Evolutionary Theorist Concedes: Evolution “Largely Avoids” Biggest Questions of Biological Origins

[Steady Eddie]

"At this past November’s Royal Society meeting, “New Trends in Evolutionary Biology,” the distinguished Austrian evolutionary theorist Gerd B. Müller gave the first presentation. As we’ve noted before, it was a devastating one for anyone who wants to think that, on the great questions of biological origins, orthodox evolutionary theory has got it all figured out. Instead, Müller pointed to gaping “explanatory deficits” in the theory. Now the Royal Society’s journal Interface Focus offers a special issue collecting articles based on talks from the conference."

https://evolutionnews.org/2017/08/evolutionary-theorist-concedes-evolution-largely-avoids-biggest-questions-of-biological-origins/

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 4:30:03 PM UTC-7, Steady Eddie wrote:
> "At this past November’s Royal Society meeting, “New Trends in Evolutionary Biology,” the distinguished Austrian evolutionary theorist Gerd B. Müller gave the first presentation. As we’ve noted before, it was a devastating one for anyone who wants to think that, on the great questions of biological origins, orthodox evolutionary theory has got it all figured out. Instead, Müller pointed to gaping “explanatory deficits” in the theory. Now the Royal Society’s journal Interface Focus offers a special issue collecting articles based on talks from the conference."
>
> https://evolutionnews.org/2017/08/evolutionary-theorist-concedes-evolution-largely-avoids-biggest-questions-of-biological-origins/

A very interesting link. The cracks in this religious belief (which is masquerading as science) are becoming more obvious, even this biologist is starting to recognize this.

[John Harshman]

What do you propose to replace it?

[Jonathan]

On 9/2/2017 7:25 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
> "At this past November’s Royal Society meeting, “New Trends in Evolutionary Biology,” the distinguished Austrian evolutionary theorist Gerd B. Müller gave the first presentation. As we’ve noted before, it was a devastating one for anyone who wants to think that, on the great questions of biological origins, orthodox evolutionary theory has got it all figured out. Instead, Müller pointed to gaping “explanatory deficits” in the theory. Now the Royal Society’s journal Interface Focus offers a special issue collecting articles based on talks from the conference."
>
> https://evolutionnews.org/2017/08/evolutionary-theorist-concedes-evolution-largely-avoids-biggest-questions-of-biological-origins/
>

From the great article...


"But it has become habitual in evolutionary biology to take
population genetics as the privileged type of explanation
of all evolutionary phenomena, thereby negating the fact
that, on the one hand, not all of its predictions can be
confirmed under all circumstances, and, on the other hand,
a wealth of evolutionary phenomena remains excluded.

For instance, the theory largely avoids the question of
how the complex organizations of organismal structure,
physiology, development or behavior — whose variation
it describes — actually arise in evolution, and it also
provides no adequate means for including factors that
are not part of the population genetic framework, such
as developmental, systems theoretical, ecological
or cultural influences."



Couldn't have said it better myself. Oh wait, I have a
hundred times in this ng including yesterday.
From the thread challenging Nyikos to a debate
yesterday I said...


"The gaps is neo-Darwinism go to the core knowledge most
people want answered. A child grasps the notion of
change as a result of environmental pressures.

But it's creation that people want to know. Most of science
and religion is devoted to answering that single question.
What came first? Whether astronomy, particle physics, evolution
and religion."

[Jonathan]

That's wasn't the point of the article, which was the
huge gaps in evolutionary theory the ID and Creationist
crowd were exposing are now being accepted by mainstream
science as genuine and gaping holes.

Mainstream science now accepts the claims of the ID
and Creationist groups that evolutionary thought
is grossly incomplete.

The ID crowd never did fill those gaps and never will, but
they did clearly point them out and help start a scientific
frenzy to fill them. And mainstream science is starting
to fill those gaps with real science.

For instance genuine research into speciation exploded
as a result of the ID and Creationist movements.
Look it up, it's true.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

No need to replace it, just get rid of the mythology that's pedaled as settled science. I have no problem with the teaching of evolution in schools. People need to understand how rmns and recombination works. It's this notion that reptiles can be transformed into birds by rmns or even worse that life started spontaneously in some primordial soup and then by rmns evolved into all the life forms we see today. This is psychotic.

[RonO]

On 9/2/2017 6:25 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
> "At this past November’s Royal Society meeting, “New Trends in Evolutionary Biology,” the distinguished Austrian evolutionary theorist Gerd B. Müller gave the first presentation. As we’ve noted before, it was a devastating one for anyone who wants to think that, on the great questions of biological origins, orthodox evolutionary theory has got it all figured out. Instead, Müller pointed to gaping “explanatory deficits” in the theory. Now the Royal Society’s journal Interface Focus offers a special issue collecting articles based on talks from the conference."
>
> https://evolutionnews.org/2017/08/evolutionary-theorist-concedes-evolution-largely-avoids-biggest-questions-of-biological-origins/
>

The plain and simple fact is that science does not claim to have all the
answers. Another plain and simple fact is that the IDiot/creationists
have no answers that they want to deal with at this time. There is a
reason why none of them put up their alternative and try to apply
science to making it the best alternative that they can. They already
know that they have to deny what science has already figured out.

How sad is it that the ID perps that wrote this stupidity do not have an
answer to these "biggest" questions either? It is even sadder that they
don't have an alternative to the "littlest" questions that have already
been answered.

Eddie knows this for a fact because he ran from putting up the JW
alternative when he found out that they had changed their minds after
the failure of scientific creationism. The earth really is old.
Billions of years old according to the JWs.

Really, what answers do the ID perps have for these "biggest" questions?
The bait and switch will go down on any IDiots stupid enough to
believe them, so what does that mean in terms of any answers that they
might claim to have?

Why is it a fact that ID perps like Denton and Behe admit that
biological evolution is fact? They only claim that their designer had
something to do with it. Denton claims that the designer set it all up
with the big Bang, and Behe claims that his designer tweeks things every
once in a while. But it has been around 400 million years since any
detectable tweeking has gone on. 400 million years of evolution
including the evolution of terrestrial vertebrates around 400 million
years ago,and the evolution of humans from an ape like ancestor within
the last 10 million years.

So what do the "Biggest" questions matter? Science doesn't claim to
have all the answers. This does not mean that we know nothing. Denton
and Behe understand that. Eddie now understand that. He knows that the
science matters and his alternative can change. The JWs even changed
the day that the sun and moon were created. Why would they do that?

So some of the "littlest" questions must matter, and the ID perps just
have to lie to themselves and remain in denial just like the
IDiot/creationists on this newsgroup.

Just look at their posts in this thread so far. Does it reflect the
fact that the "littlest" answers matter a lot? Denial is stupid when
the guys feeding you the claptrap already know that biological evolution
is fact, and that life has been evolving on this earth for billions of
years. Ask the JWs that Eddie got his alternative from. They used to
be YEC and fossil record deniers. The earth used to be less than 50,000
year old and each day was 7,000 years long, and we were still living the
7th day, but it turned out that the earth was really old.

The ID perps should be ashamed of themselves, and so should Eddie for
continuing to go back to the scam artists. Has any IDiot ever gotten
the promised ID science when they needed it? Where are the IDiot
answers to the "littlest" questions? The ones that changed the minds of
creationists like the JWs. The IDiots do not have any answers to the
"biggest" questions, but shouldn't they have answers for the little ones?

Denial is stupid, but that is all the IDiot/creationists have at this time.

Ron Okimoto

[John Harshman]

So your position is that we have no idea where birds came from, or any
other species?

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

You have an idea, it just isn't backed up by hard mathematical science.

[Sean Dillon]

Alan, I haven't had the opportunity to actually evaluate your ideas for myself, because when I asked, you suggested you would share them "in due time." So I'm not actually calling you a crackpot here, but as an amateur crackpotology enthusiast, please let me share with you a few of the a few of the signals you are giving off, that I have in the past found to be highly consistent with crackpottery:

1. You'll share the actual math with me "in due time." That's typically a sign that, at best, it isn't really about the math, and at worst, that the math is bullshit.

2. You put your degrees in your screen name. Generally either means that someone is struggling to be seen as legit, or flat out isn't legit. Doubly true when there are more than one listed.

3. You're not just calling mainstream science wrong, you're calling it "psychotic." While on the odd occassion, a big idea in mainstream science turns out to be wrong, or at least incomplete, in my experience the correction is never discovered by someone who thinks everyone in the field is mentally ill.

4. You seem awfully cagey about your beliefs, both as they relate to this question, and in general. That's typical of people who are doing something for ideological reasons, but trying to appear "rational."

5. When it comes to peer reviewed work, you've cited yourself twice. And no one else has cited you.

6. You think you spotted the fatal flaw in a major scientific theory in 5th grade, which has yet to be accepted by mainstream science. That's generally a sign of megalomania.

7. I've never encountered an actual MD who casually accused others of psychosis on the internet. In my experience, they understand the medical and legal weight of that accusation.


Please recognize that for all the reasons above, you may not have much credibility.

[Steady Eddie]

Intelligent design, of course.

[Sean Dillon]

On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 6:30:03 PM UTC-5, Steady Eddie wrote:
> "At this past November’s Royal Society meeting, “New Trends in Evolutionary Biology,” the distinguished Austrian evolutionary theorist Gerd B. Müller gave the first presentation. As we’ve noted before, it was a devastating one for anyone who wants to think that, on the great questions of biological origins, orthodox evolutionary theory has got it all figured out. Instead, Müller pointed to gaping “explanatory deficits” in the theory. Now the Royal Society’s journal Interface Focus offers a special issue collecting articles based on talks from the conference."
>
> https://evolutionnews.org/2017/08/evolutionary-theorist-concedes-evolution-largely-avoids-biggest-questions-of-biological-origins/

Hey numbnuts: evolution isn't ABOUT origins. Evolution is about what happens after the origin.

[John Harshman]

Let me rephrase. Your position is that you have no idea?

[Bill Rogers]

I believe he is an actual MD. His degree is from the Medical School of the Caribbean. I've forgotten where his PhD is from, one of the Arab Gulf States, but I can't remember which one. I completely agree that putting one's degrees in a screen name is not usually a sign of competence in the field.

[Steady Eddie]

True. So when will evolutionists admit they don't KNOW the origin of the various processes, systems, structures, and body plans found in nature?

[Jonathan]

What a cop-out. What most want to know concerns origins.
As the article correctly states, it's the biggest
question.

Can you articulate why evolution 'doesn't do' creation
or origins? Is it because they don't know how, or can't
or just haven't gotten 'round to it yet?

Why?

Just saying 'we don't do that' isn't good enough.

[RonO]

What a loser Eddie. It is what we know that should tell you that you
are a lost cause. Body plans? Take the penguin and look up avian
anatomy to determine where the penguin body plan came from. Take the
avian body plan and look up terrestrial tetrapods to see where the avian
body plan came from. Take whales and look up terrestrial mammals,
specifically hooved animals related to artiodactyls to see where that
body plan came from. Want terrestrial tetrapods, look up amphibians and
intermediates from fish like tiktaalik.

We do not know everything, but compared to what you know about your
alternative what is your beef? Something is better than nothing.

When are you going to learn the simple fact that if what you have isn't
as good as what you keep claiming is not good enough, what you have is
just not good enough by your own standards.

Ron Okimoto

[r3p...@gmail.com]

Completely false, Sean. All you did was assume that origin was talking about the metaphysical, which is not true. Darwin's "On The Origin Of Species" means species originate from previously living species by natural selection, and not from real time independent creation.

Ray

[Steady Eddie]

Ron, what you have described above are stories, not facts.
Darwinists, when coming up with such stories, are practicing creative writing, not science.

The ability to dream up some stories that support your faith in Atheism is, I suppose, "something", but it's not the "something" you seem to think it is.

The scientific approach is to survey what the competing hypotheses are, then choose the one from among them that has the most explanatory power. Only religious prejudice blocks most establishment scientists from considering intelligent design as a hypothesis. Too bad for them, because ID has much more explanatory power than any of their stories. The laws of probability effectively set the explanatory power of Darwinism for the origin of life's processes, structures, systems and body plans at ZERO.

[Inez]

Questions of origins is a different branch of science. Theories of abiogenesis talks about origins. Evolution is about how life changes over time once it exists.

[Steady Eddie]

On Sunday, 3 September 2017 09:10:04 UTC-6, Ron O wrote:

In fact, coming up with some story THAT YOU ASSERT IS TRUE, when you can't find sufficient evidence is not a good thing for a scientist.
It demonstrates hubris, negligence, and intellectual dishonesty.
In many other settings, people have been found CRIMINALLY GUILTY and prosecuted for such dishonesty.

[RonO]

Why lie like this? You can look at a penguin and it isn't just a story.
It is obviously a bird. Not only that but it's DNA tells us what
other birds it is most closely related to and where did it get it's body
plan from?

What a dolt. If that is a story, what do you have? What does it mean
when what you have is so much worse that what you claim isn't good
enough? Doesn't that mean that your alternative definitely is not good
enough?

Even you can do the comparisons. It is not a story. It is fact.

>
> The ability to dream up some stories that support your faith in Atheism is, I suppose, "something", but it's not the "something" you seem to think it is.

The penguin actually exists. It's relatives actually exist. How is DNA
inherited? These are not stories. What a bonehead. If these are
stories what do you have?

What is not as good as not good enough?

>
> The scientific approach is to survey what the competing hypotheses are, then choose the one from among them that has the most explanatory power. Only religious prejudice blocks most establishment scientists from considering intelligent design as a hypothesis. Too bad for them, because ID has much more explanatory power than any of their stories. The laws of probability effectively set the explanatory power of Darwinism for the origin of life's processes, structures, systems and body plans at ZERO.

The reason that intelligent design is not considered is because there is
no scientific reason to consider it. What do you have that is better
than what you call stories? What does that mean to you. IDiocy is not
as good as not good enough because it just isn't good enough. You need
to bring it up to the level that you claim is not good enough before it
could matter.

Ron Okimoto
>

[RonO]

They aren't stories Eddie. Even you can do the analysis and come up
with the same conclusions. What a bonehead. The examples actually
exist. Denial is stupid. You have nothing better. What is not as good
as not good enough? Pretty bad, right? That is what you are stuck with.

Ron Okimoto

[Bill]

Evolution is also about the origins of species. There are
lots of explanations, some may even be true.

Bill

[Inez]

It isn't though. Really, it's not.

[Bill]

Gee, Darwin thought so. He even wrote a book about it. If
the origin of species isn't part of evolution, where did the
idea come from?

Bill

[Inez]

He was talking about species evolving from other species, not life coming from non-life.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 7:35:02 PM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:
> On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 7:25:02 PM UTC-5, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 5:10:04 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> > > On 9/2/17 4:39 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 4:30:03 PM UTC-7, Steady Eddie wrote:
> > > >> "At this past November’s Royal Society meeting, “New Trends in Evolutionary Biology,” the distinguished Austrian evolutionary theorist Gerd B. Müller gave the first presentation. As we’ve noted before, it was a devastating one for anyone who wants to think that, on the great questions of biological origins, orthodox evolutionary theory has got it all figured out. Instead, Müller pointed to gaping “explanatory deficits” in the theory. Now the Royal Society’s journal Interface Focus offers a special issue collecting articles based on talks from the conference."
> > > >>
> > > >> https://evolutionnews.org/2017/08/evolutionary-theorist-concedes-evolution-largely-avoids-biggest-questions-of-biological-origins/
> > > >
> > > > A very interesting link. The cracks in this religious belief (which
> > > > is masquerading as science) are becoming more obvious, even this
> > > > biologist is starting to recognize this.
> > >
> > > What do you propose to replace it?
> > No need to replace it, just get rid of the mythology that's pedaled as settled science. I have no problem with the teaching of evolution in schools. People need to understand how rmns and recombination works. It's this notion that reptiles can be transformed into birds by rmns or even worse that life started spontaneously in some primordial soup and then by rmns evolved into all the life forms we see today. This is psychotic.
>
> Alan, I haven't had the opportunity to actually evaluate your ideas for myself, because when I asked, you suggested you would share them "in due time." So I'm not actually calling you a crackpot here, but as an amateur crackpotology enthusiast, please let me share with you a few of the a few of the signals you are giving off, that I have in the past found to be highly consistent with crackpottery:
>
> 1. You'll share the actual math with me "in due time." That's typically a sign that, at best, it isn't really about the math, and at worst, that the math is bullshit.

Have you read: http://www.statisticsviews.com/details/news/10604248/Laymans-abstract-Random-mutation-and-natural-selection-a-predictable-phenomenon.html
If you understand that paper and understand basic probability theory then you are ready for the math. If you are really impatient, the links to the peer reviewed and published mathematics papers are referenced in the above link.

>
> 2. You put your degrees in your screen name. Generally either means that someone is struggling to be seen as legit, or flat out isn't legit. Doubly true when there are more than one listed.

I'm also licensed in both medicine and engineering. It doesn't matter whether you think I'm legit or not legit. The peer reviewers agreed that my mathematical work is published. A big reason why these papers were published is that they correctly correlate the mathematics of rmns with actual empirical examples. I actually derived the mathematics for the first paper here on this web site. You weren't here at the time.

>
> 3. You're not just calling mainstream science wrong, you're calling it "psychotic." While on the odd occassion, a big idea in mainstream science turns out to be wrong, or at least incomplete, in my experience the correction is never discovered by someone who thinks everyone in the field is mentally ill.

What is the definition of psychosis? What do you think of someone who thinks the earth is flat?

>
> 4. You seem awfully cagey about your beliefs, both as they relate to this question, and in general. That's typical of people who are doing something for ideological reasons, but trying to appear "rational."

If I think it is any of your business, I'll answer the question. Otherwise stay on topic.

>
> 5. When it comes to peer reviewed work, you've cited yourself twice. And no one else has cited you.

How do you know?

>
> 6. You think you spotted the fatal flaw in a major scientific theory in 5th grade, which has yet to be accepted by mainstream science. That's generally a sign of megalomania.

Or it is a sign of a child who grew up playing card and dice games and understood the meaning of the multiplication rule of probabilities. When I went to elementary school, they taught you about these things. I have no idea what they teach in elementary school today.

>
> 7. I've never encountered an actual MD who casually accused others of psychosis on the internet. In my experience, they understand the medical and legal weight of that accusation.

If you think that life began in the primordial soup and evolved by rmns to you and me, you need a reality check. You certainly need to learn how rmns works.

>
>
> Please recognize that for all the reasons above, you may not have much credibility.

If you want to understand why mathematicians find my work credible, start here: http://www.statisticsviews.com/details/news/10604248/Laymans-abstract-Random-mutation-and-natural-selection-a-predictable-phenomenon.html

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Why Dr DidThisMathinMedSchool, how are you? Do you still believe that the size of your study doesn't have an effect on the emergence of resistance? I've come across some papers for the treatment of Malaria, they are talking about using 3 drugs instead of the 2 you used in your study. Read my paper on simultaneous selection pressures and understand why. Why don't you do this math anymore? You might learn how to use selection pressures correctly. You certainly didn't learn much from the HIV example.

[John Harshman]

On 9/3/17 4:51 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 7:35:02 PM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:

>> 5. When it comes to peer reviewed work, you've cited yourself twice. And no one else has cited you.
> How do you know?

Pubmed is a good first pass. It lists other articles in Pubmed that cite
each work. No citations for either of your papers.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Give it time John. My work is noticed even though you are unwilling to accept it. These paper give the correct explanation of how rmns works. It took a while before people who believed the earth was flat to come around to the truth. What are you going to do now that you know that your philosophical bent is based on a falsehood?

[Steady Eddie]

Let me answer that:
Exactly what he's been doing for years.

[Jonathan]

"In a letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker on 1 February 1871,
Darwin discussed the suggestion that the original spark
of life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all
sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat,
electricity, &c., present, that a protein compound was
chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes."

He went on to explain that "at the present day such matter
would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not
have been the case before living creatures were formed."
He had written to Hooker in 1863 stating that, "It is
mere rubbish, thinking at present of the origin of life;
one might as well think of the origin of matter."

In On the Origin of Species, he had referred to life
having been "created", by which he "really meant 'appeared'
by some wholly unknown process", but had soon regretted
using the Old Testament term "creation".[91]

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




150 years later we have barely progressed on the
source of creation.

But there is a new idea on the block that might
answer that ultimate of all questions.

Unfortunately no one in this ng, or Darwinists
in general are open-minded enough to learn
the new idea and see where it goes.



Types and Forms of Emergence
Jochen Fromm
Distributed Systems Group,
Electrical Engineering & Computer Science,
Universität Kassel, Germany


1. Introduction

The emergence of order and organization in
systems composed of many autonomous entities or
agents is a very fundamental process.

The process of emergence deals with the fundamental question:
“how does an entity come into existence?”

In a process of emergence we observe something (for
instance the appearance of order or organization) and ask
how this is possible, since we assume causality:
every effect should have a cause. The surprising aspect
in a process of emergence is the observation of an effect
without an apparent cause.

Although the process of emergence might
look mysterious, there is nothing mystical,
magical or unscientific about it.
https://arxiv.org/ftp/nlin/papers/0506/0506028.pdf




Has Darwinism become 'The Church', defending the
150 year old dogma with religious like fervor?
Burning at the stake any and all new ideas?

The almost fanatical response to any and all
pointing out the holes in Darwinism show
science today may have become so rigid
in their thinking, they may have 'evolved'
into what they despise.







From "Investigations" by Stuart Kauffman

"In my previous two books, I laid out some
of the growing reasons to think that evolution
was even richer than Darwin supposed. Modern
evolutionary theory, based on Darwin's concept
of descent with heritable variations that
are sifted by natural selection to retain
the adaptive changes, has come to view selection
as the sole source of order in biological systems.

But the snowflake's delicate sixfold symmetry
tells us that order can arise without the benefit
of natural selection.

'Origins of Order' and 'At Home in the Universe'
give good grounds to think that much of the order
in organisms, from the origin of life itself to
the stunning order in the development of a
newborn child from a fertilized egg, does not
reflect selection alone. Instead, much of the order
in organisms, I believe, is self-organized and
spontaneous.

Self-organization mingles with natural selection
in barely understood ways to yield the magnificence
of our teeming biosphere.

We must, therefore, expand evolutionary theory


~snipped


"Stones and chairs are not, by my definition,
autonomous agents. All living cells are. And
the stunning fact directly before us, every day
is that autonomous agents do manipulate the
world on their own behalf. Watch a pair of
nesting birds build their nest.

In sort, once we have autonomous agents and
yuck and yum, it appears that semantics enters
the universe and agents coevolve and behave
on their own behalf with one another in the
unfolding of a biosphere."

"But back to the past. Dennit distinguishes
"Darwinian creatures", "Pavlovian creatures"
"Popperian creatures" and "Gregorian creatures."

A simple agent, say, a bacterium, is a Darwinian
creature. In it's simplest version, the creature
evolves by mutation, also recombination and
natural selection. For the moment, no behavioral
learning is to be considered. So one (or a colony
or an ecosystem) of Darwinian creatures adapts
more or less as Darwin told us.

At the next level up, say aplysia, a nervous system
is present and capable of stimulus-response learning
a la Pavlov.

At the next level is a Popperian creature. Popperian
creatures, in Dennett's fine phrase, have "internal
models" of their world and can "run the internal model"
with the clutch disengaged, rather than running in
real time in the real world. This allows us lucky
Popperian creatures to allow our "hypothesis to die
in our stead". I love that image.

Beyond the Popperian is the Gregorian creature-namely
at least humans. Dennet makes the wonderful argument
that we utilize tools-literally stone knives, arrows
digging sticks, machine tools to enlarge our shared
world of facts and and processes. This enlarged shared
world gives us more know how, and more know that.

Cultural revolution, at some point, begins to burst
out of bounds. Hard rock music jangles the minarets
of Iran. Who knows what new cultural forms will
blossom?"


http://bit.ly/2gutbJY




s

[John Harshman]

Yeah, I don't think you're going to collect many citations, but who
knows? Maybe you have a couple of friends somewhere.

This flat earth idea hasn't been accepted by educated people for
somewhere around 2500 years, with one major exception: it was promoted
by a number of Christian theologians because that's what the bible says.
It still is by a few extreme fundamentalists.

And as I have mentioned before, what I do has nothing to do with natural
selection.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

I try not to be as cynical. Think of it this way, let's say you spent your entire academic career believing in certain principles that someone comes along and tells you are false. I would take a lot of convincing and open mindedness to come around. At least John is still willing to debate. People like RSNorman and Bill Rogers, they have no excuse, they have some understanding of probability theory, they choose not to debate the topic anymore because they know. If this were a chess game, they would know they've been forked.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Monday, September 4, 2017 at 6:55:05 AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> On 9/3/17 5:59 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > On Sunday, September 3, 2017 at 5:15:02 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 9/3/17 4:51 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 7:35:02 PM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:
> >>
> >>>> 5. When it comes to peer reviewed work, you've cited yourself twice. And no one else has cited you.
> >>> How do you know?
> >>
> >> Pubmed is a good first pass. It lists other articles in Pubmed that cite
> >> each work. No citations for either of your papers.
> > Give it time John. My work is noticed even though you are unwilling
> > to accept it. These paper give the correct explanation of how rmns
> > works. It took a while before people who believed the earth was flat
> > to come around to the truth. What are you going to do now that you
> > know that your philosophical bent is based on a falsehood?
>
> Yeah, I don't think you're going to collect many citations, but who
> knows? Maybe you have a couple of friends somewhere.

I've already got friends who are interested in how drug resistance occurs. With the advent of targeted cancer therapies, these principles will be important as well. I just wonder how many times people will be hurt by cancer treatments that initially look promising but then fail because of a few resistant variant cells.

>
> This flat earth idea hasn't been accepted by educated people for
> somewhere around 2500 years, with one major exception: it was promoted
> by a number of Christian theologians because that's what the bible says.
> It still is by a few extreme fundamentalists.

You missed the analogy, evolutionism is our modern version of the flat earth mentality. Just as a wouldn't expect flat earthers to present the evidence that the earth isn't flat, I wouldn't expect evolutionists to present the evidence that the theory of evolution isn't true.

>
> And as I have mentioned before, what I do has nothing to do with natural
> selection.

That doesn't surprise me. You are not an expert in probability theory and you are not an expert in natural selection.

[John Harshman]

On 9/4/17 8:23 AM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> On Monday, September 4, 2017 at 6:55:05 AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 9/3/17 5:59 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
>>> On Sunday, September 3, 2017 at 5:15:02 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 9/3/17 4:51 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 7:35:02 PM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> 5. When it comes to peer reviewed work, you've cited yourself twice. And no one else has cited you.
>>>>> How do you know?
>>>>
>>>> Pubmed is a good first pass. It lists other articles in Pubmed that cite
>>>> each work. No citations for either of your papers.
>>> Give it time John. My work is noticed even though you are unwilling
>>> to accept it. These paper give the correct explanation of how rmns
>>> works. It took a while before people who believed the earth was flat
>>> to come around to the truth. What are you going to do now that you
>>> know that your philosophical bent is based on a falsehood?
>>
>> Yeah, I don't think you're going to collect many citations, but who
>> knows? Maybe you have a couple of friends somewhere.

> I've already got friends who are interested in how drug resistance
> occurs. With the advent of targeted cancer therapies, these
> principles will be important as well. I just wonder how many times
> people will be hurt by cancer treatments that initially look
> promising but then fail because of a few resistant variant cells.

So maybe you'll eventually get a citation. Still, none so far, which was
what you asked about.

>> This flat earth idea hasn't been accepted by educated people for
>> somewhere around 2500 years, with one major exception: it was promoted
>> by a number of Christian theologians because that's what the bible says.
>> It still is by a few extreme fundamentalists.

> You missed the analogy, evolutionism is our modern version of the
> flat earth mentality. Just as a wouldn't expect flat earthers to
> present the evidence that the earth isn't flat, I wouldn't expect
> evolutionists to present the evidence that the theory of evolution
> isn't true.

And I just pointed out that there are actual flat-earthers, but they're
more like you -- biblical literalists -- than me. The "flat earth
mentality" is a Christian thing.

>> And as I have mentioned before, what I do has nothing to do with natural
>> selection.

> That doesn't surprise me. You are not an expert in probability theory
> and you are not an expert in natural selection.

Neither are you. You know a little about probability, but it's almost
entirely the ability to recite "the multiplication rule of
probabilities", and you know nothing about natural selection, since
you're unable to notice that you don't take it into account in your
math. I know more than that, at least.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

We all know what the evolutionist thing is. So if in your mind your philosophical bent is settled science, what is that selection pressure that turns reptiles into birds? Don't forget to tell us the genes targeted and the mutations required.

>
> >> And as I have mentioned before, what I do has nothing to do with natural
> >> selection.
>
> > That doesn't surprise me. You are not an expert in probability theory
> > and you are not an expert in natural selection.
>
> Neither are you. You know a little about probability, but it's almost
> entirely the ability to recite "the multiplication rule of
> probabilities", and you know nothing about natural selection, since
> you're unable to notice that you don't take it into account in your
> math. I know more than that, at least.

There seems to be a publisher which disagrees with you.

[John Harshman]

I don't know and it doesn't matter at all to my work, which relies only
on the presence of homologous characters, however they got there.

I wish you'd stop saying "reptiles", by the way. It's an out-dated term.
The ancestors of birds are theropod dinosaurs. If you'd look at a fossil
or two you would see some of the various feathered theropods.

>>>> And as I have mentioned before, what I do has nothing to do with natural
>>>> selection.
>>
>>> That doesn't surprise me. You are not an expert in probability theory
>>> and you are not an expert in natural selection.
>>
>> Neither are you. You know a little about probability, but it's almost
>> entirely the ability to recite "the multiplication rule of
>> probabilities", and you know nothing about natural selection, since
>> you're unable to notice that you don't take it into account in your
>> math. I know more than that, at least.

> There seems to be a publisher which disagrees with you.

How do you know that? You passed some probably perfunctory peer review
from reviewers who don't know much about evolutionary biology. Did any
of the reviewer comments compliment you on how well you had dealt with
natural selection in your math?

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

So you ignore all the non-homologous characters.

>
> I wish you'd stop saying "reptiles", by the way. It's an out-dated term.
> The ancestors of birds are theropod dinosaurs. If you'd look at a fossil
> or two you would see some of the various feathered theropods.

How did the therapods get their feathers? Tell us the selection pressure required, the genes targeted and the mutations required. Your philosophical bent is settled science so you should know this.

>
> >>>> And as I have mentioned before, what I do has nothing to do with natural
> >>>> selection.
> >>
> >>> That doesn't surprise me. You are not an expert in probability theory
> >>> and you are not an expert in natural selection.
> >>
> >> Neither are you. You know a little about probability, but it's almost
> >> entirely the ability to recite "the multiplication rule of
> >> probabilities", and you know nothing about natural selection, since
> >> you're unable to notice that you don't take it into account in your
> >> math. I know more than that, at least.
>
> > There seems to be a publisher which disagrees with you.
>
> How do you know that? You passed some probably perfunctory peer review
> from reviewers who don't know much about evolutionary biology. Did any
> of the reviewer comments compliment you on how well you had dealt with
> natural selection in your math?

John, I don't mind when you act like a dummy, but I do mind when you become an obnoxious jerk. People have put their reputations on the line to publish my work and they gave me the ultimate compliment, they published it. Now if you wanted to find out who these people are, it wouldn't be too difficult. In fact, 15 faculty members from universities all across Europe allowed their names to be listed under my Layman's Abstract for which I am very grateful. You evolutionists have been very good at destroying careers of those who don't agree with you but I think you are incredibly stupid if you try to attack these people.

[John Harshman]

No, that has nothing to do with my sort of science. We do know that
feathers evolved gradually, because there are theropods with several
intermediate states.

>>>>>> And as I have mentioned before, what I do has nothing to do with natural
>>>>>> selection.
>>>>
>>>>> That doesn't surprise me. You are not an expert in probability theory
>>>>> and you are not an expert in natural selection.
>>>>
>>>> Neither are you. You know a little about probability, but it's almost
>>>> entirely the ability to recite "the multiplication rule of
>>>> probabilities", and you know nothing about natural selection, since
>>>> you're unable to notice that you don't take it into account in your
>>>> math. I know more than that, at least.
>>
>>> There seems to be a publisher which disagrees with you.
>>
>> How do you know that? You passed some probably perfunctory peer review
>> from reviewers who don't know much about evolutionary biology. Did any
>> of the reviewer comments compliment you on how well you had dealt with
>> natural selection in your math?

> John, I don't mind when you act like a dummy, but I do mind when you
> become an obnoxious jerk. People have put their reputations on the
> line to publish my work and they gave me the ultimate compliment,
> they published it.

You have an exaggerated idea of what reviewers and publishers do. As for
"reputation", your journal only has an impact factor of 1.8 something.

> Now if you wanted to find out who these people
> are, it wouldn't be too difficult. In fact, 15 faculty members from
> universities all across Europe allowed their names to be listed under
> my Layman's Abstract for which I am very grateful. You evolutionists
> have been very good at destroying careers of those who don't agree
> with you but I think you are incredibly stupid if you try to attack
> these people.

How many of them are population geneticists? How many of them are even
biologists?

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

What sort of science do you have? So tell us the selection pressure for each of these intermediate states, the genes targeted and the mutations required to reach these intermediate states. John, we all know that you don't know and can't answer these questions and that your sort of science is to make up a story.

>
> >>>>>> And as I have mentioned before, what I do has nothing to do with natural
> >>>>>> selection.
> >>>>
> >>>>> That doesn't surprise me. You are not an expert in probability theory
> >>>>> and you are not an expert in natural selection.
> >>>>
> >>>> Neither are you. You know a little about probability, but it's almost
> >>>> entirely the ability to recite "the multiplication rule of
> >>>> probabilities", and you know nothing about natural selection, since
> >>>> you're unable to notice that you don't take it into account in your
> >>>> math. I know more than that, at least.
> >>
> >>> There seems to be a publisher which disagrees with you.
> >>
> >> How do you know that? You passed some probably perfunctory peer review
> >> from reviewers who don't know much about evolutionary biology. Did any
> >> of the reviewer comments compliment you on how well you had dealt with
> >> natural selection in your math?
>
> > John, I don't mind when you act like a dummy, but I do mind when you
> > become an obnoxious jerk. People have put their reputations on the
> > line to publish my work and they gave me the ultimate compliment,
> > they published it.
>
> You have an exaggerated idea of what reviewers and publishers do. As for
> "reputation", your journal only has an impact factor of 1.8 something.

You are in for a surprise for what a journal with an impact factor of 1.8 can do.

>
> > Now if you wanted to find out who these people
> > are, it wouldn't be too difficult. In fact, 15 faculty members from
> > universities all across Europe allowed their names to be listed under
> > my Layman's Abstract for which I am very grateful. You evolutionists
> > have been very good at destroying careers of those who don't agree
> > with you but I think you are incredibly stupid if you try to attack
> > these people.
>
> How many of them are population geneticists? How many of them are even
> biologists?

John, you don't have to be a population geneticist to understand my papers. A 5th grader with the understanding of basic probability theory can understand this. Now, I'm pretty sure that one of the peer reviewers was a population geneticist by the kind of questions and criticisms he leveled. But I was able to answer these questions and criticisms and the papers have been published. Why don't you find one of your population geneticist friends to argue my papers? Make sure this person is skilled in probability theory and understands what a sample space is. I would really like a challenge more than trying to explain probability theory to someone unwilling to learn the subject.

[John Harshman]

You are correct that I can't answer those questions, and it's possible
nobody will ever be able to. The more genomes that are sequenced, the
more likely we will, but there's a lot of evolution in the Mesozoic, and
all we have to work with are birds and crocodiles. But that you think
this is all just "make up a story" shows once again your complete
ignornance of the science behind it.

>>>>>>>> And as I have mentioned before, what I do has nothing to do with natural
>>>>>>>> selection.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That doesn't surprise me. You are not an expert in probability theory
>>>>>>> and you are not an expert in natural selection.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Neither are you. You know a little about probability, but it's almost
>>>>>> entirely the ability to recite "the multiplication rule of
>>>>>> probabilities", and you know nothing about natural selection, since
>>>>>> you're unable to notice that you don't take it into account in your
>>>>>> math. I know more than that, at least.
>>>>
>>>>> There seems to be a publisher which disagrees with you.
>>>>
>>>> How do you know that? You passed some probably perfunctory peer review
>>>> from reviewers who don't know much about evolutionary biology. Did any
>>>> of the reviewer comments compliment you on how well you had dealt with
>>>> natural selection in your math?
>>
>>> John, I don't mind when you act like a dummy, but I do mind when you
>>> become an obnoxious jerk. People have put their reputations on the
>>> line to publish my work and they gave me the ultimate compliment,
>>> they published it.
>>
>> You have an exaggerated idea of what reviewers and publishers do. As for
>> "reputation", your journal only has an impact factor of 1.8 something.

> You are in for a surprise for what a journal with an impact factor of 1.8 can do.

Optimism is in general an admirable quality.

>>> Now if you wanted to find out who these people
>>> are, it wouldn't be too difficult. In fact, 15 faculty members from
>>> universities all across Europe allowed their names to be listed under
>>> my Layman's Abstract for which I am very grateful. You evolutionists
>>> have been very good at destroying careers of those who don't agree
>>> with you but I think you are incredibly stupid if you try to attack
>>> these people.
>>
>> How many of them are population geneticists? How many of them are even
>> biologists?

> John, you don't have to be a population geneticist to understand my
> papers. A 5th grader with the understanding of basic probability
> theory can understand this. Now, I'm pretty sure that one of the peer
> reviewers was a population geneticist by the kind of questions and
> criticisms he leveled.

I don't think you know enough population genetics to judge. But I was
asking about the 15 faculty members from universities all across Europe,
whose specialties you can easily determine.

> But I was able to answer these questions and
> criticisms and the papers have been published. Why don't you find one
> of your population geneticist friends to argue my papers? Make sure
> this person is skilled in probability theory and understands what a
> sample space is. I would really like a challenge more than trying to
> explain probability theory to someone unwilling to learn the
> subject.

And I would like a challenge more than explaining selection to someone
who thinks his math somehow models it.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

When you ignore non-homologous portions of genomes, your stories are just fabrications to fit your philosophical bent.

>
> >>>>>>>> And as I have mentioned before, what I do has nothing to do with natural
> >>>>>>>> selection.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> That doesn't surprise me. You are not an expert in probability theory
> >>>>>>> and you are not an expert in natural selection.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Neither are you. You know a little about probability, but it's almost
> >>>>>> entirely the ability to recite "the multiplication rule of
> >>>>>> probabilities", and you know nothing about natural selection, since
> >>>>>> you're unable to notice that you don't take it into account in your
> >>>>>> math. I know more than that, at least.
> >>>>
> >>>>> There seems to be a publisher which disagrees with you.
> >>>>
> >>>> How do you know that? You passed some probably perfunctory peer review
> >>>> from reviewers who don't know much about evolutionary biology. Did any
> >>>> of the reviewer comments compliment you on how well you had dealt with
> >>>> natural selection in your math?
> >>
> >>> John, I don't mind when you act like a dummy, but I do mind when you
> >>> become an obnoxious jerk. People have put their reputations on the
> >>> line to publish my work and they gave me the ultimate compliment,
> >>> they published it.
> >>
> >> You have an exaggerated idea of what reviewers and publishers do. As for
> >> "reputation", your journal only has an impact factor of 1.8 something.
>
> > You are in for a surprise for what a journal with an impact factor of 1.8 can do.
>
> Optimism is in general an admirable quality.

I have good reason to be optimistic. You have good reason to be pessamistic for your philosophical bent.

>
> >>> Now if you wanted to find out who these people
> >>> are, it wouldn't be too difficult. In fact, 15 faculty members from
> >>> universities all across Europe allowed their names to be listed under
> >>> my Layman's Abstract for which I am very grateful. You evolutionists
> >>> have been very good at destroying careers of those who don't agree
> >>> with you but I think you are incredibly stupid if you try to attack
> >>> these people.
> >>
> >> How many of them are population geneticists? How many of them are even
> >> biologists?
>
> > John, you don't have to be a population geneticist to understand my
> > papers. A 5th grader with the understanding of basic probability
> > theory can understand this. Now, I'm pretty sure that one of the peer
> > reviewers was a population geneticist by the kind of questions and
> > criticisms he leveled.
>
> I don't think you know enough population genetics to judge. But I was
> asking about the 15 faculty members from universities all across Europe,
> whose specialties you can easily determine.

I know enough about population genetics to understand Haldane's and Kimura's work. I've solved more difficult partial differential equations than the equation Kimura used and I understood Haldane's work well enough to write an exact solution to the equation that Haldane could only find an approximate solution. Haldane's approximate solution is actually fairly accurate through most of its range.

>
> > But I was able to answer these questions and
> > criticisms and the papers have been published. Why don't you find one
> > of your population geneticist friends to argue my papers? Make sure
> > this person is skilled in probability theory and understands what a
> > sample space is. I would really like a challenge more than trying to
> > explain probability theory to someone unwilling to learn the
> > subject.
>
> And I would like a challenge more than explaining selection to someone
> who thinks his math somehow models it.

So tell us how Kimura models selection.

[John Harshman]

I see you have a new mantra. Which non-homologous portions of the avian
and crocodile genomes did you have in mind?

>>>>>>>>>> And as I have mentioned before, what I do has nothing to do with natural
>>>>>>>>>> selection.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That doesn't surprise me. You are not an expert in probability theory
>>>>>>>>> and you are not an expert in natural selection.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Neither are you. You know a little about probability, but it's almost
>>>>>>>> entirely the ability to recite "the multiplication rule of
>>>>>>>> probabilities", and you know nothing about natural selection, since
>>>>>>>> you're unable to notice that you don't take it into account in your
>>>>>>>> math. I know more than that, at least.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There seems to be a publisher which disagrees with you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How do you know that? You passed some probably perfunctory peer review
>>>>>> from reviewers who don't know much about evolutionary biology. Did any
>>>>>> of the reviewer comments compliment you on how well you had dealt with
>>>>>> natural selection in your math?
>>>>
>>>>> John, I don't mind when you act like a dummy, but I do mind when you
>>>>> become an obnoxious jerk. People have put their reputations on the
>>>>> line to publish my work and they gave me the ultimate compliment,
>>>>> they published it.
>>>>
>>>> You have an exaggerated idea of what reviewers and publishers do. As for
>>>> "reputation", your journal only has an impact factor of 1.8 something.
>>
>>> You are in for a surprise for what a journal with an impact factor of 1.8 can do.
>>
>> Optimism is in general an admirable quality.

> I have good reason to be optimistic. You have good reason to be pessamistic for your philosophical bent.

I said it's in general admirable. When it leads you into fantasy it
becomes less admirable.

>>>>> Now if you wanted to find out who these people
>>>>> are, it wouldn't be too difficult. In fact, 15 faculty members from
>>>>> universities all across Europe allowed their names to be listed under
>>>>> my Layman's Abstract for which I am very grateful. You evolutionists
>>>>> have been very good at destroying careers of those who don't agree
>>>>> with you but I think you are incredibly stupid if you try to attack
>>>>> these people.
>>>>
>>>> How many of them are population geneticists? How many of them are even
>>>> biologists?
>>
>>> John, you don't have to be a population geneticist to understand my
>>> papers. A 5th grader with the understanding of basic probability
>>> theory can understand this. Now, I'm pretty sure that one of the peer
>>> reviewers was a population geneticist by the kind of questions and
>>> criticisms he leveled.
>>
>> I don't think you know enough population genetics to judge. But I was
>> asking about the 15 faculty members from universities all across Europe,
>> whose specialties you can easily determine.

> I know enough about population genetics to understand Haldane's and
> Kimura's work. I've solved more difficult partial differential
> equations than the equation Kimura used and I understood Haldane's
> work well enough to write an exact solution to the equation that
> Haldane could only find an approximate solution. Haldane's
> approximate solution is actually fairly accurate through most of its
> range.

Where did you publish that? And yet you don't see to understand what
genetic drift is.

>>> But I was able to answer these questions and
>>> criticisms and the papers have been published. Why don't you find one
>>> of your population geneticist friends to argue my papers? Make sure
>>> this person is skilled in probability theory and understands what a
>>> sample space is. I would really like a challenge more than trying to
>>> explain probability theory to someone unwilling to learn the
>>> subject.
>>
>> And I would like a challenge more than explaining selection to someone
>> who thinks his math somehow models it.

> So tell us how Kimura models selection.

Kimura generally models the absence of selection. Why do you ask?

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 4 Sep 2017 11:43:11 -0700, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net>:

Test post; nothing I've posted in this thread, and *only* in
this thread, has gotten through.

--

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

[r3p...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, September 3, 2017 at 10:10:05 AM UTC-7, Steady Eddie wrote:
> On Sunday, 3 September 2017 09:10:04 UTC-6, Ron O wrote:
> > On 9/3/2017 9:07 AM, Steady Eddie wrote:

> > > On Saturday, 2 September 2017 20:45:03 UTC-6, Sean Dillon wrote:
> > >> On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 6:30:03 PM UTC-5, Steady Eddie wrote:
> > >>> "At this past November’s Royal Society meeting, “New Trends in Evolutionary Biology,” the distinguished Austrian evolutionary theorist Gerd B. Müller gave the first presentation. As we’ve noted before, it was a devastating one for anyone who wants to think that, on the great questions of biological origins, orthodox evolutionary theory has got it all figured out. Instead, Müller pointed to gaping “explanatory deficits” in the theory. Now the Royal Society’s journal Interface Focus offers a special issue collecting articles based on talks from the conference."
> > >>>
> > >>> https://evolutionnews.org/2017/08/evolutionary-theorist-concedes-evolution-largely-avoids-biggest-questions-of-biological-origins/
> > >>
> > >> Hey numbnuts: evolution isn't ABOUT origins. Evolution is about what happens after the origin.
> > >

> > > True. So when will evolutionists admit they don't KNOW the origin of the various processes, systems, structures, and body plans found in nature?
> > >
> >
> > What a loser Eddie. It is what we know that should tell you that you
> > are a lost cause. Body plans? Take the penguin and look up avian
> > anatomy to determine where the penguin body plan came from. Take the
> > avian body plan and look up terrestrial tetrapods to see where the avian
> > body plan came from. Take whales and look up terrestrial mammals,
> > specifically hooved animals related to artiodactyls to see where that
> > body plan came from. Want terrestrial tetrapods, look up amphibians and
> > intermediates from fish like tiktaalik.
> >
> > We do not know everything, but compared to what you know about your
> > alternative what is your beef? Something is better than nothing.
> >
> > When are you going to learn the simple fact that if what you have isn't
> > as good as what you keep claiming is not good enough, what you have is
> > just not good enough by your own standards.
> >
> > Ron Okimoto
>

> Ron, what you have described above are stories, not facts.
> Darwinists, when coming up with such stories, are practicing creative writing, not science.
>

> The ability to dream up some stories that support your faith in Atheism is, I suppose, "something", but it's not the "something" you seem to think it is.
>

> The scientific approach is to survey what the competing hypotheses are, then choose the one from among them that has the most explanatory power. Only religious prejudice blocks most establishment scientists from considering intelligent design as a hypothesis. Too bad for them, because ID has much more explanatory power than any of their stories. The laws of probability effectively set the explanatory power of Darwinism for the origin of life's processes, structures, systems and body plans at ZERO.
>

But Eddie does accept the main cause-and-effect claim of evolutionary theory, natural selection causing microevolution, so the explanatory power cannot be ZERO.

Ray

[r3p...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, September 3, 2017 at 11:50:04 AM UTC-7, Bill wrote:

Bill's certainty in uncertainty philosophy.

Ray

[r3p...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 7:15:02 PM UTC-7, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 7:05:02 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:

> > On 9/2/17 5:23 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > > On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 5:10:04 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> > >> On 9/2/17 4:39 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:

> > >>> On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 4:30:03 PM UTC-7, Steady Eddie wrote:
> > >>>> "At this past November’s Royal Society meeting, “New Trends in Evolutionary Biology,” the distinguished Austrian evolutionary theorist Gerd B. Müller gave the first presentation. As we’ve noted before, it was a devastating one for anyone who wants to think that, on the great questions of biological origins, orthodox evolutionary theory has got it all figured out. Instead, Müller pointed to gaping “explanatory deficits” in the theory. Now the Royal Society’s journal Interface Focus offers a special issue collecting articles based on talks from the conference."
> > >>>>
> > >>>> https://evolutionnews.org/2017/08/evolutionary-theorist-concedes-evolution-largely-avoids-biggest-questions-of-biological-origins/
> > >>>

> > >>> A very interesting link. The cracks in this religious belief (which
> > >>> is masquerading as science) are becoming more obvious, even this
> > >>> biologist is starting to recognize this.
> > >>
> > >> What do you propose to replace it?
> >
> > > No need to replace it, just get rid of the mythology that's pedaled
> > > as settled science. I have no problem with the teaching of evolution
> > > in schools. People need to understand how rmns and recombination
> > > works. It's this notion that reptiles can be transformed into birds
> > > by rmns or even worse that life started spontaneously in some
> > > primordial soup and then by rmns evolved into all the life forms we
> > > see today. This is psychotic.
> >

> > So your position is that we have no idea where birds came from, or any
> > other species?
> You have an idea, it just isn't backed up by hard mathematical science.

Alan's point grants preeminence to mathematics as the discipline that decides the veracity of evolutionary theory. Again, anyone can support any claim or viewpoint with numbers, including lunatic geocentrism. Mathematics isn't the preeminent discipline, observation and logic are as such. For example:

If gradualism is true then phenomena like the Cambrian Explosion should not exist.

Observation: sudden explosion of fully formed species over the course of a very short amount of time.

Logic: sudden explosion of fully formed species and the gradual assembly of species by numerous slight and successive modifications occurring at a gradual rate of time, contradict completely and egregiously.

Mathematics: the same can be deployed to support the contradiction.

Stephen Meyer has shown that the Cambrian Explosion falsifies gradualism in its tracks. Not enough time for a selection process to produce the phenomena seen.

Ray

[r3p...@gmail.com]

But Darwinists will counter that there was enough time, and they will produce papers in support. So while the pro and con positions are debated by the mathematicians the observation and logic remain for everyone to see and understand the falsity of evolution.

Mathematics is not the decide-all.

Ray

[r3p...@gmail.com]

Question: If Alan's mathematical/probability claims are correct, what happens to the taxonomy of nested hierarchies?

My point is intended to needle both Alan and his opponents.

Ray

[John Harshman]

How short an amount of time? How long ago, in your opinion? Was it part
of the current creation or the previous creation?

> Logic: sudden explosion of fully formed species and the gradual
> assembly of species by numerous slight and successive modifications
> occurring at a gradual rate of time, contradict completely and
> egregiously.
> Mathematics: the same can be deployed to support the contradiction.
>
> Stephen Meyer has shown that the Cambrian Explosion falsifies
> gradualism in its tracks. Not enough time for a selection process to
> produce the phenomena seen.

Don't believe Stephen Meyer. I think he accepts natural selection and a
certain amount of evolution. He's probably an atheist.

[jillery]

On Mon, 04 Sep 2017 14:39:16 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On Mon, 4 Sep 2017 11:43:11 -0700, the following appeared in
>talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
><jhar...@pacbell.net>:
>
>Test post; nothing I've posted in this thread, and *only* in
>this thread, has gotten through.

How many posts have you made to this topic? I see only this one on
E-S, Albasani, and GG. Which suggests neo-Darwin never received it,
or did but deep-sixed it.

This topic/thread isn't that long, and the individual posts aren't
that large, which suggests the immediate cause is something different
from the usual suspects.

--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[Peter Nyikos]

...and however you decided they are homologous. Does Alan know that
you consider manus digits 1, 2, and 3 of most theropods to be homologous
to 2, 3, 4 in birds because "birds are theropods" is supposed to be
settled science?

> I wish you'd stop saying "reptiles", by the way. It's an out-dated term.

Some of your fellow cladophiles are trying to revive it, renaming Sauropsida
and giving it the name "Reptilia", which used to include non-mammalian synapsids
and exclude birds [1] and Mammalia. Correct?

If so, this is another example of sneaky imposition of the banishment of
paraphyletic taxa for purely ideological reasons: it puts another obstacle
in the way of understanding what paraphyletic taxa were all about.

[1] I originally wrote "Aves" but then I remembered another bit of Newspeak
that some of your fellow cladophiles are trying to establish: getting
rid of the beautifully descriptive "Neornithes" for the crown group determined
by extant birds and replacing it with "Aves" and thereby excluding almost
all Mesozoic birds from Aves, including of course Archaeopteryx.

> The ancestors of birds are theropod dinosaurs.

Bite your tongue! The Newspeak which you've been championing censors the first three words
from peer reviewed research articles.

>If you'd look at a fossil
> or two you would see some of the various feathered theropods.

No confirmed non-avian ones with true feathers, only with "protofeathers" that lack
barbs (and, of course, barbules and hooks).

There is no reason at this point to claim that the much balyhooed "dinosaur tail in amber"
is that of anything but a bird, defined by membership in the clade defined by the
membership of Archaeopteryx, Microraptor, and extant birds.

> >>>> And as I have mentioned before, what I do has nothing to do with natural
> >>>> selection.
> >>
> >>> That doesn't surprise me. You are not an expert in probability theory
> >>> and you are not an expert in natural selection.
> >>
> >> Neither are you. You know a little about probability, but it's almost
> >> entirely the ability to recite "the multiplication rule of
> >> probabilities", and you know nothing about natural selection, since
> >> you're unable to notice that you don't take it into account in your
> >> math. I know more than that, at least.

It might be even "worse": he might think natural selection had something
to do with organisms from different populations.

The reason for the scare quotes is that natural selection is BY DEFINITION
useless for deciding which of two competing species must live. There was
a famous experiment that pitted stable flies against bluebottle blowflies,
and _Newsweek_ had an article that suggested that the history of the
experiment undermined the theory of natural selection. [Details on request.]

Little did the author of the article suspect that the experiment was completely
irrelevant to natural selection or even to species selection. Nor did any of
the people whose letters to the editor were published: the two kinds of flies
are in different *families*!

> > There seems to be a publisher which disagrees with you.
>
> How do you know that? You passed some probably perfunctory peer review
> from reviewers who don't know much about evolutionary biology. Did any
> of the reviewer comments compliment you on how well you had dealt with
> natural selection in your math?

This seems to be leading to a stalemate. I wonder whether anyone here can
tell us more about natural selection than Alan or John or I can.

Richard Norman might be able to, but you've never tried to find out
what has happened to him, have you?

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

[Peter Nyikos]

On Monday, September 4, 2017 at 3:15:06 PM UTC-4, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> On Monday, September 4, 2017 at 11:45:04 AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> > On 9/4/17 9:54 AM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > > On Monday, September 4, 2017 at 9:25:04 AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> > >> On 9/4/17 9:06 AM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > >>> On Monday, September 4, 2017 at 8:50:03 AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> > >>>> On 9/4/17 8:23 AM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > >>>>> On Monday, September 4, 2017 at 6:55:05 AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> > >>>>>> On 9/3/17 5:59 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > >>>>>>> On Sunday, September 3, 2017 at 5:15:02 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> On 9/3/17 4:51 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>> On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 7:35:02 PM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> 5. When it comes to peer reviewed work, you've cited yourself twice. And no one else has cited you.
> > >>>>>>>>> How do you know?
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Pubmed is a good first pass.

Yeah, it actually cites two or three of my 100+ research papers,
the ones with medical applications. :-(

I think Harshman is banking on the tail in amber being a non-avian
dinosaur. If that is wrong, then all he has is a bunch of theorizing
by Prum, and the "intermediate" state represented by the modern
kiwi, whose feathers have barbs but no barbules or hooks.

Unfortunately for John, the universal consensus is that these devolved
from true contour feathers, and do not represent a primitive state.

> What sort of science do you have? So tell us the selection pressure for each of these intermediate states,

John is too much in awe of Prum to dare to ask him these questions,
I believe, even though Prum OUGHT to be able to answer the above
question -- which John already finked out on -- and also
the remaining two:

> the genes targeted and the mutations required to reach these intermediate states.


> John, we all know that you don't know and can't answer these questions and that your sort of science is to make up a story.

One reason I'm so sure John doesn't dare ask Prum is that he fears
Prum cannot answer all of them, and this might cause Prum no end of
embarrassment, as well as ruining any chance of him and John becoming
good friends.

> >
> > >>>>>> And as I have mentioned before, what I do has nothing to do with natural
> > >>>>>> selection.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> That doesn't surprise me. You are not an expert in probability theory
> > >>>>> and you are not an expert in natural selection.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Neither are you. You know a little about probability, but it's almost
> > >>>> entirely the ability to recite "the multiplication rule of
> > >>>> probabilities", and you know nothing about natural selection, since
> > >>>> you're unable to notice that you don't take it into account in your
> > >>>> math. I know more than that, at least.
> > >>
> > >>> There seems to be a publisher which disagrees with you.
> > >>
> > >> How do you know that? You passed some probably perfunctory peer review
> > >> from reviewers who don't know much about evolutionary biology. Did any
> > >> of the reviewer comments compliment you on how well you had dealt with
> > >> natural selection in your math?
> >
> > > John, I don't mind when you act like a dummy, but I do mind when you
> > > become an obnoxious jerk. People have put their reputations on the
> > > line to publish my work and they gave me the ultimate compliment,
> > > they published it.
> >
> > You have an exaggerated idea of what reviewers and publishers do. As for
> > "reputation", your journal only has an impact factor of 1.8 something.
> You are in for a surprise for what a journal with an impact factor of 1.8 can do.

Very true. Impact factors have more to do with prestige than actual
solid research. Researchers naturally want their papers to appear
in the journals with highest prestige, an many will use impact factor
as their yardstick -- a positive feedback loop if there ever was one.

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

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

[Peter Nyikos]

On Sunday, September 3, 2017 at 3:20:05 PM UTC-4, Inez wrote:
> On Sunday, September 3, 2017 at 11:50:04 AM UTC-7, Bill wrote:
> > Inez wrote:
> >
> > > On Sunday, September 3, 2017 at 7:55:05 AM UTC-7, Jonathan
> > > wrote:
> > >> On 9/2/2017 10:43 PM, Sean Dillon wrote:
> > >> > On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 6:30:03 PM UTC-5,

> > >> > Steady Eddie wrote:
> > >> >> "At this past November’s Royal Society meeting, “New
> > >> >> Trends in Evolutionary Biology,” the distinguished
> > >> >> Austrian evolutionary theorist Gerd B. Müller gave the
> > >> >> first presentation. As we’ve noted before, it was a
> > >> >> devastating one for anyone who wants to think that, on
> > >> >> the great questions of biological origins, orthodox
> > >> >> evolutionary theory has got it all figured out.
> > >> >> Instead, Müller pointed to gaping “explanatory
> > >> >> deficits” in the theory. Now the Royal Society’s
> > >> >> journal Interface Focus offers a special issue
> > >> >> collecting articles based on talks from the
> > >> >> conference."
> > >> >>
> > >> >> https://evolutionnews.org/2017/08/evolutionary-theorist-concedes-evolution-largely-avoids-biggest-questions-of-biological-origins/
> > >> >

> > >> > Hey numbnuts: evolution isn't ABOUT origins. Evolution
> > >> > is about what happens after the origin.
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> What a cop-out. What most want to know concerns origins.
> > >> As the article correctly states, it's the biggest
> > >> question.
> > >>
> > >> Can you articulate why evolution 'doesn't do' creation
> > >> or origins? Is it because they don't know how, or can't
> > >> or just haven't gotten 'round to it yet?
> > >>
> > >> Why?
> > >>
> > >> Just saying 'we don't do that' isn't good enough.
> > >
> > > Questions of origins is a different branch of science.
> > > Theories of abiogenesis talks about origins. Evolution is
> > > about how life changes over time once it exists.
> >
> > Evolution is also about the origins of species. There are
> > lots of explanations, some may even be true.
> >
> > Bill
>

> It isn't though. Really, it's not.

It's great to see you posting again, Inez. I was afraid you were
gone for good.

Evolution has many different definitions, all legitimate. What
is most relevant is the one that refers to the grand pageant
of life from its humble beginnings, over nearly 4 billion years.
That is what is most relevant to talk.origins, and you and Bill
are just looking at it from different points of view.

You are both a lot closer to this definition than Larry Moran
of Sandwalk fame/notoriety, whose definition of "evolution" has
it restricted to *within* populations (see the entry "Evolution"
of the talk.origins FAQ archive). Moran thus opts for a definition
of "evolution" which makes it synonymous with "microevolution" and
causes no problems for a species immutabilist like Ray Martinez.

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

[John Harshman]

You are back to your old habit of making up arguments, ascribing them to
your opponents, and then refuting them. Please stop.

>> What sort of science do you have? So tell us the selection pressure for each of these intermediate states,
>
> John is too much in awe of Prum to dare to ask him these questions,
> I believe, even though Prum OUGHT to be able to answer the above
> question -- which John already finked out on -- and also
> the remaining two:

I see that Rick Prum has become another of your preferred villains,
along with Ken Miller and Donald Prothero. It's enough just to mention
his name to show that some idea is evil.

How would anyone answer either of those questions? What research program
would you propose?

>> the genes targeted and the mutations required to reach these intermediate states.
>
>
>> John, we all know that you don't know and can't answer these questions and that your sort of science is to make up a story.
>
> One reason I'm so sure John doesn't dare ask Prum is that he fears
> Prum cannot answer all of them, and this might cause Prum no end of
> embarrassment, as well as ruining any chance of him and John becoming
> good friends.

Again you make up stuff, this time reasons why I won't do something.
There are a number of reasons I wouldn't ask Rick Prum these questions,
but the main reason is that they are stupid questions, because there is
probably no way to find answers to them. It's really hard to determine
the reasons for any changes in the distant past. Even genetics probably
won't help, since there are no living representatives of non-avian
theropods and thus no way to reconstruct ancestral genomes.

I won't say that Rick and I are good friends, but we do enjoy talking to
each other at meetings and respect each other's work.

I'll agree that impact factors are blunt instruments, but prestige is
often earned. And so are low impact factors. But do let me know when
somebody actually cites any of those papers.

[John Harshman]

I doubt he has any idea what you're talking about. He's completely
uninterested in paleontology and systematics. And yes, it's settled science.

>> I wish you'd stop saying "reptiles", by the way. It's an out-dated term.
>
> Some of your fellow cladophiles are trying to revive it, renaming Sauropsida
> and giving it the name "Reptilia", which used to include non-mammalian synapsids
> and exclude birds [1] and Mammalia. Correct?

I don't think anything like that has happened within the last 20 years,
at least. But yes, that was a notion once.

> If so, this is another example of sneaky imposition of the banishment of
> paraphyletic taxa for purely ideological reasons: it puts another obstacle
> in the way of understanding what paraphyletic taxa were all about.

You are free to express your opinions, however nonsensical. But that war
ended long ago.

> [1] I originally wrote "Aves" but then I remembered another bit of Newspeak
> that some of your fellow cladophiles are trying to establish: getting
> rid of the beautifully descriptive "Neornithes" for the crown group determined
> by extant birds and replacing it with "Aves" and thereby excluding almost
> all Mesozoic birds from Aves, including of course Archaeopteryx.

Now that's one I'm in favor of. What's in a name? That which we call
Aves by any other name would still have wings and feathers.

>> The ancestors of birds are theropod dinosaurs.
>
> Bite your tongue! The Newspeak which you've been championing censors the first three words
> from peer reviewed research articles.

You know nothing.

>> If you'd look at a fossil
>> or two you would see some of the various feathered theropods.
>
> No confirmed non-avian ones with true feathers, only with "protofeathers" that lack
> barbs (and, of course, barbules and hooks).
>
> There is no reason at this point to claim that the much balyhooed "dinosaur tail in amber"
> is that of anything but a bird, defined by membership in the clade defined by the
> membership of Archaeopteryx, Microraptor, and extant birds.

What about Caudipteryx? Here we see the catch-22: anything with
confirmed true feathers is called (by you, not others) a bird, not a
theropod. I will point out that by your definition above Deinonychus is
a bird.

Alan doesn't care about any of this, by the way.

>>>>>> And as I have mentioned before, what I do has nothing to do with natural
>>>>>> selection.
>>>>
>>>>> That doesn't surprise me. You are not an expert in probability theory
>>>>> and you are not an expert in natural selection.
>>>>
>>>> Neither are you. You know a little about probability, but it's almost
>>>> entirely the ability to recite "the multiplication rule of
>>>> probabilities", and you know nothing about natural selection, since
>>>> you're unable to notice that you don't take it into account in your
>>>> math. I know more than that, at least.
>
> It might be even "worse": he might think natural selection had something
> to do with organisms from different populations.

No, he doesn't. But you don't care. You're just using him to bring up a
new subject on which you think you have some zinger to report.

> The reason for the scare quotes is that natural selection is BY DEFINITION
> useless for deciding which of two competing species must live. There was
> a famous experiment that pitted stable flies against bluebottle blowflies,
> and _Newsweek_ had an article that suggested that the history of the
> experiment undermined the theory of natural selection. [Details on request.]
>
> Little did the author of the article suspect that the experiment was completely
> irrelevant to natural selection or even to species selection. Nor did any of
> the people whose letters to the editor were published: the two kinds of flies
> are in different *families*!
>
>
>>> There seems to be a publisher which disagrees with you.
>>
>> How do you know that? You passed some probably perfunctory peer review
>> from reviewers who don't know much about evolutionary biology. Did any
>> of the reviewer comments compliment you on how well you had dealt with
>> natural selection in your math?
>
> This seems to be leading to a stalemate. I wonder whether anyone here can
> tell us more about natural selection than Alan or John or I can.

Perhaps you, in your infinite mathematical wisdom, might look at Alan's
math and explain to me how he models natural selection.

> Richard Norman might be able to, but you've never tried to find out
> what has happened to him, have you?

Who are you even talking to there? What are you passive-agressively
criticizing me (possibly me) for, exactly?

[John Harshman]

Evolution within populations can account for divergence between
populations, can't it? Where do you think evolution happens other than
within populations? How do eyes, legs, and wings arise except through
evolution within populations? Most of evolution is microevolution.

There are macroevolutionary processes —- e.g. species selection -- but
they don't build organs or create innovations, they just determine (to
an unknown, perhaps slight, degree) which organs and innovations get
more species.

Definitions don't have to describe every implication or consequence of
the phenomenon being defined. The diversity of life is largely the
consequence of allele frequency change in populations plus branching.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 05 Sep 2017 07:54:24 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Mon, 04 Sep 2017 14:39:16 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 4 Sep 2017 11:43:11 -0700, the following appeared in
>>talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
>><jhar...@pacbell.net>:
>>
>>Test post; nothing I've posted in this thread, and *only* in
>>this thread, has gotten through.
>
>
>How many posts have you made to this topic?

Nine, originally posted on 09/03 and re-sent on 09/04.
*None* got through.

> I see only this one on
>E-S, Albasani, and GG. Which suggests neo-Darwin never received it,
>or did but deep-sixed it.

Strangely, this one got through. Even more strangely, I took
my usual "didn't post" cure attempt to an extreme: I
sometimes, for no apparent reason, and very infrequently,
have had to re-type the "Newsgroup" line (which I tried
first, and which didn't work). For my second attempt, I
re-typed the entire "Subject" line; *that* seems to have
fixed the problem, since only the post in which I did that
got through. I think I may have inadvertently entered the
Twilight Zone...

Anyway, I'm going to try sending the original nine again,
re-typing the "Subject" line for each (well, re-typing it
once, then copy/pasting it from the first for the others),
and see what happens.

>This topic/thread isn't that long, and the individual posts aren't
>that large, which suggests the immediate cause is something different
>from the usual suspects.

Yep. But damfino what it might be. Hidden characters in the
"Subject" line, which screw up Agent? That might be the
answer, except that you also use Agent and you seem to have
no problems. Di-di-di-di; di-di-di-di...

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 2 Sep 2017 19:13:13 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net>:

>On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 7:05:02 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 9/2/17 5:23 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
>> > On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 5:10:04 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>> >> On 9/2/17 4:39 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:

>> >>> On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 4:30:03 PM UTC-7, Steady Eddie wrote:
>> >>>> "At this past November’s Royal Society meeting, “New Trends in Evolutionary Biology,” the distinguished Austrian evolutionary theorist Gerd B. Müller gave the first presentation. As we’ve noted before, it was a devastating one for anyone who wants to think that, on the great questions of biological origins, orthodox evolutionary theory has got it all figured out. Instead, Müller pointed to gaping “explanatory deficits” in the theory. Now the Royal Society’s journal Interface Focus offers a special issue collecting articles based on talks from the conference."
>> >>>>
>> >>>> https://evolutionnews.org/2017/08/evolutionary-theorist-concedes-evolution-largely-avoids-biggest-questions-of-biological-origins/
>> >>>

>> >>> A very interesting link. The cracks in this religious belief (which
>> >>> is masquerading as science) are becoming more obvious, even this
>> >>> biologist is starting to recognize this.
>> >>
>> >> What do you propose to replace it?
>>
>> > No need to replace it, just get rid of the mythology that's pedaled
>> > as settled science. I have no problem with the teaching of evolution
>> > in schools. People need to understand how rmns and recombination
>> > works. It's this notion that reptiles can be transformed into birds
>> > by rmns or even worse that life started spontaneously in some
>> > primordial soup and then by rmns evolved into all the life forms we
>> > see today. This is psychotic.
>>
>> So your position is that we have no idea where birds came from, or any
>> other species?
>You have an idea, it just isn't backed up by hard mathematical science.

Ummm... Not to put too fine a point on it, but mathematics
isn't science; math and science operate by different rules.
HTH.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 2 Sep 2017 19:36:38 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com>:

>On Saturday, 2 September 2017 18:10:04 UTC-6, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 9/2/17 4:39 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
>> > On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 4:30:03 PM UTC-7, Steady Eddie wrote:
>> >> "At this past November’s Royal Society meeting, “New Trends in Evolutionary Biology,” the distinguished Austrian evolutionary theorist Gerd B. Müller gave the first presentation. As we’ve noted before, it was a devastating one for anyone who wants to think that, on the great questions of biological origins, orthodox evolutionary theory has got it all figured out. Instead, Müller pointed to gaping “explanatory deficits” in the theory. Now the Royal Society’s journal Interface Focus offers a special issue collecting articles based on talks from the conference."
>> >>
>> >> https://evolutionnews.org/2017/08/evolutionary-theorist-concedes-evolution-largely-avoids-biggest-questions-of-biological-origins/
>> >
>> > A very interesting link. The cracks in this religious belief (which
>> > is masquerading as science) are becoming more obvious, even this
>> > biologist is starting to recognize this.
>>
>> What do you propose to replace it?
>

>Intelligent design, of course.

Which consists of nothing *but* "gaping holes", and has
*zero* evidence in support. Excellent idea.

Moron.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 3 Sep 2017 07:07:02 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com>:

>On Saturday, 2 September 2017 20:45:03 UTC-6, Sean Dillon wrote:

>> On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 6:30:03 PM UTC-5, Steady Eddie wrote:
>> > "At this past November’s Royal Society meeting, “New Trends in Evolutionary Biology,” the distinguished Austrian evolutionary theorist Gerd B. Müller gave the first presentation. As we’ve noted before, it was a devastating one for anyone who wants to think that, on the great questions of biological origins, orthodox evolutionary theory has got it all figured out. Instead, Müller pointed to gaping “explanatory deficits” in the theory. Now the Royal Society’s journal Interface Focus offers a special issue collecting articles based on talks from the conference."
>> >
>> > https://evolutionnews.org/2017/08/evolutionary-theorist-concedes-evolution-largely-avoids-biggest-questions-of-biological-origins/
>>

>> Hey numbnuts: evolution isn't ABOUT origins. Evolution is about what happens after the origin.
>

>True. So when will evolutionists admit they don't KNOW the origin of the various processes, systems, structures, and body plans found in nature?

Apples. Oranges. "Origin of life" /= "origin of species".
HTH.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 2 Sep 2017 16:25:48 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com>:

>"At this past November’s Royal Society meeting, “New Trends in Evolutionary Biology,” the distinguished Austrian evolutionary theorist Gerd B. Müller gave the first presentation. As we’ve noted before, it was a devastating one for anyone who wants to think that, on the great questions of biological origins, orthodox evolutionary theory has got it all figured out. Instead, Müller pointed to gaping “explanatory deficits” in the theory. Now the Royal Society’s journal Interface Focus offers a special issue collecting articles based on talks from the conference."
>
>https://evolutionnews.org/2017/08/evolutionary-theorist-concedes-evolution-largely-avoids-biggest-questions-of-biological-origins/

Interesting. Something any evolutionary biologist knows and
freely admits, that evolutionary theory doesn't address
"biological origins" (i.e., abiogenesis), and was never
intended to do so, is "discovered" by the ID crowd. Now if
they only had a theory, or even a testable hypothesis, of
their own, rather than a religious belief...

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 3 Sep 2017 10:08:19 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com>:

>On Sunday, 3 September 2017 09:10:04 UTC-6, Ron O wrote:
>> On 9/3/2017 9:07 AM, Steady Eddie wrote:

>> > On Saturday, 2 September 2017 20:45:03 UTC-6, Sean Dillon wrote:
>> >> On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 6:30:03 PM UTC-5, Steady Eddie wrote:

>> >>> "At this past November’s Royal Society meeting, “New Trends in Evolutionary Biology,” the distinguished Austrian evolutionary theorist Gerd B. Müller gave the first presentation. As we’ve noted before, it was a devastating one for anyone who wants to think that, on the great questions of biological origins, orthodox evolutionary theory has got it all figured out. Instead, Müller pointed to gaping “explanatory deficits” in the theory. Now the Royal Society’s journal Interface Focus offers a special issue collecting articles based on talks from the conference."
>> >>>
>> >>> https://evolutionnews.org/2017/08/evolutionary-theorist-concedes-evolution-largely-avoids-biggest-questions-of-biological-origins/
>> >>

>> >> Hey numbnuts: evolution isn't ABOUT origins. Evolution is about what happens after the origin.
>> >
>> > True. So when will evolutionists admit they don't KNOW the origin of the various processes, systems, structures, and body plans found in nature?
>> >
>>

>> What a loser Eddie. It is what we know that should tell you that you
>> are a lost cause. Body plans? Take the penguin and look up avian
>> anatomy to determine where the penguin body plan came from. Take the
>> avian body plan and look up terrestrial tetrapods to see where the avian
>> body plan came from. Take whales and look up terrestrial mammals,
>> specifically hooved animals related to artiodactyls to see where that
>> body plan came from. Want terrestrial tetrapods, look up amphibians and
>> intermediates from fish like tiktaalik.
>>
>> We do not know everything, but compared to what you know about your
>> alternative what is your beef? Something is better than nothing.
>>
>> When are you going to learn the simple fact that if what you have isn't
>> as good as what you keep claiming is not good enough, what you have is
>> just not good enough by your own standards.
>>
>> Ron Okimoto
>
>Ron, what you have described above are stories, not facts.

....says the ID proponent. My IronyMeter dislikes you.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 3 Sep 2017 10:52:42 -0400, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>:

>On 9/2/2017 10:43 PM, Sean Dillon wrote:
>> On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 6:30:03 PM UTC-5, Steady Eddie wrote:
>>> "At this past November’s Royal Society meeting, “New Trends in Evolutionary Biology,” the distinguished Austrian evolutionary theorist Gerd B. Müller gave the first presentation. As we’ve noted before, it was a devastating one for anyone who wants to think that, on the great questions of biological origins, orthodox evolutionary theory has got it all figured out. Instead, Müller pointed to gaping “explanatory deficits” in the theory. Now the Royal Society’s journal Interface Focus offers a special issue collecting articles based on talks from the conference."
>>>
>>> https://evolutionnews.org/2017/08/evolutionary-theorist-concedes-evolution-largely-avoids-biggest-questions-of-biological-origins/
>>
>> Hey numbnuts: evolution isn't ABOUT origins. Evolution is about what happens after the origin.
>>
>
>
>

>What a cop-out.

It's not a cop-out; evolutionary theory deals *only* with
already-extant life, something you really should have known
as long as you've been posting here. HTH.

> What most want to know concerns origins.
>As the article correctly states, it's the biggest
>question.

Fine, then ask someone working in the field about the status
of abiogenesis research, not an evolutionary biologist. They
may include some of the same individuals, but that should
not be an assumption for "points".

>Can you articulate why evolution 'doesn't do' creation
>or origins? Is it because they don't know how, or can't
>or just haven't gotten 'round to it yet?

It's because evolution deals with changes to already-extent
life, as the term implies.

>Why?
>
>Just saying 'we don't do that' isn't good enough.

Actually yes, it is, just as an auto mechanic saying he
doesn't design cars is "good enough".

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 3 Sep 2017 09:27:36 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by r3p...@gmail.com:

>On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 7:45:03 PM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:
>> On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 6:30:03 PM UTC-5, Steady Eddie wrote:
>> > "At this past November’s Royal Society meeting, “New Trends in Evolutionary Biology,” the distinguished Austrian evolutionary theorist Gerd B. Müller gave the first presentation. As we’ve noted before, it was a devastating one for anyone who wants to think that, on the great questions of biological origins, orthodox evolutionary theory has got it all figured out. Instead, Müller pointed to gaping “explanatory deficits” in the theory. Now the Royal Society’s journal Interface Focus offers a special issue collecting articles based on talks from the conference."
>> >
>> > https://evolutionnews.org/2017/08/evolutionary-theorist-concedes-evolution-largely-avoids-biggest-questions-of-biological-origins/
>>
>> Hey numbnuts: evolution isn't ABOUT origins. Evolution is about what happens after the origin.
>>
>

>Completely false, Sean.

No, Ray, it's not. You might do better at addressing the
problems you think exist in evolution if you knew what
evolutionary theory is, and what evolution means.

> All you did was assume that origin was talking about the metaphysical, which is not true. Darwin's "On The Origin Of Species" means species originate from previously living species by natural selection, and not from real time independent creation.

Right, the origin of species, as Darwin proposed, is from
extant species, a process usually referred to as
"speciation", and one which has been observed in real time.
And Darwin, who was a practicing Christian, essentially left
the origin of *life* as an unknown.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 3 Sep 2017 10:13:00 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com>:

>On Sunday, 3 September 2017 09:10:04 UTC-6, Ron O wrote:
>> On 9/3/2017 9:07 AM, Steady Eddie wrote:

>> > On Saturday, 2 September 2017 20:45:03 UTC-6, Sean Dillon wrote:
>> >> On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 6:30:03 PM UTC-5, Steady Eddie wrote:
>> >>> "At this past November’s Royal Society meeting, “New Trends in Evolutionary Biology,” the distinguished Austrian evolutionary theorist Gerd B. Müller gave the first presentation. As we’ve noted before, it was a devastating one for anyone who wants to think that, on the great questions of biological origins, orthodox evolutionary theory has got it all figured out. Instead, Müller pointed to gaping “explanatory deficits” in the theory. Now the Royal Society’s journal Interface Focus offers a special issue collecting articles based on talks from the conference."
>> >>>
>> >>> https://evolutionnews.org/2017/08/evolutionary-theorist-concedes-evolution-largely-avoids-biggest-questions-of-biological-origins/
>> >>
>> >> Hey numbnuts: evolution isn't ABOUT origins. Evolution is about what happens after the origin.
>> >

>> > True. So when will evolutionists admit they don't KNOW the origin of the various processes, systems, structures, and body plans found in nature?
>> >
>>
>> What a loser Eddie. It is what we know that should tell you that you
>> are a lost cause. Body plans? Take the penguin and look up avian
>> anatomy to determine where the penguin body plan came from. Take the
>> avian body plan and look up terrestrial tetrapods to see where the avian
>> body plan came from. Take whales and look up terrestrial mammals,
>> specifically hooved animals related to artiodactyls to see where that
>> body plan came from. Want terrestrial tetrapods, look up amphibians and
>> intermediates from fish like tiktaalik.
>>
>> We do not know everything, but compared to what you know about your
>> alternative what is your beef? Something is better than nothing.
>>
>> When are you going to learn the simple fact that if what you have isn't
>> as good as what you keep claiming is not good enough, what you have is
>> just not good enough by your own standards.
>>
>> Ron Okimoto
>

>In fact, coming up with some story THAT YOU ASSERT IS TRUE, when you can't find sufficient evidence is not a good thing for a scientist.

....says the ID proponent, who has no evidence at all. My
IronyMeter *really* dislikes you.

>It demonstrates hubris, negligence, and intellectual dishonesty.

And it survives yet *another* hit.

>In many other settings, people have been found CRIMINALLY GUILTY and prosecuted for such dishonesty.

Unlike some ID/Creationism proponents?

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 2 Sep 2017 19:31:26 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Sean Dillon
<seand...@gmail.com>:

>On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 7:25:02 PM UTC-5, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:

>> On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 5:10:04 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>> > On 9/2/17 4:39 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:

>> > > On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 4:30:03 PM UTC-7, Steady Eddie wrote:
>> > >> "At this past November’s Royal Society meeting, “New Trends in Evolutionary Biology,” the distinguished Austrian evolutionary theorist Gerd B. Müller gave the first presentation. As we’ve noted before, it was a devastating one for anyone who wants to think that, on the great questions of biological origins, orthodox evolutionary theory has got it all figured out. Instead, Müller pointed to gaping “explanatory deficits” in the theory. Now the Royal Society’s journal Interface Focus offers a special issue collecting articles based on talks from the conference."
>> > >>
>> > >> https://evolutionnews.org/2017/08/evolutionary-theorist-concedes-evolution-largely-avoids-biggest-questions-of-biological-origins/
>> > >

>> > > A very interesting link. The cracks in this religious belief (which
>> > > is masquerading as science) are becoming more obvious, even this
>> > > biologist is starting to recognize this.
>> >
>> > What do you propose to replace it?

>> No need to replace it, just get rid of the mythology that's pedaled as settled science. I have no problem with the teaching of evolution in schools. People need to understand how rmns and recombination works. It's this notion that reptiles can be transformed into birds by rmns or even worse that life started spontaneously in some primordial soup and then by rmns evolved into all the life forms we see today. This is psychotic.
>

>Alan, I haven't had the opportunity to actually evaluate your ideas for myself, because when I asked, you suggested you would share them "in due time." So I'm not actually calling you a crackpot here, but as an amateur crackpotology enthusiast, please let me share with you a few of the a few of the signals you are giving off, that I have in the past found to be highly consistent with crackpottery:
>
>1. You'll share the actual math with me "in due time." That's typically a sign that, at best, it isn't really about the math, and at worst, that the math is bullshit.

....and sounds too much like Ray's forever-future Magnum
Opus.

>2. You put your degrees in your screen name. Generally either means that someone is struggling to be seen as legit, or flat out isn't legit. Doubly true when there are more than one listed.
>
>3. You're not just calling mainstream science wrong, you're calling it "psychotic." While on the odd occassion, a big idea in mainstream science turns out to be wrong, or at least incomplete, in my experience the correction is never discovered by someone who thinks everyone in the field is mentally ill.
>
>4. You seem awfully cagey about your beliefs, both as they relate to this question, and in general. That's typical of people who are doing something for ideological reasons, but trying to appear "rational."

>
>5. When it comes to peer reviewed work, you've cited yourself twice. And no one else has cited you.
>

>6. You think you spotted the fatal flaw in a major scientific theory in 5th grade, which has yet to be accepted by mainstream science. That's generally a sign of megalomania.
>
>7. I've never encountered an actual MD who casually accused others of psychosis on the internet. In my experience, they understand the medical and legal weight of that accusation.
>
>
>Please recognize that for all the reasons above, you may not have much credibility.

[jillery]

On Tue, 05 Sep 2017 11:08:38 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On Sun, 3 Sep 2017 07:07:02 -0700 (PDT), the following
>appeared in talk.origins, posted by Steady Eddie
><1914o...@gmail.com>:
>
>>On Saturday, 2 September 2017 20:45:03 UTC-6, Sean Dillon wrote:
>>> On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 6:30:03 PM UTC-5, Steady Eddie wrote:
>>> > "At this past November’s Royal Society meeting, “New Trends in Evolutionary Biology,” the distinguished Austrian evolutionary theorist Gerd B. Müller gave the first presentation. As we’ve noted before, it was a devastating one for anyone who wants to think that, on the great questions of biological origins, orthodox evolutionary theory has got it all figured out. Instead, Müller pointed to gaping “explanatory deficits” in the theory. Now the Royal Society’s journal Interface Focus offers a special issue collecting articles based on talks from the conference."
>>> >
>>> > https://evolutionnews.org/2017/08/evolutionary-theorist-concedes-evolution-largely-avoids-biggest-questions-of-biological-origins/
>>>
>>> Hey numbnuts: evolution isn't ABOUT origins. Evolution is about what happens after the origin.
>>
>>True. So when will evolutionists admit they don't KNOW the origin of the various processes, systems, structures, and body plans found in nature?
>
>Apples. Oranges. "Origin of life" /= "origin of species".
>HTH.

More to the point IMO, *Steadly* doesn't "KNOW the origin of the

various processes, systems, structures, and body plans found in

nature". So even if his criticism above were true, he's no better off
than those he criticizes. His post is just another example of a
standard IDiot tactic, and illustrates RonO's point, that Steadly's
explanation explains less than the explanation Steadly criticizes.

[jillery]

On Tue, 05 Sep 2017 10:51:06 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

Ironically, it turns out that one of my posts to this topic *did* get
lost:

************************************
On Sun, 03 Sep 2017 13:44:25 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

<irfoqcpfcaet25p0g...@4ax.com>
***************************************

I didn't even check until you mentioned we both use Agent. My post
above is also a no-show on E-S, GG, and Albasani.

[jillery]

On Tue, 05 Sep 2017 11:09:24 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On Sat, 2 Sep 2017 16:25:48 -0700 (PDT), the following
>appeared in talk.origins, posted by Steady Eddie
><1914o...@gmail.com>:
>
>>"At this past November’s Royal Society meeting, “New Trends in Evolutionary Biology,” the distinguished Austrian evolutionary theorist Gerd B. Müller gave the first presentation. As we’ve noted before, it was a devastating one for anyone who wants to think that, on the great questions of biological origins, orthodox evolutionary theory has got it all figured out. Instead, Müller pointed to gaping “explanatory deficits” in the theory. Now the Royal Society’s journal Interface Focus offers a special issue collecting articles based on talks from the conference."
>>
>>https://evolutionnews.org/2017/08/evolutionary-theorist-concedes-evolution-largely-avoids-biggest-questions-of-biological-origins/
>
>Interesting. Something any evolutionary biologist knows and
>freely admits, that evolutionary theory doesn't address
>"biological origins" (i.e., abiogenesis), and was never
>intended to do so, is "discovered" by the ID crowd. Now if
>they only had a theory, or even a testable hypothesis, of
>their own, rather than a religious belief...

Here's a Sandwalk article where Larry Moran points out that in the
very next lecture of that very same Royal Society meeting, Futuyma
repudiated just about everything Müller said wrt the modern view of
evolutionary theory:

<http://sandwalk.blogspot.ca/2017/01/intelligent-design-creationists-reveal.html>

Larry Moran provided his opinions about that Royal Society conference
in general here:

<http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2017/08/the-extended-evolutionary-synthesis.html>

Apparently I'm the only one on T.O. who agrees with Larry Moran and
thinks the cited article isn't about abiogenesis. What am I missing?

[Ernest Major]

On 05/09/2017 16:07, John Harshman wrote:
>
> Perhaps you, in your infinite mathematical wisdom, might look at Alan's
> math and explain to me how he models natural selection.

In the original post he wrote "RSNorman, another long time debater and
graduate student level in probability theory accepts that my mathematics
is correct but only applies to medical problems."

(I suspect that he is misrepresenting Professor Norman. The restriction
is not to medical problems per se, but rather to instances of intense
hard selection, and Professor Norman would understand this.)

I suspect that in his published work that he is modelling natural
selection under conditions of sequential or serial lethal challenges to
populations incorporating hard selection. That is a perfectly reasonable
model to apply to antibiotic resistance in response to therapeutic
doses. But the results can't be generalised to other circumstances, and
his appeal to his publications to justify his claims of the inefficacy
of natural selection would be fallacious.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

There are only two variables natural selection can change, the number of members of a particular variant or the relative frequency of particular variants. Study Kimura's and Haldane's mathematics. They concentrate on the changes in relative frequency. rmns is not dependent on relative frequencies of variants, the probabilities are dependent on the absolute number of replications of the particular variant which determines the probability of a beneficial mutation occurring.

>
> Richard Norman might be able to, but you've never tried to find out
> what has happened to him, have you?

The last I heard from him was that he agreed my mathematics was correct but only applied to medical situations.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

My yardstick was different. I looked for a journal with editors and peer reviewers with the skills to understand my work. I initially submitted my first paper to the journal "Science" since this paper was based on an empirical paper already published in that journal. After several months of reviewing the paper, their response was that I needed to submit my paper to a more specialized journal. I felt they didn't understand the mathematics.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 11:10:04 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Sep 2017 19:13:13 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD

> :
>
> >On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 7:05:02 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 9/2/17 5:23 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> >> > On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 5:10:04 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> >> >> On 9/2/17 4:39 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> >> >>> On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 4:30:03 PM UTC-7, Steady Eddie wrote:
> >> >>>> "At this past November’s Royal Society meeting, “New Trends in Evolutionary Biology,” the distinguished Austrian evolutionary theorist Gerd B. Müller gave the first presentation. As we’ve noted before, it was a devastating one for anyone who wants to think that, on the great questions of biological origins, orthodox evolutionary theory has got it all figured out. Instead, Müller pointed to gaping “explanatory deficits” in the theory. Now the Royal Society’s journal Interface Focus offers a special issue collecting articles based on talks from the conference."
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> https://evolutionnews.org/2017/08/evolutionary-theorist-concedes-evolution-largely-avoids-biggest-questions-of-biological-origins/
> >> >>>
> >> >>> A very interesting link. The cracks in this religious belief (which
> >> >>> is masquerading as science) are becoming more obvious, even this
> >> >>> biologist is starting to recognize this.
> >> >>
> >> >> What do you propose to replace it?
> >>
> >> > No need to replace it, just get rid of the mythology that's pedaled
> >> > as settled science. I have no problem with the teaching of evolution
> >> > in schools. People need to understand how rmns and recombination
> >> > works. It's this notion that reptiles can be transformed into birds
> >> > by rmns or even worse that life started spontaneously in some
> >> > primordial soup and then by rmns evolved into all the life forms we
> >> > see today. This is psychotic.
> >>
> >> So your position is that we have no idea where birds came from, or any
> >> other species?
> >You have an idea, it just isn't backed up by hard mathematical science.
>
> Ummm... Not to put too fine a point on it, but mathematics
> isn't science; math and science operate by different rules.
> HTH.

Mathematics gives the accounting rules for physical laws of science.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 12:50:05 PM UTC-7, Ernest Major wrote:
> On 05/09/2017 16:07, John Harshman wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps you, in your infinite mathematical wisdom, might look at Alan's
> > math and explain to me how he models natural selection.
>
> In the original post he wrote "RSNorman, another long time debater and
> graduate student level in probability theory accepts that my mathematics
> is correct but only applies to medical problems."
>
> (I suspect that he is misrepresenting Professor Norman. The restriction
> is not to medical problems per se, but rather to instances of intense
> hard selection, and Professor Norman would understand this.)

Go back and search the previous threads.

>
> I suspect that in his published work that he is modelling natural
> selection under conditions of sequential or serial lethal challenges to
> populations incorporating hard selection. That is a perfectly reasonable
> model to apply to antibiotic resistance in response to therapeutic
> doses. But the results can't be generalised to other circumstances, and
> his appeal to his publications to justify his claims of the inefficacy
> of natural selection would be fallacious.

If these selection pressures are lethal challenges, then why are these replicators able to adapt?
>
> --
> alias Ernest Major

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 11:10:04 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:

> On Sat, 2 Sep 2017 16:25:48 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Steady Eddie

>:
>
> >"At this past November’s Royal Society meeting, “New Trends in Evolutionary Biology,” the distinguished Austrian evolutionary theorist Gerd B. Müller gave the first presentation. As we’ve noted before, it was a devastating one for anyone who wants to think that, on the great questions of biological origins, orthodox evolutionary theory has got it all figured out. Instead, Müller pointed to gaping “explanatory deficits” in the theory. Now the Royal Society’s journal Interface Focus offers a special issue collecting articles based on talks from the conference."
> >
> >https://evolutionnews.org/2017/08/evolutionary-theorist-concedes-evolution-largely-avoids-biggest-questions-of-biological-origins/
>
> Interesting. Something any evolutionary biologist knows and
> freely admits, that evolutionary theory doesn't address
> "biological origins" (i.e., abiogenesis), and was never
> intended to do so, is "discovered" by the ID crowd. Now if
> they only had a theory, or even a testable hypothesis, of
> their own, rather than a religious belief...

So what is the selection pressure that created the genes that make the proteins for the Krebs cycle, the proteins for the DNA replicase system, any of the other tens of thousands of proteins which permit life to exist? Oh, and for John, the genes that produce the proteins which make feathers?

[John Harshman]

On 9/5/17 1:13 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> My yardstick was different. I looked for a journal with editors and
> peer reviewers with the skills to understand my work. I initially
> submitted my first paper to the journal "Science" since this paper
> was based on an empirical paper already published in that journal.
> After several months of reviewing the paper, their response was that
> I needed to submit my paper to a more specialized journal. I felt
> they didn't understand the mathematics.

Snicker. Yeah, that must be why they rejected it. Interesting that you
started at the top and immediately went to the bottom. Never considered
somewhere in the middle, say Evolution or Journal of Theoretical Biology?

[John Harshman]

No, your suspicion is wrong. He doesn't model selection at all. He
models a constant population size with no fitness differences among
individuals. He's modeling random mutation and nothing else. He asks how
many replications it takes to get a particular probability of some
number of particular, simultaneous mutations arising at least once.

[John Harshman]

Once again, you don't describe selection at all, just mutation. The
probability of a particular mutation depends on the number of
replications, but the number of replications depends on selection, while
all you do is state a number of replications without taking fitness into
acount.

>> Richard Norman might be able to, but you've never tried to find out
>> what has happened to him, have you?

> The last I heard from him was that he agreed my mathematics was correct but only applied to medical situations.

You mathematics is correct as far as it goes. But it doesn't do what you
think it does. It doesn't, for example, model selection at all.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Sure my model includes selection, you just aren't willing to accept it. So my question to you is under what circumstances is the relative frequency of variants appropriate for modeling evolutionary processes and when is it appropriate to use absolute population size (number of replications).

[Bill Rogers]

.................

> My yardstick was different. I looked for a journal with editors and peer reviewers with the skills to understand my work. I initially submitted my first paper to the journal "Science" since this paper was based on an empirical paper already published in that journal. After several months of reviewing the paper, their response was that I needed to submit my paper to a more specialized journal. I felt they didn't understand the mathematics.

Yeah, that must have been the problem. Damn peer reviewers at Science just don't have the math chops to keep up with you.

[r3p...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 11:10:04 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:

Darwin abandon Christianity during the same two years (1837-1838) that he became a transmutationist; the Origin didn't even address speciation; no scientist says the Biological Species Concept can be observed while undergoing speciation; and Darwin ended the Origin deistically.

So you struck out four times in one short paragraph, Bob.

We have ALWAYS said any given Evolutionist is inexcusably ignorant.

Ray (anti-evolutionary)

[John Harshman]

How does your model include selection? What variables in your math
incorporate selection?

> So my question to you is under what circumstances is the relative
> frequency of variants appropriate for modeling evolutionary processes
> and when is it appropriate to use absolute population size (number of
> replications).

First off, absolute population size and number of replications are two
quite different things. And it's certainly appropriate to use relative
frequency if the population size is constant, or if you are interested
in some feature of a population that varies with frequency, for example,
off the top of my head, the probability that the first prey encountered
by a predator will have one of several genotypes. Absolute number might
be appropriate for some purposes, but that hardly matters, since you are
not modeling selection.

[r3p...@gmail.com]

Imagine that! Persons with Ph.Ds didn't even understand the mathematics!

You have ZERO chance of ever affecting any significant negative change against the theory of evolution, Alan. All you have is Young Earth Creationists in your corner, they too accept RMNS causing micro-evolution (and little else), but since the Fundamentalists are rightfully considered the dumbest people in Western society you literally have nothing in them.

Observation and logic are the preeminent disciplines, not mathematics, which is supplementary. But in your world you have the preceding fact reversed, inverted, and perverted; and as we both know you have almost ZERO knowledge in logic.

There isn't any mathematics in the Origin, Alan; yet the theory of evolution remains Darwinian. My advice to you is discover your place in providing real aid toward the falsification of the theory of evolution, like confirming the fact that there's no time for gradualism to have produced the Cambrian Explosion. Stephen Meyer can undoubtedly use your help/talents.

Observation: sudden appearance of fully formed species universally described by paleontologists as an EXPLOSION!

Logic: The above observation completely contradicts the gradual assembly of species by numerous, slight, and successive modifications occurring at a gradual rate of time.

Mathematics: Do the math, Alan, and show the world that natural selection had no time to produce the Cambrian Explosion----that an Explosion should not even exist if gradualism is true.

Ray

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

So you don't know when relative frequency and absolute population size are appropriate for modeling particular evolutionary processes.

[John Harshman]

So you can't even read what's in front of you.

[jillery]

On what basis do you claim Darwin abandoned Christianity?

And what do you mean by "transmutationist"? Do you think Darwin
emulated Newton and tried to turn lead into gold?

>the Origin didn't even address speciation;

So why did Darwin title it "On the Origin of Species by Means of
Natural Selection"?

>no scientist says the Biological Species Concept can be observed while undergoing speciation;

Not sure what point you think you're making. A test of speciation
could use the Biological Species Concept, and so it would be observed.

>and Darwin ended the Origin deistically.

Again, not sure what point you think you're making. Neither Deism nor
Theism directly refutes the conclusions in OoS.

>So you struck out four times in one short paragraph, Bob.

As an umpire, you need glasses.

>We have ALWAYS said any given Evolutionist is inexcusably ignorant.
>
>Ray (anti-evolutionary)

And any given anti-evolutionary is an obfuscating sophist.

[Rolf Aalberg]

"Inez" <savagem...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0da33b74-b075-42b2...@googlegroups.com...
> On Sunday, September 3, 2017 at 1:50:04 PM UTC-7, Bill wrote:
>> Inez wrote:
>>
>> > On Sunday, September 3, 2017 at 11:50:04 AM UTC-7, Bill
>> > wrote:
>> >> Inez wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > On Sunday, September 3, 2017 at 7:55:05 AM UTC-7,
>> >> > Jonathan wrote:

>> >> >> On 9/2/2017 10:43 PM, Sean Dillon wrote:
>> >> >> > On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 6:30:03 PM UTC-5,
>> >> >> > Steady Eddie wrote:
>> >> >> >> "At this past November's Royal Society meeting,
>> >> >> >> "New Trends in Evolutionary Biology," the
>> >> >> >> distinguished Austrian evolutionary theorist Gerd
>> >> >> >> B. Müller gave the first presentation. As we've
>> >> >> >> noted before, it was a devastating one for anyone
>> >> >> >> who wants to think that, on the great questions of
>> >> >> >> biological origins, orthodox evolutionary theory
>> >> >> >> has got it all figured out. Instead, Müller pointed
>> >> >> >> to gaping "explanatory deficits" in the theory. Now
>> >> >> >> the Royal Society's journal Interface Focus offers
>> >> >> >> a special issue collecting articles based on talks
>> >> >> >> from the conference."
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> https://evolutionnews.org/2017/08/evolutionary-theorist-concedes-evolution-largely-avoids-biggest-questions-of-biological-origins/
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Hey numbnuts: evolution isn't ABOUT origins.
>> >> >> > Evolution is about what happens after the origin.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>

>> >> >> What a cop-out. What most want to know concerns

>> >> >> origins. As the article correctly states, it's the
>> >> >> biggest question.
>> >> >>

>> >> >> Can you articulate why evolution 'doesn't do' creation
>> >> >> or origins? Is it because they don't know how, or
>> >> >> can't or just haven't gotten 'round to it yet?
>> >> >>

>> >> >> Why?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Just saying 'we don't do that' isn't good enough.
>> >> >

>> >> > Questions of origins is a different branch of science.
>> >> > Theories of abiogenesis talks about origins. Evolution
>> >> > is about how life changes over time once it exists.
>> >>
>> >> Evolution is also about the origins of species. There are
>> >> lots of explanations, some may even be true.
>> >>
>> >> Bill
>> >
>> > It isn't though. Really, it's not.
>>
>> Gee, Darwin thought so. He even wrote a book about it. If
>> the origin of species isn't part of evolution, where did the
>> idea come from?
>>
>> Bill
>
> He was talking about species evolving from other species, not life coming
> from non-life.
>

Of course he did. What else would an innocent bystander think?

The current standing of the concept of life from non-life is that it is
considered probable without violating anything we know about nature. And
that's been our position for a long time. Contrary to creationist faith, God
cannot do things violating the laws of nature - regardless of whether God is
the ultimate cause for the existence of our universe or not.

It is nice to see t.o. fulfilling its purpose.



---
E-posten er sjekket for virus av AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[Steady Eddie]

Perhaps you should wait until you have a perfect understanding of the laws of nature before declaring that the creator of such laws is unable to "violate" them.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 11:00:05 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 9/5/17 6:15 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Monday, September 4, 2017 at 3:15:06 PM UTC-4, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> >> On Monday, September 4, 2017 at 11:45:04 AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> >>> On 9/4/17 9:54 AM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:

> >>>> On Monday, September 4, 2017 at 9:25:04 AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>>> On 9/4/17 9:06 AM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> >>>>>> On Monday, September 4, 2017 at 8:50:03 AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 9/4/17 8:23 AM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Monday, September 4, 2017 at 6:55:05 AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 9/3/17 5:59 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, September 3, 2017 at 5:15:02 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/17 4:51 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 7:35:02 PM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 5. When it comes to peer reviewed work, you've cited yourself twice. And no one else has cited you.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> How do you know?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Pubmed is a good first pass.
> >
> >

> > Yeah, it actually cites two or three of my 100+ research papers,
> > the ones with medical applications. :-(
> >
> >

> >>>> So you ignore all the non-homologous characters.
> >>>>>

> >>>>> I wish you'd stop saying "reptiles", by the way. It's an out-dated term.

> >>>>> The ancestors of birds are theropod dinosaurs. If you'd look at a fossil

> >>>>> or two you would see some of the various feathered theropods.
> >

> >>>> How did the therapods get their feathers? Tell us the selection
> >>>> pressure required, the genes targeted and the mutations required.
> >>>> Your philosophical bent is settled science so you should know this.
> >
> >>> No, that has nothing to do with my sort of science. We do know that
> >>> feathers evolved gradually, because there are theropods with several
> >>> intermediate states.
> >
> > I think Harshman is banking on the tail in amber being a non-avian
> > dinosaur. If that is wrong, then all he has is a bunch of theorizing
> > by Prum, and the "intermediate" state represented by the modern
> > kiwi, whose feathers have barbs but no barbules or hooks.
> >
> > Unfortunately for John, the universal consensus is that these devolved
> > from true contour feathers, and do not represent a primitive state.
>

> You are back to your old habit of making up arguments, ascribing them to
> your opponents, and then refuting them. Please stop.

I fail to see any relevance of this two-liner to anything I wrote above.
Did you just insert a two-line file without checking whether it
made sense in this context?

> >> What sort of science do you have? So tell us the selection pressure for each of these intermediate states,
> >
> > John is too much in awe of Prum to dare to ask him these questions,
> > I believe, even though Prum OUGHT to be able to answer the above
> > question -- which John already finked out on -- and also
> > the remaining two:
>

> I see that Rick Prum has become another of your preferred villains,

You don't see it above.

What you see is a statement about YOU, and the undeniable fact
that you are a big fan of Prum.


> along with Ken Miller and Donald Prothero. It's enough just to mention
> his name to show that some idea is evil.

You are worse even than Martin Harran in reading things into
what I write that aren't there.

And that's saying a LOT, but I'm sure you don't want to know how much,
because you hate having a mirror held up to you (figuratively speaking)
just as the "God" character in "Steambath" hated to have a mirror
literally held up to him.

And don't go talking about how I am dragging non-participants into
the discussion: you ran interference for Martin Harran against me
on another thread [see below] last week, and he has taken full advantage of
your having done so. See the following post and what precedes it:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/Y9ARb2PSVck/PzOwcUZBAAAJ
Subject: Re: Why wasn't doing science the objective for the ID scam?
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 08:00:25 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <a1020e60-d906-4409...@googlegroups.com>



> How would anyone answer either of those questions? What research program
> would you propose?

Stop trying to get me to do Prum's research for him.

You lack the guts to ask Prum whether he's done any research
along those lines, don't you?

> >> the genes targeted and the mutations required to reach these intermediate states.
> >
> >
> >> John, we all know that you don't know and can't answer these questions and that your sort of science is to make up a story.
> >
> > One reason I'm so sure John doesn't dare ask Prum is that he fears
> > Prum cannot answer all of them, and this might cause Prum no end of
> > embarrassment, as well as ruining any chance of him and John becoming
> > good friends.
>

> Again you make up stuff, this time reasons why I won't do something.

I don't see you denying that these are reasons below, only a
listing of some excuses.


> There are a number of reasons I wouldn't ask Rick Prum these questions,
> but the main reason is that they are stupid questions, because there is
> probably no way to find answers to them.

"probably" is a waffle. There are perfectly good hypotheses, and even
if there is no way to verify them outright, one can reason for them --
perhaps so strongly, that no one can find good rebuttals to the
reasoning. I could give you some examples wrt the "selection pressure"
bit, and I give an example below wrt genetics.


>It's really hard to determine
> the reasons for any changes in the distant past.

Of course it is, but scientists do make hypotheses about them,
and often dispute them animatedly. Just look at the "top down"
vs "ground up" debate in how bird ancestors developed flight.


> Even genetics probably
> won't help, since there are no living representatives of non-avian
> theropods and thus no way to reconstruct ancestral genomes.

Developmental biology might be enough; just study the genes that
go into the production of feathers. Feduccia [one of your favorite
"villains"] talks at one point about how primordia of scales on the
elongated part of the ankle of chickens can be induced genetically
to produce feathers instead.


> I won't say that Rick and I are good friends, but we do enjoy talking to
> each other at meetings and respect each other's work.

Thereby supporting what I wrote: if he is even a little bit like Prothero,
who censored your comments in his webpage while leaving a criticism of
me in, you will have jeopardized your chances of your association
blossoming into real friendship and maybe even risk a cooling of
him towards you any time the two of you get together again.

I've left the rest in, including one comment which seems to ask
me to monitor the (unspecified) relevant literature to see whether
Alan Kleinman's papers ever get cited. Sorry, not interested.

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

http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/

> >>>>>>>>> And as I have mentioned before, what I do has nothing to do with natural
> >>>>>>>>> selection.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> That doesn't surprise me. You are not an expert in probability theory
> >>>>>>>> and you are not an expert in natural selection.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Neither are you. You know a little about probability, but it's almost
> >>>>>>> entirely the ability to recite "the multiplication rule of
> >>>>>>> probabilities", and you know nothing about natural selection, since
> >>>>>>> you're unable to notice that you don't take it into account in your
> >>>>>>> math. I know more than that, at least.
> >>>>>

> >>>>>> There seems to be a publisher which disagrees with you.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> How do you know that? You passed some probably perfunctory peer review
> >>>>> from reviewers who don't know much about evolutionary biology. Did any
> >>>>> of the reviewer comments compliment you on how well you had dealt with
> >>>>> natural selection in your math?
> >>>

> >>>> John, I don't mind when you act like a dummy, but I do mind when you
> >>>> become an obnoxious jerk. People have put their reputations on the
> >>>> line to publish my work and they gave me the ultimate compliment,
> >>>> they published it.
> >>>
> >>> You have an exaggerated idea of what reviewers and publishers do. As for
> >>> "reputation", your journal only has an impact factor of 1.8 something.
> >> You are in for a surprise for what a journal with an impact factor of 1.8 can do.
> >
> > Very true. Impact factors have more to do with prestige than actual
> > solid research. Researchers naturally want their papers to appear
> > in the journals with highest prestige, an many will use impact factor
> > as their yardstick -- a positive feedback loop if there ever was one.
>

> I'll agree that impact factors are blunt instruments, but prestige is
> often earned. And so are low impact factors. But do let me know when
> somebody actually cites any of those papers.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 05 Sep 2017 15:27:29 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

Nothing, AFAICT. My reading agrees with yours; little or
nothing there about abiogenesis.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 05 Sep 2017 15:26:37 -0400, the following appeared

Interestingly, after I re-typed the "Subject:" line, all of
the original posts got through (third try for all). For now
I'm going to assume the problem is gone, but watch to see if
it crops up again in these responses in this thread.

[John Harshman]

That you fail to see the relevance is a failing, perhaps even a moral
failing, on your part. You made up a claim and an argument that you
supposed, without evidence, that I might have made, and then you refuted
that argument. No participation on my part was required. How is it you
can't see that?

Ah, another paranoid, self-serving rant. No reply is necessary.

>> How would anyone answer either of those questions? What research program
>> would you propose?
>
> Stop trying to get me to do Prum's research for him.
>
> You lack the guts to ask Prum whether he's done any research
> along those lines, don't you?

What guts would be required? Anyway, how would one do research along
those lines? I can't see a way, and I have explained why.

>>>> the genes targeted and the mutations required to reach these intermediate states.
>>>
>>>
>>>> John, we all know that you don't know and can't answer these questions and that your sort of science is to make up a story.
>>>
>>> One reason I'm so sure John doesn't dare ask Prum is that he fears
>>> Prum cannot answer all of them, and this might cause Prum no end of
>>> embarrassment, as well as ruining any chance of him and John becoming
>>> good friends.
>>
>> Again you make up stuff, this time reasons why I won't do something.
>
> I don't see you denying that these are reasons below, only a
> listing of some excuses.

I deny that those are reasons. Happy?

>> There are a number of reasons I wouldn't ask Rick Prum these questions,
>> but the main reason is that they are stupid questions, because there is
>> probably no way to find answers to them.
>
> "probably" is a waffle. There are perfectly good hypotheses, and even
> if there is no way to verify them outright, one can reason for them --
> perhaps so strongly, that no one can find good rebuttals to the
> reasoning. I could give you some examples wrt the "selection pressure"
> bit, and I give an example below wrt genetics.

>> It's really hard to determine
>> the reasons for any changes in the distant past.
>
> Of course it is, but scientists do make hypotheses about them,
> and often dispute them animatedly. Just look at the "top down"
> vs "ground up" debate in how bird ancestors developed flight.

That's something we can obtain both fossil evidence and experimental
testing for. Do theropods close to the bird lineage display
characteristics of arboreal animals? Can partially developed wings aid
in running or climbing? Feathers, not so much.

>> Even genetics probably
>> won't help, since there are no living representatives of non-avian
>> theropods and thus no way to reconstruct ancestral genomes.
>
> Developmental biology might be enough; just study the genes that
> go into the production of feathers. Feduccia [one of your favorite
> "villains"] talks at one point about how primordia of scales on the
> elongated part of the ankle of chickens can be induced genetically
> to produce feathers instead.

How does that illuminate the mutations that produced feathers or the
selection regime that favored their evolution?

>> I won't say that Rick and I are good friends, but we do enjoy talking to
>> each other at meetings and respect each other's work.
>
> Thereby supporting what I wrote: if he is even a little bit like Prothero,
> who censored your comments in his webpage while leaving a criticism of
> me in, you will have jeopardized your chances of your association
> blossoming into real friendship and maybe even risk a cooling of
> him towards you any time the two of you get together again.

You are making up a fantasy scenario about both of us, with no basis in
anything other than your fantasies.

> I've left the rest in, including one comment which seems to ask
> me to monitor the (unspecified) relevant literature to see whether
> Alan Kleinman's papers ever get cited. Sorry, not interested.

You have trouble interpreting non-literal statements. Is that usual with
mathematicians?

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 5 Sep 2017 13:24:54 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net>:

>On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 11:10:04 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Sat, 2 Sep 2017 16:25:48 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Steady Eddie
>>:
>>
>> >"At this past November’s Royal Society meeting, “New Trends in Evolutionary Biology,” the distinguished Austrian evolutionary theorist Gerd B. Müller gave the first presentation. As we’ve noted before, it was a devastating one for anyone who wants to think that, on the great questions of biological origins, orthodox evolutionary theory has got it all figured out. Instead, Müller pointed to gaping “explanatory deficits” in the theory. Now the Royal Society’s journal Interface Focus offers a special issue collecting articles based on talks from the conference."
>> >
>> >https://evolutionnews.org/2017/08/evolutionary-theorist-concedes-evolution-largely-avoids-biggest-questions-of-biological-origins/
>>
>> Interesting. Something any evolutionary biologist knows and
>> freely admits, that evolutionary theory doesn't address
>> "biological origins" (i.e., abiogenesis), and was never
>> intended to do so, is "discovered" by the ID crowd. Now if
>> they only had a theory, or even a testable hypothesis, of
>> their own, rather than a religious belief...

>So what is the selection pressure that created the genes that make the proteins for the Krebs cycle, the proteins for the DNA replicase system, any of the other tens of thousands of proteins which permit life to exist? Oh, and for John, the genes that produce the proteins which make feathers?

You're asking a retired EE for details of evolutionary
biology? That's about as stupid as asking a mathematician
for them.

And BTW, even if I were a good person to ask, your question
has nothing to do with my post. HTH.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 5 Sep 2017 13:17:23 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD

<klei...@sti.net>:

Correct (sort of), but that doesn't make it "mathematical
science".

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 5 Sep 2017 15:44:27 -0700 (PDT), the following

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

>On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 11:10:04 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Sun, 3 Sep 2017 09:27:36 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by r3p...@gmail.com:
>>
>> >On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 7:45:03 PM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:
>> >> On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 6:30:03 PM UTC-5, Steady Eddie wrote:
>> >> > "At this past November’s Royal Society meeting, “New Trends in Evolutionary Biology,” the distinguished Austrian evolutionary theorist Gerd B. Müller gave the first presentation. As we’ve noted before, it was a devastating one for anyone who wants to think that, on the great questions of biological origins, orthodox evolutionary theory has got it all figured out. Instead, Müller pointed to gaping “explanatory deficits” in the theory. Now the Royal Society’s journal Interface Focus offers a special issue collecting articles based on talks from the conference."
>> >> >
>> >> > https://evolutionnews.org/2017/08/evolutionary-theorist-concedes-evolution-largely-avoids-biggest-questions-of-biological-origins/
>> >>
>> >> Hey numbnuts: evolution isn't ABOUT origins. Evolution is about what happens after the origin.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Completely false, Sean.
>>
>> No, Ray, it's not. You might do better at addressing the
>> problems you think exist in evolution if you knew what
>> evolutionary theory is, and what evolution means.
>>
>> > All you did was assume that origin was talking about the metaphysical, which is not true. Darwin's "On The Origin Of Species" means species originate from previously living species by natural selection, and not from real time independent creation.
>>
>> Right, the origin of species, as Darwin proposed, is from
>> extant species, a process usually referred to as
>> "speciation", and one which has been observed in real time.
>> And Darwin, who was a practicing Christian, essentially left
>> the origin of *life* as an unknown.

>Darwin abandon Christianity during the same two years (1837-1838) that he became a transmutationist

No, he did not. He *did* (IIRC) abandon his previous plan to
become a minister, but that's about it. The fact that he
accepted the evidence he observed, even though *you* don't
like it, doesn't mean he "abandoned Christianity".

>; the Origin didn't even address speciation;

Yes, it did. Specifically. What do you think the book was
about, if not speciation (the origin of species from
existing species)? It's right there in the title.

> no scientist says the Biological Species Concept can be observed while undergoing speciation

Yes, they do. And have. Right here. Too bad you're incapable
of reading for comprehension or you would have seen that.

>; and Darwin ended the Origin deistically.

....which has...what?...to do with my post?

>So you struck out four times in one short paragraph, Bob.

If by "struck out" you mean "hit it over the fence", you are
obviously correct. And BTW, nothing except your canard that
Darwin abandoned Christianity addressed anything I posted,
and that was wrong. So who exactly "struck out"?

>We have ALWAYS said any given Evolutionist is inexcusably ignorant.

"We"? You have a tapeworm?

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 6 Sep 2017 06:25:19 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com>:

>Perhaps you should wait until you have a perfect understanding of the laws of nature before declaring that the creator of such laws is unable to "violate" them.

Perhaps you should wait until you have a perfect

understanding of God before declaring that He cannot create
in any way He desires, including via abiogenesis, evolution
and natural selection, all of which use those laws.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 06 Sep 2017 00:53:19 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Tue, 5 Sep 2017 15:44:27 -0700 (PDT), r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 11:10:04 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> On Sun, 3 Sep 2017 09:27:36 -0700 (PDT), the following
>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by r3p...@gmail.com:
>>>
>>> >On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 7:45:03 PM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:
>>> >> On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 6:30:03 PM UTC-5, Steady Eddie wrote:
>>> >> > "At this past November’s Royal Society meeting, “New Trends in Evolutionary Biology,” the distinguished Austrian evolutionary theorist Gerd B. Müller gave the first presentation. As we’ve noted before, it was a devastating one for anyone who wants to think that, on the great questions of biological origins, orthodox evolutionary theory has got it all figured out. Instead, Müller pointed to gaping “explanatory deficits” in the theory. Now the Royal Society’s journal Interface Focus offers a special issue collecting articles based on talks from the conference."
>>> >> >
>>> >> > https://evolutionnews.org/2017/08/evolutionary-theorist-concedes-evolution-largely-avoids-biggest-questions-of-biological-origins/
>>> >>
>>> >> Hey numbnuts: evolution isn't ABOUT origins. Evolution is about what happens after the origin.
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >Completely false, Sean.
>>>
>>> No, Ray, it's not. You might do better at addressing the
>>> problems you think exist in evolution if you knew what
>>> evolutionary theory is, and what evolution means.
>>>
>>> > All you did was assume that origin was talking about the metaphysical, which is not true. Darwin's "On The Origin Of Species" means species originate from previously living species by natural selection, and not from real time independent creation.
>>>
>>> Right, the origin of species, as Darwin proposed, is from
>>> extant species, a process usually referred to as
>>> "speciation", and one which has been observed in real time.
>>> And Darwin, who was a practicing Christian, essentially left
>>> the origin of *life* as an unknown.

>

>>Darwin abandon Christianity during the same two years (1837-1838) that he became a transmutationist;
>
>
>On what basis do you claim Darwin abandoned Christianity?

Allow me, just for S&G...

To Ray (correct me if I'm wrong, Ray), anyone who accepts
science cannot, by definition (Ray's definition) be a
Christian. Presumably that includes the Pope and every
Jesuit priest.

>And what do you mean by "transmutationist"? Do you think Darwin
>emulated Newton and tried to turn lead into gold?

It's Ray; he really doesn't know *what* he means.

>>the Origin didn't even address speciation;

>So why did Darwin title it "On the Origin of Species by Means of
>Natural Selection"?

Ibid.

>>no scientist says the Biological Species Concept can be observed while undergoing speciation;

>Not sure what point you think you're making. A test of speciation
>could use the Biological Species Concept, and so it would be observed.

....and speciation, of bacteria, some insects and many
plants, has been observed directly in real time, something
Ray denies even after reading the evidence.

>>and Darwin ended the Origin deistically.

>Again, not sure what point you think you're making. Neither Deism nor
>Theism directly refutes the conclusions in OoS.

To Ray, deism and theism are *specifically* about
Biblically-inerrant Christian fundamentalism (observe his
penchant for referring to anyone not a Christian Biblical
fundamentalist as an "atheist"). And since Darwin wrote that
speciation takes place, something not mentioned in the
Bible...

>>So you struck out four times in one short paragraph, Bob.
>
>
>As an umpire, you need glasses.
>
>
>>We have ALWAYS said any given Evolutionist is inexcusably ignorant.
>>
>>Ray (anti-evolutionary)
>
>
>And any given anti-evolutionary is an obfuscating sophist.
--