionary shortcut. Do you?

>>> Mere acceptance of allele change definition, according to JH, means
>>> speciation has occurred?!?!
>>
>> No. I said nothing of the sort. All (almost all) speciation happens
>> through allele frequency change in populations,
>
> Backpedal "(almost all)" noted. But until you give some reason to believe
> that even this much is true, we may be in for a lot more backpedaling
> from you. [See above again.]

I believe I've said what you interpret as backpedaling before. What I
had in mind was allopolyploidy. I'm beginning to think you have a weird
idea of what speciation is and how it happens. Why don't you try
explaining your idea?

As for my position, I recommend reading Speciation, by Jerry Coyne and
H. Alen Orr, for a good treatment of the standard view (my view too).

>>> Darwinists have always argued acceptance
>>> of said definition equates to acceptance that evolution occurs, now
>>> JH says acceptance also equates to acceptance that speciation has
>>> occurred.
>>
>> That is your personal hallucination, I'm afraid.
>
> It's not a hallucination, it's an attempt to make sense
> of a claim that happens to be false.

Nonsense. There are two claims. The first is true. I was talking about
the second, which is not true; i.e. I didn't say it.

> But more to the point, Ray's statements suggest the cognitive dissonance
> that the un-named creationist must have felt when Larry Moran tried to
> create the impression that when evolution is properly defined, the dispute
> between science and religion disappears.

He said no such thing. What he said is more nuanced. True, too.

> I've snipped the rest. What you wrote there, John, is just covering
> old ground, some of which appears above.

Why are you even responding to this? It was directed at Ray, and while
your misunderstanding is not of Ray's magnitude, you don't seem to know
the subject either.

[Ray Martinez]

I should have known....you never step out with any original thought. But the fact that you earned a doctorate means you had to, at least one time.

>
> > Mere acceptance of allele change definition, according to JH, means
> > speciation has occurred?!?!
>
> No. I said nothing of the sort.

Note the question marks after my sentence. And here is what you did, in fact, say:

"All that's needed is that speciation results from allele frequency change in populations" (JH).

So your denial creates a contradiction.

> All (almost all) speciation happens
> through allele frequency change in populations, but not all, in fact not
> most, allele frequency change in populations results in speciation.

The contradiction reinforced and/or buttressed. Moreover, what's written above is so badly written, in and of itself, it's blatantly contradictory.

> You are perfectly free to agree that allele frequencies change without
> agreeing that speciation happens. Though of course the evidence that it
> does is overwhelming.

"All that's needed is that speciation results from allele frequency change in populations" (JH).

"Mere acceptance of allele change definition, according to JH, means speciation has occurred?!?!" (RM).

"No. I said nothing of the sort" (JH).

>
> > Darwinists have always argued acceptance
> > of said definition equates to acceptance that evolution occurs, now
> > JH says acceptance also equates to acceptance that speciation has
> > occurred.
>
> That is your personal hallucination, I'm afraid.

I agree, one of us is deluded.

>
> > So we need not worry any longer as to HOW speciation
> > actually occurs, JH says it must occur if allele frequency changes
> > occur. But when one takes the time to read how Darwinists explain
> > speciation one discovers a huge struggle where one is left completely
> > unsatisfied. When the crucial part of the explanation is finally
> > arrived at----the part where speciation is supposed to occur----they
> > have no explanation. See Jerry Coyne's "Why Evolution is True" to
> > confirm what I say. Coyne also readily admits the main challenge
> > facing evolutionary science is how reproductive anatomy, in species,
> > evolves.
>
> You don't understand Coyne's book either, I suspect. If you really want
> to know how speciation works, you should read his (and H. Allen Orr's)
> book Speciation.

Coyne's book is already published, he can't add or remove anything written (except of course via future editions). When one reads his account of speciation carefully one discovers that the explanation ends abruptly at the crucial moment when speciation is supposed to be explained as occurring.

You guys, within your own perspective, can't explain how speciation occurs----that's precisely WHY you must argue allele frequency changes result in speciation. IF you had a clear and logical explanation you wouldn't need to get more mileage out of certain genetic changes----simply pathetic!

>
> > I offer John Harshman's contention that acceptance of allele
> > frequency changes as occurring equates to speciation as having
> > occurred, in support----that's why he MUST argue speciation true by
> > way of the genetic definition of evolution: Darwinists can't actually
> > explain speciation. They are trapped.
>
> "Darwinists" can explain speciation quite well; again I ask you to
> consult Coyne and Orr.
>
> So, to recap: you have completely misunderstood what I said, and your
> entire rant is based on that misunderstanding.

"All of which means that speciation is allele frequency change in populations" (JH).

And anyone can fact-check and see that I argued claims of facts----nothing else, which renders your last thought to be a traditional parting shot.

> >> "Of course a population must
> >> include multiple generations in order for there to be any such change,
> >> though not necessarily over millions of years. Still, each generation is
> >> part of the same population as the next, and there is no point at which
> >> you can say "here is the point at which one population ends and another
> >> begins". All of which means that speciation is allele frequency change

> >> in populations. Why do you disagree, assuming you do?" (JH).

Ray

[John Harshman]

If anyone cares to respond to Ray on this and attempt to explain the
facts to him, feel free. I gave it my one attempt.

[Ray Martinez]

In the above exchanges between me and John Harshman he's saying two things:

1. "All of which means that speciation is allele frequency change in populations" (JH).

2. "You are perfectly free to agree that allele frequencies change without agreeing that speciation happens" (JH).

The only problem is that the second statement won't have any lasting impact on John's colleagues in science or the rank-and-file. When a Creationist is perceived to accept existence of allele frequency changes the foregoing persons will undoubtedly receive comfort that evolution and speciation occur. This is true because Darwinists believe automatically that all changes, or effects, have been accomplished by un-directed material processes. When in fact acceptance of certain changes, as occurring, doesn't necessarily entail acceptance of said material processes.

Ray

[John Harshman]

On 9/20/16 7:13 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:

> In the above exchanges between me and John Harshman he's saying two things:
>
> 1. "All of which means that speciation is allele frequency change in populations" (JH).
>
> 2. "You are perfectly free to agree that allele frequencies change without agreeing that speciation happens" (JH).
>
> The only problem is that the second statement won't have any lasting impact on John's colleagues in science or the rank-and-file. When a Creationist is perceived to accept existence of allele frequency changes the foregoing persons will undoubtedly receive comfort that evolution and speciation occur. This is true because Darwinists believe automatically that all changes, or effects, have been accomplished by un-directed material processes. When in fact acceptance of certain changes, as occurring, doesn't necessarily entail acceptance of said material processes.

Anyone want to try resolving this "contradiction" for Ray?

[Ray Martinez]

Since you placed a certain word in quotations marks, anyone who makes an attempt will fail.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

> [snip....]

And you have absolutely nothing to be unhappy about in what is written above----absolutely nothing.

Ray

[jillery]

Yours is the kind of attitude that makes your sentence a
self-fulfilling prophecy. Is that your intent?

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 19:17:02 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net>:

No one can resolve the "contradictions" Ray imagines, at
least not for Ray; noting that they're not contradictions at
all, and why, won't do it, based on quite a few examples.
--

Bob C.

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

- Isaac Asimov

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 19:28:33 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:

That's a given, since you don't accept that what you imagine
you see as contradictions (which is the reason for the
quotes) aren't.

[Mark Isaak]

1. [All of which means that] the Necromicon is an arrangement of words.

2. You are perfectly free to agree that words get arranged without
agreeing that a Necromicon happens.

Ray, do you think that a contradiction exists within those two sentences?

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"The evil that is in the world always comes of ignorance, and good
intentions may do as much harm as malevolence, if they lack
understanding." - Albert Camus, _The Plague_

[Peter Nyikos]

Which answer of yours do you claim to have been a blind answer? The
first one, or what you call a clarification?

> I never issued a retraction, it was a clarification.

Sure looked like a retraction to me: having answered Harshman
affirmatively, you changed your answer to a negative one.

>IF my original straightforward answer harmed immutability

It didn't. IIRC John said as much, too.

> then why did you and John quit the debate?

I liked your answer, and told you so after you <ahem> clarified it.
[Have it your way: in The World According to Ray Martinez,
a switch from an affirmative answer to a negative answer is a
"clarification."]

>Why didn't one or both of you move in for the kill and show how immutability
> became falsified?

Your question has a contrary to fact "IF" clause, and hence it makes
no sense to answer it.

> You both quit the debate because my true position, seen in its entirety,
> bolstered my view of immutability.

I did NOT quit the debate when your <ahem> clarified answer ceased to
deal with Harsman's question AS STATED, but went to disregarding its
"If" clause. I tried to coach you on this, to no avail. Your stubbornness
back then makes me wonder whether your "IF" clause up there is just window
dressing, and that you plan to rip into me as though it hadn't
been there.

> Mind you, I have in support of my view Erst Mayr, and other unaddressed arguments.

Yes, but you aren't saying which "view" is being supported. IIRC,
it is that the population genetics concept of evolution that
Harshman was spouting is NOT the right one for biologists to adopt.
Do I remember correctly?

If so, I'd love to have an exact reference, because I'd love to
shove it into Harshman's face the next time he praises Larry Moran for
having adopted it.

> When I gave John Harshman an honest straightforward answer to his finely
> crafted question I should have received an immediate reply from someone
> asking: How does your answer square with immutability?

Why do you think that? Your first, "unclarified" answer was obviously
compatible with *species* immutability, in fact I would say it
IMPLIES that a species cannot evolve into another species BY DEFINITION
of "evolution" *sensu* Harshman and Moran.

Your "clarified" answer just rejected that definition on the grounds
that it had somehow become poisoned, or whatever, because Harshman
was the one asking it. You had a great thing going for you, IMO,
and you just muddied the whole issue with your "clarification."

> If you persist in misrepresenting my original straightforward
> answer as a retraction, I will be forced to create a topic
> that I can link to in the future as a defense.

Did you ever issue such blistering ultimatum to Harshman?

If not, that's one more datum on how much more friendly
you are to him than to me.

Anyway, I'll be careful to use "what Ray calls a clarification"
rather than "retraction."

>
> > > Understanding what Mo said was
> > > not relevant to his purpose.
> >
> > You are speculating about motivation, something you keep criticizing
> > when others do it, and ignoring the fact that what Eddie quoted
> > was not relevant to YOUR purposes, one of which was to denigrate
> > Eddie by hook or crook.
> >
> > And so you "misunderstood" what Eddie actually quoted.
> >
> > > In this way, he seems similar to you.
> >
> > I defy you to come up with an example that doesn't pale
> > into insignificance compared to the way you've been treating
> > what Eddie wrote.
> >
> > > >>> YOUR problem is that you didn't pay attention to what
> > > >>> Eddie quoted from what Noor says.
> > > >>
> > > >> Of course I paid attention. Do you have some argument to make here?
> > > >
> > > > Yes. See the things you ignored above.
> > >
> > > You are very bad at making your point clear.
> >
> > Only to someone with the kind of attitude towards me that you
> > have towards Eddie. You are just as determined not to deal with
> > the plain meaning of what I wrote as you have been determined
> > not to deal with the plain meaning of what Eddie quoted.
> >
> > Exactly as Martinez decided not to deal with the plain meaning
> > of what you had asked him. It is you and Martinez who are
> > similar, not Eddie and I.
>
> Not true. Both you and John dropped the issue because you saw my clarification.

Your memory is appalligly weak. I quit the debate BEFORE you issued
your clarification, but re-entered it after you issued it.

I re-entered it by praising you for your first answer and
trying to get you to return to it. What I got for these pains
was the verbal equivalent of a slap in the face.

And you don't remember THAT?

> If you guys had strong confidence in the allele change definition

I hate it, Harsman loves it. I hate it because its literal wording
empowers creationists to claim that evolutionists are being illogical
in acting as though it weren't there.

Harshman claims it doesn't do that.

> you would have attempted to falsify immutabilism on the spot, but you didn't. > Once you became aware of my entire argument you lost interest.

You've got the whole thing backwards. See above.

Will you pull a John Harshman, and claim you cannot deal with
obscure hints like "See above."?

Peter Nyikos
Professor of Math -standard disclaimer --
University of South Carolina

[Peter Nyikos]

I caught the intended meaning and answered accordingly.

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 10:15:03 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Monday, September 19, 2016 at 7:30:03 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> > On 9/19/16 6:39 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > On Monday, September 19, 2016 at 2:50:02 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> > >> On 9/19/16 1:52 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > >>> On Friday, September 16, 2016 at 6:00:03 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:

> > >>>> I don't recall claiming that the concept of speciation is included in
> > >>>> the definition. If I did, I was wrong. What I should have said is that
> > >>>> the standard definition encompasses the processes involved in
> > >>>> speciation. That is, the standard definition does not fail to encompass
> > >>>> speciation.

Ray, did you notice how Harshman is actually giving two different
claims, making them look the same with "That is"? And he thinks
your misinterpretation of the package deal is a "hallucination"!

Analogy: the standard definition of combustion encompasses the processes
involved in getting men to the moon. That is the stadard definition
does not fail to encompass getting men to the moon.

Sure, there are plenty of other factors involved in getting men to
the moon, but there are plenty of other factors involved in many
if not most speciations, such as mutation and the chromosome changes
I told Harshman about.

The difference in chromosome numbers between horse and donkey is
part of the horse sequence, so it is especially appropriate
that I brought it up in this thread.

> > >>> Thanks for removing the ambiguity in my "includes". But you cannot
> > >>> prove your clarification, inasmuch as you cannot find anyone who
> > >>> treats "population" the way you do.
> > >
> > > [What's written below, by Darwinian scientist John Harshman, is almost unbelievable. I'm a Paleyan Creationist and I will now critique what John Harshman has said.]
> > >
> > >>
> > >> That isn't relevant. All that's needed is that speciation results from
> > >> allele frequency change in populations.

I'll have more to say about this claim in reply to Harshman, hopefully today.

> > > Good thing I was sitting down when I read this. JH solves the entire
> > > problem of speciation in one sentence! And I'm wondering if what he
> > > said is original thought or an accepted view?
> >
> > I will give you the courtesy of a single reply.

Harshman was arrogant and condescending here, and also covering
his ass in case you had a good comeback here, Ray. And I think you
made a good stab at it below.

> > Of course it's the
> > accepted view.
> >
> > > Mere acceptance of allele change definition, according to JH, means
> > > speciation has occurred?!?!
> >
> > No. I said nothing of the sort. All (almost all) speciation happens
> > through allele frequency change in populations, but not all, in fact not
> > most, allele frequency change in populations results in speciation. You
> > are perfectly free to agree that allele frequencies change without
> > agreeing that speciation happens. Though of course the evidence that it
> > does is overwhelming.
> >
> > > Darwinists have always argued acceptance
> > > of said definition equates to acceptance that evolution occurs,

That's second step in the "Tandoori Triplet" that Eddie was claiming Noor
indulged in, enabling a jump from evolution of behavior in the same
population of squirrels to a claim about any and all evolution
that scientists claim to have occurred in standard textbooks.

> > > now JH says acceptance also equates to acceptance that speciation has
> > > occurred.

That's only the most modest form of the "Tandoori Triplet" that
Eddie claimed. But Harshman disputed this.

> > That is your personal hallucination, I'm afraid.

I disputed this two days ago by beginning to critique Harshman's claim with
"That is..." in it; and now I've added to the critique above.


<snip of things to be addressed later, if necessary>

> In the above exchanges between me and John Harshman he's saying two things:
>
> 1. "All of which means that speciation is allele frequency change in populations" (JH).

And John was wrong, see above.

> 2. "You are perfectly free to agree that allele frequencies change without agreeing that speciation happens" (JH).
>
> The only problem is that the second statement won't have any lasting impact on John's colleagues in science or the rank-and-file. When a Creationist is perceived to accept existence of allele frequency changes the foregoing persons will undoubtedly receive comfort that evolution and speciation occur.

I think it is only the rank and file who treat the matter like this,
and people who cater to them in the way Larry Moran did in
his "FAQ" in the Talk.Origins Archive. He caters to their anti-creationist
members, who are deluded into thinking that their like-minded zealots
have scored a point against creationists when they point out that the
phenomenon of developing bacterial resistance to antibiotics
is "evolution." This "pointing out" is successful because it is exactly
the kind of thing the population genetics definition of "evolution"
is designed for.

> This is true because Darwinists believe automatically that all changes, or effects, have been accomplished by un-directed material processes.

That means I am not a Darwinist. I never make that kind of claim,
only the statement that evolution has occurred on a grand scale,
with the horse sequence by far the most convincing example of that.

> When in fact acceptance of certain changes, as occurring, doesn't necessarily entail acceptance of said material processes.

Bravo! No wonder Harshman didn't want to break his "a single reply" promise.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
U. of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/
nyikos "AT" math.sc.edu

[John Harshman]

On 9/22/16 12:04 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

> Sure, there are plenty of other factors involved in getting men to
> the moon, but there are plenty of other factors involved in many
> if not most speciations, such as mutation and the chromosome changes
> I told Harshman about.

Mutation is of course involved in most speciation, and it's a change in
allele frequency. Chromosome changes are not involved in most speciation.

> The difference in chromosome numbers between horse and donkey is
> part of the horse sequence, so it is especially appropriate
> that I brought it up in this thread.

No it isn't, as the difference in chromosome numbers was almost
certainly not involved in speciation.

>>>> now JH says acceptance also equates to acceptance that speciation has
>>>> occurred.
>
> That's only the most modest form of the "Tandoori Triplet" that
> Eddie claimed. But Harshman disputed this.

Do you think Ray is right about this particular claim?

>> In the above exchanges between me and John Harshman he's saying two things:
>>
>> 1. "All of which means that speciation is allele frequency change in populations" (JH).
>
> And John was wrong, see above.

All I see is that you don't know much about speciation if you think
changes in chromosome number are important. Do you have another defense?

[Ray Martinez]

You directed your reply to me but answered John Harshman.

Ray

[John Harshman]

On 9/22/16 2:01 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 21, 2016 at 3:20:02 PM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 9/20/16 7:17 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>>> On 9/20/16 7:13 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>
>>>> In the above exchanges between me and John Harshman he's saying two
>>>> things:
>>>>
>>>> 1. "All of which means that speciation is allele frequency change in
>>>> populations" (JH).
>>>>
>>>> 2. "You are perfectly free to agree that allele frequencies change
>>>> without agreeing that speciation happens" (JH).
>>>>
>>>> The only problem is that the second statement won't have any lasting
>>>> impact on John's colleagues in science or the rank-and-file. When a
>>>> Creationist is perceived to accept existence of allele frequency
>>>> changes the foregoing persons will undoubtedly receive comfort that
>>>> evolution and speciation occur. This is true because Darwinists
>>>> believe automatically that all changes, or effects, have been
>>>> accomplished by un-directed material processes. When in fact
>>>> acceptance of certain changes, as occurring, doesn't necessarily
>>>> entail acceptance of said material processes.
>>>
>>> Anyone want to try resolving this "contradiction" for Ray?
>>
>> 1. [All of which means that] the Necromicon is an arrangement of words.
>>
>> 2. You are perfectly free to agree that words get arranged without
>> agreeing that a Necromicon happens.
>>
>> Ray, do you think that a contradiction exists within those two sentences?

> You directed your reply to me but answered John Harshman.

You can't get anything past Ray. Or into his consciousness either.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 6:15:02 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 9/20/16 2:45 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Monday, September 19, 2016 at 10:30:03 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 9/19/16 6:39 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >>> On Monday, September 19, 2016 at 2:50:02 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>> On 9/19/16 1:52 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>> On Friday, September 16, 2016 at 6:00:03 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>>>> On 9/16/16 11:34 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >
> >>>>>>> You had claimed on another thread that the concept of "speciation" was
> >>>>>>> included in that standard definition, and I said that the definition
> >>>>>>> no more includes speciation than it includes the existence of God.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I don't recall claiming that the concept of speciation is included in
> >>>>>> the definition. If I did, I was wrong. What I should have said is that
> >>>>>> the standard definition encompasses the processes involved in
> >>>>>> speciation.
> >
> > And that's incorrect, see examples below.

No comment from you here. I added some more criticism in
reply to Ray earlier today.

> >>>>>> That is, the standard definition does not fail to encompass
> >>>>>> speciation.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks for removing the ambiguity in my "includes". But you cannot
> >>>>> prove your clarification, inasmuch as you cannot find anyone who
> >>>>> treats "population" the way you do.
> >>>
> >>> [What's written below, by Darwinian scientist John Harshman, is almost unbelievable. I'm a Paleyan Creationist and I will now critique what John Harshman has said.]
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> That isn't relevant. All that's needed is that speciation results from
> >>>> allele frequency change in populations.
> >
> > But that is not what the definition talks about. It restricts
> > evolution to something that takes place *in* a population.
>
> The importance of this distinction escapes me. Speciation does indeed
> involve allele frequency change in either one population or in two.

I opt for "two, in almost all cases." The theory of punctuated
equilibrium is relevant here. As are some things I say below.

And I note the backpedal to "involve" from "results from".

> And if two, that's just two examples of evolution happening.

Back to "evolution" from "speciation."

> > Also, can you find an example of a speciation that involved only
> > the change in the frequency of *existing* alleles without the
> > creation of new ones?
>
> The genetics of most examples of speciation are not known.

That is significant, see below where you make an unequivocal "absolutely
no evidence" claim.

> Now, technically, a single mutation is a change in allele frequency from
> 0 to 1/(2N). We could argue about whether that single mutation ought to
> count as evolution if you liked. I don't think it's important.

Single mutations are not worth even making such comments about.
But every mutation counts as a change in frequency of alleles,
and on another thread, Richard Norman cited the estimate that
each single individual carries about 100 of them.

And there is the here-untapped issue of quality vs. quantity, which
I asked Norman several specific and pointed questions about,
but he declined to answer.

> > But more to the point, can you find a speciation which did not
> > involve actual changes in chromosomes above the allele level,
> > like the change in chromosome number by one of {chimp, human}
> > from that of their common ancestor? and the one of {horse, donkey}
> > from that of *their* common ancestor?
>
> Yes. Most speciation doesn't involve a change in chromosome number, and
> in fact there's absolutely no evidence that either of the changes you
> mention had anything to do with speciation.

That is probably because you are working with an inchoate concept
of speciation, in turn based on an inchoate concept of "species."
So-called "ring species" bring out its inchoate nature. Over in s.b.p.
we've been discussing your statement that there are no valid examples
known, but the concept is there, and it shows the weakness of
the various definitions of "species."

If biologists thought like mathematicians, there would be no
such concept as "species" but only the relation "of the same species as".
It is reflexive and symmetric, but not transitive, as the case
of "ring species" illustrates.

You mentioned recently that there are about forty species of a
genus (of ducks? I forget) all of which are able to have fertile
offspring with each other (in some cases, perhaps only if brought
together in zoos). You asked me whether I'd want them
all to be the same species, and my answer is Yes, and let the
chips fall where they may: the forty could be downgraded to
subspecies or even varieties within the same subspecies.

Now contrast that with the case of horse v. ass. You use the bombastic
phrase "absolutely no evidence" for their being separate species
being due to the difference in their chromosome numbers.

This leads to mules and hinnies, both of which are normal
in every other way (mules being even a textbook example of 'hybrid vigor')
having an odd number of chromosomes.

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

What makes you so sure that there is no evidence that the chromosome
discrepancy is the reason the horse and donkey are unable to have fertile
offspring?

> How is this relevant to any
> point? I'll admit that it's a stretch to call a chromosomal fusion or
> fission an allele,

"stretch" is here an understatement for your flagrant misuse of the Humpty
Dumpty Prerogative.

> but then again they become fixed by the ordinary
> processes affecting things we usually call alleles.

The irony of you saying "How is this relevant to any point?"
should be apparent to anyone who has been reading this.
[Except perhaps you, for whom I may need to add that I am
applying your next to last sentence here to your last
sentence here, which I have split in two.]

Remainder deleted, to be replied to later if appropriate.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

PS In the deleted part, you suggested that I tell you my own idea
of what "speciation" is. I've made a start on that above.

[John Harshman]

I think the theory of punctuated equilibrium is wrong. Why do you opt
for two in almost all cases?

> And I note the backpedal to "involve" from "results from".

You note a lot of backpedaling that doesn't exist.

>> And if two, that's just two examples of evolution happening.
>
> Back to "evolution" from "speciation."

Yes, speciation is evolution happening, i.e. allele frequency change in
a population, or perhaps two.

>>> Also, can you find an example of a speciation that involved only
>>> the change in the frequency of *existing* alleles without the
>>> creation of new ones?
>>
>> The genetics of most examples of speciation are not known.
>
> That is significant, see below where you make an unequivocal "absolutely
> no evidence" claim.

I doubt it's significant, but we'll see.

>> Now, technically, a single mutation is a change in allele frequency from
>> 0 to 1/(2N). We could argue about whether that single mutation ought to
>> count as evolution if you liked. I don't think it's important.
>
> Single mutations are not worth even making such comments about.
> But every mutation counts as a change in frequency of alleles,
> and on another thread, Richard Norman cited the estimate that
> each single individual carries about 100 of them.

True. Why does any of this matter to your point?

> And there is the here-untapped issue of quality vs. quantity, which
> I asked Norman several specific and pointed questions about,
> but he declined to answer.

What are those pointed questions and why do they matter?

>>> But more to the point, can you find a speciation which did not
>>> involve actual changes in chromosomes above the allele level,
>>> like the change in chromosome number by one of {chimp, human}
>>> from that of their common ancestor? and the one of {horse, donkey}
>>> from that of *their* common ancestor?
>>
>> Yes. Most speciation doesn't involve a change in chromosome number, and
>> in fact there's absolutely no evidence that either of the changes you
>> mention had anything to do with speciation.
>
> That is probably because you are working with an inchoate concept
> of speciation, in turn based on an inchoate concept of "species."
> So-called "ring species" bring out its inchoate nature. Over in s.b.p.
> we've been discussing your statement that there are no valid examples
> known, but the concept is there, and it shows the weakness of
> the various definitions of "species."

How so? You persist in alluding to points and arguments rather than
actually making them.

> If biologists thought like mathematicians, there would be no
> such concept as "species" but only the relation "of the same species as".
> It is reflexive and symmetric, but not transitive, as the case
> of "ring species" illustrates.

Fortunately, biologists don't think like mathematicians.

> You mentioned recently that there are about forty species of a
> genus (of ducks? I forget) all of which are able to have fertile
> offspring with each other (in some cases, perhaps only if brought
> together in zoos). You asked me whether I'd want them
> all to be the same species, and my answer is Yes, and let the
> chips fall where they may: the forty could be downgraded to
> subspecies or even varieties within the same subspecies.

Fortunately, you are not in charge of species. The genus is Anas, but in
fact most of the 150 or so species of ducks have hybridized at one time
or another. Your idea of species just doesn't work in the real world.

> Now contrast that with the case of horse v. ass. You use the bombastic
> phrase "absolutely no evidence" for their being separate species
> being due to the difference in their chromosome numbers.

True. There is no such evidence. Do you know of any? As I have
mentioned, there are quite a few populations of mammals that are
polymorphic for chromosome number. And if you think about it (which I
encourage), speciation can't be due to a single macromutation in any
sexually reproducing species.

> This leads to mules and hinnies, both of which are normal
> in every other way (mules being even a textbook example of 'hybrid vigor')
> having an odd number of chromosomes.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mule
>
> What makes you so sure that there is no evidence that the chromosome
> discrepancy is the reason the horse and donkey are unable to have fertile
> offspring?

Because there is no evidence. What evidence do you have?

>> How is this relevant to any
>> point? I'll admit that it's a stretch to call a chromosomal fusion or
>> fission an allele,
>
> "stretch" is here an understatement for your flagrant misuse of the Humpty
> Dumpty Prerogative.
>
>> but then again they become fixed by the ordinary
>> processes affecting things we usually call alleles.
>
> The irony of you saying "How is this relevant to any point?"
> should be apparent to anyone who has been reading this.
> [Except perhaps you, for whom I may need to add that I am
> applying your next to last sentence here to your last
> sentence here, which I have split in two.]

Do you write stilted prose on purpose? Now, if you don't want to call
chromosome types aleles, I suppose we could amend the definition of
evolution to include alleles and other sorts of genomic variation. Would
you then be happier?

My point was that chromosomal mutations are not macromutations that
result in speciation in one event, as you seem to imagine.

> Remainder deleted, to be replied to later if appropriate.

> PS In the deleted part, you suggested that I tell you my own idea
> of what "speciation" is. I've made a start on that above.

No you haven't. If you think you have, you are much worse at
communicating than you suppose. It's yet another thing you allude to
without actually saying.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Allelic frequency changes in a population over time is evolution. A
subset of this is when said changes cross a threshold where speciation
can be said to have occurred. Run of the mill evolution is obviously far
more common. There are very discrete macroevolutionary changes in
phenotype like happened with the evolution of pocket gophers that make
you say "hmmmm". Less abruptly bacteria evolve resistance to antibiotics
with ease.

And if Ray agrees that allele frequencies change without speciation,
there's IDeologues who agree with "microevolution". These are what Ray
calls atheists, even when he is flirting with evolution himself recently.

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 09/19/2016 10:27 PM, John Harshman wrote:
> On 9/19/16 6:39 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:

[snip]

>> Mere acceptance of allele change definition, according to JH, means
>> speciation has occurred?!?!
>
> No. I said nothing of the sort. All (almost all) speciation happens
> through allele frequency change in populations, but not all, in fact not
> most, allele frequency change in populations results in speciation. You
> are perfectly free to agree that allele frequencies change without
> agreeing that speciation happens. Though of course the evidence that it
> does is overwhelming.

Nice clear way of pointing out speciation as an instance of allelic
frequency changes. some character state shifts can be more abrupt than
others, my favorite the pocket gophers. But phenotypic characters and
ability to interbreed are different beasts.

[jillery]

Apparently there are two high-flying flocks of missed points whooshing
overhead.

[Peter Nyikos]

Nobody has really tried, perhaps because the word "contradiction" does not
appear in anything you've quoted from Ray here.

But he HAS introduced new claims which you won't touch with a ten foot pole,
it seems.

I replied to this same post of Ray's, and had lots to say about what
preceded the part you've quoted, but also to the part you have quoted.
And when you replied to the post where I did this, you deleted
every word from Ray that you quoted up there and every word that
I wrote in response to the things you've quoted.

May I conclude that Ray has you and what he calls "Darwinists" pretty
well pegged in what you've quoted from him?

If you deign to answer this question, please don't confuse the issue
by talking about anything except what you see from Ray up there.

Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

On 9/23/16 6:33 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 10:20:03 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 9/20/16 7:13 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>>> In the above exchanges between me and John Harshman he's saying two things:
>>>
>>> 1. "All of which means that speciation is allele frequency change in populations" (JH).
>>>
>>> 2. "You are perfectly free to agree that allele frequencies change without agreeing that speciation happens" (JH).
>>>
>>> The only problem is that the second statement won't have any
>>> lasting impact on John's colleagues in science or the
>>> rank-and-file. When a Creationist is perceived to accept
>>> existence of allele frequency changes the foregoing persons will
>>> undoubtedly receive comfort that evolution and speciation occur.
>>> This is true because Darwinists believe automatically that all
>>> changes, or effects, have been accomplished by un-directed
>>> material processes. When in fact acceptance of certain changes,
>>> as occurring, doesn't necessarily entail acceptance of said
>>> material processes.

>> Anyone want to try resolving this "contradiction" for Ray?

> May I conclude that Ray has you and what he calls "Darwinists" pretty
> well pegged in what you've quoted from him?

No, you may not.

> If you deign to answer this question, please don't confuse the issue
> by talking about anything except what you see from Ray up there.

I'm willing to discuss this with you. First, disentangle Ray's confused
rant and tell me, in clear English, what you think the issue is here.

[Peter Nyikos]

Because I don't go along with the idea of parts of populations
being cut off from each other, like your idea of feral camels
in Australia being of the same population as the wild and feral camels
of other continents.

> > And I note the backpedal to "involve" from "results from".
>
> You note a lot of backpedaling that doesn't exist.

Your love of twisting words is on display here.

> >> And if two, that's just two examples of evolution happening.
> >
> > Back to "evolution" from "speciation."
>
> Yes, speciation is evolution happening, i.e. allele frequency change in
> a population, or perhaps two.

Fallacy of begging the question with "i.e." You are ignoring chromosome
changes above the allele level.

<snip of things to be dealt with later; I have a lot on my plate today>

> >>> But more to the point, can you find a speciation which did not
> >>> involve actual changes in chromosomes above the allele level,
> >>> like the change in chromosome number by one of {chimp, human}
> >>> from that of their common ancestor? and the one of {horse, donkey}
> >>> from that of *their* common ancestor?
> >>
> >> Yes. Most speciation doesn't involve a change in chromosome number, and
> >> in fact there's absolutely no evidence that either of the changes you
> >> mention had anything to do with speciation.
> >
> > That is probably because you are working with an inchoate concept
> > of speciation, in turn based on an inchoate concept of "species."
> > So-called "ring species" bring out its inchoate nature. Over in s.b.p.
> > we've been discussing your statement that there are no valid examples
> > known, but the concept is there, and it shows the weakness of
> > the various definitions of "species."
>
> How so? You persist in alluding to points and arguments rather than
> actually making them.


> > If biologists thought like mathematicians, there would be no
> > such concept as "species" but only the relation "of the same species as".
> > It is reflexive and symmetric, but not transitive, as the case
> > of "ring species" illustrates.
>
> Fortunately, biologists don't think like mathematicians.

How can you say this, and be content with your concept, "of the same
population as"??

Your concept is astronomically more radical than mine. Yours
allows us to be in the same population as the LCA of all
eukaryotes. Mine doesn't even allow both horse and donkey to be in the
same species as their LCA.

> > You mentioned recently that there are about forty species of a
> > genus (of ducks? I forget) all of which are able to have fertile
> > offspring with each other (in some cases, perhaps only if brought
> > together in zoos). You asked me whether I'd want them
> > all to be the same species, and my answer is Yes, and let the
> > chips fall where they may: the forty could be downgraded to
> > subspecies or even varieties within the same subspecies.
>
> Fortunately, you are not in charge of species. The genus is Anas, but in
> fact most of the 150 or so species of ducks have hybridized at one time
> or another. Your idea of species just doesn't work in the real world.

What do you have against subspecies?

> > Now contrast that with the case of horse v. ass. You use the bombastic
> > phrase "absolutely no evidence" for their being separate species
> > being due to the difference in their chromosome numbers.
>
> True. There is no such evidence. Do you know of any? As I have
> mentioned, there are quite a few populations of mammals that are
> polymorphic for chromosome number.

Such as?

> And if you think about it (which I
> encourage), speciation can't be due to a single macromutation in any
> sexually reproducing species.

You persist in alluding to points and arguments rather than

actually making them. --Harshman, a number of lines up

> > This leads to mules and hinnies, both of which are normal
> > in every other way (mules being even a textbook example of 'hybrid vigor')
> > having an odd number of chromosomes.
>
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mule
> >
> > What makes you so sure that there is no evidence that the chromosome
> > discrepancy is the reason the horse and donkey are unable to have fertile
> > offspring?

By the way, the above is a popular criterion for "of the same species",
and I have adopted it. It doesn't apply to individuals because males of
the same species cannot have offspring due to mating, but such quibbles
never bothered the biologists who use that criterion.

Your love of 150 duck species shows that you have a very
different criterion. What is it?

> Because there is no evidence. What evidence do you have?

The linked wiki entry has a lot. Foremost is this little excerpt:

Mules and hinnies have 63 chromosomes, a mixture of the horse's 64 and
the donkey's 62. The different structure and number usually prevents
the chromosomes from pairing up properly and creating successful embryos,
rendering most mules infertile.

There are no recorded cases of fertile mule stallions.

And so, by the standards you used in an argument involving reasons for a
certain author's conversion to Christianity, I say that I have evidence
that contradicts your bombast about "absolutely no evidence." I have
displayed a quote supporting my case, and you have none to support
yours.

And until you come up with evidence for yours, I will hold
you to those standards.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Department of Math.
Univ. of S. Carolina ( Columbia, SC )
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

[Peter Nyikos]

Been there, done that. What part of my reply to Ray don't you understand?

_________________ my reply to Ray's words above, cut by you ____________

> In the above exchanges between me and John Harshman he's saying two things:
>
> 1. "All of which means that speciation is allele frequency change in populations" (JH).

And John was wrong, see above.

> 2. "You are perfectly free to agree that allele frequencies change without agreeing that speciation happens" (JH).
>
> The only problem is that the second statement won't have any lasting impact on John's colleagues in science or the rank-and-file. When a Creationist is perceived to accept existence of allele frequency changes the foregoing persons will undoubtedly receive comfort that evolution and speciation occur.

I think it is only the rank and file who treat the matter like this,
and people who cater to them in the way Larry Moran did in
his "FAQ" in the Talk.Origins Archive. He caters to their anti-creationist
members, who are deluded into thinking that their like-minded zealots
have scored a point against creationists when they point out that the
phenomenon of developing bacterial resistance to antibiotics
is "evolution." This "pointing out" is successful because it is exactly
the kind of thing the population genetics definition of "evolution"
is designed for.

> This is true because Darwinists believe automatically that all changes, or effects, have been accomplished by un-directed material processes.

That means I am not a Darwinist. I never make that kind of claim,
only the statement that evolution has occurred on a grand scale,
with the horse sequence by far the most convincing example of that.

> When in fact acceptance of certain changes, as occurring, doesn't necessarily entail acceptance of said material processes.

Bravo! No wonder Harshman didn't want to break his "a single reply" promise.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

U. of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/
nyikos "AT" math.sc.edu
========================== end of repost===============================

[jillery]

Yes, be sure to leave confusing the issue entirely up to rockhead.
After all, confusing the issues is what he does best.

[Mark Isaak]

On 9/22/16 2:01 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:

> On Wednesday, September 21, 2016 at 3:20:02 PM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 9/20/16 7:17 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>>> On 9/20/16 7:13 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>
>>>> In the above exchanges between me and John Harshman he's saying two
>>>> things:
>>>>
>>>> 1. "All of which means that speciation is allele frequency change in
>>>> populations" (JH).
>>>>
>>>> 2. "You are perfectly free to agree that allele frequencies change
>>>> without agreeing that speciation happens" (JH).
>>>>
>>>> The only problem is that the second statement won't have any lasting
>>>> impact on John's colleagues in science or the rank-and-file. When a
>>>> Creationist is perceived to accept existence of allele frequency
>>>> changes the foregoing persons will undoubtedly receive comfort that
>>>> evolution and speciation occur. This is true because Darwinists
>>>> believe automatically that all changes, or effects, have been
>>>> accomplished by un-directed material processes. When in fact
>>>> acceptance of certain changes, as occurring, doesn't necessarily
>>>> entail acceptance of said material processes.
>>>
>>> Anyone want to try resolving this "contradiction" for Ray?
>>
>> 1. [All of which means that] the Necromicon is an arrangement of words.
>>
>> 2. You are perfectly free to agree that words get arranged without
>> agreeing that a Necromicon happens.
>>
>> Ray, do you think that a contradiction exists within those two sentences?
>>

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 23 Sep 2016 09:49:45 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<eci...@curioustax.onomy.net>:

Good analogy. There are many others (green grass, wheels on
garbage trucks, etc., ad [nearly] infinitum), but Ray seems
constitutionally incapable of understanding them.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, September 22, 2016 at 7:35:02 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> On 09/20/2016 10:17 PM, John Harshman wrote:
> > On 9/20/16 7:13 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >
> >> In the above exchanges between me and John Harshman he's saying two
> >> things:
> >>
> >> 1. "All of which means that speciation is allele frequency change in
> >> populations" (JH).
> >>
> >> 2. "You are perfectly free to agree that allele frequencies change
> >> without agreeing that speciation happens" (JH).
> >>
> >> The only problem is that the second statement won't have any lasting
> >> impact on John's colleagues in science or the rank-and-file. When a
> >> Creationist is perceived to accept existence of allele frequency
> >> changes the foregoing persons will undoubtedly receive comfort that
> >> evolution and speciation occur. This is true because Darwinists
> >> believe automatically that all changes, or effects, have been
> >> accomplished by un-directed material processes. When in fact
> >> acceptance of certain changes, as occurring, doesn't necessarily
> >> entail acceptance of said material processes.
> >
> > Anyone want to try resolving this "contradiction" for Ray?
>
> Allelic frequency changes in a population over time is evolution.

"Sean Connery IS James Bond." -- caption in an old movie marquee

> A subset of this is when said changes cross a threshold where speciation
> can be said to have occurred.

Harshman has been on my case to define speciation, but he has carefully
avoided giving a definition himself. Can you give yours?

> Run of the mill evolution is obviously far
> more common. There are very discrete macroevolutionary changes in
> phenotype like happened with the evolution of pocket gophers that make
> you say "hmmmm". Less abruptly bacteria evolve resistance to antibiotics
> with ease.

Yes, and creationists have no problem accepting that, for reasons
that should be clear to you.

If not, keep reading; and if that still isn't enough, look at the reply
I did to Ray yesterday. I've reposted the relevant part in reply to
Harshman a little over an hour ago.

> And if Ray agrees that allele frequencies change without speciation,
> there's IDeologues who agree with "microevolution".

Yes, and the following definition from a best-selling textbook for
biology majors makes it clear that the biological concept is
compatible with species immutabilism:

Focusing on evolutionary change in populations, we can define
evolution on its smallest scale, called #microevolution,#
as a change in allele frequencies in a population over generations.
_Biology_, by Campbell, Reece et.al., 8th edition, 2008, p. 468.

Now, creationists have their own definition of microevolution, and the ones
relying on Genesis almost always use it to mean a single "kind"
[Hebrew: *min*] but they will disagree on what that encompasses.
Harshman loves to talk about unidentified outliers rather than
looking at the vast statistical majority.

Anyway, that is the ground on which Ray picks fights with creationists,
whom he seems to dislike a lot more than he dislikes Harshman, and
maybe you. As you put it:

> These are what Ray
> calls atheists,

False: he calls them Atheists, with a capital A. He can change his
definition of the capitalized word to suit his agenda.

> even when he is flirting with evolution himself recently.

He wasn't flirting with what HE calls "evolution." He took something
Harshman said literally, which was the population genetics definition of "evolution," which you can figure out from the quote above.
At first, he replied that he could agree that some of it had taken place.

And that something did NOT include speciation, and no amount
of polemical word-twisting by you can change that. Even Harshman
admits that speciation is not included in the population genetics
definition ("evolution on its smallest scale" as Campbell, Reece,
et.al. put it).

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

PS I use # to denote boldface, just as a decades-old practice has
* to denote italics in the original.

[John Harshman]

I truly don't understand what you're trying to say here. Could you be a
little less elliptical? I will agree that feral camels in Australia are
not the same population as camels elsewhere. How is that relevant?

>>> And I note the backpedal to "involve" from "results from".
>>
>> You note a lot of backpedaling that doesn't exist.
>
> Your love of twisting words is on display here.

Perhaps you just don't understand the words.

>>>> And if two, that's just two examples of evolution happening.
>>>
>>> Back to "evolution" from "speciation."
>>
>> Yes, speciation is evolution happening, i.e. allele frequency change in
>> a population, or perhaps two.
>
> Fallacy of begging the question with "i.e." You are ignoring chromosome
> changes above the allele level.

I'm at a loss to explain your obsession with chromosome changes. I'm
willing to modify my definition by substituting some other term for
"allele" if you would prefer. I don't consider it a big thing.

You can't possibly be serious in your desire to eliminate "species" as a
concept. How could we even talk about the living world? No more Strix
varia, just "these two organisms are of the same species, which we will
not name, and those two are of different species". We can agree that the
species concept is not a perfect fit to the messy reality, but your
"fix" is unworkable.

Of course "population" and "species" are two quite different things, and
both, as commonly imagined, are meaningful only when considered over a
narrow time-slice. This gets us nowhere. All I was really trying to talk
about was continuity of descent within an evolving lineage. Every parent
is in the same population as its offspring. And evolution works in this
context, with genetic differences (even chromosomal differences) arising
and spreading through a population. Almost all evolution, even
speciation, consists of such things. (I say "almost" because I think
species selection is a real, though not necessarily important, phenomenon.)

>>> You mentioned recently that there are about forty species of a
>>> genus (of ducks? I forget) all of which are able to have fertile
>>> offspring with each other (in some cases, perhaps only if brought
>>> together in zoos). You asked me whether I'd want them
>>> all to be the same species, and my answer is Yes, and let the
>>> chips fall where they may: the forty could be downgraded to
>>> subspecies or even varieties within the same subspecies.
>>
>> Fortunately, you are not in charge of species. The genus is Anas, but in
>> fact most of the 150 or so species of ducks have hybridized at one time
>> or another. Your idea of species just doesn't work in the real world.
>
> What do you have against subspecies?

Nothing. But they aren't the same as species. Subspecies, for example,
do not persist in sympatry.

>>> Now contrast that with the case of horse v. ass. You use the bombastic
>>> phrase "absolutely no evidence" for their being separate species
>>> being due to the difference in their chromosome numbers.
>>
>> True. There is no such evidence. Do you know of any? As I have
>> mentioned, there are quite a few populations of mammals that are
>> polymorphic for chromosome number.
>
> Such as?

Google is your friend, or would be if you bothered. I did a quick search
on "chromosome number polymorphism". The first hit was the Wikipedia
article on chromosomal polymorphism, which mentions a number of the
cases I was thinking of and links to many more.

>> And if you think about it (which I
>> encourage), speciation can't be due to a single macromutation in any
>> sexually reproducing species.
>
> You persist in alluding to points and arguments rather than
> actually making them. --Harshman, a number of lines up

How can this be unknown to you? Mutations arise as heterozygotes in
single individuals. They must spread through a population through
reproduction. If a mutation prevents reproduction with other members of
the population there can be no such spread. That mutant individual isn't
the founder of a new species, it's just sterile.

>>> This leads to mules and hinnies, both of which are normal
>>> in every other way (mules being even a textbook example of 'hybrid vigor')
>>> having an odd number of chromosomes.
>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mule
>>>
>>> What makes you so sure that there is no evidence that the chromosome
>>> discrepancy is the reason the horse and donkey are unable to have fertile
>>> offspring?
>
> By the way, the above is a popular criterion for "of the same species",
> and I have adopted it. It doesn't apply to individuals because males of
> the same species cannot have offspring due to mating, but such quibbles
> never bothered the biologists who use that criterion.

Biologists do not use that criterion. You are thinking as a
mathematician, I suppose, and you love absolutes. There are few such
absolutes in biology, and "ability to have fertile offspring" isn't one
of them. Even the occasional mule has been known to reproduce. Like much
in nature, interfertility comes in all gradations from complete
compatibility to complete physical and gametic incompatibility.

> Your love of 150 duck species shows that you have a very
> different criterion. What is it?

Biologists don't really use your criterion. The real criterion is some
genetic isolating mechanism sufficient to prevent populations from
coalescing in sympatry. Even if they're capable of having fertile
offspring, if they never do so in the wild, or if they do so rarely and
the hybrids have much lower fitness than either parent species, those
are separate species.

>> Because there is no evidence. What evidence do you have?
>
> The linked wiki entry has a lot. Foremost is this little excerpt:
>
> Mules and hinnies have 63 chromosomes, a mixture of the horse's 64 and
> the donkey's 62. The different structure and number usually prevents
> the chromosomes from pairing up properly and creating successful embryos,
> rendering most mules infertile.

An overly simplistic account, as the cases of chromosome polymorphism
cited above should tell you. And you will note that the wiki statement
you quote has no reference. Also, when you say "a lot", what other
evidence were you thinking of? I looked at the entry, and that sentence
was all I could find.

> There are no recorded cases of fertile mule stallions.

Which is not evidence that the infertility is caused by chromosome
number mismatch. Quite the opposite in fact.

Stallions. Haldane's rule. What about mares? And in fact the
applicability of Haldane's rule here tells us that some of the problems
are located on the sex chromosomes. (If you don't know what Haldane's
rule is, either ask me or google. I'm assuming you know some biology,
but correct me if I'm wrong about that.)

Horses and donkeys have a lot of genetic differences beyond the simple
chromosome count, but of course it takes more work to spot them and
determine their effect on breeding. Here's one publication on one gene
and its contribution to incompatibility:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23613924

> And so, by the standards you used in an argument involving reasons for a
> certain author's conversion to Christianity, I say that I have evidence
> that contradicts your bombast about "absolutely no evidence." I have
> displayed a quote supporting my case, and you have none to support
> yours.
>
> And until you come up with evidence for yours, I will hold
> you to those standards.

You will note that the

[John Harshman]

Mostly the parts where you exclaim in triumph. What is it you think is
so important about Ray's statements?

> _________________ my reply to Ray's words above, cut by you ____________
>
>> In the above exchanges between me and John Harshman he's saying two things:
>>
>> 1. "All of which means that speciation is allele frequency change in populations" (JH).
>
> And John was wrong, see above.
>
>> 2. "You are perfectly free to agree that allele frequencies change without agreeing that speciation happens" (JH).
>>
>> The only problem is that the second statement won't have any lasting impact on John's colleagues in science or the rank-and-file. When a Creationist is perceived to accept existence of allele frequency changes the foregoing persons will undoubtedly receive comfort that evolution and speciation occur.
>
> I think it is only the rank and file who treat the matter like this,
> and people who cater to them in the way Larry Moran did in
> his "FAQ" in the Talk.Origins Archive. He caters to their anti-creationist
> members, who are deluded into thinking that their like-minded zealots
> have scored a point against creationists when they point out that the
> phenomenon of developing bacterial resistance to antibiotics
> is "evolution." This "pointing out" is successful because it is exactly
> the kind of thing the population genetics definition of "evolution"
> is designed for.

This doesn't seem to be an explanation, just a rant. Show me one person
who claims that because allele frequencies change in populations,
therefore there must be speciation.

Are you claiming that the development of bacterial resistance to
antibiotics is not evolution?

Please be clearer and more specific in your criticism.

>> This is true because Darwinists believe automatically that all changes, or effects, have been accomplished by un-directed material processes.
>
> That means I am not a Darwinist. I never make that kind of claim,
> only the statement that evolution has occurred on a grand scale,
> with the horse sequence by far the most convincing example of that.

If we removed the "automatically" from Ray's statement, would you be a
Darwinist then? Or do you think that horse evolution may have been
directed by entities unknown?

>> When in fact acceptance of certain changes, as occurring, doesn't necessarily entail acceptance of said material processes.
>
> Bravo! No wonder Harshman didn't want to break his "a single reply" promise.

It isn't clear to me why you applaud that statement or why you suppose I
should be afraid of it. Of course the fact of changes doesn't entail a
particular mechanism.

[John Harshman]

On 9/23/16 10:44 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

> Harshman has been on my case to define speciation, but he has carefully
> avoided giving a definition himself. Can you give yours?

Speciation: the evolution of reproductive isolation between populations.
Reproductive isolation: the existence of genetically based mechanisms
sufficient to prevent the coalescence of two populations living in sympatry.

Best I can do right now. Of course the first definition is applicable
only to obligate outcrossers, while the second is difficult to test for
allopatric populations. But it's what we have to live with.

So, what's your definition?

> Now, creationists have their own definition of microevolution, and the ones
> relying on Genesis almost always use it to mean a single "kind"
> [Hebrew: *min*] but they will disagree on what that encompasses.
> Harshman loves to talk about unidentified outliers rather than
> looking at the vast statistical majority.

Unidentified outliers of what? Vast statistical majority of what?

[Peter Nyikos]

Richard Norman certainly implied it when he perversely interpreted
my dislike of the "allele frequencies..." definition by ranting:

Somehow everybody here with the possible exception of you knows that
the origin of species (speciation) is part of the subject of biological
evolution, an important part of it.

You can find this doozy preserved in the following post, along with
another misrepresentation of me along the same lines:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/ys8ynNDx1U0/TpXtHM9iAAAJ
Subject: Re: Origin of the Flagellum ON TRIAL, Continued
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 15:40:37 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <c3ae08fe-bccf-47ff...@googlegroups.com>

True to form, you lit into me in reply to the linked post while
playing "See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" as far
as Norman's performance was concerned.

> Are you claiming that the development of bacterial resistance to
> antibiotics is not evolution?

The scare quotes were there for Ray's benefit. If I had
been addressing you, I would not have used them.

> Please be clearer and more specific in your criticism.

Remove the scare quotes, and I think you will see my point.

> >> This is true because Darwinists believe automatically that all changes, or effects, have been accomplished by un-directed material processes.
> >
> > That means I am not a Darwinist. I never make that kind of claim,
> > only the statement that evolution has occurred on a grand scale,
> > with the horse sequence by far the most convincing example of that.
>
> If we removed the "automatically" from Ray's statement, would you be a
> Darwinist then? Or do you think that horse evolution may have been
> directed by entities unknown?

That is a possibility, and since I give the idea of a Designer
of our universe up to 10% probability [1], this possibility does
not seem to be vanishingly small (albeit perhaps delegated to
entities that are commonly referred to as "angels").

> >> When in fact acceptance of certain changes, as occurring, doesn't necessarily entail acceptance of said material processes.
> >
> > Bravo! No wonder Harshman didn't want to break his "a single reply" promise.
>
> It isn't clear to me why you applaud that statement or why you suppose I
> should be afraid of it. Of course the fact of changes doesn't entail a
> particular mechanism.

Unless you include supernatural intervention as a "mechanism," you
aren't dealing with what Ray wrote at all.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Department of Math. -- standard disclaimer --
U. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/

PS You forgot all about that 10% probability when you were surprised to see
such a weak word as "doubting" in reference to the existence of God,
thinking that I still held my "no more than 1% chance" view.
You may also have forgotten why the apostle Thomas
is widely referred to as "Doubting Thomas."

[John Harshman]

That says or implies nothing of the sort. Subjects and definitions are
not the same things. I will conclude that you are unable to come up with
any valid example of what I have asked for.

> You can find this doozy preserved in the following post, along with
> another misrepresentation of me along the same lines:
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/ys8ynNDx1U0/TpXtHM9iAAAJ
> Subject: Re: Origin of the Flagellum ON TRIAL, Continued
> Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 15:40:37 -0700 (PDT)
> Message-ID: <c3ae08fe-bccf-47ff...@googlegroups.com>
>
> True to form, you lit into me in reply to the linked post while
> playing "See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" as far
> as Norman's performance was concerned.

As usual, you wander off into a digression about your grievances. Try to
stay on the subject.

>> Are you claiming that the development of bacterial resistance to
>> antibiotics is not evolution?
>
> The scare quotes were there for Ray's benefit. If I had
> been addressing you, I would not have used them.

So no, then?

>> Please be clearer and more specific in your criticism.
>
> Remove the scare quotes, and I think you will see my point.

Again, you should probably state your point rather than hinting at it.
What was your point?

>>>> This is true because Darwinists believe automatically that all changes, or effects, have been accomplished by un-directed material processes.
>>>
>>> That means I am not a Darwinist. I never make that kind of claim,
>>> only the statement that evolution has occurred on a grand scale,
>>> with the horse sequence by far the most convincing example of that.
>>
>> If we removed the "automatically" from Ray's statement, would you be a
>> Darwinist then? Or do you think that horse evolution may have been
>> directed by entities unknown?
>
> That is a possibility, and since I give the idea of a Designer
> of our universe up to 10% probability [1], this possibility does
> not seem to be vanishingly small (albeit perhaps delegated to
> entities that are commonly referred to as "angels").

If the universe was designed, how does that affect the probability that
horses were designed?

>>>> When in fact acceptance of certain changes, as occurring, doesn't necessarily entail acceptance of said material processes.
>>>
>>> Bravo! No wonder Harshman didn't want to break his "a single reply" promise.
>>
>> It isn't clear to me why you applaud that statement or why you suppose I
>> should be afraid of it. Of course the fact of changes doesn't entail a
>> particular mechanism.
>
> Unless you include supernatural intervention as a "mechanism," you
> aren't dealing with what Ray wrote at all.

As usual, you don't clarify. Yes, supernatural intervention is a
mechanism. It has the disadvantage of being a mechanism we have never
seen, and perhaps in fact unseeable even if operating since it would
appear to mimic natural processes so closely as to be undetectable. But
sure, it's one logically possible mechanism.

> PS You forgot all about that 10% probability when you were surprised to see
> such a weak word as "doubting" in reference to the existence of God,
> thinking that I still held my "no more than 1% chance" view.
> You may also have forgotten why the apostle Thomas
> is widely referred to as "Doubting Thomas."

Yes, I've forgotten the change from 1% to 10%. Remind me why you
changed. Why should I care about Doubting Thomas?

[RSNorman]

On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 15:16:26 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 6:15:02 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:

<snip to select specific items to respond to>

>> Now, technically, a single mutation is a change in allele frequency from
>> 0 to 1/(2N). We could argue about whether that single mutation ought to
>> count as evolution if you liked. I don't think it's important.
>
>Single mutations are not worth even making such comments about.
>But every mutation counts as a change in frequency of alleles,
>and on another thread, Richard Norman cited the estimate that
>each single individual carries about 100 of them.
>
>And there is the here-untapped issue of quality vs. quantity, which
>I asked Norman several specific and pointed questions about,
>but he declined to answer.

I declined because the issue was not worth discussing. There is no
way to assess the "quality" of an allele. It is possible that you
think that if there is no directly observable phenotypic effect then
the change is of "low quality".

Besides, as I reported, the "standard" biological definition of
evolution is a change in the genetic composition of a population. It
does not at all take into consideration "quality" of the change.
Silent changes are evolutionary. If fact silent (neutral) changes are
exceptionally value in allowing us to trace phylogenetic pathways.

Biologists are very well aware of the fuzziness of the concept of
"species" as well as the need to use different notions of species in
doing different kinds of work.

There are numerous examples, especially in the plant kingdom, of
chromosome number discrepancy not interfering with interbreeding.

Of course there is a t.o. archive on the subject:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB141.html

"Chromosome counts are poor indications of similarity; they can vary
widely within a single genus or even a single species. The plant genus
Clarkia, for example, has species with chromosome counts of n = 5, 6,
7, 8, 9, 12, 14, 17, 18, and 26 (Lewis 1993). Chromosome counts in the
house mouse species (Mus domesticus) range from 2n = 22 to 40 (Nachman
et al. 1994). "

Fertile hybrids between parents with different chromosome counts are
unusual but quite possible. Discrepancy between chromosomes is a good
reason for sterility when meiosis fails. But there are differences
especially with polyploidy or with a fused or broken chromosome where
meiotic pairing is possible.

[RSNorman]

On Fri, 23 Sep 2016 11:53:36 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>On Friday, September 23, 2016 at 2:10:03 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:

<snip to isolate the point where you drag my name into things>

>>
>> This doesn't seem to be an explanation, just a rant. Show me one person
>> who claims that because allele frequencies change in populations,
>> therefore there must be speciation.
>
>Richard Norman certainly implied it when he perversely interpreted
>my dislike of the "allele frequencies..." definition by ranting:
>
> Somehow everybody here with the possible exception of you knows that
> the origin of species (speciation) is part of the subject of biological
> evolution, an important part of it.
>
>You can find this doozy preserved in the following post, along with
>another misrepresentation of me along the same lines:
>
>https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/ys8ynNDx1U0/TpXtHM9iAAAJ
>Subject: Re: Origin of the Flagellum ON TRIAL, Continued
>Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 15:40:37 -0700 (PDT)
>Message-ID: <c3ae08fe-bccf-47ff...@googlegroups.com>
>
>True to form, you lit into me in reply to the linked post while
>playing "See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" as far
>as Norman's performance was concerned.
>

For the record, I still "perversely" insist that "everybody knows that

the origin of species (speciation) is part of the subject of

biological evolution, an important part of it." That despite my also
"perverse" insistence that "a standard biological definition of
evolution is a change in the genetic composition of a population from
generation to generation."

I did write unwittingly write something that seemed to imply that
speciation was a necessary result of changing allele frequencies. John
chided me on that and I changed the wording to indicate that
speciation was not a necessary result of allele changes but it could
be the result of such changes.

Of course ordinarily it requires a number of different changes to a
number of different genes and to a population that has been isolated
from the parent population so that the two populations diverge in
genetic content (vicariance). There are other ways speciation can
occur, though.

I claim that the adaptation of a population to an environmental
circumstance, temperature, water availability, food source, by natural
selection is an example of evolution even if no speciation occurs. Do
you disagree?

[Ray Martinez]

Yet anyone could easily produce several John Harshman quotations that contradict. John has expressed his view very badly.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

John could care less, Peter. His disdain for me is so obvious. He wants you to shut up about me and address the issues. John has this attitude because he can't refute anything I say. I'm a real anti-evolutionist unlike Steady Eddie, for example. The degree John gets along with a "Creationist" is equal in ratio to the degree that they accept evolution. Since I reject un-directed processes as existing in nature, and micro-evolution, we do not get along at all, zero, zip, zilch.

I will answer any John Harshman message that I know contains an error. The truth is on my side. John, on the other hand, simply plays the misunderstanding card to save face. He will never acknowledge any errors I point out or any point that I win. This is precisely why he wants you to drop it. He has this exalted self-image to maintain, what we religionists call "the pontifical complex."
He can't be seen being bested by a real enemy. I, on the other hand, admit to errors promptly because it's the honest thing to do and because it creates a psychological perception of reliability. John doesn't consider the existence of of this perception or its importance, but most scholars do.

Ray (species immutabilist)

[Ray Martinez]

Moreover, John thinks because the very letter and context of his statements are not the same there are no contradictions in his view, however. The statements are essentially the same and can honestly be used to identify contradiction in his thought. This is why I said he has expressed his view very badly.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

I don't understand either sentence, so I don't know.

I think you should attempt to answer the call put forth by John Harshman by showing a "contradiction" (JH) in my thought. Until you do you're bluffing, winking your eye at fellow supporters, and demanding that you be perceived as the winner without having to show your cards.

Ray

[jillery]

Ray, Isaak showed John posted no contradiction here, and by so doing,
contradicted your claim there was a contradiction. So Isaak called
your bluff. HTH but I doubt it.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Now you are resorting to distorting the record of what has transpired.
It was you who was saying Harshman was being contradictory in his
straightforward treatment of how allelic frequency changes in a
population over time can sometime result in speciation. It's possible,
but not inevitable that such things occur. That you fail to grasp this
basic point shows the flaws of your invulnerable logic.

And Mark was resorting to a nifty analogy to try to help you understand
this was not a contradiction on Harshman's part.

There's a multitude of word arrangements. One possible outcome is the
The Necronomicon. Likewise there's a multitude of ways allelic
frequencies can change. Some of these will result in the sorts of
cumulative divergence that a biologist will call speciation. The
evolution of lactase persistence in humans is not speciation. Neither
was the evolution of the sickle cell trait that confers resistance to
the malarial parasite.

[Ray Martinez]

Since Mark Isaak has yet to answer my challenge, what you say is false. Instead, as I observed, you saw Mark wink his eye at his supporters, in this case you, and here you are claiming victory without showing your cards (explaining the alleged "contradiction" (JH) in my argument).

Ray

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 09/23/2016 09:33 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 10:20:03 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 9/20/16 7:13 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>>> In the above exchanges between me and John Harshman he's saying two things:
>>>
>>> 1. "All of which means that speciation is allele frequency change in populations" (JH).
>>>
>>> 2. "You are perfectly free to agree that allele frequencies change without agreeing that speciation happens" (JH).
>>>
>>> The only problem is that the second statement won't have any lasting impact on John's colleagues in science or the rank-and-file. When a Creationist is perceived to accept existence of allele frequency changes the foregoing persons will undoubtedly receive comfort that evolution and speciation occur. This is true because Darwinists believe automatically that all changes, or effects, have been accomplished by un-directed material processes. When in fact acceptance of certain changes, as occurring, doesn't necessarily entail acceptance of said material processes.
>>
>> Anyone want to try resolving this "contradiction" for Ray?
>
> Nobody has really tried, perhaps because the word "contradiction" does not
> appear in anything you've quoted from Ray here.

Ray has not introduced the notion of Harshman being contradictory on
this thread? Or are you rewriting usenet history? The record speaks for
itself.

[snip]

[*Hemidactylus*]

Subterfuge noted. Now you are resorting to distortion of the facts.
Isaak was trying to point something to you as an analogy and you are now
resorting to asking us to explain your contradiction instead of merely
pointing out that Harshman's explanation of allelic frequency changes
and the cases when these result in speciation are quite consistent
(*contra* your invulnerable "logic").

Nice way to weasel out. Dissonance is causing you to misfire badly.
Maybe Peter can help you here.

[John Harshman]

And you say my posts are badly written. At least you got that part.

> He wants you to shut up about me and address the issues. John has
> this attitude because he can't refute anything I say.

Yes, that must be it.

> I'm a real
> anti-evolutionist unlike Steady Eddie, for example. The degree John
> gets along with a "Creationist" is equal in ratio to the degree that
> they accept evolution. Since I reject un-directed processes as
> existing in nature, and micro-evolution, we do not get along at all,
> zero, zip, zilch.

Oh, there are more reasons than that.

> I will answer any John Harshman message that I know contains an
> error. The truth is on my side. John, on the other hand, simply plays
> the misunderstanding card to save face. He will never acknowledge
> any errors I point out or any point that I win.

Can't know that until it happens.

> This is precisely why
> he wants you to drop it. He has this exalted self-image to maintain,
> what we religionists call "the pontifical complex." He can't be seen
> being bested by a real enemy. I, on the other hand, admit to errors
> promptly because it's the honest thing to do and because it creates a
> psychological perception of reliability. John doesn't consider the
> existence of of this perception or its importance, but most scholars
> do.

Now there's a credible imitation of Peter, though probably
unintentional. You have the pomposity down, and the unkind
characterizations of others' motives. However, you failed to mention
anything you've known since the age of 12.

[John Harshman]

Peter's into word magic. If the word "contradiction" doesn't appear,
there can have been no claim of a contradiction.

[Ray Martinez]

I admitted that I didn't understand Mark's sentences and I asked him to show the alleged ""contradiction"" spoken of by John Harshman in one particular message. To describe the foregoing as "subterfuge" and "distortion" is completely inaccurate.

> Isaak was trying to point something to you as an analogy and you are now
> resorting to asking us to explain your contradiction instead of merely
> pointing out that Harshman's explanation of allelic frequency changes
> and the cases when these result in speciation are quite consistent
> (*contra* your invulnerable "logic").

Wad of nonsense. And you portray my request to identify the alleged ""contradiction"" (JH) as unreasonable. How am I supposed to acknowledge existence if no one can show or explain it?

>
> Nice way to weasel out. Dissonance is causing you to misfire badly.
> Maybe Peter can help you here.

In view of the facts, this statement is completely inaccurate as well.

The longer it takes for an Evolutionist to identify the alleged ""contradiction"" spoken of by John Harshman, the more it becomes apparent that my reply to John is true: since he placed the word contradiction in quotation marks any attempt will automatically fail.

Ray

[Robert Camp]

On 9/23/16 4:45 PM, John Harshman wrote:
> On 9/23/16 3:08 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> On Friday, September 23, 2016 at 8:50:03 AM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Friday, September 23, 2016 at 11:15:04 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 9/23/16 6:33 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 10:20:03 PM UTC-4, John Harshman
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/20/16 7:13 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:

<snip>

>> This is precisely why
>> he wants you to drop it. He has this exalted self-image to maintain,
>> what we religionists call "the pontifical complex." He can't be seen
>> being bested by a real enemy. I, on the other hand, admit to errors
>> promptly because it's the honest thing to do and because it creates a
>> psychological perception of reliability. John doesn't consider the
>> existence of of this perception or its importance, but most scholars
>> do.
>
> Now there's a credible imitation of Peter, though probably
> unintentional. You have the pomposity down, and the unkind
> characterizations of others' motives. However, you failed to mention
> anything you've known since the age of 12.

Okay, that's funny right there.

[jillery]

On Fri, 23 Sep 2016 16:20:14 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez

>Since Mark Isaak has yet to answer my challenge,

Isaak answered Harshman's challenge. Where did you even post a
challenge?

>what you say is false.

What I said above is accurate and correct.

>Instead, as I observed, you saw Mark wink his eye at his supporters,

Nope. To the contrary, Isaak doesn't like me any more than you do.

>in this case you, and here you are claiming victory without showing your cards (explaining the alleged "contradiction" (JH) in my argument).

It's really hard to describe something that never existed, especially
to someone who's determined not to listen.

[Burkhard]

This is all extremely confused, on both sides.

It started when you posted 2 sentences from John next to each other -
but without saying explicitly why.

Now John thought that you you were accusing him of a contradiction
between sentence 1 and 2. But as there isn't a contradiction, he put
"contradiction" in quotation marks (it might have been clearer had he
written: Do you, Ray, think these two sentences of mine contradict each
other? They don't, and if you tell me where you think they are
contradictory I can explain to you in more detail why you are wrong)

Everything that follows is based on his assumption that you saw a
contradiction between 1 and 2.

If you didn't, and wanted to make a different point (but never quite
said what it is), the entire discussion is pointless.




> Ray
>

[jillery]

On Sat, 24 Sep 2016 14:12:57 +0100, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

Forgive me if you're playing Good Cop here, but John isn't the only
one who thought Ray was accusing him of a contradiction. Said
thoughts might have something to do with Ray's comments here:

<57f0c877-8a17-4437...@googlegroups.com>

*******************************************

Yet anyone could easily produce several John Harshman quotations that
contradict. John has expressed his view very badly.

Ray

Moreover, John thinks because the very letter and context of his
statements are not the same there are no contradictions in his view,
however. The statements are essentially the same and can honestly be
used to identify contradiction in his thought. This is why I said he
has expressed his view very badly.

Ray

**********************************************

My impression is the above leaves little room for confusion on this
point. Of course, I could be wrong.

[Burkhard]

I noted this one as well, but as so often when Ray says something in his
convoluted grammar, it is difficult to be certain.

It could also be a general claim that John has posted contradictions in
the past, without committing to the position that the 2 sentences in
question contradict each other.

Mind you, it is perfectly possible that that is what Ray means. Just
that it remains unclear. Especially as that post came a long way down
the increasingly convoluted discussion, after other posts where he
"seems" t say it is us who claim a contradiction.

So he'd do everybody a favour by being for once clear and explicit, and
told us if he thinks the 2 statements of John that he posted contradict
each other.

[jillery]

On Sat, 24 Sep 2016 16:04:28 +0100, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

I am uncomfortable sounding like a pedantic naysayer, but Ray made the
same point earlier:

<b9dba95f-79c6-4ab3...@googlegroups.com>

***********************************************
> > Mere acceptance of allele change definition, according to JH, means
> > speciation has occurred?!?!
>
> No. I said nothing of the sort.

Note the question marks after my sentence. And here is what you did,
in fact, say:

"All that's needed is that speciation results from allele frequency
change in populations" (JH).

So your denial creates a contradiction.

> All (almost all) speciation happens
> through allele frequency change in populations, but not all, in fact not
> most, allele frequency change in populations results in speciation.

The contradiction reinforced and/or buttressed. Moreover, what's
written above is so badly written, in and of itself, it's blatantly
contradictory.
**********************************************

As much as it might be kind to give Ray the benefit of the doubt, my
impression remains the evidence is unambiguous here.

Of course, I agree with what you say about Ray's lack of clarity. My
impression is the more he tries to clarify a point, the less clear he
makes it.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 23 Sep 2016 11:15:01 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net>:

>On 9/23/16 10:44 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
>> Harshman has been on my case to define speciation, but he has carefully
>> avoided giving a definition himself. Can you give yours?
>
>Speciation: the evolution of reproductive isolation between populations.
>Reproductive isolation: the existence of genetically based mechanisms
>sufficient to prevent the coalescence of two populations living in sympatry.
>
>Best I can do right now. Of course the first definition is applicable
>only to obligate outcrossers, while the second is difficult to test for
>allopatric populations. But it's what we have to live with.
>
>So, what's your definition?

I believe Peter would benefit from reading Wilkins'
"Species":

https://www.amazon.com/Species-History-Idea-Systematics/dp/0520260856/ref=mt_hardcover?_encoding=UTF8&me=

The concept is inherently "squishy" and, as I believe you
and others have pointed out, is more than a bit
context-dependent.

Just my 20 mills...

>> Now, creationists have their own definition of microevolution, and the ones
>> relying on Genesis almost always use it to mean a single "kind"
>> [Hebrew: *min*] but they will disagree on what that encompasses.
>> Harshman loves to talk about unidentified outliers rather than
>> looking at the vast statistical majority.
>
>Unidentified outliers of what? Vast statistical majority of what?
>

--

Bob C.

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

- Isaac Asimov

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 24 Sep 2016 11:33:27 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

My impression is that, even if anyone attempts to clarify
the discussion by posting a summation, in this case simply
the two initial statements by Ray regarding John's posts
followed by "Ray, do you consider these to be contradictory,
and if so, how?", Ray will *not* answer directly and will
instead post a response which, while somewhat relevant, will
do nothing to clarify his initial intent. And the exchange
will again descend into a thicket of weeds in the fog.

[Ray Martinez]

My initial reply/challenge to John Harshman's ""contradiction"" challenge is in this topic, here:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/HkpOAfInLpY/3y8nSa_1BAAJ

And my challenge in response to Mark Isaak who was attempting to answer John Harshman's challenge is in this topic, here:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/HkpOAfInLpY/Qm974CTVBQAJ

Ray

[....snip....]

[Ray Martinez]

It has become that way, more or less.

>
> It started when you posted 2 sentences from John next to each other -
> but without saying explicitly why.

Not exactly true. John Harshman issued his original challenge in this topic, here:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/HkpOAfInLpY/UcGMwSL1BAAJ

Note the fact that his challenge appears below my last paragraph and above that the two sentences appear. So his challenge, as a matter of fact, appears below the last paragraph. In this context JH issued his ""contradiction"" challenge.

>
> Now John thought that you you were accusing him of a contradiction
> between sentence 1 and 2.

Since he placed his challenge below the last paragraph and not beneath the two sentences you don't know that and therefore cannot say that.

> But as there isn't a contradiction....

Yes, true and correct.

> ....he put
> "contradiction" in quotation marks

Which is contradictory, and precisely why I observed anyone accepting his challenge will fail.

> (it might have been clearer had he
> written: Do you, Ray, think these two sentences of mine contradict each
> other?

Since I said nothing in my points accusing him of producing a contradiction, neither did I imply that he contradicted himself, his challenge equates to an error. Your question above deigns to know what John meant and since you can't read minds you don't know that is what he meant. And the fact that he placed his challenge beneath the paragraph and not beneath the two sentences doesn't help your fishing expedition.

The fact that he placed contradiction is quotation marks and the fact of location means no one really knows what he meant or was talking about. His challenge was poorly conveyed.

> They don't, and if you tell me where you think they are
> contradictory I can explain to you in more detail why you are wrong)
>
> Everything that follows is based on his assumption that you saw a
> contradiction between 1 and 2.

Since I neither said nor implied that he might have contradicted himself your observation here is completely false. If you disagree then please quote words from me that might indicate that I was accusing him of a contradiction? I wasn't.

>
> If you didn't, and wanted to make a different point (but never quite
> said what it is), the entire discussion is pointless.
>
>
>
>
> > Ray
> >

My points or message was the last paragraph beneath the two sentences. Again, I never said JH contradicted himself.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

A rant from a scholar is not the least bit funny neither does it help to draw attention to this type of failure.

Ray

[jillery]

On Sat, 24 Sep 2016 11:17:35 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez

From the above:

"Since you placed a certain word in quotations marks, anyone who makes
an attempt will fail."

That's not a challenge, but a self-fulfilling prophecy, as I noted
previously.

>And my challenge in response to Mark Isaak who was attempting to answer John Harshman's challenge is in this topic, here:
>
>https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/HkpOAfInLpY/Qm974CTVBQAJ

From the above:

"I think you should attempt to answer the call put forth by John
Harshman by showing a "contradiction" (JH) in my thought. Until you do
you're bluffing, winking your eye at fellow supporters, and demanding
that you be perceived as the winner without having to show your
cards."

Your challenge above is to reply to Harshman's challenge, which is
exactly what Mark Isaak did, as I noted previously.

[jillery]

On Sat, 24 Sep 2016 10:50:02 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

Several "anyones" have already done so, and Ray's replies to them fit
your description well. His motto could be Fog "R" Us.

[jillery]

On Sat, 24 Sep 2016 11:46:32 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez

One can only wonder what Ray thinks is the relevant distinction
between "contradicted himself" and "posted a contradiction".

[Mark Isaak]

Never mind, then.

Why do you get into discussions involving biology in the first place,
when you have absolutely no interest in ever thinking about the subject?

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"The evil that is in the world always comes of ignorance, and good
intentions may do as much harm as malevolence, if they lack
understanding." - Albert Camus, _The Plague_

[Mark Isaak]

On 9/23/16 11:15 AM, John Harshman wrote:
> On 9/23/16 10:44 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
>> Harshman has been on my case to define speciation, but he has carefully
>> avoided giving a definition himself. Can you give yours?
>
> Speciation: the evolution of reproductive isolation between populations.
> Reproductive isolation: the existence of genetically based mechanisms
> sufficient to prevent the coalescence of two populations living in
> sympatry.
>
> Best I can do right now. Of course the first definition is applicable
> only to obligate outcrossers, while the second is difficult to test for
> allopatric populations. But it's what we have to live with.

Another definition for consideration:

Speciation: A genetic divergence among members of a species resulting in
two (or more) populations with different evolutionary destinies.
Different evolutionary destinies: The different members never
re-intermingle in such a way that the populations cannot be distinguished.

I think it has the advantage of capturing the crux of what speciation
is, but the disadvantage of being impractical to test in real time. But
Peter has disregarded such a disadvantage in the past.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Because you don't know how words work.

>>
>> It started when you posted 2 sentences from John next to each other -
>> but without saying explicitly why.
>
> Not exactly true. John Harshman issued his original challenge in this topic, here:
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/HkpOAfInLpY/UcGMwSL1BAAJ
>
> Note the fact that his challenge appears below my last paragraph and above that the two sentences appear. So his challenge, as a matter of fact, appears below the last paragraph. In this context JH issued his ""contradiction"" challenge.

This was in the context of:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/HkpOAfInLpY/lQf_uznzBAAJ

Note who introcuces the topic of contradiction in *that* post. Was it
John? Or you?

>>
>> Now John thought that you you were accusing him of a contradiction
>> between sentence 1 and 2.
>
> Since he placed his challenge below the last paragraph and not beneath the two sentences you don't know that and therefore cannot say that.

Yet in:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/HkpOAfInLpY/lQf_uznzBAAJ

....we have the following:

[begin excerpt]

>
> > Mere acceptance of allele change definition, according to JH, means
> > speciation has occurred?!?!
>
> No. I said nothing of the sort.

Note the question marks after my sentence. And here is what you did, in
fact, say:

"All that's needed is that speciation results from allele frequency
change in populations" (JH).

So your denial creates a contradiction.

> All (almost all) speciation happens
> through allele frequency change in populations, but not all, in fact not
> most, allele frequency change in populations results in speciation.

The contradiction reinforced and/or buttressed. Moreover, what's written
above is so badly written, in and of itself, it's blatantly contradictory.

> You are perfectly free to agree that allele frequencies change without

> agreeing that speciation happens. Though of course the evidence that it
> does is overwhelming.

"All that's needed is that speciation results from allele frequency
change in populations" (JH).

"Mere acceptance of allele change definition, according to JH, means

speciation has occurred?!?!" (RM).

"No. I said nothing of the sort" (JH).
[end excerpt]

>> But as there isn't a contradiction....
>
> Yes, true and correct.

Then what were attributing to John in this very thread that you are
conveniently ignoring here?

And in my eyes John's "challenge" was merely asking others to resolve
the contradiction you attributed to him. He wasn't accusing you of a
contradiction. He was in my POV thinking of the contradiction you had
attributed to him earlier. It is noted that you replied to John's post
twice:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/HkpOAfInLpY/lQf_uznzBAAJ

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/HkpOAfInLpY/Kir_Xd70BAAJ

And you have thrown the first down the memory hole. Surprised you
haven't deleted it yet.

Reply 1:

[start]
On Monday, September 19, 2016 at 7:30:03 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> On 9/19/16 6:39 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Monday, September 19, 2016 at 2:50:02 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 9/19/16 1:52 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> On Friday, September 16, 2016 at 6:00:03 PM UTC-4, John Harshman
wrote:
> >>>> On 9/16/16 11:34 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 5:00:02 PM UTC-4, John
Harshman wrote:
> >>>>>> On 9/15/16 1:35 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 6:05:03 PM UTC-4, John
Harshman wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 9/14/16 2:53 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 5:25:03 PM UTC-4, John
Harshman wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 9/14/16 1:58 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, May 4, 2016 at 11:58:22 AM UTC-4, John
Harshman wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/16 6:54 AM, Steady Eddie wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Okay, here is Mo Noor's second preview lecture on his
course "Introduction to Genetics and Evolution" -
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Lecture 2 - Basic Principles and Evidence For Evolution
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://www.coursera.org/learn/genetics-evolution/lecture/K8SDd/basic-principles-and-evidence-for-evolution-g
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Here, Mo begins to carefully "extend" his definition of
evolution from examples of micro-evolution, or
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> adaptation, such as the peppered moth and
asphalt-phobic squirrels, to macro-evolution.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> He begins by showing the 60-million year lineage of the
modern horse.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> He uses the iconic horse lineage, even though this has
been exposed as a hoax - there ARE NO
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> FOSSILS OF HORSE ANCESTORS!
> >>>
> >>> I've snipped a bunch, in which you did some REAL time-wasting
> >>> this time around.
> >>>
> >>>>> You had claimed on another thread that the concept of
"speciation" was
> >>>>> included in that standard definition, and I said that the
definition
> >>>>> no more includes speciation than it includes the existence of God.
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't recall claiming that the concept of speciation is
included in
> >>>> the definition. If I did, I was wrong. What I should have said
is that
> >>>> the standard definition encompasses the processes involved in
> >>>> speciation. That is, the standard definition does not fail to
encompass
> >>>> speciation.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for removing the ambiguity in my "includes". But you cannot
> >>> prove your clarification, inasmuch as you cannot find anyone who
> >>> treats "population" the way you do.
> >
> > [What's written below, by Darwinian scientist John Harshman, is
almost unbelievable. I'm a Paleyan Creationist and I will now critique
what John Harshman has said.]
> >
> >>
> >> That isn't relevant. All that's needed is that speciation results from
> >> allele frequency change in populations.
> >
> > Good thing I was sitting down when I read this. JH solves the entire
> > problem of speciation in one sentence! And I'm wondering if what he
> > said is original thought or an accepted view?
>
> I will give you the courtesy of a single reply. Of course it's the
> accepted view.

I should have known....you never step out with any original thought. But
the fact that you earned a doctorate means you had to, at least one time.

>
> > Mere acceptance of allele change definition, according to JH, means
> > speciation has occurred?!?!
>
> No. I said nothing of the sort.

Note the question marks after my sentence. And here is what you did, in
fact, say:

"All that's needed is that speciation results from allele frequency
change in populations" (JH).

So your denial creates a contradiction.

> All (almost all) speciation happens
> through allele frequency change in populations, but not all, in fact not
> most, allele frequency change in populations results in speciation.

The contradiction reinforced and/or buttressed. Moreover, what's written
above is so badly written, in and of itself, it's blatantly contradictory.

> You are perfectly free to agree that allele frequencies change without

> agreeing that speciation happens. Though of course the evidence that it
> does is overwhelming.

"All that's needed is that speciation results from allele frequency
change in populations" (JH).

"Mere acceptance of allele change definition, according to JH, means

speciation has occurred?!?!" (RM).

"No. I said nothing of the sort" (JH).

>
> > Darwinists have always argued acceptance
> > of said definition equates to acceptance that evolution occurs, now
> > JH says acceptance also equates to acceptance that speciation has
> > occurred.
>
> That is your personal hallucination, I'm afraid.

I agree, one of us is deluded.

>
> > So we need not worry any longer as to HOW speciation
> > actually occurs, JH says it must occur if allele frequency changes
> > occur. But when one takes the time to read how Darwinists explain
> > speciation one discovers a huge struggle where one is left completely
> > unsatisfied. When the crucial part of the explanation is finally
> > arrived at----the part where speciation is supposed to occur----they
> > have no explanation. See Jerry Coyne's "Why Evolution is True" to
> > confirm what I say. Coyne also readily admits the main challenge
> > facing evolutionary science is how reproductive anatomy, in species,
> > evolves.
>
> You don't understand Coyne's book either, I suspect. If you really want
> to know how speciation works, you should read his (and H. Allen Orr's)
> book Speciation.

Coyne's book is already published, he can't add or remove anything
written (except of course via future editions). When one reads his
account of speciation carefully one discovers that the explanation ends
abruptly at the crucial moment when speciation is supposed to be
explained as occurring.

You guys, within your own perspective, can't explain how speciation
occurs----that's precisely WHY you must argue allele frequency changes
result in speciation. IF you had a clear and logical explanation you
wouldn't need to get more mileage out of certain genetic
changes----simply pathetic!

>
> > I offer John Harshman's contention that acceptance of allele
> > frequency changes as occurring equates to speciation as having
> > occurred, in support----that's why he MUST argue speciation true by
> > way of the genetic definition of evolution: Darwinists can't actually
> > explain speciation. They are trapped.
>
> "Darwinists" can explain speciation quite well; again I ask you to
> consult Coyne and Orr.
>
> So, to recap: you have completely misunderstood what I said, and your
> entire rant is based on that misunderstanding.

"All of which means that speciation is allele frequency change in
populations" (JH).

And anyone can fact-check and see that I argued claims of
facts----nothing else, which renders your last thought to be a
traditional parting shot.

> >> "Of course a population must
> >> include multiple generations in order for there to be any such change,
> >> though not necessarily over millions of years. Still, each
generation is
> >> part of the same population as the next, and there is no point at
which
> >> you can say "here is the point at which one population ends and
another
> >> begins". All of which means that speciation is allele frequency change
> >> in populations. Why do you disagree, assuming you do?" (JH).

Ray
[end]

Reply 2:

[start]
On Monday, September 19, 2016 at 7:30:03 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> On 9/19/16 6:39 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Monday, September 19, 2016 at 2:50:02 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 9/19/16 1:52 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> On Friday, September 16, 2016 at 6:00:03 PM UTC-4, John Harshman
wrote:
> >>>> On 9/16/16 11:34 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 5:00:02 PM UTC-4, John
Harshman wrote:
> >>>>>> On 9/15/16 1:35 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 6:05:03 PM UTC-4, John
Harshman wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 9/14/16 2:53 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 5:25:03 PM UTC-4, John
Harshman wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 9/14/16 1:58 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, May 4, 2016 at 11:58:22 AM UTC-4, John
Harshman wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/16 6:54 AM, Steady Eddie wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Okay, here is Mo Noor's second preview lecture on his
course "Introduction to Genetics and Evolution" -
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Lecture 2 - Basic Principles and Evidence For Evolution
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://www.coursera.org/learn/genetics-evolution/lecture/K8SDd/basic-principles-and-evidence-for-evolution-g
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Here, Mo begins to carefully "extend" his definition of
evolution from examples of micro-evolution, or
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> adaptation, such as the peppered moth and
asphalt-phobic squirrels, to macro-evolution.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> He begins by showing the 60-million year lineage of the
modern horse.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> He uses the iconic horse lineage, even though this has
been exposed as a hoax - there ARE NO
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> FOSSILS OF HORSE ANCESTORS!
> >>>
> >>> I've snipped a bunch, in which you did some REAL time-wasting
> >>> this time around.
> >>>
> >>>>> You had claimed on another thread that the concept of
"speciation" was
> >>>>> included in that standard definition, and I said that the
definition
> >>>>> no more includes speciation than it includes the existence of God.
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't recall claiming that the concept of speciation is
included in
> >>>> the definition. If I did, I was wrong. What I should have said
is that
> >>>> the standard definition encompasses the processes involved in
> >>>> speciation. That is, the standard definition does not fail to
encompass
> >>>> speciation.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for removing the ambiguity in my "includes". But you cannot
> >>> prove your clarification, inasmuch as you cannot find anyone who
> >>> treats "population" the way you do.
> >
> > [What's written below, by Darwinian scientist John Harshman, is
almost unbelievable. I'm a Paleyan Creationist and I will now critique
what John Harshman has said.]
> >
> >>
> >> That isn't relevant. All that's needed is that speciation results from
> >> allele frequency change in populations.
> >
> > Good thing I was sitting down when I read this. JH solves the entire
> > problem of speciation in one sentence! And I'm wondering if what he
> > said is original thought or an accepted view?
>
> I will give you the courtesy of a single reply. Of course it's the
> accepted view.

>
> > Mere acceptance of allele change definition, according to JH, means
> > speciation has occurred?!?!
>

> No. I said nothing of the sort. All (almost all) speciation happens

> through allele frequency change in populations, but not all, in fact not

> most, allele frequency change in populations results in speciation. You

> are perfectly free to agree that allele frequencies change without

> agreeing that speciation happens. Though of course the evidence that it
> does is overwhelming.
>
> > Darwinists have always argued acceptance
> > of said definition equates to acceptance that evolution occurs, now
> > JH says acceptance also equates to acceptance that speciation has
> > occurred.
>
> That is your personal hallucination, I'm afraid.
>
> > So we need not worry any longer as to HOW speciation
> > actually occurs, JH says it must occur if allele frequency changes
> > occur. But when one takes the time to read how Darwinists explain
> > speciation one discovers a huge struggle where one is left completely
> > unsatisfied. When the crucial part of the explanation is finally
> > arrived at----the part where speciation is supposed to occur----they
> > have no explanation. See Jerry Coyne's "Why Evolution is True" to
> > confirm what I say. Coyne also readily admits the main challenge
> > facing evolutionary science is how reproductive anatomy, in species,
> > evolves.
>
> You don't understand Coyne's book either, I suspect. If you really want
> to know how speciation works, you should read his (and H. Allen Orr's)
> book Speciation.
>
> > I offer John Harshman's contention that acceptance of allele
> > frequency changes as occurring equates to speciation as having
> > occurred, in support----that's why he MUST argue speciation true by
> > way of the genetic definition of evolution: Darwinists can't actually
> > explain speciation. They are trapped.
>
> "Darwinists" can explain speciation quite well; again I ask you to
> consult Coyne and Orr.
>
> So, to recap: you have completely misunderstood what I said, and your
> entire rant is based on that misunderstanding.
>
> >> Of course a population must
> >> include multiple generations in order for there to be any such change,
> >> though not necessarily over millions of years. Still, each
generation is
> >> part of the same population as the next, and there is no point at
which
> >> you can say "here is the point at which one population ends and
another
> >> begins". All of which means that speciation is allele frequency change
> >> in populations. Why do you disagree, assuming you do?
> >>
> >
> > Ray
> >
> > [....]

> >

In the above exchanges between me and John Harshman he's saying two things:

1. "All of which means that speciation is allele frequency change in
populations" (JH).

2. "You are perfectly free to agree that allele frequencies change
without agreeing that speciation happens" (JH).

The only problem is that the second statement won't have any lasting
impact on John's colleagues in science or the rank-and-file. When a
Creationist is perceived to accept existence of allele frequency changes
the foregoing persons will undoubtedly receive comfort that evolution
and speciation occur. This is true because Darwinists believe
automatically that all changes, or effects, have been accomplished by
un-directed material processes. When in fact acceptance of certain
changes, as occurring, doesn't necessarily entail acceptance of said
material processes.

Ray
[end]

When John was talking of the "contradiction" did he have your "Reply 1"
in mind?

>> ....he put
>> "contradiction" in quotation marks
>
> Which is contradictory, and precisely why I observed anyone accepting his challenge will fail.

You were the one who said he contradicted himself "Reply 1":

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/HkpOAfInLpY/lQf_uznzBAAJ

Ray:

"Note the question marks after my sentence. And here is what you did, in
fact, say:

"All that's needed is that speciation results from allele frequency
change in populations" (JH).

So your denial creates a contradiction.

[...]

Ray continued:

"
The contradiction reinforced and/or buttressed. Moreover, what's written
above is so badly written, in and of itself, it's blatantly contradictory."

Then not much later (still in "Reply 1"):

[Ray]
""All that's needed is that speciation results from allele frequency
change in populations" (JH).

"Mere acceptance of allele change definition, according to JH, means

speciation has occurred?!?!" (RM).

"No. I said nothing of the sort" (JH)."

In "Reply 2" (to which Harshman responded):

[Ray]:

In the above exchanges between me and John Harshman he's saying two things:

1. "All of which means that speciation is allele frequency change in
populations" (JH).

2. "You are perfectly free to agree that allele frequencies change
without agreeing that speciation happens" (JH).

The only problem is that the second statement won't have any lasting
impact on John's colleagues in science or the rank-and-file. When a
Creationist is perceived to accept existence of allele frequency changes
the foregoing persons will undoubtedly receive comfort that evolution
and speciation occur. This is true because Darwinists believe
automatically that all changes, or effects, have been accomplished by
un-directed material processes. When in fact acceptance of certain
changes, as occurring, doesn't necessarily entail acceptance of said
material processes."

To which Harshman replied:

"Anyone want to try resolving this "contradiction" for Ray?"

>> (it might have been clearer had he
>> written: Do you, Ray, think these two sentences of mine contradict each
>> other?
>
> Since I said nothing in my points accusing him of producing a contradiction, neither did I imply that he contradicted himself, his challenge equates to an error. Your question above deigns to know what John meant and since you can't read minds you don't know that is what he meant. And the fact that he placed his challenge beneath the paragraph and not beneath the two sentences doesn't help your fishing expedition.

Didn't talk me long to net it and put it in the boat:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/HkpOAfInLpY/lQf_uznzBAAJ

"Note the question marks after my sentence. And here is what you did, in
fact, say:

"All that's needed is that speciation results from allele frequency
change in populations" (JH).

So your denial creates a contradiction."

And "The contradiction reinforced and/or buttressed. Moreover, what's

written above is so badly written, in and of itself, it's blatantly
contradictory."

And then later you posed this gem in followup to Peter (let's see if
that goes down his memory hole too on Monday):

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/HkpOAfInLpY/4hHujyTSBQAJ

"Yet anyone could easily produce several John Harshman quotations that
contradict. John has expressed his view very badly."

Did you post the above on September 23rd 2016? You first said he was
contradicting himself on September 20th. So days later you still had his
alleged contradictions in mind, but now you're backpedaling away like
that never happened. Memory hole!

> The fact that he placed contradiction is quotation marks and the fact of location means no one really knows what he meant or was talking about. His challenge was poorly conveyed.

Both Mark Isaak and I got it. I posted this:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/HkpOAfInLpY/czN6uEqJBQAJ

>> They don't, and if you tell me where you think they are
>> contradictory I can explain to you in more detail why you are wrong)
>>
>> Everything that follows is based on his assumption that you saw a
>> contradiction between 1 and 2.
>
> Since I neither said nor implied that he might have contradicted himself your observation here is completely false. If you disagree then please quote words from me that might indicate that I was accusing him of a contradiction? I wasn't.

Wow you're either possessed by an alter ego who posts under you're name,
forgetful, or lying:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/HkpOAfInLpY/lQf_uznzBAAJ

[start your Reply 1]

>
> > Mere acceptance of allele change definition, according to JH, means
> > speciation has occurred?!?!
>
> No. I said nothing of the sort.

Note the question marks after my sentence. And here is what you did, in
fact, say:

"All that's needed is that speciation results from allele frequency
change in populations" (JH).

So your denial creates a contradiction.

> All (almost all) speciation happens
> through allele frequency change in populations, but not all, in fact not
> most, allele frequency change in populations results in speciation.

The contradiction reinforced and/or buttressed. Moreover, what's written
above is so badly written, in and of itself, it's blatantly contradictory.

> You are perfectly free to agree that allele frequencies change without

> agreeing that speciation happens. Though of course the evidence that it
> does is overwhelming.

"All that's needed is that speciation results from allele frequency
change in populations" (JH).

"Mere acceptance of allele change definition, according to JH, means

speciation has occurred?!?!" (RM).

"No. I said nothing of the sort" (JH).
[end your Reply 1]

You wrote this Ray. Acknowledge!

>> If you didn't, and wanted to make a different point (but never quite
>> said what it is), the entire discussion is pointless.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Ray
>>>
>
> My points or message was the last paragraph beneath the two sentences. Again, I never said JH contradicted himself.

"So your denial creates a contradiction."

"The contradiction reinforced and/or buttressed. Moreover, what's
written above is so badly written, in and of itself, it's blatantly
contradictory."

"Yet anyone could easily produce several John Harshman quotations that
contradict. John has expressed his view very badly."

You are being dishonest.

[*Hemidactylus*]

I'm not confused. Are you?

> It started when you posted 2 sentences from John next to each other -
> but without saying explicitly why.
>
> Now John thought that you you were accusing him of a contradiction
> between sentence 1 and 2. But as there isn't a contradiction, he put
> "contradiction" in quotation marks (it might have been clearer had he
> written: Do you, Ray, think these two sentences of mine contradict each
> other? They don't, and if you tell me where you think they are
> contradictory I can explain to you in more detail why you are wrong)
>
> Everything that follows is based on his assumption that you saw a
> contradiction between 1 and 2.
>
> If you didn't, and wanted to make a different point (but never quite
> said what it is), the entire discussion is pointless.

Jillery already pointed you to this:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/HkpOAfInLpY/lQf_uznzBAAJ

That's the urtext when the topic of Harshman's alleged contradiction
began. And who was the culprit? See for yourself.

And days later we still have this smoking gun:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/HkpOAfInLpY/4hHujyTSBQAJ

[John Harshman]

On 9/24/16 2:15 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 9/23/16 11:15 AM, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 9/23/16 10:44 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>
>>> Harshman has been on my case to define speciation, but he has carefully
>>> avoided giving a definition himself. Can you give yours?
>>
>> Speciation: the evolution of reproductive isolation between populations.
>> Reproductive isolation: the existence of genetically based mechanisms
>> sufficient to prevent the coalescence of two populations living in
>> sympatry.
>>
>> Best I can do right now. Of course the first definition is applicable
>> only to obligate outcrossers, while the second is difficult to test for
>> allopatric populations. But it's what we have to live with.
>
> Another definition for consideration:
>
> Speciation: A genetic divergence among members of a species resulting in
> two (or more) populations with different evolutionary destinies.
> Different evolutionary destinies: The different members never
> re-intermingle in such a way that the populations cannot be distinguished.
>
> I think it has the advantage of capturing the crux of what speciation
> is, but the disadvantage of being impractical to test in real time. But
> Peter has disregarded such a disadvantage in the past.
>

I, however, would not. I think that's a big disadvantage. As you note it
requires us to predict an indefinitely extended future. An isolating
mechanism, on the other hand, is useful in predicting that future.

[rsNorman]

Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> Wrote in message:

> On 9/23/16 11:15 AM, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 9/23/16 10:44 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>
>>> Harshman has been on my case to define speciation, but he has carefully
>>> avoided giving a definition himself. Can you give yours?
>>
>> Speciation: the evolution of reproductive isolation between populations.
>> Reproductive isolation: the existence of genetically based mechanisms
>> sufficient to prevent the coalescence of two populations living in
>> sympatry.
>>
>> Best I can do right now. Of course the first definition is applicable
>> only to obligate outcrossers, while the second is difficult to test for
>> allopatric populations. But it's what we have to live with.
>
> Another definition for consideration:
>
> Speciation: A genetic divergence among members of a species resulting in
> two (or more) populations with different evolutionary destinies.
> Different evolutionary destinies: The different members never
> re-intermingle in such a way that the populations cannot be distinguished.
>
> I think it has the advantage of capturing the crux of what speciation
> is, but the disadvantage of being impractical to test in real time. But
> Peter has disregarded such a disadvantage in the past.
>
>

Sorry, this is simply very bad.

"I just spent ten years plowing through the Amazonian rain forest
and discovered two new species of beetles!"
"How do you know they are new species?"
"Easy, I determined that each has a different evolutionary destiny!"

Incidentally, my evolutionary destiny might well be very different
from yours.

--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[*Hemidactylus*]

Playing dumb? I'm thinking you're being dishonest now.

>> Isaak was trying to point something to you as an analogy and you are now
>> resorting to asking us to explain your contradiction instead of merely
>> pointing out that Harshman's explanation of allelic frequency changes
>> and the cases when these result in speciation are quite consistent
>> (*contra* your invulnerable "logic").
>
> Wad of nonsense. And you portray my request to identify the alleged ""contradiction"" (JH) as unreasonable. How am I supposed to acknowledge existence if no one can show or explain it?

The record demonstrates John followed up to your original reply to him
(the urtext source of "contradiction") here:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/HkpOAfInLpY/UnNXt9z0BAAJ

Then he followed up to your second reply here, either primed
subconsciously by seeing you accuse him of "contradiction" or explicitly
and consciously snarking you:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/HkpOAfInLpY/UcGMwSL1BAAJ

Harshman is a very snarky person (ask Peter to corroborate) so I opt for
the latter though priming cannot be ruled out.

>> Nice way to weasel out. Dissonance is causing you to misfire badly.
>> Maybe Peter can help you here.
>
> In view of the facts, this statement is completely inaccurate as well.
>
> The longer it takes for an Evolutionist to identify the alleged ""contradiction"" spoken of by John Harshman, the more it becomes apparent that my reply to John is true: since he placed the word contradiction in quotation marks any attempt will automatically fail.

Face it Ray you have accused Harshman of contradiction and bragged about
it later. And you then claimed it didn't happen to Burk. You are being
dishonest:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/HkpOAfInLpY/lQf_uznzBAAJ

[quoting you]

Note the question marks after my sentence. And here is what you did, in
fact, say:

"All that's needed is that speciation results from allele frequency
change in populations" (JH).

So your denial creates a contradiction.

[...]

The contradiction reinforced and/or buttressed. Moreover, what's written
above is so badly written, in and of itself, it's blatantly contradictory.

[/end quoting you]

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/HkpOAfInLpY/4hHujyTSBQAJ

[quoting you]

Yet anyone could easily produce several John Harshman quotations that
contradict. John has expressed his view very badly.

[/end quoting you]

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/HkpOAfInLpY/v1mOo8fTBQAJ

[quoting you]

Moreover, John thinks because the very letter and context of his
statements are not the same there are no contradictions in his view,
however. The statements are essentially the same and can honestly be

used to identify contradiction in his thought. This is why I said he has

expressed his view very badly.

[/end quoting you]


Ray's own ironic contradictions:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/HkpOAfInLpY/-rfbp-YWBgAJ

[quoting you]

Since I said nothing in my points accusing him of producing a
contradiction, neither did I imply that he contradicted himself, his
challenge equates to an error. Your question above deigns to know what
John meant and since you can't read minds you don't know that is what he
meant. And the fact that he placed his challenge beneath the paragraph
and not beneath the two sentences doesn't help your fishing expedition.

The fact that he placed contradiction is quotation marks and the fact of
location means no one really knows what he meant or was talking about.
His challenge was poorly conveyed.

[...]

Since I neither said nor implied that he might have contradicted himself
your observation here is completely false. If you disagree then please
quote words from me that might indicate that I was accusing him of a
contradiction? I wasn't.

[...]

My points or message was the last paragraph beneath the two sentences.
Again, I never said JH contradicted himself.

[/end quoting you]

[jillery]

I suspect Ray will claim you and I have made up our citations, or will
simply ignore our posts altogether.

I have occasionally wondered if there aren't multiple personalities
living in Ray's body, and none of them speak to each other.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, September 23, 2016 at 4:55:02 PM UTC-4, rsNorman wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Sep 2016 11:53:36 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, September 23, 2016 at 2:10:03 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>
>
> <snip to isolate the point where you drag my name into things>
>
> >>
> >> This doesn't seem to be an explanation, just a rant. Show me one person
> >> who claims that because allele frequencies change in populations,
> >> therefore there must be speciation.
> >
> >Richard Norman certainly implied it when he perversely interpreted
> >my dislike of the "allele frequencies..." definition by ranting:
> >
> > Somehow everybody here with the possible exception of you knows that
> > the origin of species (speciation) is part of the subject of biological
> > evolution, an important part of it.
> >
> >You can find this doozy preserved in the following post, along with
> >another misrepresentation of me along the same lines:
> >
> >https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/ys8ynNDx1U0/TpXtHM9iAAAJ
> >Subject: Re: Origin of the Flagellum ON TRIAL, Continued
> >Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 15:40:37 -0700 (PDT)
> >Message-ID: <c3ae08fe-bccf-47ff...@googlegroups.com>
> >
> >True to form, you lit into me in reply to the linked post while
> >playing "See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" as far
> >as Norman's performance was concerned.
> >
>
> For the record, I still "perversely" insist that "everybody knows that
> the origin of species (speciation) is part of the subject of
> biological evolution, an important part of it."

I take it your sarcastic "perversely" is there so that casual readers
will get the impression that I am a creationist.

People like Burkhard, who has killfiled me and not you, might very
well get that impression. I doubt that even he would think that I am
such a complete ignoramus as to believe in common descent, yet
think that speciation is not an INDISPENSIBLE part of that evolution.

> That despite my also
> "perverse" insistence that "a standard biological definition of
> evolution is a change in the genetic composition of a population from
> generation to generation."

There is nothing perverse about THAT, since you have dropped your
relentless earlier insistence that it is THE standard biological
definition and have backpedaled to "a standard biological definition"

Will you pull a John Harshman on me, and claim that I see backpedals
where none exist?


>
> I did write unwittingly write something that seemed to imply that
> speciation was a necessary result of changing allele frequencies.

That wasn't how you did it originally.

If you had bothered to click on the link I give up there, you
would see that you were trying to create the impression that
I was a fool to deny that "the" standard biological definition
encompassed speciation:

> No, it is not MINE. It is what biologists use nowadays. Somehow the
> subject of evolution does seem to be relevant to the "real" issues in
> this news group.

> >By the way, I don't know what's in the charter, but I assumed it had
> >to do with the origins of life, and of species, and so "the charter"
> >is just my convenient shorthand for these two things.
>
> Somehow everybody here with the seeming exception of you believes that
> biological evolution is part of the subject matter here. Somehow
> everybody here with the possible exception of you knows that the
> origin of species (speciation) is part of the subject of biological
> evolution, an important part of it. Just not the whole of it. The
> hedge words above ("seeming", "possible") are because only you know
> what you believe or know. I can only guess from what you write.

Note the sentence that I quoted above, embedded in the middle of your rant.
I've omitted my own comments to your rant from the linked post, because you
totally ignored them in your reply to the linked post, bottom-posting
a classic example of the dirty debating tactic that I call the Phantom Error
Correction Scam.

> John
> chided me on that and I changed the wording to indicate that
> speciation was not a necessary result of allele changes but it could
> be the result of such changes.

Well, duh, I've known that since I was twelve years old. The issue
was that you had referred to the population genetics definition
as THE one biologists use.

> Of course ordinarily it requires a number of different changes to a
> number of different genes and to a population that has been isolated
> from the parent population so that the two populations diverge in
> genetic content (vicariance). There are other ways speciation can
> occur, though.
>
> I claim that the adaptation of a population to an environmental
> circumstance, temperature, water availability, food source, by natural
> selection is an example of evolution even if no speciation occurs. Do
> you disagree?

With this question, you are resuming your Phantom Error Correction Scam,
having lectured me on something as though you seriously doubted that I
know it. [In fact, I've known it since the age of 12 or earlier.]

Peter Nyikos

[rsNorman]

Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> Wrote in message:

Perhaps my sarcastic "perversly" is simply me repeating a word you
used to describe me. But you take it as you will. You always
do.

> People like Burkhard, who has killfiled me and not you, might very
> well get that impression. I doubt that even he would think that I am
> such a complete ignoramus as to believe in common descent, yet
> think that speciation is not an INDISPENSIBLE part of that evolution.
>

I have no ability to influence what impressions Burkhard might
get. Why do you always drag third parties into situations? Do
you think we conspire and connive and plot against
you?

Speciation is not an Indispensable part of the definition of
evolution because evolutionary change involves more than
speciation. My definition that evolution is a change in the
genetic composition of a population is, in fact standard. Yes,
there are people who use other words so it is not THE one and
only. Generally in teaching people describe the process and
results of evolution and not give a "formal" definition until
presenting the theory of how it occurs. To do that they need to
develop population genetics and then define it in those
terms.

>> That despite my also
>> "perverse" insistence that "a standard biological definition of
>> evolution is a change in the genetic composition of a population from
>> generation to generation."
>
> There is nothing perverse about THAT, since you have dropped your
> relentless earlier insistence that it is THE standard biological
> definition and have backpedaled to "a standard biological definition"

I just covered this point.

>
> Will you pull a John Harshman on me, and claim that I see backpedals
> where none exist?
>

There go those third party references again. Yes, you see
backpedalling where none exists. What I pull is a matter of
opinion.

>>
>> I did write unwittingly write something that seemed to imply that
>> speciation was a necessary result of changing allele frequencies.
>
> That wasn't how you did it originally.
>
> If you had bothered to click on the link I give up there, you
> would see that you were trying to create the impression that
> I was a fool to deny that "the" standard biological definition
> encompassed speciation:

You are a fool if you think the "the" standard definition I gave
does not encompass speciation.

>
>> No, it is not MINE. It is what biologists use nowadays. Somehow the
>> subject of evolution does seem to be relevant to the "real" issues in
>> this news group.
>
>> >By the way, I don't know what's in the charter, but I assumed it had
>> >to do with the origins of life, and of species, and so "the charter"
>> >is just my convenient shorthand for these two things.
>>
>> Somehow everybody here with the seeming exception of you believes that
>> biological evolution is part of the subject matter here. Somehow
>> everybody here with the possible exception of you knows that the
>> origin of species (speciation) is part of the subject of biological
>> evolution, an important part of it. Just not the whole of it. The
>> hedge words above ("seeming", "possible") are because only you know
>> what you believe or know. I can only guess from what you write.
>
> Note the sentence that I quoted above, embedded in the middle of your rant.
> I've omitted my own comments to your rant from the linked post, because you
> totally ignored them in your reply to the linked post, bottom-posting
> a classic example of the dirty debating tactic that I call the Phantom Error
> Correction Scam.

Bottom posting is neither scam nor dirty debating. It is simply
style.

>> John
>> chided me on that and I changed the wording to indicate that
>> speciation was not a necessary result of allele changes but it could
>> be the result of such changes.
>
> Well, duh, I've known that since I was twelve years old. The issue
> was that you had referred to the population genetics definition
> as THE one biologists use.
>

Now it is you who ignores the question about just where speciation
must enter into "the" definition of evolution.

>> Of course ordinarily it requires a number of different changes to a
>> number of different genes and to a population that has been isolated
>> from the parent population so that the two populations diverge in
>> genetic content (vicariance). There are other ways speciation can
>> occur, though.
>>
>> I claim that the adaptation of a population to an environmental
>> circumstance, temperature, water availability, food source, by natural
>> selection is an example of evolution even if no speciation occurs. Do
>> you disagree?
>
> With this question, you are resuming your Phantom Error Correction Scam,
> having lectured me on something as though you seriously doubted that I
> know it. [In fact, I've known it since the age of 12 or earlier.]
>

I thought bottom posting was the Phantom Error Correction Scam.

It is very hard to tell just what you now know, let alone what you
knew since the age of 12.

[Peter Nyikos]

Get real. I was describing an ACTION of yours, and adverbs don't
describe nouns, they describe verbs, adjectives, and other adverbs.

>But you take it as you will. You always do.

In this case, a middle school child who is familiar with parts of
speech would naturally think that your 'perversely' described
something with which I had issues, as was the case with you
claiming that the population genetics definition of evolution is
THE biological definition.

Do you see it any other way? Your grand equivocation up there
certainly sheds no light on this question, although the same
middle school child might not have been exposed enough to
politicians seeming to say something when they really aren't
saying it at all.

> > People like Burkhard, who has killfiled me and not you, might very
> > well get that impression. I doubt that even he would think that I am
> > such a complete ignoramus as to believe in common descent, yet
> > think that speciation is not an INDISPENSIBLE part of that evolution.
> >
> I have no ability to influence what impressions Burkhard might
> get.

Both you and Erik Simpson, who was actually far more heavy-handed
than you, have lots of ability to create the impression that I
am a creationist.

And I am dragging him into the picture because I don't think
it is a coincidence that he adopted the theme of your Phantom Error
Correction Scam, whereby you acted as though I were ignorant of,
or had serious issues with, the modern evolutionary synthesis.
See my last comment about Erik, near the end of this post.

> Why do you always drag third parties into situations? Do
> you think we conspire and connive and plot against
> you?

No, as I've explained before, it's sometimes a case of someone
seeing a grand opportunity to get at someone he dislikes
(as in the case of Erik) or has no way of knowing what
a scam you were running against me wrt the topic of
the modern evolutionary synthesis (as in the case of Burkhard,
who can only see the rebuttals you choose to let him see).


<snip of things to be dealt with in a separate reply to this post>

> > With this question, you are resuming your Phantom Error Correction Scam,
> > having lectured me on something as though you seriously doubted that I
> > know it. [In fact, I've known it since the age of 12 or earlier.]
> >
>
> I thought bottom posting was the Phantom Error Correction Scam.

Nonsense. I've got nothing against bottom posting when it is honest
and sincere.

Here is the definition I usually use, but with two footnotes added:

The Phantom Error Correction Scam consists of
lecturing someone as though one were correcting an error of
the one being lectured. Often accompanied by unsupported
assertions like "________ clearly doesn't understand that..." [1]
or "__________ is obviously ignorant of the fact that...".
Often, the lecture is on a brand new theme [2] that had never
been mentioned before by the person being lectured to.

[1] In your case, it was accompanied by the following false
statement:

You make two distinct points, both of which are utterly wrong.

But you went the usual comments one better: you never even
alluded to those ALLEGED two distinct points in the rest
of your post.

[2] In your case, it was the modern evolutionary synthesis,
which I hadn't mentioned anywhere in the thread and have
no issues with. But your spiel tried to create the impression
that you were refuting something that I had said above.

It got so bad that I said at one point:

And it is nothing I ever disputed. You are playing an unscrupulous
shell game with your comments: they echo mine ON A DIFFERENT SUBJECT.

Who are you trying to fool? Lazy people who don't bother to
scroll up to see what I ACTUALLY said?

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/ys8ynNDx1U0/5A0_c6ioAAAJ

Subject: Re: Origin of the Flagellum ON TRIAL, Continued

Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 13:00:46 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <440d9da3-283c-4afc...@googlegroups.com>


Bottom posting is so prevalent in talk.origins, that I think
the majority of people have gotten used to ignoring almost
everything that went earlier [I mean, who has the time to
wade through posts 300+ lines long?] and so your scam
might have been quite successful.

It certainly "fooled" Erik Simpson, as you can see from his words
in the OP to the following thread:

Subject: Chez Watt: a muted form of yelling?

And it had a good chance of ACTUALLY fooling Burkhard, if he happened
to read your post.

> It is very hard to tell just what you now know, let alone what you
> knew since the age of 12.

That does not excuse your chicanery.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Department of Math. -- standard disclaimer --
U. of South Carolina

PS This isn't just about how nasty you were to me, despite Harshman, you, and
others trying to pass this off as a mere "grievance." It impacts directly
on how your word is not to be trusted, and how unscrupulous
you can be when attacking people who argue too strongly against you.

[rsNorman]

This is to acknowledge that I read this post. If you have
something of scientific content to discuss I will be happy to
respond. I choose not to deal with these purely personal
matters. You are free to think of me, my writing, and my motives
what you will. If I am evil and unscrupulous and my word is not
to be trusted, then so be it. You and others should then ignore
what I write.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Monday, September 26, 2016 at 12:50:03 PM UTC-4, rsNorman wrote:
> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> Wrote in message:
> > On Monday, September 26, 2016 at 9:55:03 AM UTC-4, rsNorman wrote:
> >> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> Wrote in message:
> >> > On Friday, September 23, 2016 at 4:55:02 PM UTC-4, rsNorman wrote:

<snipping some things for the sake of brevity -- but ONLY for the
sake of brevity>

> >> >> For the record, I still "perversely" insist that "everybody knows that
> >> >> the origin of species (speciation) is part of the subject of
> >> >> biological evolution, an important part of it."
>> >
> >> > I take it your sarcastic "perversely" is there so that casual readers
> >> > will get the impression that I am a creationist.

I'll be doing that later this week, perhaps as early as tomorrow.
But I expect you to continue your dirty debating tactics, because
you have shown little inclination to responding to what I say
AS STATED.

> I choose not to deal with these purely personal matters.

In effect, you are pleading *nolo* *contendere* to the charge that your
word is not to be trusted, and to the charge of trying to create
the impression that I am a creationist, and to the charge of you

having defamed me when you wrote:

You make two distinct points, both of which are utterly wrong.

You never tried to say WHAT those points were, and if you
go back over the thread, I think you'll have no idea what
those two points were SUPPOSED to be. If you ever did.

> You are free to think of me, my writing, and my motives
> what you will. If I am evil and unscrupulous and my word is not
> to be trusted, then so be it. You and others should then ignore
> what I write.

Trouble is, most people in this newsgroup are either (a) such political
animals that they don't care how dishonest someone is [1] or (b) unwilling
to risk the ire of a habitually unscrupulous person and of many others
if they did make an issue of that person's mendacity.

And I think you are banking on that, with the people I've "dragged into" our
exchange being only a small fraction of those whose ire might be aroused.

[1] Hillary Clinton would never have made it this far if a hefty fraction
of lifelong Democrats didn't have the same attitude towards her lies,
which at one point earned her "four Pinocchios" [the maximum] from a
nonpartisan group attached to the Washington Post.

Peter Nyikos