Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

INTELLIGENT DESIGN THEORY

558 views
Skip to first unread message

JD Wolfe

unread,
Mar 24, 2018, 8:15:02 PM3/24/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

I've noticed there are many folks on Talk Origins
debating with evolutionist over the issue of the
origin of life. What is intelligent design evidence
and theory of origins? Where did living things come
from? What I want to know is how did the first life
get started according to ID and their proof.

T Pagano

unread,
Mar 24, 2018, 8:30:03 PM3/24/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 20:12:39 -0400, JD Wolfe wrote:

> I've noticed there are many folks on Talk Origins debating with
> evolutionist over the issue of the origin of life. What is intelligent
> design evidence and theory of origins?

1. Intelligent Design Theories have nothing to do directly with the
origin of life. Intelligent Design theories do not explain how events
occur over time.

2. Intelligent Design theories examine some object, system, process or
event at some time t and attempt to determine if the attributes of that
system are the result of law, chance, their combination or intelligent
design.



> Where did living things come
> from?

There are only two theories about the origin of life:
1. God did it.
2. Nature did it.

Beyond that no one has any specific answers.






> What I want to know is how did the first life get started
> according to ID and their proof.

ID theories do not explain the origin of life.

Kalkidas

unread,
Mar 24, 2018, 9:25:02 PM3/24/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
You'll have to go to intelligent design facts rather than theories to
answer those questions.

RonO

unread,
Mar 24, 2018, 9:40:02 PM3/24/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
What intelligent design facts are there? Abiogenesis made the top 6
best evidences for IDiocy, so there should be IDiot evidence in there
somewhere, can you point it out, or are you going to run from reality
for the rest of your life? What does the 6 best evidences for IDiocy mean?

Ron Okimoto

*Hemidactylus*

unread,
Mar 24, 2018, 10:00:02 PM3/24/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Yet Pags said: “ID theories do not explain the origin of life.” on this
very thread.

RonO

unread,
Mar 24, 2018, 10:15:02 PM3/24/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
When did Pags ever know what he was talking about? He knows that
abiogenesis made the top 6 IDiot "evidence". He has already claimed
that other junk on the list doesn't have anything to do with IDiocy. No
one expects anything more out of Pags. Consistency with reality is not
what you expect with Pags.

Ron Okimoto

JD Wolfe

unread,
Mar 24, 2018, 11:55:03 PM3/24/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 3/24/2018 8:28 PM, T Pagano wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 20:12:39 -0400, JD Wolfe wrote:
>
>> I've noticed there are many folks on Talk Origins debating with
>> evolutionist over the issue of the origin of life. What is intelligent
>> design evidence and theory of origins?
>
> 1. Intelligent Design Theories have nothing to do directly with the
> origin of life. Intelligent Design theories do not explain how events
> occur over time.
>
What does it explain then?
>
> 2. Intelligent Design theories examine some object, system, process or
> event at some time t and attempt to determine if the attributes of that
> system are the result of law, chance, their combination or intelligent
> design.
>
Don't that contradict your first statement? If it does not, how do
you tell the difference between law, chance, their combination and
intelligent design. I can see how you could write chance. I don't
know how you could think that laws are against intelligent design
and think that intelligent design is a possibility.

jillery

unread,
Mar 25, 2018, 2:40:03 AM3/25/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
So don't expect Kalkidas to answer any of them.

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

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

T Pagano

unread,
Mar 25, 2018, 7:25:03 AM3/25/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 23:51:52 -0400, JD Wolfe wrote:

> On 3/24/2018 8:28 PM, T Pagano wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 20:12:39 -0400, JD Wolfe wrote:
>>
>>> I've noticed there are many folks on Talk Origins debating with
>>> evolutionist over the issue of the origin of life. What is intelligent
>>> design evidence and theory of origins?
>>
>> 1. Intelligent Design Theories have nothing to do directly with the
>> origin of life. Intelligent Design theories do not explain how events
>> occur over time.
> >
> What does it explain then?


Already explained that in paragraph (2) below which apparently you didn't
read or don't understand.


>>
>> 2. Intelligent Design theories examine some object, system, process or
>> event at some time t and attempt to determine if the attributes of that
>> system are the result of law, chance, their combination or intelligent
>> design.
>>
> Don't that contradict your first statement?


In what way do they conflict?



> If it does not, how do you
> tell the difference between law, chance, their combination and
> intelligent design. I can see how you could write chance. I don't know
> how you could think that laws are against intelligent design and think
> that intelligent design is a possibility.


Obviously there is a language barrier and English is not your first
language. No where in my paragraph (2) do I pit intelligent design
against the other modes of causation. Each of the modes of causation
have their domains.





>>
>>
>>> Where did living things come from?
>>
>> There are only two theories about the origin of life:
>> 1. God did it.
>> 2. Nature did it.
>>
>> Beyond that no one has any specific answers.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> What I want to know is how did the first life get started according to
>>> ID and their proof.
>>
>> ID theories do not explain the origin of life.

ID Theory is not a theory about causal history. It was never meant to
explain the origin of life or explain how anything arose after life
began. The claim that ID Theory competes with neoDarwinism is the
strawman created by atheists.

ID Theory does; however, demonstrate that natural processes have limits.
This is consistent with the NFL Theorems and corroborated by 500 years of
observational evidence. That atheists are unhappy about this is
obvious. They realize that these limits devastate their world view. But
that ain't my problem.

Bob Casanova

unread,
Mar 25, 2018, 2:10:03 PM3/25/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 18:24:34 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>:
Oh, the "Diogenes" approach? He'll have as much success as
Diogenes did.
--

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

Mark Isaak

unread,
Mar 25, 2018, 8:50:02 PM3/25/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 3/25/18 4:24 AM, T Pagano wrote:
> [...]
> ID Theory is not a theory about causal history. It was never meant to
> explain the origin of life or explain how anything arose after life
> began. The claim that ID Theory competes with neoDarwinism is the
> strawman created by atheists.
>
> ID Theory does; however, demonstrate that natural processes have limits.
> This is consistent with the NFL Theorems and corroborated by 500 years of
> observational evidence. That atheists are unhappy about this is
> obvious. They realize that these limits devastate their world view. But
> that ain't my problem.

In other words, ID theories are not about ID. And as we already know,
they are not theories, either. Thanks for confirming their vacuousness.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Ignorance, allied with power, is the most ferocious enemy justice can
have." - James Baldwin

JD Wolfe

unread,
Mar 25, 2018, 9:45:02 PM3/25/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 3/25/2018 7:24 AM, T Pagano wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 23:51:52 -0400, JD Wolfe wrote:
>
>> On 3/24/2018 8:28 PM, T Pagano wrote:
>>> On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 20:12:39 -0400, JD Wolfe wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've noticed there are many folks on Talk Origins debating with
>>>> evolutionist over the issue of the origin of life. What is intelligent
>>>> design evidence and theory of origins?
>>>
>>> 1. Intelligent Design Theories have nothing to do directly with the
>>> origin of life. Intelligent Design theories do not explain how events
>>> occur over time.
>> >
>> What does it explain then?
>
ID doesn't explain the origin of life, evolution doesn't either.
Intelligent design theories do not explain events over time.
What does "events over time" mean, if not the change of species to
different species. Evolution explains this.
>
> Already explained that in paragraph (2) below which apparently you didn't
> read or don't understand.
>
>
>>>
>>> 2. Intelligent Design theories examine some object, system, process or
>>> event at some time t and attempt to determine if the attributes of that
>>> system are the result of law, chance, their combination or intelligent
>>> design.
>>>
>> Don't that contradict your first statement?
>
>
> In what way do they conflict?
>
If in statement #1 I took it to mean species changing to different
species over time, which Intelligent design doesn't bother with. But
then in statement #2 you discuss ID examining objects, systems,
processes or events at some time is something Intelligent design
does bother with.

>
>
>> If it does not, how do you
>> tell the difference between law, chance, their combination and
>> intelligent design. I can see how you could write chance. I don't know
>> how you could think that laws are against intelligent design and think
>> that intelligent design is a possibility.
>
>
> Obviously there is a language barrier and English is not your first
> language. No where in my paragraph (2) do I pit intelligent design
> against the other modes of causation. Each of the modes of causation
> have their domains.
>
English is my first language the problem I had understanding you
post is you write in metaphors and figuratively. You do not
state you arguments in simple phrases so ignorant, semi-literate,
unimaginative people, who dropped out of kindergarten such as I-
can understand.
The truth is I think you're just trying to impress with your
intelligence imprecise wording.

T Pagano

unread,
Mar 26, 2018, 7:25:03 AM3/26/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sun, 25 Mar 2018 21:40:03 -0400, JD Wolfe wrote:

> On 3/25/2018 7:24 AM, T Pagano wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 23:51:52 -0400, JD Wolfe wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/24/2018 8:28 PM, T Pagano wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 20:12:39 -0400, JD Wolfe wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I've noticed there are many folks on Talk Origins debating with
>>>>> evolutionist over the issue of the origin of life. What is
>>>>> intelligent design evidence and theory of origins?
>>>>
>>>> 1. Intelligent Design Theories have nothing to do directly with the
>>>> origin of life. Intelligent Design theories do not explain how
>>>> events occur over time.
>>> >
>>> What does it explain then?
>>

> ID doesn't explain the origin of life, evolution doesn't either.

Bravo, you finally get it.



> Intelligent design theories do not explain events over time.
> What does "events over time" mean, if not the change of species to
> different species. Evolution explains this.

1. Darwin never saw "species" as anything but an insignificant (and
arbitrary) category. Darwin's central claim was that his naturalistic
mechanism could explain "design." His mechanism could do away with the
necessity of God. ID Theory demonstrates that this "central claim" of
Darwin's is---for all practical purposes---impossible.

2. The problem for Darwin (and his modern day followers) is that the
fossil record disputes Darwin's claim that species are insignificant AND
disputes that they change over time. The fossil record shows
categorically that species arise suddenly and remain substantially fixed
over MILLIONS OF YEARS until they disappear from the fossil record.








>>
>> Already explained that in paragraph (2) below which apparently you
>> didn't read or don't understand.
>>
>>
>>
>>>> 2. Intelligent Design theories examine some object, system, process
>>>> or event at some time t and attempt to determine if the attributes of
>>>> that system are the result of law, chance, their combination or
>>>> intelligent design.
>>>>
>>> Don't that contradict your first statement?
>>
>>
>> In what way do they conflict?
>>
> If in statement #1 I took it to mean species changing to different
> species over time, which Intelligent design doesn't bother with. But
> then in statement #2 you discuss ID examining objects, systems,
> processes or events at some time is something Intelligent design does
> bother with.


Statement #1 states that "origin of life" and "change over time" are
OUTSIDE of ID Theory's domain of interest.

Statement #2 states that ID theory looks at only a single time slice of
any object of interest and asks, "what was the mode of causation" for the
attributes of that object. In some cases it can answer that question.
What are the modes of causation?:
a. Regularity of Nature
b. Random Chance
c. Combination of Regularity and Chance.
d. Intelligent Design.

Darwin opined that categories (a) through (c) where sufficient to explain
everything we observe in nature. Intelligent Design theory opines that
(a) through (c) have definite limits to their causative power. If you
can grasp this you'll know more than 99% of the people in this forum.




>
>
>>
>>> If it does not, how do you tell the difference between law, chance,
>>> their combination and intelligent design. I can see how you could
>>> write chance. I don't know how you could think that laws are against
>>> intelligent design and think that intelligent design is a possibility.
>>
>>
>> Obviously there is a language barrier and English is not your first
>> language. No where in my paragraph (2) do I pit intelligent design
>> against the other modes of causation. Each of the modes of causation
>> have their domains.
>>
> English is my first language the problem I had understanding you post is
> you write in metaphors and figuratively.

I didn't use a single metaphor or even write figuratively. I stated as
well as I am able what ID Theory "was" and "was not."




> You do not state you arguments
> in simple phrases so ignorant, semi-literate, unimaginative people, who
> dropped out of kindergarten such as I- can understand.

You don't sound ignorant to me; just that English is not your primary
language. In the space of three postings you've asked more intelligent
questions about ID Theory than some of the members in the forum have
asked in 10 years.


> The truth is I think you're just trying to impress with your
> intelligence imprecise wording.

Perhaps. Language is always imprecise.





zencycle

unread,
Mar 26, 2018, 10:45:03 AM3/26/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Monday, March 26, 2018 at 7:25:03 AM UTC-4, T Pagano wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2018 21:40:03 -0400, JD Wolfe wrote:

On Monday, March 26, 2018 at 7:25:03 AM UTC-4, T Pagano wrote:

Hi JD, Welcome to the forum. A word of caution. Tony pagano claims in this thread that ID never makes a statement about origins. This is a blatant lie. Tony refuses to acknowledge that the father of the ID movement stated explicitly that the intent of ID was to ackowledge his god as the creator. This is from an earlier thread that tony ran away from:

>>>>

http://articles.latimes.com/2001/mar/25/news/mn-42548

"Our work will alert people to the possibility that God is real rather than a projection of the mind," declared Phillip Johnson, a UC Berkeley professor emeritus of law whose 1991 book, "Darwin on Trial," laid the foundation for the emerging movement [of intelligent design]......
"We are taking an intuition most people have and making it a scientific and academic enterprise," Johnson said. In challenging Darwinism with a God-friendly alternative theory, the professor, who is a Presbyterian, added, "We are removing the most important cultural roadblock to accepting the role of God as creator."

>>>>>>

tony also refuses to acknowledge that his two heros - behe and dembski - both freely admit that their purpose in promoting ID was to invoke their god as creator. We've posted link after link, quote after quote, and all tony can do is move the goalposts, and attempt to distract by invoking mis-quotes and mis-representations from darwin (as he does in this thread), dawkins, hitchens, and even einstein (the one where he claimed einstien was afraid of interferometry results was a real doozy).

Tony is so deluded, he believes in geocentrism - yeah, he's that fucking stupid.

So, continue your discussiions with him if you want, but at some point it you'll hopefully realize what a bloviating bag of shit your dealing with.

Be well,

Zencycle

JD Wolfe

unread,
Mar 26, 2018, 4:15:03 PM3/26/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 3/26/2018 7:20 AM, T Pagano wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2018 21:40:03 -0400, JD Wolfe wrote:
>
>> On 3/25/2018 7:24 AM, T Pagano wrote:
>>> On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 23:51:52 -0400, JD Wolfe wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/24/2018 8:28 PM, T Pagano wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 20:12:39 -0400, JD Wolfe wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I've noticed there are many folks on Talk Origins debating with
>>>>>> evolutionist over the issue of the origin of life. What is
>>>>>> intelligent design evidence and theory of origins?
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Intelligent Design Theories have nothing to do directly with the
>>>>> origin of life. Intelligent Design theories do not explain how
>>>>> events occur over time.
>>>> >
>>>> What does it explain then?
>>>
>
>> ID doesn't explain the origin of life, evolution doesn't either.
>
> Bravo, you finally get it.
>
Right, but I thought that religion had an explanation. Is this not
true?
>
>
>> Intelligent design theories do not explain events over time.
>> What does "events over time" mean, if not the change of species to
>> different species. Evolution explains this.
>
> 1. Darwin never saw "species" as anything but an insignificant (and
> arbitrary) category. Darwin's central claim was that his naturalistic
> mechanism could explain "design." His mechanism could do away with the
> necessity of God. ID Theory demonstrates that this "central claim" of
> Darwin's is---for all practical purposes---impossible.
>
> 2. The problem for Darwin (and his modern day followers) is that the
> fossil record disputes Darwin's claim that species are insignificant AND
> disputes that they change over time. The fossil record shows
> categorically that species arise suddenly and remain substantially fixed
> over MILLIONS OF YEARS until they disappear from the fossil record.
>
Really, how can this be true? Evolution is about gradual, imperceptible
change over huge spans of time. If the fossil record shows, what you are
saying, species arise suddenly, but what about ancestors? Species had
to come from somewhere. And if they remain unchanged over millions of
years, then disappears, that's like my idea of a religious view, based
not on what scientist find in the fossil record. I try to keep an open
mind, but this is a challenge. It's a water-shed position.
>
>
>
>
>>>
>>> Already explained that in paragraph (2) below which apparently you
>>> didn't read or don't understand.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> 2. Intelligent Design theories examine some object, system, process
>>>>> or event at some time t and attempt to determine if the attributes of
>>>>> that system are the result of law, chance, their combination or
>>>>> intelligent design.
>>>>>
>>>> Don't that contradict your first statement?
>>>
>>>
>>> In what way do they conflict?
>>>
>> If in statement #1 I took it to mean species changing to different
>> species over time, which Intelligent design doesn't bother with. But
>> then in statement #2 you discuss ID examining objects, systems,
>> processes or events at some time is something Intelligent design does
>> bother with.
>
>
> Statement #1 states that "origin of life" and "change over time" are
> OUTSIDE of ID Theory's domain of interest.
>
I understand the origin of life position, but ID theory is not concerned
with changes over time, then everything else is of little meaning.
>
> Statement #2 states that ID theory looks at only a single time slice of
> any object of interest and asks, "what was the mode of causation" for the
> attributes of that object. In some cases it can answer that question.
> What are the modes of causation?:
> a. Regularity of Nature
> b. Random Chance
> c. Combination of Regularity and Chance.
> d. Intelligent Design.
>
Is the "slice of time" then, about your report concerning the fossil
record and trying to determine the cause of what you assert. It
seems to me, this if true is something that would be unwelcome
and no interest to naturalist.
>
> Darwin opined that categories (a) through (c) where sufficient to explain
> everything we observe in nature. Intelligent Design theory opines that
> (a) through (c) have definite limits to their causative power. If you
> can grasp this you'll know more than 99% of the people in this forum.
>
If you mean by "regularity of nature": it's true that Darwin believed
the natural forces at work today, can be extend back through time with
the same effect. "Random Chance" would be the cause of new information.
He knew nothing
of genetics and had never heard of random mutations, which is really the
source of new information. What I attempted to describe is a - c.

I think I understand, ID accepts regularity in nature. How else could
it be? The laws of nature, that is, the laws of physics, chemistry and
mathematics are constant and restrict the extent to which change can
exist. Everything is confined restricted to these boundaries. This
differentiates ID from evolution in that, with Darwin, random chance and
given enough time anything is possible.

My simple mind struggled with this. but I did get something out of it.

Earle Jones

unread,
Mar 26, 2018, 5:35:03 PM3/26/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 2018-03-25 00:28:16 +0000, T Pagano said:

> On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 20:12:39 -0400, JD Wolfe wrote:
>
>> I've noticed there are many folks on Talk Origins debating with
>> evolutionist over the issue of the origin of life. What is intelligent
>> design evidence and theory of origins?
>
> 1. Intelligent Design Theories have nothing to do directly with the
> origin of life. Intelligent Design theories do not explain how events
> occur over time.
>
> 2. Intelligent Design theories examine some object, system, process or
> event at some time t and attempt to determine if the attributes of that
> system are the result of law, chance, their combination or intelligent
> design.
>
>
>
>> Where did living things come
>> from?
>
> There are only two theories about the origin of life:
> 1. God did it.
> 2. Nature did it.
>
> Beyond that no one has any specific answers.
>
>

*
You should add a third category:

3. Other

There are at least seven theories about the origin of life:

See: http://www.thedailystar.net/science/7-theories-the-origin-life-77163

earle
*

jillery

unread,
Mar 26, 2018, 10:05:02 PM3/26/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Mon, 26 Mar 2018 16:14:12 -0400, JD Wolfe <"JD Wolfe"@gmail.com>
wrote:
Since you asked, what Pagano wrote about the fossil record is
technically correct but insufficient. The fossil record is
necessarily incomplete. Even if every single fossil was dug up and
catalogued, only a very small percentage of species which ever lived
would be represented in it. And even of those species, most of the
features which identify extant species don't leave fossil traces, so
it's more difficult to identify changes in fossil species.
So, on this point there is no mystery. Pagano's statement is just a
standard Creationist PRATT.
IIUC your conclusions about ID and Darwinism are exactly backwards.
Anything is possible with ID, because the laws of nature, and their
occasional violations, are caused by the whims of a supernatural
creative Agent. With Darwinism, random chance applies to mutations,
which are centered around existing genes, while natural selection is
based on the environments existing at the time of selection.


>>>>> If it does not, how do you tell the difference between law, chance,
>>>>> their combination and intelligent design. I can see how you could
>>>>> write chance. I don't know how you could think that laws are against
>>>>> intelligent design and think that intelligent design is a possibility.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Obviously there is a language barrier and English is not your first
>>>> language. No where in my paragraph (2) do I pit intelligent design
>>>> against the other modes of causation. Each of the modes of causation
>>>> have their domains.
>>>>
>>> English is my first language the problem I had understanding you post is
>>> you write in metaphors and figuratively.
>>
>> I didn't use a single metaphor or even write figuratively. I stated as
>> well as I am able what ID Theory "was" and "was not."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> You do not state you arguments
>>> in simple phrases so ignorant, semi-literate, unimaginative people, who
>>> dropped out of kindergarten such as I- can understand.
>>
>> You don't sound ignorant to me; just that English is not your primary
>> language. In the space of three postings you've asked more intelligent
>> questions about ID Theory than some of the members in the forum have
>> asked in 10 years.
> >
>>> The truth is I think you're just trying to impress with your
>>> intelligence imprecise wording.
>>
>> Perhaps. Language is always imprecise.

jonathan

unread,
Mar 26, 2018, 11:00:02 PM3/26/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 3/24/2018 8:28 PM, T Pagano wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 20:12:39 -0400, JD Wolfe wrote:
>
>> I've noticed there are many folks on Talk Origins debating with
>> evolutionist over the issue of the origin of life. What is intelligent
>> design evidence and theory of origins?
>
> 1. Intelligent Design Theories have nothing to do directly with the
> origin of life. Intelligent Design theories do not explain how events
> occur over time.
>
> 2. Intelligent Design theories examine some object, system, process or
> event at some time t and attempt to determine if the attributes of that
> system are the result of law, chance, their combination or intelligent
> design.
>
>
>
>> Where did living things come
>> from?
>
> There are only two theories about the origin of life:
> 1. God did it.
> 2. Nature did it.
>
> Beyond that no one has any specific answers.
>
>


Emergence is responsible for thing like creation
and speciation, the large and sudden jumps
in complexity.

Natural selection fine tunes and steadily
improves on those creations.

The answer is not that difficult to see
....ONCE the concept of emergence
is well understood.

Unfortunately NO ONE in this ng understands
the concept of emergence.

Not even a whit.

It's all below guys, but no one can be
bothered to learn a new trick, or it's
too difficult for them.

What's tunneling emergence?
What's strong emergence?
What's the difference between stable and
unstable emergence?
What is the mesoscopic barrier?

OH YOU DON'T KNOW? Not even one?

Those that don't shouldn't pretend they know
how nature or evolution works.


http://old-classes.design4complexity.com/7701-S14/reading/critical-thinking/Types-and-Forms-of-Emergence.pdf

jillery

unread,
Mar 27, 2018, 1:20:03 AM3/27/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Mon, 26 Mar 2018 22:54:50 -0400, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>What's tunneling emergence?
>What's strong emergence?
>What's the difference between stable and
>unstable emergence?
>What is the mesoscopic barrier?


What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen sparrow?

zencycle

unread,
Mar 27, 2018, 8:55:03 AM3/27/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 1:20:03 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2018 22:54:50 -0400, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >What's tunneling emergence?
> >What's strong emergence?
> >What's the difference between stable and
> >unstable emergence?
> >What is the mesoscopic barrier?
>
>
> What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen sparrow?

African or European swallow?

zencycle

unread,
Mar 27, 2018, 8:55:03 AM3/27/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Jonathan, we've been over this, the answer is 42. Please pay attention.

jillery

unread,
Mar 27, 2018, 10:35:03 AM3/27/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 05:52:21 -0700 (PDT), zencycle
<funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 1:20:03 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Mar 2018 22:54:50 -0400, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >What's tunneling emergence?
>> >What's strong emergence?
>> >What's the difference between stable and
>> >unstable emergence?
>> >What is the mesoscopic barrier?
>>
>>
>> What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen sparrow?
>
>African or European swallow?


You caught my trick question.

T Pagano

unread,
Mar 27, 2018, 11:35:03 AM3/27/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Mon, 26 Mar 2018 16:14:12 -0400, JD Wolfe wrote:

> On 3/26/2018 7:20 AM, T Pagano wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2018 21:40:03 -0400, JD Wolfe wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/25/2018 7:24 AM, T Pagano wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 23:51:52 -0400, JD Wolfe wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/24/2018 8:28 PM, T Pagano wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 20:12:39 -0400, JD Wolfe wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've noticed there are many folks on Talk Origins debating with
>>>>>>> evolutionist over the issue of the origin of life. What is
>>>>>>> intelligent design evidence and theory of origins?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. Intelligent Design Theories have nothing to do directly with
>>>>>> the origin of life. Intelligent Design theories do not explain how
>>>>>> events occur over time.
>>>>> >
>>>>> What does it explain then?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ID doesn't explain the origin of life, evolution doesn't either.
>>
>> Bravo, you finally get it.
>>
> Right, but I thought that religion had an explanation. Is this not true?


Yes it is, depending on the religion.




>>
>>
>>> Intelligent design theories do not explain events over time.
>>> What does "events over time" mean, if not the change of species to
>>> different species. Evolution explains this.
>>
>> 1. Darwin never saw "species" as anything but an insignificant (and
>> arbitrary) category. Darwin's central claim was that his naturalistic
>> mechanism could explain "design." His mechanism could do away with the
>> necessity of God. ID Theory demonstrates that this "central claim" of
>> Darwin's is---for all practical purposes---impossible.
>>
>> 2. The problem for Darwin (and his modern day followers) is that the
>> fossil record disputes Darwin's claim that species are insignificant
>> AND disputes that they change over time. The fossil record shows
>> categorically that species arise suddenly and remain substantially
>> fixed over MILLIONS OF YEARS until they disappear from the fossil
>> record.
>>
> Really, how can this be true? Evolution is about gradual, imperceptible
> change over huge spans of time. If the fossil record shows, what you are
> saying, species arise suddenly, but what about ancestors?


You get the problem exactly. If evolution explains gradual change but
the fossil record contradicts that explanation then the darwinian
explanation is wrong.

This doesn't mean that ancestors didn't exist, it just means that
ancestors didn't arise the way darwin (and his modern followers) think
they arose.







> Species had to
> come from somewhere. And if they remain unchanged over millions of
> years, then disappears, that's like my idea of a religious view, based
> not on what scientist find in the fossil record. I try to keep an open
> mind, but this is a challenge. It's a water-shed position.

1. The fossil record categorically disconfirms darwinian evolution.

2. Darwin specifically offered his theory to explain design and so his
theory was meant by him to eliminate the necessity of a designer.

3. The fossil record disconfirms gradualism and ID Theory disconfirms
that naturalistic processes have the power to explain evidence of
design. This leaves the possibility that the origin of life and the
origin of species required a designer----a God.





>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Already explained that in paragraph (2) below which apparently you
>>>> didn't read or don't understand.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> 2. Intelligent Design theories examine some object, system,
>>>>>> process or event at some time t and attempt to determine if the
>>>>>> attributes of that system are the result of law, chance, their
>>>>>> combination or intelligent design.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Don't that contradict your first statement?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In what way do they conflict?
>>>>
>>> If in statement #1 I took it to mean species changing to different
>>> species over time, which Intelligent design doesn't bother with. But
>>> then in statement #2 you discuss ID examining objects, systems,
>>> processes or events at some time is something Intelligent design does
>>> bother with.
>>
>>
>> Statement #1 states that "origin of life" and "change over time" are
>> OUTSIDE of ID Theory's domain of interest.
> >
> I understand the origin of life position, but ID theory is not concerned
> with changes over time, then everything else is of little meaning.


ID theory simply does NOT study change over time. It is not a theory
competing with darwinism to explain "how" life arose over time. It does;
however, give us clues about the limitations of the darwinian mechanism.

ID Theory studies the elements of design and has concluded that natural
processes (including darwinian processes) lack the power to create
objects with attributes of design. In this case Darwin's central claim---
that his mechanism can create designed biological structures----is false.


>>
>> Statement #2 states that ID theory looks at only a single time slice of
>> any object of interest and asks, "what was the mode of causation" for
>> the attributes of that object. In some cases it can answer that
>> question. What are the modes of causation?:
>> a. Regularity of Nature b. Random Chance c. Combination of Regularity
>> and Chance.
>> d. Intelligent Design.
> >
> Is the "slice of time" then, about your report concerning the fossil
> record and trying to determine the cause of what you assert. It seems to
> me, this if true is something that would be unwelcome and no interest to
> naturalist.

I agree, but it also means that the naturalist cannot explain every
object found in nature via naturalistic processes. It means that the
origin of some objects are beyond the power of naturalistic processes and
the naturalist.




>>
>> Darwin opined that categories (a) through (c) where sufficient to
>> explain everything we observe in nature. Intelligent Design theory
>> opines that (a) through (c) have definite limits to their causative
>> power. If you can grasp this you'll know more than 99% of the people
>> in this forum.
>>
> If you mean by "regularity of nature": it's true that Darwin believed
> the natural forces at work today, can be extend back through time with
> the same effect.

I, more or less, agree with your understanding. Nonetheless neither
Darwin nor anyone else have observed the creation of a new biological
structure, system or creature "today." Since such occurrences are not at
work today naturalists are unable to justifiably claim they occurred back
in history.






> "Random Chance" would be the cause of new information.
> He knew nothing of genetics and had never heard of random mutations,
> which is really the source of new information. What I attempted to
> describe is a - c.

Unfortunately this isn't true. The study of genetics shows that random
mutations are mostly neutral (they result in NO change) or they are
harmful to living things. There has NEVER been an instance where random
changes results in a progressive, biological change. New information is
never created.




>
> I think I understand, ID accepts regularity in nature. How else could it
> be? The laws of nature, that is, the laws of physics, chemistry and
> mathematics are constant and restrict the extent to which change can
> exist. Everything is confined restricted to these boundaries. This
> differentiates ID from evolution in that, with Darwin, random chance and
> given enough time anything is possible.

ID Theory recognizes the following modes of causation:

1. regularities of nature: given a set of conditions an effect will
*always* occur.
2. random chance: given a set of conditions sometimes a *limited set*
of events might occur.
3. intelligent design: given a set of conditions design, in principle,
can generate anything not prohibited by the laws of nature.


snip


zencycle

unread,
Mar 27, 2018, 12:10:04 PM3/27/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 11:35:03 AM UTC-4, T Pagano wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2018 16:14:12 -0400, JD Wolfe wrote:
>
> Unfortunately this isn't true. The study of genetics shows that random
> mutations are mostly neutral (they result in NO change) or they are
> harmful to living things. There has NEVER been an instance where random
> changes results in a progressive, biological change. New information is
> never created.

As usual, more bullshit from tony

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/100201_speciation

https://phys.org/news/2016-11-biologists-speciation-laboratory-flask.html


Those three are just from the first page of a google of "speciation observed"

Of course, tony won't address these, or if he does, he'll either move the goalposts of distract with some misinterpretaion by darwin - He's about 50/50 on both those counts.

I'm quite sure others will chime in with more examples of observed speciation

> ID Theory recognizes the following modes of causation:
>
> 3. intelligent design: given a set of conditions design, in principle,
> can generate anything not prohibited by the laws of nature.

In otherwords 'then some magic happened'

jonathan

unread,
Mar 27, 2018, 10:05:02 PM3/27/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 3/27/2018 1:16 AM, jillery wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2018 22:54:50 -0400, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> What's tunneling emergence?
>> What's strong emergence?
>> What's the difference between stable and
>> unstable emergence?
>> What is the mesoscopic barrier?
>
>
> What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen sparrow?
>

In other words you haven't the first clue.

Calculus would sound like nonsense to a
high school dropout, congratulations
for being so proud of your ignorance.

jonathan

unread,
Mar 27, 2018, 10:10:02 PM3/27/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 3/27/2018 10:34 AM, jillery wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 05:52:21 -0700 (PDT), zencycle
> <funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 1:20:03 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>>> On Mon, 26 Mar 2018 22:54:50 -0400, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> What's tunneling emergence?
>>>> What's strong emergence?
>>>> What's the difference between stable and
>>>> unstable emergence?
>>>> What is the mesoscopic barrier?
>>>
>>>
>>> What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen sparrow?
>>
>> African or European swallow?
>
>
> You caught my trick question.
>


The two of you make a nice couple, tweedle dee
and tweedle dumb.

jonathan

unread,
Mar 27, 2018, 10:10:02 PM3/27/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 3/27/2018 8:52 AM, zencycle wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 1:20:03 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Mar 2018 22:54:50 -0400, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> What's tunneling emergence?
>>> What's strong emergence?
>>> What's the difference between stable and
>>> unstable emergence?
>>> What is the mesoscopic barrier?
>>
>>
>> What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen sparrow?
>
> African or European swallow?
>


You can't answer the questions either then.

What's worse is either of you can't
even fathom why such concepts are
central to evolution.

Not knowing something isn't anything
to be ashamed of. Ridiculing new ideas
you don't understand is sickening to
witness in adults.

jonathan

unread,
Mar 27, 2018, 10:15:02 PM3/27/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Yes and you still fail, miserably. Let me try again
with something more your speed.

What's 2 x 2?


*Hemidactylus*

unread,
Mar 27, 2018, 10:30:02 PM3/27/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

JD Wolfe

unread,
Mar 28, 2018, 12:45:02 AM3/28/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
This is what I get:
A) 1. the fossil record shows that species arise suddenly, and they
remain unchanged for millions of years then the disappear from the record.
or
B) 1. incomplete fossil record, 2. all species that ever lived are
represented by only a small percentage of species, 3. features that
identify extinct species don't leave fossil traces, 4. so identification
of species change in the fossil record are difficult.

Can you understand the problem I have with this!? It seems to me that
if _A_ is observed, and actually represents the fossil record, then this
means _A_ is real and it is physical evidence.

What _B_ says to me: these are the reasons why the fossil record doesn't
conform to what Darwin's theory predicts.
If as you describe ID, then I would agree, it's irrational, illogical
and obviously false. Because the laws of physics are constant and
unyielding as far as we know.
In the case of evolution: I was paraphrasing a statement by Issac Asimov
That time and chance could produce anything. Or the monkeys with
typewriters theorem , given enough time could produce all the works of
Shakespeare.

jillery

unread,
Mar 28, 2018, 1:00:02 AM3/28/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 22:09:40 -0400, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>The two of you make a nice couple, tweedle dee
>and tweedle dumb.


Even if so, it would still be better than to be a public master baiter
like you.

jillery

unread,
Mar 28, 2018, 1:00:02 AM3/28/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 22:02:13 -0400, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 3/27/2018 1:16 AM, jillery wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Mar 2018 22:54:50 -0400, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> What's tunneling emergence?
>>> What's strong emergence?
>>> What's the difference between stable and
>>> unstable emergence?
>>> What is the mesoscopic barrier?
>>
>>
>> What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen sparrow?
>>
>
>In other words you haven't the first clue.


Nope. To the contrary, it's you who has no clue what is relevant to
the topic under discussion. HTH but I doubt it.


>Calculus would sound like nonsense to a
>high school dropout, congratulations
>for being so proud of your ignorance.


Once again, your projector is overheated.

jillery

unread,
Mar 28, 2018, 3:05:03 AM3/28/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 00:40:07 -0400, JD Wolfe <"JD Wolfe"@gmail.com>
>> So, on this point there is no mystery. Pagano's statement is just a
>> standard Creationist PRATT.
>
>> >This is what I get:
>A) 1. the fossil record shows that species arise suddenly, and they
>remain unchanged for millions of years then the disappear from the record.
>or
>B) 1. incomplete fossil record, 2. all species that ever lived are
>represented by only a small percentage of species, 3. features that
>identify extinct species don't leave fossil traces, 4. so identification
>of species change in the fossil record are difficult.
>
>Can you understand the problem I have with this!? It seems to me that
>if _A_ is observed, and actually represents the fossil record, then this
>means _A_ is real and it is physical evidence.
>
>What _B_ says to me: these are the reasons why the fossil record doesn't
>conform to what Darwin's theory predicts.


Yes, I think I understand the problem you have. Lots of people have
it, so it's no reflection on you. When making conclusions based on
any data, it's necessary to first identify and account for the
limitations of that data. For example, the Kepler space observatory
identified very few Earth-size planets, but astronomers didn't jump to
the conclusion that Earth-size planets are rare, because they knew
Kepler's methods identified larger planets much more easily, and they
would be over-represented in its data.

Here's an analogy occasionally posted here. Suppose the only evidence
of your childhood was your annual school class photos. Based on just
those photos, some simple minds might conclude that you grew in annual
spurts, but most of the time stayed mostly the same. Some might even
argue that your photos were of different individuals, or that the high
school graduate wasn't the same person as the first-grader twelve
years prior. Of course you know these conclusions are wrong, but you
can see how unaccounted incomplete evidence might lead them to those
incorrect conclusions. It's no different with the fossil record.

Also, the fossil record's "rapid change" is still measured in
thousands and tens of thousands of years, and certainly doesn't
support the instantaneous creation of species from nothing most
fundamentalists claim.

Finally, Darwin explicitly stated in Origin of Species that rates of
evolutionary change can vary among species and over time and place. So
even if it were true that most species spend most of their time in
stasis with brief periods of relatively rapid change, that *still*
wouldn't be contrary to Darwin's theory. The claim that Darwinism
requires the same rate everywhere and everywhen is a Creationist
PRATT.

[...]


>>> I think I understand, ID accepts regularity in nature. How else could
>>> it be? The laws of nature, that is, the laws of physics, chemistry and
>>> mathematics are constant and restrict the extent to which change can
>>> exist. Everything is confined restricted to these boundaries. This
>>> differentiates ID from evolution in that, with Darwin, random chance and
>>> given enough time anything is possible.
>>>
>>> My simple mind struggled with this. but I did get something out of it.
>>
>>
>> IIUC your conclusions about ID and Darwinism are exactly backwards.
>> Anything is possible with ID, because the laws of nature, and their
>> occasional violations, are caused by the whims of a supernatural
>> creative Agent. With Darwinism, random chance applies to mutations,
>> which are centered around existing genes, while natural selection is
>> based on the environments existing at the time of selection.
>>
>If as you describe ID, then I would agree, it's irrational, illogical
>and obviously false. Because the laws of physics are constant and
>unyielding as far as we know.
>In the case of evolution: I was paraphrasing a statement by Issac Asimov
>That time and chance could produce anything. Or the monkeys with
>typewriters theorem , given enough time could produce all the works of
>Shakespeare.


Isaac Asimov was a trained scientist, so I don't interpret his
"anything" to mean literally anything, like gold-winged humans.
Instead, and without knowing the context, I'm almost positive he meant
that time and chance are some of the ingredients evolution required to
have produced all of the millions of species that ever lived, which is
still a far cry from anything.

The "infinite monkeys" concept refers to a similar theme, that for
those who express incredulity about evolution, they almost certainly
fail to grasp the concept of deep time. Here's one illustration of
the natural history of Earth:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Earth>

At this scale, the appearance of anything resembling humans is barely
visible, and you would need a magnifier to see the sliver representing
all of recorded human history.

zencycle

unread,
Mar 28, 2018, 12:10:03 PM3/28/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 10:10:02 PM UTC-4, jonathan wrote:
> On 3/27/2018 8:52 AM, zencycle wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 1:20:03 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> >> On Mon, 26 Mar 2018 22:54:50 -0400, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> What's tunneling emergence?
> >>> What's strong emergence?
> >>> What's the difference between stable and
> >>> unstable emergence?
> >>> What is the mesoscopic barrier?
> >>
> >>
> >> What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen sparrow?
> >
> > African or European swallow?
> >
>
>
> You can't answer the questions either then.
>
> What's worse is either of you can't
> even fathom why such concepts are
> central to evolution.

They aren't central to evolution, they are metaphysical questions. Evolution is not metaphysics, except for those who wish to explore the philosophy of entropy => order


> Not knowing something isn't anything
> to be ashamed of. Ridiculing new ideas
> you don't understand is sickening to
> witness in adults.

You haven't discussed anything new, and no one is ridiculing concepts of emergence. The ridicule is aimed towards the person promoting agnosticism as an alternative to ID, in preference to the science of evolution.

And yes, that's you, you have consistently stated science can not possibly ever explain origins, instead attributing it to unknowable (agnostic) emergent mechanisms.

So, my comment to you stating that the answer is 42 makes as much sense as any of the psychobabble you post.

Bob Casanova

unread,
Mar 28, 2018, 1:25:03 PM3/28/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 22:05:55 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jonathan
<WriteI...@gmail.com>:

>On 3/27/2018 8:52 AM, zencycle wrote:
>> On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 1:20:03 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>>> On Mon, 26 Mar 2018 22:54:50 -0400, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> What's tunneling emergence?
>>>> What's strong emergence?
>>>> What's the difference between stable and
>>>> unstable emergence?
>>>> What is the mesoscopic barrier?
>>>
>>>
>>> What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen sparrow?
>>
>> African or European swallow?
>>
>
>
>You can't answer the questions either then.

Try "won't"; see below:

>What's worse is either of you can't
>even fathom why such concepts are
>central to evolution.
>
>Not knowing something isn't anything
>to be ashamed of. Ridiculing new ideas
>you don't understand is sickening to
>witness in adults.

Just a hint:

No one is ridiculing the idea, or even the use, of
complexity theory, which has been used in multiple
disciplines, specifically including biology, for decades.
They're ridiculing *you*, and your arrogant assumptions that
you know more than anyone else about anything which catches
your fancy, that complexity theory makes everything else
obsolete, and that anyone who refuses to play your silly
little "Define *this*!" games is ignorant rather than simply
unwilling to play with you.

HTH, but I doubt it will.

JD Wolfe

unread,
Mar 28, 2018, 8:10:02 PM3/28/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 3/27/2018 11:34 AM, T Pagano wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2018 16:14:12 -0400, JD Wolfe wrote:
>
>> On 3/26/2018 7:20 AM, T Pagano wrote:
>>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2018 21:40:03 -0400, JD Wolfe wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/25/2018 7:24 AM, T Pagano wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 23:51:52 -0400, JD Wolfe wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/24/2018 8:28 PM, T Pagano wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 20:12:39 -0400, JD Wolfe wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've noticed there are many folks on Talk Origins debating with
>>>>>>>> evolutionist over the issue of the origin of life. What is
>>>>>>>> intelligent design evidence and theory of origins?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. Intelligent Design Theories have nothing to do directly with
>>>>>>> the origin of life. Intelligent Design theories do not explain how
>>>>>>> events occur over time.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> What does it explain then?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> ID doesn't explain the origin of life, evolution doesn't either.
>>>
>>> Bravo, you finally get it.
>>>
>> Right, but I thought that religion had an explanation. Is this not true?
>
>
> Yes it is, depending on the religion.
>
I understand that evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of
life, however, there is a different branch naturalism that does. The
endeavor is called abiogenesis. >
>>>> Intelligent design theories do not explain events over time.
>>>> What does "events over time" mean, if not the change of species to
>>>> different species. Evolution explains this.
>>>
>>> 1. Darwin never saw "species" as anything but an insignificant (and
>>> arbitrary) category. Darwin's central claim was that his naturalistic
>>> mechanism could explain "design." His mechanism could do away with the
>>> necessity of God. ID Theory demonstrates that this "central claim" of
>>> Darwin's is---for all practical purposes---impossible.
>>>
>>> 2. The problem for Darwin (and his modern day followers) is that the
>>> fossil record disputes Darwin's claim that species are insignificant
>>> AND disputes that they change over time. The fossil record shows
>>> categorically that species arise suddenly and remain substantially
>>> fixed over MILLIONS OF YEARS until they disappear from the fossil
>>> record.
>>>
>> Really, how can this be true? Evolution is about gradual, imperceptible
>> change over huge spans of time. If the fossil record shows, what you are
>> saying, species arise suddenly, but what about ancestors?
>
>
> You get the problem exactly. If evolution explains gradual change but
> the fossil record contradicts that explanation then the darwinian
> explanation is wrong.
>
Yes, this _seems_ to indicate that the fossil record fails to conform
to theory. But there are explanations provided which excuses the
failure of the fossil record. IOW theory takes precedence, so where
theory and observation conflict, observation is wrong.
>
> This doesn't mean that ancestors didn't exist, it just means that
> ancestors didn't arise the way darwin (and his modern followers) think
> they arose.
>
I don't know how new species could have arisen except through gradual
change from some ancestral species.
>
>
>> Species had to
>> come from somewhere. And if they remain unchanged over millions of
>> years, then disappears, that's like my idea of a religious view, based
>> not on what scientist find in the fossil record. I try to keep an open
>> mind, but this is a challenge. It's a water-shed position.
>
> 1. The fossil record categorically disconfirms darwinian evolution.
>
> 2. Darwin specifically offered his theory to explain design and so his
> theory was meant by him to eliminate the necessity of a designer.
>
> 3. The fossil record disconfirms gradualism and ID Theory disconfirms
> that naturalistic processes have the power to explain evidence of
> design. This leaves the possibility that the origin of life and the
> origin of species required a designer----a God.
>
Well evolutionist point to the horse series and sea shells as evidence-
and as an example of gradualism where the fossil record didn't record
due to failure of intermediate forms to fossilize.
>
>
>
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Already explained that in paragraph (2) below which apparently you
>>>>> didn't read or don't understand.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2. Intelligent Design theories examine some object, system,
>>>>>>> process or event at some time t and attempt to determine if the
>>>>>>> attributes of that system are the result of law, chance, their
>>>>>>> combination or intelligent design.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don't that contradict your first statement?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In what way do they conflict?
>>>>>
>>>> If in statement #1 I took it to mean species changing to different
>>>> species over time, which Intelligent design doesn't bother with. But
>>>> then in statement #2 you discuss ID examining objects, systems,
>>>> processes or events at some time is something Intelligent design does
>>>> bother with.
>>>
>>>
>>> Statement #1 states that "origin of life" and "change over time" are
>>> OUTSIDE of ID Theory's domain of interest.
>> >
>> I understand the origin of life position, but ID theory is not concerned
>> with changes over time, then everything else is of little meaning.
>
>
> ID theory simply does NOT study change over time. It is not a theory
> competing with darwinism to explain "how" life arose over time. It does;
> however, give us clues about the limitations of the darwinian mechanism.
>
If ID doesn't attempt to explain changes over time, but rather to fault
find darwinism, then this is not a positive movement, ID fails in this
regard.
>
> ID Theory studies the elements of design and has concluded that natural
> processes (including darwinian processes) lack the power to create
> objects with attributes of design. In this case Darwin's central claim---
> that his mechanism can create designed biological structures----is false.
>
Would designed biological structures.
>>>
>>> Statement #2 states that ID theory looks at only a single time slice of
>>> any object of interest and asks, "what was the mode of causation" for
>>> the attributes of that object. In some cases it can answer that
>>> question. What are the modes of causation?:
>>> a. Regularity of Nature b. Random Chance c. Combination of Regularity
>>> and Chance.
>>> d. Intelligent Design.
>> >
>> Is the "slice of time" then, about your report concerning the fossil
>> record and trying to determine the cause of what you assert. It seems to
>> me, this if true is something that would be unwelcome and no interest to
>> naturalist.
>
> I agree, but it also means that the naturalist cannot explain every
> object found in nature via naturalistic processes. It means that the
> origin of some objects are beyond the power of naturalistic processes and
> the naturalist.
>
You continually use the word "objects", in connection with this subject
the meaning of the word is not clear in this context, at least to my
simple way of thinking.


>
>
>>>
>>> Darwin opined that categories (a) through (c) where sufficient to
>>> explain everything we observe in nature. Intelligent Design theory
>>> opines that (a) through (c) have definite limits to their causative
>>> power. If you can grasp this you'll know more than 99% of the people
>>> in this forum.
>>>
>> If you mean by "regularity of nature": it's true that Darwin believed
>> the natural forces at work today, can be extend back through time with
>> the same effect.
>
> I, more or less, agree with your understanding. Nonetheless neither
> Darwin nor anyone else have observed the creation of a new biological
> structure, system or creature "today." Since such occurrences are not at
> work today naturalists are unable to justifiably claim they occurred back
> in history.
>
I remember reading that during the Cambrian more than a dozen animal
phylum came into existence and no new phylum have arisen since. However,
where the Cambrian animals came from, already in broad categories,
called the Cambrian explosion, is still a mystery. They had to have had
a very long history, to have differentiated into so many phylum.

>
>> "Random Chance" would be the cause of new information.
>> He knew nothing of genetics and had never heard of random mutations,
>> which is really the source of new information. What I attempted to
>> describe is a - c.
>
> Unfortunately this isn't true.
>
Well yes it is, a source of new information according Darwinist ever
since the discovery of a genetic defect in evening Penrose by Hugo de
Vries. This discovery gave rise to NeoDarwinism.

The study of genetics shows that random
> mutations are mostly neutral (they result in NO change) or they are
> harmful to living things. There has NEVER been an instance where random
> changes results in a progressive, biological change. New information is
> never created.
>
There are thousands of genetic disorders and diseases caused by
detective genes passed on to offspring. But these are a comparative few
compared to the numbers of genetic mistakes and errors that are weeded
out by natural selection.
>
I think we have to disagree that new information never created.
The history of life on this planet, indicates that new species
such as homo sapiens are the result of information that did not
exist during the early history of life. This is new information
that was created.
>
>
>
>>
>> I think I understand, ID accepts regularity in nature. How else could it
>> be? The laws of nature, that is, the laws of physics, chemistry and
>> mathematics are constant and restrict the extent to which change can
>> exist. Everything is confined restricted to these boundaries. This
>> differentiates ID from evolution in that, with Darwin, random chance and
>> given enough time anything is possible.
>
> ID Theory recognizes the following modes of causation:
>
> 1. regularities of nature: given a set of conditions an effect will
> *always* occur.
> 2. random chance: given a set of conditions sometimes a *limited set*
> of events might occur.
> 3. intelligent design: given a set of conditions design, in principle,
> can generate anything not prohibited by the laws of nature.
>
I agree including where you say "in principle" can generate anything,
but does it? I honestly think evolution sitting with the hand up with
answers where ID is just sitting.

>
> snip
>
>

T Pagano

unread,
Mar 29, 2018, 6:40:03 AM3/29/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 20:06:44 -0400, JD Wolfe wrote:

> On 3/27/2018 11:34 AM, T Pagano wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Mar 2018 16:14:12 -0400, JD Wolfe wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/26/2018 7:20 AM, T Pagano wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2018 21:40:03 -0400, JD Wolfe wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/25/2018 7:24 AM, T Pagano wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 23:51:52 -0400, JD Wolfe wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 3/24/2018 8:28 PM, T Pagano wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 20:12:39 -0400, JD Wolfe wrote:
>>>>>>>>

snip

>>> Right, but I thought that religion had an explanation. Is this not
>>> true?
>>
>>
>> Yes it is, depending on the religion.
>>
> I understand that evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of
> life, however, there is a different branch naturalism that does. The
> endeavor is called abiogenesis. >


Abiogenesis has stagnated. That is, it has generated any biologically
realistic solutions to how life originated.


snip

>>> Really, how can this be true? Evolution is about gradual,
>>> imperceptible change over huge spans of time. If the fossil record
>>> shows, what you are saying, species arise suddenly, but what about
>>> ancestors?
>>
>>
>> You get the problem exactly. If evolution explains gradual change but
>> the fossil record contradicts that explanation then the darwinian
>> explanation is wrong.
> >

> Yes, this _seems_ to indicate that the fossil record fails to conform to
> theory. But there are explanations provided which excuses the failure
> of the fossil record. IOW theory takes precedence, so where theory and
> observation conflict, observation is wrong.

I'm afraid you grossly misunderstand what it means to be a "theory."
Theories are always provisional guesses about nature. Man uses
observations to see if our theories are correct. If actual observations
in nature don't confirm what the theory predicts then the theory is
likely wrong.



>>
>> This doesn't mean that ancestors didn't exist, it just means that
>> ancestors didn't arise the way darwin (and his modern followers) think
>> they arose.
>>
> I don't know how new species could have arisen except through gradual
> change from some ancestral species.


And neither does anyone else so you're in good company.

The fossil record shows that gradualism is false. The theory of
neoDarwinian evolution is necessarily gradualistic and so the fossil
record strongly indicates that it is false. So why would you continue to
accept gradualism when observations in nature show it to be false?

Better to wait until you (or someone else) explains the pattern in the
fossil record.



>>
>> 3. The fossil record disconfirms gradualism and ID Theory disconfirms
>> that naturalistic processes have the power to explain evidence of
>> design. This leaves the possibility that the origin of life and the
>> origin of species required a designer----a God.
> >
> Well evolutionist point to the horse series and sea shells as evidence-
> and as an example of gradualism where the fossil record didn't record
> due to failure of intermediate forms to fossilize.


The horse series is generally not lined up in chronological order of
appearance in the fossil record, but by size and so the evolutionist
misleads everyone. And the creature displayed looks like a horse from
start to finish.

And shells are shells from start to finish. Minor change in shape, size
and color can result from genes already existing in the genome of the
population. The trick that evolutionists have been unable to show is
how the horse and the shell arose in the first place.



snip

>>>>>>
>>>>>> In what way do they conflict?
>>>>>>
>>>>> If in statement #1 I took it to mean species changing to different
>>>>> species over time, which Intelligent design doesn't bother with. But
>>>>> then in statement #2 you discuss ID examining objects, systems,
>>>>> processes or events at some time is something Intelligent design
>>>>> does bother with.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Statement #1 states that "origin of life" and "change over time" are
>>>> OUTSIDE of ID Theory's domain of interest.
>>> >
>>> I understand the origin of life position, but ID theory is not
>>> concerned with changes over time, then everything else is of little
>>> meaning.
>>
>>
>> ID theory simply does NOT study change over time. It is not a theory
>> competing with darwinism to explain "how" life arose over time. It
>> does; however, give us clues about the limitations of the darwinian
>> mechanism.
> >
> If ID doesn't attempt to explain changes over time, but rather to fault
> find darwinism, then this is not a positive movement, ID fails in this
> regard.


Again you have misunderstanding the nature of theories. Theories
frequently tell us what can not happen. For example the Theory of
Gravity tells us that two masses will never repel each other.

It is just as important to know what cannot happen. ID Theory tells us
that the neoDarwinian mechanism does not have the power to generate some
kinds attributes. When we find those attributes in nature we know the
neoDarwinian mechanism was not responsible and must look for other
explanations.







>>> Is the "slice of time" then, about your report concerning the fossil
>>> record and trying to determine the cause of what you assert. It seems
>>> to me, this if true is something that would be unwelcome and no
>>> interest to naturalist.
>>
>> I agree, but it also means that the naturalist cannot explain every
>> object found in nature via naturalistic processes. It means that the
>> origin of some objects are beyond the power of naturalistic processes
>> and the naturalist.
>>
> You continually use the word "objects", in connection with this subject
> the meaning of the word is not clear in this context, at least to my
> simple way of thinking.

An "object" is simply any real, physical thing: a rock, a mountain, a
chair, a strand of hair, a frog, a human heart, etc.


snip



>>
>> I, more or less, agree with your understanding. Nonetheless neither
>> Darwin nor anyone else have observed the creation of a new biological
>> structure, system or creature "today." Since such occurrences are not
>> at work today naturalists are unable to justifiably claim they occurred
>> back in history.
>>
> I remember reading that during the Cambrian more than a dozen animal
> phylum came into existence and no new phylum have arisen since. However,
> where the Cambrian animals came from, already in broad categories,
> called the Cambrian explosion, is still a mystery. They had to have had
> a very long history, to have differentiated into so many phylum.


All the basic body plans appeared suddenly in the Cambrian stratum. And
it is a mystery that evolutionary gradualism cannot explain. Gradualism
is disconfirmed in all of the layers of the Earth where fossils are found.

Gradualism is false.


>
>
>>> "Random Chance" would be the cause of new information.
>>> He knew nothing of genetics and had never heard of random mutations,
>>> which is really the source of new information. What I attempted to
>>> describe is a - c.
>>
>> Unfortunately this isn't true.

> >
> Well yes it is, a source of new information according Darwinist ever
> since the discovery of a genetic defect in evening Penrose by Hugo de
> Vries. This discovery gave rise to NeoDarwinism.

Evolutionist have to failed explain how genes arose in the first place.
Genetic changes are almost always neutral (produces no change),
deleterious (harms the creature) or results in the damage to existing
functions. In no instance have evolutionists ever observed genetic
mutations result in progressive, positive change. Never.






>
> The study of genetics shows that random
>> mutations are mostly neutral (they result in NO change) or they are
>> harmful to living things. There has NEVER been an instance where
>> random changes results in a progressive, biological change. New
>> information is never created.
>>
> There are thousands of genetic disorders and diseases caused by
> detective genes passed on to offspring. But these are a comparative few
> compared to the numbers of genetic mistakes and errors that are weeded
> out by natural selection.

This is an example of deleterious mutations.


> >
> I think we have to disagree that new information never created.
> The history of life on this planet, indicates that new species such as
> homo sapiens are the result of information that did not exist during the
> early history of life. This is new information that was created.

This is a leap of faith you make because you assume that gradualistic
change is true, but the fossil record shows that gradualistic change is
false.

Can you cite an experiment where new information arose and was observed
to arise as the result of mutation?


>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> I think I understand, ID accepts regularity in nature. How else could
>>> it be? The laws of nature, that is, the laws of physics, chemistry and
>>> mathematics are constant and restrict the extent to which change can
>>> exist. Everything is confined restricted to these boundaries. This
>>> differentiates ID from evolution in that, with Darwin, random chance
>>> and given enough time anything is possible.
>>
>> ID Theory recognizes the following modes of causation:
>>
>> 1. regularities of nature: given a set of conditions an effect will
>> *always* occur.
>> 2. random chance: given a set of conditions sometimes a *limited set*
>> of events might occur.
>> 3. intelligent design: given a set of conditions design, in
>> principle, can generate anything not prohibited by the laws of nature.



> I agree including where you say "in principle" can generate anything,
> but does it? I honestly think evolution sitting with the hand up with
> answers where ID is just sitting.

ID theory studies the limits of natural processes. It shows that the
neoDarwinian process cannot generate certain kinds of design. No one has
shown where ID Theory is wrong. No one.

NewDarwinian processes are necessarily gradualistic but the fossil record
shows that life did NOT arise gradualistically.

Believe what you like. However, when nature tells us that the theory is
wrong then continuing to believe isn't science but blind faith.



jillery

unread,
Mar 29, 2018, 7:30:03 AM3/29/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 20:06:44 -0400, JD Wolfe <"JD Wolfe"@gmail.com>
wrote:

>> You get the problem exactly. If evolution explains gradual change but
>> the fossil record contradicts that explanation then the darwinian
>> explanation is wrong.
> >
>Yes, this _seems_ to indicate that the fossil record fails to conform
>to theory. But there are explanations provided which excuses the
>failure of the fossil record. IOW theory takes precedence, so where
>theory and observation conflict, observation is wrong.


Once again, you have it exactly backwards. Apparently you still don't
understand that recognizing the limitations of your observation is
part of said observation.

jillery

unread,
Mar 29, 2018, 7:40:03 AM3/29/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 05:38:58 -0500, T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>
wrote:

>The fossil record shows that gradualism is false. The theory of
>neoDarwinian evolution is necessarily gradualistic and so the fossil
>record strongly indicates that it is false. So why would you continue to
>accept gradualism when observations in nature show it to be false?


Of course, newDarwinism is entirely consistent with the fossil record.
Your claim is based on a false assumption that "gradual" means only
one rate of change, which is a Creationist PRATT.

zencycle

unread,
Mar 29, 2018, 2:40:03 PM3/29/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Thursday, March 29, 2018 at 6:40:03 AM UTC-4, T Pagano wrote:
>
> If actual observations
> in nature don't confirm what the theory predicts then the theory is
> likely wrong.

And yet you continue to cling to ID

> > I don't know how new species could have arisen except through gradual
> > change from some ancestral species.
>
> And neither does anyone else so you're in good company.

Only because you refuse to listen to to facts

> The fossil record shows that gradualism is false. The theory of
> neoDarwinian evolution is necessarily gradualistic and so the fossil
> record strongly indicates that it is false. So why would you continue to
> accept gradualism when observations in nature show it to be false?

The gaps in the fossil record don't prove it to be false. It's a distinction well beyond you comprehension.

> It is just as important to know what cannot happen.

Like "goddidit"

> ID Theory tells us
> that the neoDarwinian mechanism does not have the power to generate some
> kinds attributes.

no, it claims that with no proof on any kind.

> When we find those attributes in nature we know the
> neoDarwinian mechanism was not responsible and must look for other
> explanations.

right, so when you find evidence that supports evolution, you look for another explanation because you've already concluded that the theory supported by decades of evidence isn't true. Gawd yer stupid.


> All the basic body plans appeared suddenly in the Cambrian stratum. And
> it is a mystery that evolutionary gradualism cannot explain.

false.

> Gradualism
> is disconfirmed in all of the layers of the Earth where fossils are found.

You might want to crack open a text book or two on geology and the development of strata layers. Yours is a completely ignorant perspective.


> Evolutionist have to failed explain how genes arose in the first place.
> Genetic changes are almost always neutral (produces no change),
> deleterious (harms the creature) or results in the damage to existing
> functions. In no instance have evolutionists ever observed genetic
> mutations result in progressive, positive change. Never.

REams of data over nearly a century have been published on this. You can't makes facts go away by ignoring them.

> Can you cite an experiment where new information arose and was observed
> to arise as the result of mutation?

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

Again, ignoring the facts won't make them go away


> ID theory studies the limits of natural processes. It shows that the
> neoDarwinian process cannot generate certain kinds of design. No one has
> shown where ID Theory is wrong. No one.

Everyone has shown it to be wrong. Again, ignoring the facts doesn't make them go away

>
> NewDarwinian processes are necessarily gradualistic but the fossil record
> shows that life did NOT arise gradualistically.

only when you and other IDiots willfully misinterpret the data.

> Believe what you like. However, when nature tells us that the theory is
> wrong then continuing to believe isn't science but blind faith.

Look in the mirror, jack ass

JD Wolfe

unread,
Mar 29, 2018, 3:30:04 PM3/29/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
That's the way it appears to me, based upon what I've seen recently
in Darwinism. If observations conflict with Darwin theory then
observation requires explanations which involve comprising.
>
> Theories are always provisional guesses about nature. Man uses
> observations to see if our theories are correct. If actual observations
> in nature don't confirm what the theory predicts then the theory is
> likely wrong.
>
I read someplace that Evolution is not testable. This means there is
no way to show whether it's wright or wrong. This then reduces it
from fact to opinion.
I do understand the nature of theories. What I read in a response
to undermine and discredit contrary observations to theory is
exactly what I meant.

For example the Theory of
> Gravity tells us that two masses will never repel each other.
>
> It is just as important to know what cannot happen. ID Theory tells us
> that the neoDarwinian mechanism does not have the power to generate some
> kinds attributes. When we find those attributes in nature we know the
> neoDarwinian mechanism was not responsible and must look for other
> explanations.
>
I would think information and conscience awareness are examples of this.
Can you provide example of this?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>>> Is the "slice of time" then, about your report concerning the fossil
>>>> record and trying to determine the cause of what you assert. It seems
>>>> to me, this if true is something that would be unwelcome and no
>>>> interest to naturalist.
>>>
>>> I agree, but it also means that the naturalist cannot explain every
>>> object found in nature via naturalistic processes. It means that the
>>> origin of some objects are beyond the power of naturalistic processes
>>> and the naturalist.
>>>
>> You continually use the word "objects", in connection with this subject
>> the meaning of the word is not clear in this context, at least to my
>> simple way of thinking.
>
> An "object" is simply any real, physical thing: a rock, a mountain, a
> chair, a strand of hair, a frog, a human heart, etc.
>
That would be my idea.
>
> snip
>
>
>
>>>
>>> I, more or less, agree with your understanding. Nonetheless neither
>>> Darwin nor anyone else have observed the creation of a new biological
>>> structure, system or creature "today." Since such occurrences are not
>>> at work today naturalists are unable to justifiably claim they occurred
>>> back in history.
>>>
>> I remember reading that during the Cambrian more than a dozen animal
>> phylum came into existence and no new phylum have arisen since. However,
>> where the Cambrian animals came from, already in broad categories,
>> called the Cambrian explosion, is still a mystery. They had to have had
>> a very long history, to have differentiated into so many phylum.
>
>
> All the basic body plans appeared suddenly in the Cambrian stratum. And
> it is a mystery that evolutionary gradualism cannot explain. Gradualism
> is disconfirmed in all of the layers of the Earth where fossils are found.
>
> Gradualism is false.
>
This is a challenge that distressed Darwin.
>
>>
>>
>>>> "Random Chance" would be the cause of new information.
>>>> He knew nothing of genetics and had never heard of random mutations,
>>>> which is really the source of new information. What I attempted to
>>>> describe is a - c.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately this isn't true.
>
>> >
>> Well yes it is, a source of new information according Darwinist ever
>> since the discovery of a genetic defect in evening Penrose by Hugo de
>> Vries. This discovery gave rise to NeoDarwinism.
>
> Evolutionist have to failed explain how genes arose in the first place.
> Genetic changes are almost always neutral (produces no change),
> deleterious (harms the creature) or results in the damage to existing
> functions. In no instance have evolutionists ever observed genetic
> mutations result in progressive, positive change. Never.
>
I've never read or heard about one.
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> The study of genetics shows that random
>>> mutations are mostly neutral (they result in NO change) or they are
>>> harmful to living things. There has NEVER been an instance where
>>> random changes results in a progressive, biological change. New
>>> information is never created.
>>>
>> There are thousands of genetic disorders and diseases caused by
>> detective genes passed on to offspring. But these are a comparative few
>> compared to the numbers of genetic mistakes and errors that are weeded
>> out by natural selection.
>
> This is an example of deleterious mutations.
>
I agree!
This may be true, but it isn't from the lack of trying.
>
> NewDarwinian processes are necessarily gradualistic but the fossil record
> shows that life did NOT arise gradualistically.
>
> Believe what you like.
>
It isn't about believing what I like. Initially I was completely
indifferent to ID, and I never questioned Darwinian evolution. But
now I am not as "sold" on evolution, as I was. I can see problems
now, of which I was totally unaware. And I know more about ID
than I id.
What was pointed out about the sudden appearance of
species, unchanged over million of years, then disappearance
of species, if true, and it appears to be true, is a devastating
observation.

>
However, when nature tells us that the theory is
> wrong then continuing to believe isn't science but blind faith.
>
I'm as open minded as I
know how to be. I've done some researching
on this subject. I've learned it is an observation by two paleontologist
who worked in the field and realized the fossil record is not the same
as Darwin's theory predicted, and as you pointed out.
They called this feature "Punctuated Equilibrium". And they are scientist!

zencycle

unread,
Mar 29, 2018, 3:40:03 PM3/29/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Thursday, March 29, 2018 at 3:30:04 PM UTC-4, JD Wolfe wrote:


Is it just me, or is JD wolfe appearing more and more to look like a pagano sock puppet?

JD Wolfe

unread,
Mar 29, 2018, 5:45:03 PM3/29/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 3/29/2018 7:29 AM, jillery wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 20:06:44 -0400, JD Wolfe <"JD Wolfe"@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> You get the problem exactly. If evolution explains gradual change but
>>> the fossil record contradicts that explanation then the darwinian
>>> explanation is wrong.
>>>
>> Yes, this _seems_ to indicate that the fossil record fails to conform
>> to theory. But there are explanations provided which excuses the
>> failure of the fossil record. IOW theory takes precedence, so where
>> theory and observation conflict, observation is wrong.
>
>
> Once again, you have it exactly backwards. Apparently you still don't
> understand that recognizing the limitations of your observation is
> part of said observation.
>
That's the way it appears.

jillery

unread,
Mar 29, 2018, 11:50:02 PM3/29/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 15:27:06 -0400, JD Wolfe <"JD Wolfe"@gmail.com>
wrote:

>It isn't about believing what I like. Initially I was completely
>indifferent to ID, and I never questioned Darwinian evolution. But
>now I am not as "sold" on evolution, as I was. I can see problems
>now, of which I was totally unaware. And I know more about ID
>than I id.
>What was pointed out about the sudden appearance of
>species, unchanged over million of years, then disappearance
>of species, if true, and it appears to be true, is a devastating
>observation.
>
>>
>> However, when nature tells us that the theory is
>> wrong then continuing to believe isn't science but blind faith.
>>
>I'm as open minded as I
> know how to be. I've done some researching
>on this subject. I've learned it is an observation by two paleontologist
>who worked in the field and realized the fossil record is not the same
>as Darwin's theory predicted, and as you pointed out.
>They called this feature "Punctuated Equilibrium". And they are scientist!


Anybody who seriously writes the above paragraphs has a mind so open
their brains have fallen out. Explain how the "sudden appearance of
species" is a devastating observation.

jillery

unread,
Mar 29, 2018, 11:55:02 PM3/29/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Either way, JD Wolfe follows Pagano's posting style too closely to
make a coherent argument.

jillery

unread,
Mar 29, 2018, 11:55:02 PM3/29/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 17:44:26 -0400, JD Wolfe <"JD Wolfe"@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 3/29/2018 7:29 AM, jillery wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 20:06:44 -0400, JD Wolfe <"JD Wolfe"@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> You get the problem exactly. If evolution explains gradual change but
>>>> the fossil record contradicts that explanation then the darwinian
>>>> explanation is wrong.
>>>>
>>> Yes, this _seems_ to indicate that the fossil record fails to conform
>>> to theory. But there are explanations provided which excuses the
>>> failure of the fossil record. IOW theory takes precedence, so where
>>> theory and observation conflict, observation is wrong.
>>
>>
>> Once again, you have it exactly backwards. Apparently you still don't
>> understand that recognizing the limitations of your observation is
>> part of said observation.
>>
>That's the way it appears.


Correction: that's the way it appears to *you*. Apparently you have
utterly no basis for believing said appearance is true other than your
belief of it. You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not
entitled to your own facts.

Mark Isaak

unread,
Mar 30, 2018, 11:50:03 AM3/30/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 3/29/18 12:27 PM, JD Wolfe wrote:
> On 3/29/2018 6:38 AM, T Pagano wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 20:06:44 -0400, JD Wolfe wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Yes, this _seems_ to indicate that the fossil record fails to conform to
>>> theory. But there are  explanations provided which excuses the failure
>>> of the fossil record. IOW theory takes precedence, so where theory and
>>> observation conflict, observation is wrong.
>>
>> I'm afraid you grossly misunderstand what it means to be a "theory."
>>
> That's the way it appears to me, based upon what I've seen recently
> in Darwinism. If observations conflict with Darwin theory then
> observation requires explanations which involve comprising.

What observations have been in conflict with Darwinian theory?

Perhaps you are conflating Darwinian theory (common descent; change due
to selection of favorable variants) with theories of earth and life
history. The latter are guided by darwinism, but are not the same as
it. If there is a theory, for example, that the first orchids appeared
210 million years ago (Note: I have no idea what the current ideas about
orchid origins really are), and an orchid fossil is found from 215
million years ago, that changes ideas about orchids, not about
Darwinism. Estimates of such early appearances are based on the fossil
record (which is incomplete) and genetic clocks (which are known to be
very inaccurate).

>> Theories are always provisional guesses about nature.  Man uses
>> observations to see if our theories are correct.  If actual observations
>> in nature don't confirm what the theory predicts then the theory is
>> likely wrong.
>>
> I read someplace that Evolution is not testable. This means there is
> no way to show whether it's wright or wrong. This then reduces it
> from fact to opinion.

Creationists tell lots of outright lies about evolution. That is one of
them. Evolution is not only testable; it has in the past been tested,
found wanting, and revised. Darwin's original idea of blended
inheritance, for example, was thrown out and replaced with genetics.

>>> I don't know how new species could have arisen except through gradual
>>> change from some ancestral species.
>>
>> And neither does anyone else so you're in good company.
>>
>> The fossil record shows that gradualism is false.

That is not true. The fossil record rarely shows gradualism, but that
is because it rarely shows rate at all. Sometimes it does, though.
There is a lovely sequence showing gradual change in titanotheres, for
example. Also, there are good measures of how fast evolution can
proceed, and to the best of my knowledge, the fossil record always shows
rates of evolution considerably less than that. (That does not mean
actual rates are that slow; in many cases, evolution does not go in a
straight line, and sometimes it reverses a little. If you have records
of me at home last night, and the same place tonight, you miss that I
have been traveling in between.)

>> It is just as important to know what cannot happen.  ID Theory tells us
>> that the neoDarwinian mechanism does not have the power to generate some
>> kinds attributes.  When we find those attributes in nature we know the
>> neoDarwinian mechanism was not responsible and must look for other
>> explanations.
>>
> I would think information and conscience awareness are examples of this.
> Can you provide example of this?

Information arises all the time in nature. Every mutation that occurs
is new information. Indeed, a lack of new information would be contrary
to neoDarwinism. Conscious awareness is only recently coming into
scientific focus. It is a complicated subject, and knowledge of it has
not penetrated the general public. (Suggested reading: _Consciousness:
A Very Short Introduction_ by Susan Blackmore.) But I have seen no
hints that there is anything there which is inexplicable. Most of what
people see as mysteries of consciousness are simply based on their own
ignorance of it combined with a false expectation that sometime so
familiar should be easily knowable; but you CANNOT learn about
consciousness through introspection.

>> All the basic body plans appeared suddenly in the Cambrian stratum.  And
>> it is a mystery that evolutionary gradualism cannot explain.  Gradualism
>> is disconfirmed in all of the layers of the Earth where fossils are
>> found.
>>
>> Gradualism is false.
>>
> This is a challenge that distressed Darwin.

The fossil record is entirely consistent with evolutionary gradualism.
Rates of evolution you can measure from the fossil record are far less
than rates of evolution you can observe in nature and in domestic breeding.

>> Evolutionist have to failed explain how genes arose in the first place.
>> Genetic changes are almost always neutral (produces no change),
>> deleterious (harms the creature) or results in the damage to existing
>> functions.  In no instance have evolutionists ever observed genetic
>> mutations result in progressive, positive change.  Never.
>>
> I've never read or heard about one.

Because it's not even remotely true. Ever heard of antibiotic
resistance? Those come from mutations which are beneficial to the microbes.

>>
>> ID theory studies the limits of natural processes.  It shows that the
>> neoDarwinian process cannot generate certain kinds of design.  No one has
>> shown where ID Theory is wrong.  No one.
>>
> This may be true, but it isn't from the lack of trying.

ID theory shows nothing except the ignorance and stupidity of ID
supporters. It has been shown wrong many times, and no one has shown
any problems with those rebuttals. No one.

> What was pointed out about the sudden appearance of
> species, unchanged over million of years, then disappearance
> of species, if true, and it appears to be true, is a devastating
> observation.

If you had a photo of me in California in January 2000 and in Costa Rica
in March 2002, would you assume I teleported suddenly from one place to
the other? That's the same assumption you and Pagano are making about
the fossil record.

>  However, when nature tells us that the theory is
>> wrong then continuing to believe isn't science but blind faith.
>>
> I'm as open minded as I
>  know how to be. I've done some researching
> on this subject. I've learned it is an observation by two paleontologist
> who worked in the field and realized the fossil record is not the same
> as Darwin's theory predicted, and as you pointed out.
> They called this feature "Punctuated Equilibrium". And they are scientist!

Did you know that the original paper about punctuated equilibrium
includes an example of gradualism in the fossil record? Do not try to
learn about punctuated equilibrium from creationist sources. They are
certain to get it wrong.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Ignorance, allied with power, is the most ferocious enemy justice can
have." - James Baldwin

JD Wolfe

unread,
Mar 30, 2018, 12:15:03 PM3/30/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 3/29/2018 11:50 PM, jillery wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 12:36:05 -0700 (PDT), zencycle
> <funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, March 29, 2018 at 3:30:04 PM UTC-4, JD Wolfe wrote:
>>
>>
>> Is it just me, or is JD wolfe appearing more and more to look like a pagano sock puppet?
>
> Either way, JD Wolfe follows Pagano's posting style too closely to
> make a coherent argument.
>
How can you say that, I am not an adversary of evolution. I just learned
something I didn't know. Still I think evolution has the upper hand.

Bob Casanova

unread,
Mar 30, 2018, 1:10:03 PM3/30/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 11:35:26 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by zencycle
<funkma...@hotmail.com>:

>On Thursday, March 29, 2018 at 6:40:03 AM UTC-4, T Pagano wrote:

>> If actual observations
>> in nature don't confirm what the theory predicts then the theory is
>> likely wrong.

>And yet you continue to cling to ID

Of course; ID isn't a theory, it's a religious belief with
no evidence in support.

JD Wolfe

unread,
Mar 30, 2018, 1:25:03 PM3/30/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 3/30/2018 11:49 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 3/29/18 12:27 PM, JD Wolfe wrote:
>> On 3/29/2018 6:38 AM, T Pagano wrote:
>>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 20:06:44 -0400, JD Wolfe wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Yes, this _seems_ to indicate that the fossil record fails to
>>>> conform to
>>>> theory. But there are  explanations provided which excuses the failure
>>>> of the fossil record. IOW theory takes precedence, so where theory and
>>>> observation conflict, observation is wrong.
>>>
>>> I'm afraid you grossly misunderstand what it means to be a "theory."
>>>
>> That's the way it appears to me, based upon what I've seen recently
>> in Darwinism. If observations conflict with Darwin theory then
>> observation requires explanations which involve comprising.
>
> What observations have been in conflict with Darwinian theory?
>
I knew nothing about sudden appearance, unchanging species over millions
of years then disappearance from the record. This contradicts what I
know about the predictions of Darwin's theories.
>
> Perhaps you are conflating Darwinian theory (common descent; change due
> to selection of favorable variants) with theories of earth and life
> history.  The latter are guided by darwinism, but are not the same as
> it.  If there is a theory, for example, that the first orchids appeared
> 210 million years ago (Note: I have no idea what the current ideas about
> orchid origins really are), and an orchid fossil is found from 215
> million years ago, that changes ideas about orchids, not about
> Darwinism.  Estimates of such early appearances are based on the fossil
> record (which is incomplete) and genetic clocks (which are known to be
> very inaccurate).
>
I know nothing about orchids, nor do I have any opinion as to how
the 210 million orchid fossil affects evolution. But a question this
raises, how different from modern orchids is this old orchid?
>
>>> Theories are always provisional guesses about nature.  Man uses
>>> observations to see if our theories are correct.  If actual observations
>>> in nature don't confirm what the theory predicts then the theory is
>>> likely wrong.
>>>
>> I read someplace that Evolution is not testable. This means there is
>> no way to show whether it's wright or wrong. This then reduces it
>> from fact to opinion.
>
> Creationists tell lots of outright lies about evolution.  That is one of
> them.  Evolution is not only testable; it has in the past been tested,
> found wanting, and revised.  Darwin's original idea of blended
> inheritance, for example, was thrown out and replaced with genetics.
>
That's good, but how has evolution been tested? How was the test conducted?
>
>>>> I don't know how new species could have arisen except through gradual
>>>> change from some ancestral species.
>>>
>>> And neither does anyone else so you're in good company.
>>>
>>> The fossil record shows that gradualism is false.
>
> That is not true.  The fossil record rarely shows gradualism, but that
> is because it rarely shows rate at all.  Sometimes it does, though.
> There is a lovely sequence showing gradual change in titanotheres, for
> example.  Also, there are good measures of how fast evolution can
> proceed, and to the best of my knowledge, the fossil record always shows
> rates of evolution considerably less than that.  (That does not mean
> actual rates are that slow; in many cases, evolution does not go in a
> straight line, and sometimes it reverses a little.  If you have records
> of me at home last night, and the same place tonight, you miss that I
> have been traveling in between.)
>
I searched the internet for this titanotheres. It seems there is a
family of these animals. I found pictures show how they looked.
They are weird. So, it seems to me that gradual change of these
things would be very difficult to determine and uncertain. I don't know
how this conforms with the fossil record shows sudden appearance, long
history of unchanging then disappearance of species from the record.
What is difficult for me to ignore is the millions of years of
unchanging in species. If this is observed and confirmed then this
_is_ direct and solid evidence. Which I don't see an answer for.
>
>>> It is just as important to know what cannot happen.  ID Theory tells us
>>> that the neoDarwinian mechanism does not have the power to generate some
>>> kinds attributes.  When we find those attributes in nature we know the
>>> neoDarwinian mechanism was not responsible and must look for other
>>> explanations.
>>>
>> I would think information and conscience awareness are examples of
>> this. Can you provide example of this?
>
> Information arises all the time in nature.  Every mutation that occurs
> is new information.  Indeed, a lack of new information would be contrary
> to neoDarwinism.
>
From what I've read mutations are mostly neutral then deleterious and
very few are beneficial. I think the thousands of genetic diseases that
passed on to offspring is well known. What is not so well known is the
beneficial mutations that provide new information. What are some of
the obvious examples of the impact of advantageous mutations.


Conscious awareness is only recently coming into
> scientific focus.  It is a complicated subject, and knowledge of it has
> not penetrated the general public.  (Suggested reading: _Consciousness:
> A Very Short Introduction_ by Susan Blackmore.)  But I have seen no
> hints that there is anything there which is inexplicable.  Most of what
> people see as mysteries of consciousness are simply based on their own
> ignorance of it combined with a false expectation that sometime so
> familiar should be easily knowable; but you CANNOT learn about
> consciousness through introspection.
>
I agree with this.
>
>>> All the basic body plans appeared suddenly in the Cambrian stratum.  And
>>> it is a mystery that evolutionary gradualism cannot explain.  Gradualism
>>> is disconfirmed in all of the layers of the Earth where fossils are
>>> found.
>>>
>>> Gradualism is false.
>>>
>> This is a challenge that distressed Darwin.
>
> The fossil record is entirely consistent with evolutionary gradualism.
> Rates of evolution you can measure from the fossil record are far less
> than rates of evolution you can observe in nature and in domestic breeding.
>
I'm not understanding how millions of years of stability is entirely
consistent with evolutionary gradualism? I just don't get it!

>
>>> Evolutionist have to failed explain how genes arose in the first place.
>>> Genetic changes are almost always neutral (produces no change),
>>> deleterious (harms the creature) or results in the damage to existing
>>> functions.  In no instance have evolutionists ever observed genetic
>>> mutations result in progressive, positive change.  Never.
>>>
>> I've never read or heard about one.
>
> Because it's not even remotely true.  Ever heard of antibiotic
> resistance?  Those come from mutations which are beneficial to the
> microbes.
>
Is that a beneficial mutation? O don't see how this is different from
adapting?
>>>
>>> ID theory studies the limits of natural processes.  It shows that the
>>> neoDarwinian process cannot generate certain kinds of design.  No one
>>> has
>>> shown where ID Theory is wrong.  No one.
>>>
>> This may be true, but it isn't from the lack of trying.
>
> ID theory shows nothing except the ignorance and stupidity of ID
> supporters.  It has been shown wrong many times, and no one has shown
> any problems with those rebuttals.  No one.
>
As I've said I've never been interested in ID, so I know nothing
of the those rebuttals. But unfortunately, I do have an unresolved
issue with evolution.
>
>> What was pointed out about the sudden appearance of
>> species, unchanged over million of years, then disappearance
>> of species, if true, and it appears to be true, is a devastating
>> observation.
>
> If you had a photo of me in California in January 2000 and in Costa Rica
> in March 2002, would you assume I teleported suddenly from one place to
> the other?  That's the same assumption you and Pagano are making about
> the fossil record.
>
I don't know about that. I've explained my dissatisfaction with the
fossil record that I found out about. I would never have learned
about this from you or from evolutionist.
>
>>   However, when nature tells us that the theory is
>>> wrong then continuing to believe isn't science but blind faith.
>>>
>> I'm as open minded as I
>>   know how to be. I've done some researching
>> on this subject. I've learned it is an observation by two
>> paleontologist who worked in the field and realized the fossil record
>> is not the same as Darwin's theory predicted, and as you pointed out.
>> They called this feature "Punctuated Equilibrium". And they are
>> scientist!
>
> Did you know that the original paper about punctuated equilibrium
> includes an example of gradualism in the fossil record?  Do not try to
> learn about punctuated equilibrium from creationist sources.  They are
> certain to get it wrong.
>
I've never heard about an original paper on punctuated equalibrium.
I don't know whether the sources I read are creationist. I question
whether I would have ever found anything about this from evolutionist.

Ernest Major

unread,
Mar 30, 2018, 1:50:02 PM3/30/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 30/03/2018 17:11, JD Wolfe wrote:
> How can you say that, I am not an adversary of evolution. I just learned
> something I didn't know. Still I think evolution has the upper hand.

Unfortunately you also learned something that isn't true. You shouldn't
take creationist claims at face value.

You seemed to recognise the vacuousness of Tony Pagano's claims about
"Intelligent Design". Why do you then credit his claims about the fossil
record?

The fossil record is better known than in Darwin's day, but is still
grossly imperfect. Most extinct species are not known at all. (If we
assume past biodiversity is comparable to current, and compare that with
the number of species known from a time period, the number of species
known fall far short of the expectation.) Of the extinct species that
are known, many are known from a single speciment, or a single site, or
a single stratum, and often only from fragmentary remains. You can't
evaluate stasis from species that aren't known at all, and you can't
evaluate statis from species known only from a single time. If you
restrict yourself to groups with better fossil records, such as
molluscs, the ubiquity of stasis is equivocal. I've read Stanley's book
"Macro-evolution: Pattern and Progress". Stanley is more punctuationist
("quantum speciation") that Gould, but I was still struck by the amount
of gradual change presented in his book.

The appearance of stasis may also be in part a taxonomic artefact. By
breaking a chronological lineage into species you make what might have
been more or less continuous change appear discontinuous.

Also, the theory of evolution does not predict that a sufficiently fine
grained fossil record should show a steady march of change at an
unvarying pace. There a classic punctuationist quote from Charles Darwin
- "[A]lthough each species must have passed through numerous
transitional stages, it is probable that the periods, during which each
underwent modification, though many and long as measured by years, have
been short in comparison with the periods during which each remained in
an unchanged condition." Ernst Mayr's peripatric speciation model is
inherently punctuationist (though personally I don't think that it's the
dominant mode of change.)

Creationists have to do more than assert that the fossil record is
inconsistent with evolution. They have to compare an accurate
description of what the theory of evolution predicts with what is observed.

A final point - some modern species would be indistinguishable from each
other if known only from skeletal remains.

--
alias Ernest Major

zencycle

unread,
Mar 30, 2018, 2:45:03 PM3/30/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 1:25:03 PM UTC-4, JD Wolfe wrote:
> On 3/30/2018 11:49 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
> > On 3/29/18 12:27 PM, JD Wolfe wrote:
> >
> I'm not understanding how millions of years of stability is entirely
> consistent with evolutionary gradualism? I just don't get it!

It seems that you don't have a very comfortable grasp of evolution in general.

I'm reminded of a comment made to me some time ago during a house party discussion about evolution. A young women asked 'if evolution is true, then why are there fish?'

The unchanged existence a creature over millions of years is proof that the creature has found a niche which it can exploit and remain successful. Mutations may have occurred in the individuals which may have allowed that mutated version to find other niches to successfully exploit, but as long as the original niche still remains, the unmutated individuals will remain successful unless the mutated version makes more efficient use of the niche takes over the niche, driving out the unmutated version.

Evolution does not state changes must be gradual or linear. Sometimes a mutation or environmental change is so rapid, that one species will suddenly become very dominant while the one in that niche originally is rapidly driven to extinction. Sometime the change occurs very slowly over millions of years.

Evolution does not state that a creature must become more complex. It states that mutations may occur, and those mutations may or may be beneficial to the creature. Evolution may result in a creature becoming _less_ complex.

In some cases, the environment changes such that only creatures with certain abilities can remain successful. These abilities were a result of mutations that may have been benign, but now are critical to their survival.

In some cases, a mutation occurs which allow the creature to exploit a certain environment and become successful.

The fossil record is incomplete, but it's just like a puzzle, with missing pieces. Sometimes, a piece like it fits in one spot, but as you build it, you realize it actually fits better somewhere else. You can fill in the missing pieces with information that fits the rest of the puzzle.


JD Wolfe

unread,
Mar 30, 2018, 4:20:03 PM3/30/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 3/30/2018 1:08 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 11:35:26 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by zencycle
> <funkma...@hotmail.com>:
>
>> On Thursday, March 29, 2018 at 6:40:03 AM UTC-4, T Pagano wrote:
>
>>> If actual observations
>>> in nature don't confirm what the theory predicts then the theory is
>>> likely wrong.
>
>> And yet you continue to cling to ID
>
> Of course; ID isn't a theory, it's a religious belief with
> no evidence in support.
>
If ID is a religious belief, then where does the Bible or some religious
dogma come in to play a role in the ID. IOW what is it that makes ID a
religious belief?

zencycle

unread,
Mar 30, 2018, 4:40:03 PM3/30/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 4:20:03 PM UTC-4, JD Wolfe wrote:
> >
> > Of course; ID isn't a theory, it's a religious belief with
> > no evidence in support.
> >
> If ID is a religious belief, then where does the Bible or some religious
> dogma come in to play a role in the ID. IOW what is it that makes ID a
> religious belief?

Here ya go....

From an LA times article:
Enlisting Science to Find the Fingerprints of a Creator
March 25, 2001|TERESA WATANABE | TIMES RELIGION WRITER

http://articles.latimes.com/2001/mar/25/news/mn-42548

"Our work will alert people to the possibility that God is real rather than a projection of the mind," declared Phillip Johnson, a UC Berkeley professor emeritus of law whose 1991 book, "Darwin on Trial," laid the foundation for the emerging movement [of intelligent design]......
"We are taking an intuition most people have and making it a scientific and academic enterprise," Johnson said. In challenging Darwinism with a God-friendly alternative theory, the professor, who is a Presbyterian, added, "We are removing the most important cultural roadblock to accepting the role of God as creator."

Pagano will try to claim that creationism and intelligent design are divergent theories, but....

In Robert B. Stewart's book 'Intelligent design', stewart writes "Most observers, both within and without the ID community, recognize University of California Berkeley law professor Phillip E, Johnson as the father of ID, and his 1991 book, Darwin on Trial [...] as a landmark moment in the history of the movement."

JD Wolfe

unread,
Mar 30, 2018, 5:55:03 PM3/30/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 3/30/2018 4:35 PM, zencycle wrote:
> On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 4:20:03 PM UTC-4, JD Wolfe wrote:
>>>
>>> Of course; ID isn't a theory, it's a religious belief with
>>> no evidence in support.
>> >
>> If ID is a religious belief, then where does the Bible or some religious
>> dogma come in to play a role in the ID. IOW what is it that makes ID a
>> religious belief?
>
> Here ya go....
>
> From an LA times article:
> Enlisting Science to Find the Fingerprints of a Creator
> March 25, 2001|TERESA WATANABE | TIMES RELIGION WRITER
>
> http://articles.latimes.com/2001/mar/25/news/mn-42548
>
> "Our work will alert people to the possibility that God is real rather than a projection of the mind," declared Phillip Johnson, a UC Berkeley professor emeritus of law whose 1991 book, "Darwin on Trial," laid the foundation for the emerging movement [of intelligent design]......
> "We are taking an intuition most people have and making it a scientific and academic enterprise," Johnson said. In challenging Darwinism with a God-friendly alternative theory, the professor, who is a Presbyterian, added, "We are removing the most important cultural roadblock to accepting the role of God as creator."
>
I understand Mr Johnson is a religious person and believes in his
religion, I do recognize that his religion is his motivation. But I
failed to see where he brought in the Bible or any religious text in
support of his belief in intelligent design. So, what do advocates
of ID offer as evidence of intelligent design?

>
> Pagano will try to claim that creationism and intelligent design are divergent theories, but....
>
Since creationism and intelligent design were started by Phillip
Johnson, I agree this is the same. Creation would be the consequences of
the involvement of an intelligent designer.
>
> In Robert B. Stewart's book 'Intelligent design', stewart writes "Most observers, both within and without the ID community, recognize University of California Berkeley law professor Phillip E, Johnson as the father of ID, and his 1991 book, Darwin on Trial [...] as a landmark moment in the history of the movement."
>
I had heard of him, but I had no interest. Have you read this book?

Mark Isaak

unread,
Mar 30, 2018, 10:35:02 PM3/30/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 3/30/18 10:24 AM, JD Wolfe wrote:
> On 3/30/2018 11:49 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 3/29/18 12:27 PM, JD Wolfe wrote:
>>>> [snippage here and there]

>>> That's the way it appears to me, based upon what I've seen recently
>>> in Darwinism. If observations conflict with Darwin theory then
>>> observation requires explanations which involve comprising.
>>
>> What observations have been in conflict with Darwinian theory?
> >
> I knew nothing about sudden appearance, unchanging species over millions
> of years then disappearance from the record. This contradicts what I
> know about the predictions of Darwin's theories.

What observations of sudden appearance have you seen? Don't appeal to
the fossil record, since the fossil record does not show appearances.
It shows snapshots. (In very rare cases, usually with marine
microorganisms), the fossil record is extensive enough that we might
justifiably assume that it is close to complete. But these cases are rare.)

And there is nothing undarwinian about species remaining unchanged over
millions of years. In a stable environment, natural selection will tend
to keep things the same.

>>
>> Perhaps you are conflating Darwinian theory (common descent; change
>> due to selection of favorable variants) with theories of earth and
>> life history.  The latter are guided by darwinism, but are not the
>> same as it.  If there is a theory, for example, that the first orchids
>> appeared 210 million years ago (Note: I have no idea what the current
>> ideas about orchid origins really are), and an orchid fossil is found
>> from 215 million years ago, that changes ideas about orchids, not
>> about Darwinism.  Estimates of such early appearances are based on the
>> fossil record (which is incomplete) and genetic clocks (which are
>> known to be very inaccurate).
> >
> I know nothing about orchids, nor do I have any opinion as to how
> the 210 million orchid fossil affects evolution. But a question this
> raises, how different from modern orchids is this old orchid?

You missed the point. I know nothing about fossil orchids, either. I
was using them to illustrate the difference between evolution and history.

>>>> Theories are always provisional guesses about nature.  Man uses
>>>> observations to see if our theories are correct.  If actual
>>>> observations
>>>> in nature don't confirm what the theory predicts then the theory is
>>>> likely wrong.
>>>>
>>> I read someplace that Evolution is not testable. This means there is
>>> no way to show whether it's wright or wrong. This then reduces it
>>> from fact to opinion.
>>
>> Creationists tell lots of outright lies about evolution.  That is one
>> of them.  Evolution is not only testable; it has in the past been
>> tested, found wanting, and revised.  Darwin's original idea of blended
>> inheritance, for example, was thrown out and replaced with genetics.
> >
> That's good, but how has evolution been tested? How was the test conducted?

Most importantly, the fundamental mechanisms of mutation and selection
have been quantified in many species and many environments. Predictions
(such as about caste population ratios in ants) have been made and
verified. Common descent has been verified through phylogenetic
analysis of genes and physical traits, and the fossil record is found to
be accordant.

>>>>> I don't know how new species could have arisen except through gradual
>>>>> change from some ancestral species.
>>>>
>>>> And neither does anyone else so you're in good company.
>>>>
>>>> The fossil record shows that gradualism is false.
>>
>> That is not true.  The fossil record rarely shows gradualism, but that
>> is because it rarely shows rate at all.  Sometimes it does, though.
>> There is a lovely sequence showing gradual change in titanotheres, for
>> example.  Also, there are good measures of how fast evolution can
>> proceed, and to the best of my knowledge, the fossil record always
>> shows rates of evolution considerably less than that.  (That does not
>> mean actual rates are that slow; in many cases, evolution does not go
>> in a straight line, and sometimes it reverses a little.  If you have
>> records of me at home last night, and the same place tonight, you miss
>> that I have been traveling in between.)
> >
> I searched the internet for this titanotheres. It seems there is a
> family of these animals. I found pictures show how they looked.
> They are weird. So, it seems to me that gradual change of these
> things would be very difficult to determine and uncertain. I don't know
> how this conforms with the fossil record shows sudden appearance, long
> history of unchanging then disappearance of species from the record.

Everything is weird until you are familiar with it. The fossil record
of titanotheres shows gradual change; anyone can see it (though it helps
a great deal if you find the paper describing it, which reference I do
not have handy; sorry).

> What is difficult for me to ignore is the millions of years of
> unchanging in species. If this is observed and confirmed then this
> _is_ direct and solid evidence. Which I don't see an answer for.

Lack of change is part of evolution. Look up "stabilizing selection."

>>>> It is just as important to know what cannot happen.  ID Theory tells us
>>>> that the neoDarwinian mechanism does not have the power to generate
>>>> some
>>>> kinds attributes.  When we find those attributes in nature we know the
>>>> neoDarwinian mechanism was not responsible and must look for other
>>>> explanations.
>>>>
>>> I would think information and conscience awareness are examples of
>>> this. Can you provide example of this?
>>
>> Information arises all the time in nature.  Every mutation that occurs
>> is new information.  Indeed, a lack of new information would be
>> contrary to neoDarwinism.
> >
> From what I've read mutations are mostly neutral then deleterious and
> very few are beneficial. I think the thousands of genetic diseases that
> passed on to offspring is well known. What is not so well known is the
> beneficial mutations that provide new information. What are some of
> the obvious examples of the impact of advantageous mutations.

*All* mutations provide new information. Not all information is good news.

One example of a beneficial mutation in humans is APO-1a-Milano, which
protects against heart disease.

Beneficial mutations are most readily apparent in new or changing
environments. In stable environments, once all the easy benefits are
accrued, most selection keeps species pretty much as they are. When the
species is moved to a new environment where, for example, long legs are
more beneficial, then the mutations which serve to make legs longer are
selected. (That's an oversimplification, but I hope it makes the point.)

>>
>> The fossil record is entirely consistent with evolutionary gradualism.
>> Rates of evolution you can measure from the fossil record are far less
>> than rates of evolution you can observe in nature and in domestic
>> breeding.
> >
> I'm not understanding how millions of years of stability is entirely
> consistent with evolutionary gradualism? I just don't get it!

Again: Stabilizing selection.

>>> What was pointed out about the sudden appearance of
>>> species, unchanged over million of years, then disappearance
>>> of species, if true, and it appears to be true, is a devastating
>>> observation.
>>
>> If you had a photo of me in California in January 2000 and in Costa
>> Rica in March 2002, would you assume I teleported suddenly from one
>> place to the other?  That's the same assumption you and Pagano are
>> making about the fossil record.
> >
> I don't know about that. I've explained my dissatisfaction with the
> fossil record that I found out about. I would never have learned
> about this from you or from evolutionist.

You complained about "sudden appearances". The fossil record does not
show sudden appearances because it does not show appearances; it merely
shows snapshots from arbitrary points in time. It might show that
orchids existed 80 million years ago (I looked it up this time), but it
does not show that orchids did not exist 90 million years ago.

>>>   However, when nature tells us that the theory is
>>>> wrong then continuing to believe isn't science but blind faith.
>>>>
>>> I'm as open minded as I
>>>   know how to be. I've done some researching
>>> on this subject. I've learned it is an observation by two
>>> paleontologist who worked in the field and realized the fossil record
>>> is not the same as Darwin's theory predicted, and as you pointed out.
>>> They called this feature "Punctuated Equilibrium". And they are
>>> scientist!
>>
>> Did you know that the original paper about punctuated equilibrium
>> includes an example of gradualism in the fossil record?  Do not try to
>> learn about punctuated equilibrium from creationist sources.  They are
>> certain to get it wrong.
>>
> I've never heard about an original paper on punctuated equalibrium.
> I don't know whether the sources I read are creationist. I question
> whether I would have ever found anything about this from evolutionist.

Don't bother. In mainstream biology, it was a brief fad due mainly to
the prominence of one of its authors (Stephen J. Gould). But it does
not say much of import (far less than creationists claim), and it has
not stood the test of time.

Ernest Major

unread,
Mar 31, 2018, 5:35:03 AM3/31/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 31/03/2018 03:33, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> I know nothing about orchids, nor do I have any opinion as to how
>> the 210 million orchid fossil affects evolution. But a question this
>> raises, how different from modern orchids is this old orchid?
>
> You missed the point.  I know nothing about fossil orchids, either.  I
> was using them to illustrate the difference between evolution and history.

Pardon my running with this disgression, but it does illustrate some
points about the fossil record.

As of last year there were at most 10 known orchid fossils, mostly
relatively young. (Some of them too fragmentary for certain identity
even to family. 2 are identified to genus, and a few more to tribe.) 5
of them are pollinaria, meaning that we know little about what those
orchids looked like. 2 more are leaves.

https://academic.oup.com/botlinnean/article/183/3/327/3092413

That compares to 28,000 known contemporary species. The fossil record is
so poor we don't have a good handle on past orchid diversity, but
100,000 seems like a conservative estimate. That shows how poor the
fossil record of orchids is - single fragmentary specimens of 0.01% of
species. Obviously this fossil record shows neither stasis nor
gradualism. (Orchids, as entomophilous herbaceous plants with a
predominantly epiphytic habitat and a distribution centred in tropical
rainforest, probably have a particularly bad fossil record. In Malvaceae
the fossil record is better, but harder to put a number on, as we don't
know how many species each type of fossil pollen represents - maybe
about 1% of extinct species are known as fossils.)

Estimates of the age of the family run from 76 to 112 million years.
--
alias Ernest Major

Ernest Major

unread,
Mar 31, 2018, 5:40:02 AM3/31/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 31/03/2018 03:33, Mark Isaak wrote:
>
> You complained about "sudden appearances".  The fossil record does not
> show sudden appearances because it does not show appearances; it merely
> shows snapshots from arbitrary points in time.  It might show that
> orchids existed 80 million years ago (I looked it up this time), but it
> does not show that orchids did not exist 90 million years ago.

According the paper I cited earlier the oldest known fossil orchid is
40-55 million years old. The 80 million is an estimate either from the
degree of genetic divergence with modern species, or from phylogenetic
bracketing (Orchidaceae is sister to the rest of Asparagales, so it's at
least as old as the oldest asparagalean fossil).

--
alias Ernest Major

Ernest Major

unread,
Mar 31, 2018, 5:50:03 AM3/31/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
This brings into focus another difficulty in testing stasis in the
fossil record. Not all fossils can be precisely dated, either in
absolute or relative time.

--
alias Ernest Major

jillery

unread,
Mar 31, 2018, 6:30:03 AM3/31/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 12:11:48 -0400, JD Wolfe <"JD Wolfe"@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 3/29/2018 11:50 PM, jillery wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 12:36:05 -0700 (PDT), zencycle
>> <funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday, March 29, 2018 at 3:30:04 PM UTC-4, JD Wolfe wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Is it just me, or is JD wolfe appearing more and more to look like a pagano sock puppet?
>>
>> Either way, JD Wolfe follows Pagano's posting style too closely to
>> make a coherent argument.
> >
>How can you say that, I am not an adversary of evolution. I just learned
>something I didn't know. Still I think evolution has the upper hand.


Since you asked, two ways you post like Pagano are: 1) you assert
false facts, and 2) don't respond to corrections to those false facts.
What you claim to have learned is a Creationist PRATT you need to
unlearn. You're welcome.

jillery

unread,
Mar 31, 2018, 6:35:02 AM3/31/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 13:24:38 -0400, JD Wolfe <"JD Wolfe"@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 3/30/2018 11:49 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 3/29/18 12:27 PM, JD Wolfe wrote:
>>> On 3/29/2018 6:38 AM, T Pagano wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 20:06:44 -0400, JD Wolfe wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Yes, this _seems_ to indicate that the fossil record fails to
>>>>> conform to
>>>>> theory. But there are  explanations provided which excuses the failure
>>>>> of the fossil record. IOW theory takes precedence, so where theory and
>>>>> observation conflict, observation is wrong.
>>>>
>>>> I'm afraid you grossly misunderstand what it means to be a "theory."
>>>>
>>> That's the way it appears to me, based upon what I've seen recently
>>> in Darwinism. If observations conflict with Darwin theory then
>>> observation requires explanations which involve comprising.
>>
>> What observations have been in conflict with Darwinian theory?
> >
>I knew nothing about sudden appearance, unchanging species over millions
>of years then disappearance from the record. This contradicts what I
>know about the predictions of Darwin's theories.


And it has been pointed out to you that what you "know" about the
predictions of Darwin's theories is incorrect. So the apparent
conflict exists only in your mind.
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/>

"This article directly addresses the scientific evidence in favor of
common descent and macroevolution."

Most if not all of these articles identify specific ways evolution
could be falsified but has not.


>>>>> I don't know how new species could have arisen except through gradual
>>>>> change from some ancestral species.
>>>>
>>>> And neither does anyone else so you're in good company.
>>>>
>>>> The fossil record shows that gradualism is false.
>>
>> That is not true.  The fossil record rarely shows gradualism, but that
>> is because it rarely shows rate at all.  Sometimes it does, though.
>> There is a lovely sequence showing gradual change in titanotheres, for
>> example.  Also, there are good measures of how fast evolution can
>> proceed, and to the best of my knowledge, the fossil record always shows
>> rates of evolution considerably less than that.  (That does not mean
>> actual rates are that slow; in many cases, evolution does not go in a
>> straight line, and sometimes it reverses a little.  If you have records
>> of me at home last night, and the same place tonight, you miss that I
>> have been traveling in between.)
> >
>I searched the internet for this titanotheres. It seems there is a
>family of these animals. I found pictures show how they looked.
>They are weird. So, it seems to me that gradual change of these
>things would be very difficult to determine and uncertain. I don't know
>how this conforms with the fossil record shows sudden appearance, long
>history of unchanging then disappearance of species from the record.
>What is difficult for me to ignore is the millions of years of
>unchanging in species. If this is observed and confirmed then this
>_is_ direct and solid evidence. Which I don't see an answer for.


You don't say what you think sudden appearance and stasis are evidence
for. So it's difficult to answer a question you don't ask. OTOH it's
been pointed out to you numerous times how sudden appearance and
stasis are not evidence against evolution, but instead something which
Darwin himself predicted.


>>>> It is just as important to know what cannot happen.  ID Theory tells us
>>>> that the neoDarwinian mechanism does not have the power to generate some
>>>> kinds attributes.  When we find those attributes in nature we know the
>>>> neoDarwinian mechanism was not responsible and must look for other
>>>> explanations.
>>>>
>>> I would think information and conscience awareness are examples of
>>> this. Can you provide example of this?
>>
>> Information arises all the time in nature.  Every mutation that occurs
>> is new information.  Indeed, a lack of new information would be contrary
>> to neoDarwinism.
> >
> From what I've read mutations are mostly neutral then deleterious and
>very few are beneficial. I think the thousands of genetic diseases that
>passed on to offspring is well known. What is not so well known is the
>beneficial mutations that provide new information. What are some of
>the obvious examples of the impact of advantageous mutations.


You conflate "new information" with its effects. All mutations are
new information, in the sense they provide new ways of doing things.
Even when that new way is neutral, or deleterious, it's still new
information.

And since you asked, a favorite example of mine of an advantageous
mutation:

<https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/061201_quietcrickets>

Not only does the above situation show how quickly mutations can
spread in a small population, it shows how "beneficial" depends on the
environment.

You're welcome.


>> Conscious awareness is only recently coming into
>> scientific focus.  It is a complicated subject, and knowledge of it has
>> not penetrated the general public.  (Suggested reading: _Consciousness:
>> A Very Short Introduction_ by Susan Blackmore.)  But I have seen no
>> hints that there is anything there which is inexplicable.  Most of what
>> people see as mysteries of consciousness are simply based on their own
>> ignorance of it combined with a false expectation that sometime so
>> familiar should be easily knowable; but you CANNOT learn about
>> consciousness through introspection.
> >
>I agree with this.
>>
>>>> All the basic body plans appeared suddenly in the Cambrian stratum.  And
>>>> it is a mystery that evolutionary gradualism cannot explain.  Gradualism
>>>> is disconfirmed in all of the layers of the Earth where fossils are
>>>> found.
>>>>
>>>> Gradualism is false.
>>>>
>>> This is a challenge that distressed Darwin.
>>
>> The fossil record is entirely consistent with evolutionary gradualism.
>> Rates of evolution you can measure from the fossil record are far less
>> than rates of evolution you can observe in nature and in domestic breeding.
> >
>I'm not understanding how millions of years of stability is entirely
>consistent with evolutionary gradualism? I just don't get it!


It would help if you tried to explain exactly what it is you "just
don't get". IIUC you think "millions of years of stability" is
contrary to evolution, because:

1) evolution requires constant change
2) the fossil record is capable of recording all changes

Both statements are known to be incorrect, and have been pointed out
to you. Apparently you have some other reasons. If so, be specific.


>>>> Evolutionist have to failed explain how genes arose in the first place.
>>>> Genetic changes are almost always neutral (produces no change),
>>>> deleterious (harms the creature) or results in the damage to existing
>>>> functions.  In no instance have evolutionists ever observed genetic
>>>> mutations result in progressive, positive change.  Never.
>>>>
>>> I've never read or heard about one.
>>
>> Because it's not even remotely true.  Ever heard of antibiotic
>> resistance?  Those come from mutations which are beneficial to the
>> microbes.
>>
>Is that a beneficial mutation? O don't see how this is different from
>adapting?


IIUC you think antibiotic resistance is an adaptation similar to how
for example your body adapts to variations in temperature. If so,
that is incorrect. A more accurate example is if you were immune to
cyanide. Both cases involve biochemical processes which destroy the
cells' fundamental abilities to continue functioning, beyond the scope
of adapting to them.

Instead, what is required is for the cells to actively neutralize the
threat, without significantly compromising their ability to function.
In the case of antibiotic resistance, bacteria have come up with
several strategies:

<https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/756378_2>

**********************************
The inactivation or modification of the antibiotic;

An alteration in the target site of the antibiotic that reduces its
binding capacity;

The modification of metabolic pathways to circumvent the antibiotic
effect;

The reduced intracellular antibiotic accumulation by decreasing
permeability and/or increasing active efflux of the antibiotic.
***********************************

These processes require "new information", new molecular processes to
counter the antibiotic threat. These processes are totally different
from merely changing the rate of doing the same old thing.


>>>> ID theory studies the limits of natural processes.  It shows that the
>>>> neoDarwinian process cannot generate certain kinds of design.  No one
>>>> has
>>>> shown where ID Theory is wrong.  No one.
>>>>
>>> This may be true, but it isn't from the lack of trying.
>>
>> ID theory shows nothing except the ignorance and stupidity of ID
>> supporters.  It has been shown wrong many times, and no one has shown
>> any problems with those rebuttals.  No one.
> >
>As I've said I've never been interested in ID, so I know nothing
>of the those rebuttals. But unfortunately, I do have an unresolved
>issue with evolution.


Once again, if you're really interested in resolving your issues with
evolution, then the burden is on you to be specific what those issues
are, and to respond to the answers given.


>>> What was pointed out about the sudden appearance of
>>> species, unchanged over million of years, then disappearance
>>> of species, if true, and it appears to be true, is a devastating
>>> observation.
>>
>> If you had a photo of me in California in January 2000 and in Costa Rica
>> in March 2002, would you assume I teleported suddenly from one place to
>> the other?  That's the same assumption you and Pagano are making about
>> the fossil record.
> >
>I don't know about that. I've explained my dissatisfaction with the
>fossil record that I found out about. I would never have learned
>about this from you or from evolutionist.


Of course, you have learned it from evolutionists, just not directly.
It was evolutionists who described the basis of your
"dissatisfaction", Gould and Eldredge. OTOH it was the people who
fed you false facts who took great delight in misquoting,
misrepresenting, misinterpreting, and outright lying about what sudden
appearance and stasis actually meant.


>>>   However, when nature tells us that the theory is
>>>> wrong then continuing to believe isn't science but blind faith.
>>>>
>>> I'm as open minded as I
>>>   know how to be. I've done some researching
>>> on this subject. I've learned it is an observation by two
>>> paleontologist who worked in the field and realized the fossil record
>>> is not the same as Darwin's theory predicted, and as you pointed out.
>>> They called this feature "Punctuated Equilibrium". And they are
>>> scientist!
>>
>> Did you know that the original paper about punctuated equilibrium
>> includes an example of gradualism in the fossil record?  Do not try to
>> learn about punctuated equilibrium from creationist sources.  They are
>> certain to get it wrong.
>>
>I've never heard about an original paper on punctuated equalibrium.
>I don't know whether the sources I read are creationist. I question
>whether I would have ever found anything about this from evolutionist.


And here's another case where the burden is on you to be specific
about what your problem is. Why do you doubt you would have ever
found anything about this from an evolutionist?

jillery

unread,
Mar 31, 2018, 6:40:03 AM3/31/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 16:19:13 -0400, JD Wolfe <"JD Wolfe"@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 3/30/2018 1:08 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 11:35:26 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by zencycle
>> <funkma...@hotmail.com>:
>>
>>> On Thursday, March 29, 2018 at 6:40:03 AM UTC-4, T Pagano wrote:
>>
>>>> If actual observations
>>>> in nature don't confirm what the theory predicts then the theory is
>>>> likely wrong.
>>
>>> And yet you continue to cling to ID
>>
>> Of course; ID isn't a theory, it's a religious belief with
>> no evidence in support.
> >
>If ID is a religious belief, then where does the Bible or some religious
>dogma come in to play a role in the ID. IOW what is it that makes ID a
>religious belief?


You seem to think religious beliefs must be associated with the Bible
and/or some recognized religious organization. This is incorrect, as
it dismisses all the pagan religious beliefs which existed before the
Bible, and continue to exist among primitive cultures. Religion is
simply the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power,
especially a personal God or gods.

ID is a religious belief because it assumes the existence of Design
with a purpose, and the existence of an unseen, unknown, unspecified
Designer, working via supernatural methods.

jillery

unread,
Mar 31, 2018, 6:40:03 AM3/31/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 17:54:25 -0400, JD Wolfe <"JD Wolfe"@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 3/30/2018 4:35 PM, zencycle wrote:
>> On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 4:20:03 PM UTC-4, JD Wolfe wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Of course; ID isn't a theory, it's a religious belief with
>>>> no evidence in support.
>>> >
>>> If ID is a religious belief, then where does the Bible or some religious
>>> dogma come in to play a role in the ID. IOW what is it that makes ID a
>>> religious belief?
>>
>> Here ya go....
>>
>> From an LA times article:
>> Enlisting Science to Find the Fingerprints of a Creator
>> March 25, 2001|TERESA WATANABE | TIMES RELIGION WRITER
>>
>> http://articles.latimes.com/2001/mar/25/news/mn-42548
>>
>> "Our work will alert people to the possibility that God is real rather than a projection of the mind," declared Phillip Johnson, a UC Berkeley professor emeritus of law whose 1991 book, "Darwin on Trial," laid the foundation for the emerging movement [of intelligent design]......
>> "We are taking an intuition most people have and making it a scientific and academic enterprise," Johnson said. In challenging Darwinism with a God-friendly alternative theory, the professor, who is a Presbyterian, added, "We are removing the most important cultural roadblock to accepting the role of God as creator."
> >
>I understand Mr Johnson is a religious person and believes in his
>religion, I do recognize that his religion is his motivation. But I
>failed to see where he brought in the Bible or any religious text in
>support of his belief in intelligent design. So, what do advocates
>of ID offer as evidence of intelligent design?


Since you asked, to the best of my knowledge, ID proponents offer no
objective evidence for ID. Instead, they rely on their personal
impressions and opinions, and devote most of their time asserting
pseudo-skeptical arguments against evolution specifically, and science
generally. You're welcome.

T Pagano

unread,
Mar 31, 2018, 12:15:03 PM3/31/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 15:27:06 -0400, JD Wolfe wrote:

> On 3/29/2018 6:38 AM, T Pagano wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 20:06:44 -0400, JD Wolfe wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/27/2018 11:34 AM, T Pagano wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 26 Mar 2018 16:14:12 -0400, JD Wolfe wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/26/2018 7:20 AM, T Pagano wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2018 21:40:03 -0400, JD Wolfe wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 3/25/2018 7:24 AM, T Pagano wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 23:51:52 -0400, JD Wolfe wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 3/24/2018 8:28 PM, T Pagano wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 20:12:39 -0400, JD Wolfe wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>


snip


>> I'm afraid you grossly misunderstand what it means to be a "theory."
>>
> That's the way it appears to me, based upon what I've seen recently in
> Darwinism. If observations conflict with Darwin theory then observation
> requires explanations which involve comprising.

Ask yourself a common sense question: If actual observations don't
confirm what the theory predicts wouldn't that tend to mean the theory is
mistaken. Why would you ignore real, disconfirming observations in order
to protect a provisional theory?



>>
>> Theories are always provisional guesses about nature. Man uses
>> observations to see if our theories are correct. If actual
>> observations in nature don't confirm what the theory predicts then the
>> theory is likely wrong.
>>
> I read someplace that Evolution is not testable. This means there is no
> way to show whether it's wright or wrong. This then reduces it from fact
> to opinion.

Natural selection is effectively untestable because evolutionists claim
that we can never wait long enough to see the creation of design. This
makes neoDarwinian evolution faith-based and not science.


snip



>> Again you have misunderstanding the nature of theories. Theories
>> frequently tell us what can not happen.
>>
> I do understand the nature of theories. What I read in a response to
> undermine and discredit contrary observations to theory is exactly what
> I meant.

Contrary observations tend to show the falsity of a theory. The habit of
scientists to ignore and discredit disconfirming observations is contrary
to logic and science.




>
> For example the Theory of
>> Gravity tells us that two masses will never repel each other.
>>
>> It is just as important to know what cannot happen. ID Theory tells us
>> that the neoDarwinian mechanism does not have the power to generate
>> some kinds attributes. When we find those attributes in nature we know
>> the neoDarwinian mechanism was not responsible and must look for other
>> explanations.
>>
> I would think information and conscience awareness are examples of this.
> Can you provide example of this?

The creation of "information" and "consciousness" via the neoDarwinian
mechanism is unproven and so these cannot be used as evidence in its
favor.





>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> I, more or less, agree with your understanding. Nonetheless neither
>>>> Darwin nor anyone else have observed the creation of a new biological
>>>> structure, system or creature "today." Since such occurrences are
>>>> not at work today naturalists are unable to justifiably claim they
>>>> occurred back in history.
>>>>
>>> I remember reading that during the Cambrian more than a dozen animal
>>> phylum came into existence and no new phylum have arisen since.
>>> However,
>>> where the Cambrian animals came from, already in broad categories,
>>> called the Cambrian explosion, is still a mystery. They had to have
>>> had a very long history, to have differentiated into so many phylum.
>>
>>
>> All the basic body plans appeared suddenly in the Cambrian stratum.
>> And it is a mystery that evolutionary gradualism cannot explain.
>> Gradualism is disconfirmed in all of the layers of the Earth where
>> fossils are found.
>>
>> Gradualism is false.
>>
> This is a challenge that distressed Darwin.

It distresses evolutionists and atheists today.





>>> Well yes it is, a source of new information according Darwinist ever
>>> since the discovery of a genetic defect in evening Penrose by Hugo de
>>> Vries. This discovery gave rise to NeoDarwinism.
>>
>> Evolutionist have to failed explain how genes arose in the first place.
>> Genetic changes are almost always neutral (produces no change),
>> deleterious (harms the creature) or results in the damage to existing
>> functions. In no instance have evolutionists ever observed genetic
>> mutations result in progressive, positive change. Never.
>>
> I've never read or heard about one.


Then this should give you good reason to doubt claims that neoDarwinism
is true.





>>
>> ID theory studies the limits of natural processes. It shows that the
>> neoDarwinian process cannot generate certain kinds of design. No one
>> has shown where ID Theory is wrong. No one.
>>
> This may be true, but it isn't from the lack of trying.


Evolutionist failure in the face of concerted effort is an indication
that ID Theory may be correct.





>>
>> NewDarwinian processes are necessarily gradualistic but the fossil
>> record shows that life did NOT arise gradualistically.
>>
>> Believe what you like.
>>
> It isn't about believing what I like. Initially I was completely
> indifferent to ID, and I never questioned Darwinian evolution. But now I
> am not as "sold" on evolution, as I was. I can see problems now, of
> which I was totally unaware. And I know more about ID than I id.
> What was pointed out about the sudden appearance of species, unchanged
> over million of years, then disappearance of species, if true, and it
> appears to be true, is a devastating observation.

In 1859 Darwin wrote that the fossil record disconfirmed his theory. He
hoped that, in time, new fossil discoveries would reverse that finding.
In 1972 Stephen Gould and Niles Eldrege confirmed that "sudden
appearance" and "stasis" of the fossil record was confirmed and unlikely
to change.




>
>
> However, when nature tells us that the theory is
>> wrong then continuing to believe isn't science but blind faith.


You got it.




>>
> I'm as open minded as I
> know how to be. I've done some researching
> on this subject. I've learned it is an observation by two paleontologist
> who worked in the field and realized the fossil record is not the same
> as Darwin's theory predicted, and as you pointed out.
> They called this feature "Punctuated Equilibrium". And they are
> scientist!

You got it. Stephen J Gould and Niles Eldrege.


Bob Casanova

unread,
Mar 31, 2018, 2:00:03 PM3/31/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 16:19:13 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by JD Wolfe <"JD Wolfe"@gmail.com>:

>On 3/30/2018 1:08 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 11:35:26 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by zencycle
>> <funkma...@hotmail.com>:
>>
>>> On Thursday, March 29, 2018 at 6:40:03 AM UTC-4, T Pagano wrote:
>>
>>>> If actual observations
>>>> in nature don't confirm what the theory predicts then the theory is
>>>> likely wrong.
>>
>>> And yet you continue to cling to ID
>>
>> Of course; ID isn't a theory, it's a religious belief with
>> no evidence in support.

>If ID is a religious belief, then where does the Bible or some religious
>dogma come in to play a role in the ID. IOW what is it that makes ID a
>religious belief?

The fact that it postulates a supernatural entity, which has
never been observed to exist, as the creator of life.
Regardless of whether any organized religion or dogma touts
it (and they do, only not by that term) that pretty much
defines a religious belief. Maybe you'd prefer
"quasi-religious"; it still quacks.

Bob Casanova

unread,
Mar 31, 2018, 2:05:03 PM3/31/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 17:54:25 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by JD Wolfe <"JD Wolfe"@gmail.com>:

>On 3/30/2018 4:35 PM, zencycle wrote:
>> On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 4:20:03 PM UTC-4, JD Wolfe wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Of course; ID isn't a theory, it's a religious belief with
>>>> no evidence in support.
>>> >
>>> If ID is a religious belief, then where does the Bible or some religious
>>> dogma come in to play a role in the ID. IOW what is it that makes ID a
>>> religious belief?
>>
>> Here ya go....
>>
>> From an LA times article:
>> Enlisting Science to Find the Fingerprints of a Creator
>> March 25, 2001|TERESA WATANABE | TIMES RELIGION WRITER
>>
>> http://articles.latimes.com/2001/mar/25/news/mn-42548
>>
>> "Our work will alert people to the possibility that God is real rather than a projection of the mind," declared Phillip Johnson, a UC Berkeley professor emeritus of law whose 1991 book, "Darwin on Trial," laid the foundation for the emerging movement [of intelligent design]......
>> "We are taking an intuition most people have and making it a scientific and academic enterprise," Johnson said. In challenging Darwinism with a God-friendly alternative theory, the professor, who is a Presbyterian, added, "We are removing the most important cultural roadblock to accepting the role of God as creator."
> >
>I understand Mr Johnson is a religious person and believes in his
>religion, I do recognize that his religion is his motivation. But I
>failed to see where he brought in the Bible or any religious text in
>support of his belief in intelligent design.

No specific ties to any particular religion are required for
a belief to be religious; see my reply to you elsethread.

> So, what do advocates
>of ID offer as evidence of intelligent design?

Nothing; it's basically a combination of argument from
incredulity and argument from ignorance - "We can't believe
life arose spontaneously through known physical processes,
and since we can't imagine how it happened it was the work
of an unknown and unobserved Creator".

>> Pagano will try to claim that creationism and intelligent design are divergent theories, but....
> >
>Since creationism and intelligent design were started by Phillip
>Johnson, I agree this is the same. Creation would be the consequences of
>the involvement of an intelligent designer.
>>
>> In Robert B. Stewart's book 'Intelligent design', stewart writes "Most observers, both within and without the ID community, recognize University of California Berkeley law professor Phillip E, Johnson as the father of ID, and his 1991 book, Darwin on Trial [...] as a landmark moment in the history of the movement."
>>
>I had heard of him, but I had no interest. Have you read this book?

JD Wolfe

unread,
Mar 31, 2018, 7:20:03 PM3/31/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 3/30/2018 10:33 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 3/30/18 10:24 AM, JD Wolfe wrote:
>> On 3/30/2018 11:49 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>> On 3/29/18 12:27 PM, JD Wolfe wrote:
>>>>> [snippage here and there]
>
>>>> That's the way it appears to me, based upon what I've seen recently
>>>> in Darwinism. If observations conflict with Darwin theory then
>>>> observation requires explanations which involve comprising.
>>>
>>> What observations have been in conflict with Darwinian theory?
>>  >
>> I knew nothing about sudden appearance, unchanging species over millions
>> of years then disappearance from the record. This contradicts what I
>> know about the predictions of Darwin's theories.
>
> What observations of sudden appearance have you seen?  Don't appeal to
> the fossil record, since the fossil record does not show appearances. It
> shows snapshots.  (In very rare cases, usually with marine
> microorganisms), the fossil record is extensive enough that we might
> justifiably assume that it is close to complete.  But these cases are
> rare.)
>
I'm not a paleontologist, so I have no choice, but to go to
paleontologist in order to see what the record shows. I had heard of
Gould and Eldridge, but didn't care enough to look into their findings.
But this was brought to my attention so, I did some research and found
that they (Gould And Eldridge) did report exactly what the original
source laid out.
>
> And there is nothing undarwinian about species remaining unchanged over
> millions of years.  In a stable environment, natural selection will tend
> to keep things the same.
>
I'm beginning to recognize something that seems to indicate that
the nature of the fossil record is obvious and definitely evidence,
where as evolutionist are turning to theory in order to discount the
evidence as observed in the fossil record. The stable environment,
failure to fossilize, but then: how exactly do you know that the
environment saw stability over millions of years. You cannot say the
evidence of a stable environment is stability of fossil species within
that environment. I can agree that there could be stable environments
the oceans, for instance, but in other cases for millions of years?
>>>
>>> Perhaps you are conflating Darwinian theory (common descent; change
>>> due to selection of favorable variants) with theories of earth and
>>> life history.  The latter are guided by darwinism, but are not the
>>> same as it.  If there is a theory, for example, that the first
>>> orchids appeared 210 million years ago (Note: I have no idea what the
>>> current ideas about orchid origins really are), and an orchid fossil
>>> is found from 215 million years ago, that changes ideas about
>>> orchids, not about Darwinism.  Estimates of such early appearances
>>> are based on the fossil record (which is incomplete) and genetic
>>> clocks (which are known to be very inaccurate).
>>  >
>> I know nothing about orchids, nor do I have any opinion as to how
>> the 210 million orchid fossil affects evolution. But a question this
>> raises, how different from modern orchids is this old orchid?
>
> You missed the point.  I know nothing about fossil orchids, either.  I
> was using them to illustrate the difference between evolution and history.
>
That's a strange comparison. Evolution is really about history. Why else
study the fossil record?
>
>>>>> Theories are always provisional guesses about nature.  Man uses
>>>>> observations to see if our theories are correct.  If actual
>>>>> observations
>>>>> in nature don't confirm what the theory predicts then the theory is
>>>>> likely wrong.
>>>>>
>>>> I read someplace that Evolution is not testable. This means there is
>>>> no way to show whether it's wright or wrong. This then reduces it
>>>> from fact to opinion.
>>>
>>> Creationists tell lots of outright lies about evolution.  That is one
>>> of them.  Evolution is not only testable; it has in the past been
>>> tested, found wanting, and revised.  Darwin's original idea of
>>> blended inheritance, for example, was thrown out and replaced with
>>> genetics.
>>  >
>> That's good, but how has evolution been tested? How was the test
>> conducted?
>
> Most importantly, the fundamental mechanisms of mutation and selection
> have been quantified in many species and many environments.  Predictions
> (such as about caste population ratios in ants) have been made and
> verified.  Common descent has been verified through phylogenetic
> analysis of genes and physical traits, and the fossil record is found to
> be accordant.
>
Really, when the failures of the fossil record are noted, then theory
is brought in to explain away the failure or with Gould and Eldridge,
their attempt at conciliation of theory and evidence from the fossil
record. I don't know about the other examples you mentioned.
The truth is the_only_ thing that bothers me is what I just learned
about the fossil record. And this is a serious problem, for me.
>
>>>>>> I don't know how new species could have arisen except through gradual
>>>>>> change from some ancestral species.
>>>>>
>>>>> And neither does anyone else so you're in good company.
>>>>>
>>>>> The fossil record shows that gradualism is false.
>>>
>>> That is not true.  The fossil record rarely shows gradualism, but
>>> that is because it rarely shows rate at all.  Sometimes it does,
>>> though. There is a lovely sequence showing gradual change in
>>> titanotheres, for example.  Also, there are good measures of how fast
>>> evolution can proceed, and to the best of my knowledge, the fossil
>>> record always shows rates of evolution considerably less than that.
>>> (That does not mean actual rates are that slow; in many cases,
>>> evolution does not go in a straight line, and sometimes it reverses a
>>> little.  If you have records of me at home last night, and the same
>>> place tonight, you miss that I have been traveling in between.)
>>  >
>> I searched the internet for this titanotheres. It seems there is a
>> family of these animals. I found pictures show how they looked.
>> They are weird. So, it seems to me that gradual change of these
>> things would be very difficult to determine and uncertain. I don't
>> know how this conforms with the fossil record shows sudden appearance,
>> long history of unchanging then disappearance of species from the record.
>
> Everything is weird until you are familiar with it.  The fossil record
> of titanotheres shows gradual change; anyone can see it (though it helps
> a great deal if you find the paper describing it, which reference I do
> not have handy; sorry).
<
I see these pictures of titantheres, I have no idea as to how these
strange beast are related.

https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=titanothere+pictures&id=9725BB49BA96EC88B0508E5E5A14EB33F897B12A&FORM=IQFRBA
>
https://www.pinterest.com/modelmakingman/titanotheres-and-other-thunder-beasts/
>
>> What is difficult for me to ignore is the millions of years of
>> unchanging in species. If this is observed and confirmed then this
>> _is_ direct and solid evidence. Which I don't see an answer for.
>
> Lack of change is part of evolution.  Look up "stabilizing selection."
>
I did, what we have is 1) natural selection and stable environment
2) Individual favored as opposed to extremes in a population
>
https://study.com/academy/lesson/stabilizing-selection-examples-definition-graph.html
>
https://www.bing.com/search?q=stabilizing+selection+definition&qs=SC&pq=stablizing+&sk=SC1&sc=8-11&cvid=8EE617A7271A4CA1ACFD18C293137B2C&FORM=QBLH&sp=2&ghc=1
>
>>>>> It is just as important to know what cannot happen.  ID Theory
>>>>> tells us
>>>>> that the neoDarwinian mechanism does not have the power to generate
>>>>> some
>>>>> kinds attributes.  When we find those attributes in nature we know the
>>>>> neoDarwinian mechanism was not responsible and must look for other
>>>>> explanations.
>>>>>
>>>> I would think information and conscience awareness are examples of
>>>> this. Can you provide example of this?
>>>
>>> Information arises all the time in nature.  Every mutation that
>>> occurs is new information.  Indeed, a lack of new information would
>>> be contrary to neoDarwinism.
>>  >
>>  From what I've read mutations are mostly neutral then deleterious and
>> very few are beneficial. I think the thousands of genetic diseases that
>> passed on to offspring is well known. What is not so well known is the
>> beneficial mutations that provide new information. What are some of
>> the obvious examples of the impact of advantageous mutations.
>
> *All* mutations provide new information.  Not all information is good news.
>
> One example of a beneficial mutation in humans is APO-1a-Milan, which
> protects against heart disease.
>
This is significant. if the increase in triglyceride which accompanies
this mutation, could be eliminated this could be considerably beneficial
to humanity.
>
> Beneficial mutations are most readily apparent in new or changing
> environments.  In stable environments, once all the easy benefits are
> accrued, most selection keeps species pretty much as they are.  When the
> species is moved to a new environment where, for example, long legs are
> more beneficial, then the mutations which serve to make legs longer are
> selected.  (That's an oversimplification, but I hope it makes the point.)
>
I understand your point. Random mutations will present long legs for
natural select to act upon. And this does make sense.
>>>
>>> The fossil record is entirely consistent with evolutionary
>>> gradualism. Rates of evolution you can measure from the fossil record
>>> are far less than rates of evolution you can observe in nature and in
>>> domestic breeding.
>>  >
>> I'm not understanding how millions of years of stability is entirely
>> consistent with evolutionary gradualism? I just don't get it!
>
> Again: Stabilizing selection.
>
That's circular reasoning. We have stable species because of stabilizing
selection. How do we know we have stabilizing selection - because we
have stabilized species.
>
>>>> What was pointed out about the sudden appearance of
>>>> species, unchanged over million of years, then disappearance
>>>> of species, if true, and it appears to be true, is a devastating
>>>> observation.
>>>
>>> If you had a photo of me in California in January 2000 and in Costa
>>> Rica in March 2002, would you assume I teleported suddenly from one
>>> place to the other?  That's the same assumption you and Pagano are
>>> making about the fossil record.
>>  >
>> I don't know about that. I've explained my dissatisfaction with the
>> fossil record that I found out about. I would never have learned
>> about this from you or from evolutionist.
>
> You complained about "sudden appearances".  The fossil record does not
> show sudden appearances because it does not show appearances; it merely
> shows snapshots from arbitrary points in time.  It might show that
> orchids existed 80 million years ago (I looked it up this time), but it
> does not show that orchids did not exist 90 million years ago.
>
Then orchids existed 90 million years ago. When did they not exist?
>
>>>>   However, when nature tells us that the theory is
>>>>> wrong then continuing to believe isn't science but blind faith.
>>>>>
>>>> I'm as open minded as I
>>>>   know how to be. I've done some researching
>>>> on this subject. I've learned it is an observation by two
>>>> paleontologist who worked in the field and realized the fossil
>>>> record is not the same as Darwin's theory predicted, and as you
>>>> pointed out.
>>>> They called this feature "Punctuated Equilibrium". And they are
>>>> scientist!
>>>
>>> Did you know that the original paper about punctuated equilibrium
>>> includes an example of gradualism in the fossil record?  Do not try
>>> to learn about punctuated equilibrium from creationist sources.  They
>>> are certain to get it wrong.
>>>
>> I've never heard about an original paper on punctuated equalibrium.
>> I don't know whether the sources I read are creationist. I question
>> whether I would have ever found anything about this from evolutionist.
>
> Don't bother.  In mainstream biology, it was a brief fad due mainly to
> the prominence of one of its authors (Stephen J. Gould).  But it does
> not say much of import (far less than creationists claim), and it has
> not stood the test of time.
>
Are you saying that Gould and Eldredge were wrong? I can believe that
what they discovered was unpopular with other evolutionist.

JD Wolfe

unread,
Mar 31, 2018, 7:30:02 PM3/31/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 3/31/2018 6:29 AM, jillery wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 12:11:48 -0400, JD Wolfe <"JD Wolfe"@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 3/29/2018 11:50 PM, jillery wrote:
>>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 12:36:05 -0700 (PDT), zencycle
>>> <funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thursday, March 29, 2018 at 3:30:04 PM UTC-4, JD Wolfe wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is it just me, or is JD wolfe appearing more and more to look like a pagano sock puppet?
>>>
>>> Either way, JD Wolfe follows Pagano's posting style too closely to
>>> make a coherent argument.
>>>
>> How can you say that, I am not an adversary of evolution. I just learned
>> something I didn't know. Still I think evolution has the upper hand.
>
>
> Since you asked, two ways you post like Pagano are: 1) you assert
> false facts, and 2) don't respond to corrections to those false facts.
>
I do not mean to be seem unappreciative, but how do I know these
"corrections" are true? I just bought a book by Gould from Amazon.
I was surprised how soon it was delivered and I've started reading it.
That I do not respond to corrections. I certainly have.
>
> What you claim to have learned is a Creationist PRATT you need to
> unlearn. You're welcome.
>
I read the 4 explanations you gave as to why the record appears as
it does. I responded to this.

jillery

unread,
Apr 1, 2018, 3:40:03 AM4/1/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 19:15:03 -0400, JD Wolfe <"JD Wolfe"@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 3/30/2018 10:33 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 3/30/18 10:24 AM, JD Wolfe wrote:
>>> On 3/30/2018 11:49 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 3/29/18 12:27 PM, JD Wolfe wrote:
>>>>>> [snippage here and there]
>>
>>>>> That's the way it appears to me, based upon what I've seen recently
>>>>> in Darwinism. If observations conflict with Darwin theory then
>>>>> observation requires explanations which involve comprising.
>>>>
>>>> What observations have been in conflict with Darwinian theory?
>>>  >
>>> I knew nothing about sudden appearance, unchanging species over millions
>>> of years then disappearance from the record. This contradicts what I
>>> know about the predictions of Darwin's theories.
>>
>> What observations of sudden appearance have you seen?  Don't appeal to
>> the fossil record, since the fossil record does not show appearances. It
>> shows snapshots.  (In very rare cases, usually with marine
>> microorganisms), the fossil record is extensive enough that we might
>> justifiably assume that it is close to complete.  But these cases are
>> rare.)
>>
>I'm not a paleontologist, so I have no choice, but to go to
>paleontologist in order to see what the record shows.


Incorrect. Paleontologists have no particular qualification for being
witness to sudden appearance. OTOH since you do appeal to
paleontologists, and since paleontologists do say there is no sudden
appearance in the fossil record of the type you describe, on what
basis do you deny the collective testimony of your own witnesses?


> I had heard of
>Gould and Eldridge, but didn't care enough to look into their findings.
>But this was brought to my attention so, I did some research and found
>that they (Gould And Eldridge) did report exactly what the original
>source laid out.


Your statement above is technically correct but incomplete. G&E
weren't the first or the only paleontologists to "report exactly what
the original source laid out". Instead, they identified plausible
mechanisms of speciation which can account for abrupt change and
stasis, without invoking imperfections of the fossil record. But even
G&E, both evolutionists, repeatedly stated that punctuated equilibrium
was a special case of Darwinian gradualism, and *not* an exception to
it.


>> And there is nothing undarwinian about species remaining unchanged over
>> millions of years.  In a stable environment, natural selection will tend
>> to keep things the same.
>>
>I'm beginning to recognize something that seems to indicate that
>the nature of the fossil record is obvious and definitely evidence,
>where as evolutionist are turning to theory in order to discount the
>evidence as observed in the fossil record. The stable environment,
>failure to fossilize, but then: how exactly do you know that the
>environment saw stability over millions of years. You cannot say the
>evidence of a stable environment is stability of fossil species within
>that environment. I can agree that there could be stable environments
>the oceans, for instance, but in other cases for millions of years?


Incorrect. You have presented no case where evolutionists turned to
theory to discount evidence as observed from the fossil record. To
the contrary, it is those who claim your statement is correct who have
used their preferred theory, Creationism, to discount the evidence as
observed.

You have been corrected about this several times by several posters.
Please identify your reasons for continuing to post this error as if
you had not been so corrected.


>>>> Perhaps you are conflating Darwinian theory (common descent; change
>>>> due to selection of favorable variants) with theories of earth and
>>>> life history.  The latter are guided by darwinism, but are not the
>>>> same as it.  If there is a theory, for example, that the first
>>>> orchids appeared 210 million years ago (Note: I have no idea what the
>>>> current ideas about orchid origins really are), and an orchid fossil
>>>> is found from 215 million years ago, that changes ideas about
>>>> orchids, not about Darwinism.  Estimates of such early appearances
>>>> are based on the fossil record (which is incomplete) and genetic
>>>> clocks (which are known to be very inaccurate).
>>>  >
>>> I know nothing about orchids, nor do I have any opinion as to how
>>> the 210 million orchid fossil affects evolution. But a question this
>>> raises, how different from modern orchids is this old orchid?
>>
>> You missed the point.  I know nothing about fossil orchids, either.  I
>> was using them to illustrate the difference between evolution and history.
>>
>That's a strange comparison. Evolution is really about history. Why else
>study the fossil record?


That's a strange equivalence. Evolution and the fossil record are
independent domains of knowledge. Just as Carl Linnaeus studied the
relationships of living species based on their physical attributes,
even though he wasn't an evolutionist.
Since you don't acknowledge the corrections posted to your error
above, please identify how you still think this is a serious problem
for you.
And what do you conclude from that?
You conflate two very different issues. You first asked about the
consistency between gradualism and stasis, then you asked about the
causes of gradualism and stasis. They are not the same thing.


>>>>> What was pointed out about the sudden appearance of
>>>>> species, unchanged over million of years, then disappearance
>>>>> of species, if true, and it appears to be true, is a devastating
>>>>> observation.
>>>>
>>>> If you had a photo of me in California in January 2000 and in Costa
>>>> Rica in March 2002, would you assume I teleported suddenly from one
>>>> place to the other?  That's the same assumption you and Pagano are
>>>> making about the fossil record.
>>>  >
>>> I don't know about that. I've explained my dissatisfaction with the
>>> fossil record that I found out about. I would never have learned
>>> about this from you or from evolutionist.
>>
>> You complained about "sudden appearances".  The fossil record does not
>> show sudden appearances because it does not show appearances; it merely
>> shows snapshots from arbitrary points in time.  It might show that
>> orchids existed 80 million years ago (I looked it up this time), but it
>> does not show that orchids did not exist 90 million years ago.
> >
>Then orchids existed 90 million years ago. When did they not exist?


What does this have to do with your previous claim, that you wouldn't
have learned about stasis and abrupt change from evolutionists? Do
you understand that Gould and Eldredge were evolutionists?


>>>>>   However, when nature tells us that the theory is
>>>>>> wrong then continuing to believe isn't science but blind faith.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I'm as open minded as I
>>>>>   know how to be. I've done some researching
>>>>> on this subject. I've learned it is an observation by two
>>>>> paleontologist who worked in the field and realized the fossil
>>>>> record is not the same as Darwin's theory predicted, and as you
>>>>> pointed out.
>>>>> They called this feature "Punctuated Equilibrium". And they are
>>>>> scientist!
>>>>
>>>> Did you know that the original paper about punctuated equilibrium
>>>> includes an example of gradualism in the fossil record?  Do not try
>>>> to learn about punctuated equilibrium from creationist sources.  They
>>>> are certain to get it wrong.
>>>>
>>> I've never heard about an original paper on punctuated equalibrium.
>>> I don't know whether the sources I read are creationist. I question
>>> whether I would have ever found anything about this from evolutionist.
>>
>> Don't bother.  In mainstream biology, it was a brief fad due mainly to
>> the prominence of one of its authors (Stephen J. Gould).  But it does
>> not say much of import (far less than creationists claim), and it has
>> not stood the test of time.
>>
>Are you saying that Gould and Eldredge were wrong? I can believe that
>what they discovered was unpopular with other evolutionist.


G&E "adjusted" their claims over the years from their original paper
about it. So when you ask about if they were wrong, you have to be
specific which claims you're asking about.

AIUI the current consensus is that G&E identified specific models of
speciation which were not previously considered to the degree they are
now.

jillery

unread,
Apr 1, 2018, 3:40:03 AM4/1/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 11:10:49 -0500, T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>
wrote:

>Natural selection is effectively untestable because evolutionists claim
>that we can never wait long enough to see the creation of design. This
>makes neoDarwinian evolution faith-based and not science.


I suppose your conclusion would be correct if your premise was
correct, but since your premise is false, your conclusion based on it
is false as well. Failing to see the creation of design isn't a
matter of time, but is a consequence of the nature of the Designer,
who is so incredibly coy, that he creates only where/when nobody can
observe it.

jillery

unread,
Apr 1, 2018, 3:40:03 AM4/1/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 19:26:38 -0400, JD Wolfe <"JD Wolfe"@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 3/31/2018 6:29 AM, jillery wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 12:11:48 -0400, JD Wolfe <"JD Wolfe"@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/29/2018 11:50 PM, jillery wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 12:36:05 -0700 (PDT), zencycle
>>>> <funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thursday, March 29, 2018 at 3:30:04 PM UTC-4, JD Wolfe wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Is it just me, or is JD wolfe appearing more and more to look like a pagano sock puppet?
>>>>
>>>> Either way, JD Wolfe follows Pagano's posting style too closely to
>>>> make a coherent argument.
>>>>
>>> How can you say that, I am not an adversary of evolution. I just learned
>>> something I didn't know. Still I think evolution has the upper hand.
>>
>>
>> Since you asked, two ways you post like Pagano are: 1) you assert
>> false facts, and 2) don't respond to corrections to those false facts.
> >
>I do not mean to be seem unappreciative, but how do I know these
>"corrections" are true?


Since you asked, you can ask, just like you did here. Or you can look
it up yourself. Simply reposting the same error as if you weren't
corrected is *not* a way to find out if said corrections are correct.
You're welcome.


> I just bought a book by Gould from Amazon.
>I was surprised how soon it was delivered and I've started reading it.
>That I do not respond to corrections. I certainly have.
> >
>> What you claim to have learned is a Creationist PRATT you need to
>> unlearn. You're welcome.
>>
>I read the 4 explanations you gave as to why the record appears as
>it does. I responded to this.


Apparently you have a different definition of "responded" than I do.
Of course, you're not obliged to respond to every jot and tittle from
every post. But as I showed above and elsethread, by repeating the
same error, you are posting as if you have never read the corrections,
which have been posted several times by several posters.

Ernest Major

unread,
Apr 1, 2018, 4:40:03 AM4/1/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 01/04/2018 00:15, JD Wolfe wrote:
> Are you saying that Gould and Eldredge were wrong? I can believe that
> what they discovered was unpopular with other evolutionist.

Gould was wrong about several things. He followed Conway-Morris's (et
al) misinterpretations of the Burgess Fauna (the anti-shoehorn) and
proposed phylal essentialism and a cone of decreasing diversity, that is
groups are more disparate early in their history. That was wrong. (A bit
of history - when the Burgess Fauna was discovered its elements were
were classified within modern groups on the basis of superficial
similarities - the shoehorn. Some decades later they were reexamined,
and were found to not to be assignable to crown groups and were talked
about as new phyla no more related to one modern phylum than to another
- the antishoehorn. Later, when more data had accumulated, and the
patterns could be seen, the modern interpretation of the Burgess Fauna
as stem taxa related to and linking various modern taxa developed.

I'm pretty sure that Gould was also wrong about the prevalence of P.E.
I'm sure that it happens sometimes. (If you count allopolyploid
speciation as P.E. it occurs at a pretty high percentage rate in some
taxa.) But I'm pretty sure that is far from universal - the common
existence of allopatric species groups in modern organisms is pretty
solid evidence of non-punctuationist evolution, even if not of the
strawman of the steady unchanging march of evolutionary change.

The fossil record is just about good enough to show that punctuated
equilibrium does occur. (I recently read a paper that argued that none
of Gould's examples were unambiguous.) It's not good enough to tightly
constrain its prevalence.

--
alias Ernest Major

Ernest Major

unread,
Apr 1, 2018, 4:40:03 AM4/1/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 01/04/2018 00:15, JD Wolfe wrote:
> Really, when the failures of the fossil record are noted, then theory
> is brought in to explain away the failure or with Gould and Eldridge,
> their attempt at conciliation of theory and evidence from the fossil
> record. I don't know about the other examples you mentioned.
> The truth is the_only_ thing that bothers me is what I just learned
> about the fossil record. And this is a serious problem, for me.

One Saturday in the 1980's I was visiting Churchhill College in
Cambridge. Another visitor had a copy of a supposedly reputable British
broadsheet newspaper with a sensationalist two page spread on P.E.
overthrowing the theory of evolution. My reaction was "what's all the
fuss - it's just Ernst Mayr's peripatric speciation model".

That morphological change in evolution can be episodic has been
recognised all the way back to Darwin. If palaeontologists prior to
Gould and Eldridge did have an expectation of uniform phyletic
gradualism that a failure of the palaeontologists to understand the
theory, not a failure of the fossil record to match the theory.

Back in the 1990's I made a back of the envelope calculation of how many
fine-grained interspecific transformations we should see in the fossil
record. It was less than the observed number. (My estimate didn't take
the varying quality of the record for differing groups into account -
don't that isn't compatible with a back of the envelope calculation -
which would increase the number in the prediction.

You need to articulate what you think are the failures of the fossil
record (by which I hope you mean observations not in accordance with the
predictions of the theory, and not its imperfection); to do that you
need to understand what the theory predicts. Contrary to what
creationists would like you to believe, the theory does not predict a
steady unchanging march of evolutionary change.

--
alias Ernest Major

freon96

unread,
Apr 1, 2018, 12:20:04 PM4/1/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Bob Casanova wrote:

>
> The fact that it postulates a supernatural entity, which
> has never been observed to exist, as the creator of life.
> Regardless of whether any organized religion or dogma
> touts it (and they do, only not by that term) that pretty
> much defines a religious belief. Maybe you'd prefer
> "quasi-religious"; it still quacks.

A supernatural entity exists by the same evidence as life
beyond Earth or a Big Bang or anything humans believe has
intrinsic value. The evidence people cite to promote their
point of view is only evidence because it promotes their
point of view. People who don't believe a Creator exists
first believe that there was no creation. Since this belief
is beyond the possibility of proof, evidence can only be a
matter of subjective opinion.

You are just as dogmatic as those disagree with yet too
dogmatic to be able to see it. How are your declarations
worthy of serious consideration when there is no way to
objectively defend them?

Bill

zencycle

unread,
Apr 1, 2018, 1:40:02 PM4/1/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 5:55:03 PM UTC-4, JD Wolfe wrote:
> On 3/30/2018 4:35 PM, zencycle wrote:
> >
> I understand Mr Johnson is a religious person and believes in his
> religion, I do recognize that his religion is his motivation. But I
> failed to see where he brought in the Bible or any religious text in
> support of his belief in intelligent design. So, what do advocates
> of ID offer as evidence of intelligent design?

They argue from incredulity. In their mind, since they can't understand the mechanism, it can only be explained by god. In many cases they have pointed out flaws and gaps in the science of evolution, but this is a good thing. It drives reconsideration and new research. Unfortunately, for the creationist, every point they make is proven incorrect by that same research.

> > In Robert B. Stewart's book 'Intelligent design',
> >
> I had heard of him, but I had no interest. Have you read this book?

No, I had no interest either. But I did read Darwins Black Box. I was highly skeptical up thhe the point where he said the science of evolution of the immune system should be allowed to whither and die. For an alleged scientist to make such a statement completely voids his conclusions. He lost all credibility as a researcher with that statement.


Bob Casanova

unread,
Apr 2, 2018, 1:50:03 PM4/2/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sun, 01 Apr 2018 11:16:36 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by freon96 <fre...@gmail.com>:

>Bob Casanova wrote:
>
>>
>> The fact that it postulates a supernatural entity, which
>> has never been observed to exist, as the creator of life.
>> Regardless of whether any organized religion or dogma
>> touts it (and they do, only not by that term) that pretty
>> much defines a religious belief. Maybe you'd prefer
>> "quasi-religious"; it still quacks.
>
>A supernatural entity exists by the same evidence as life
>beyond Earth or a Big Bang or anything humans believe has
>intrinsic value. The evidence people cite to promote their
>point of view is only evidence because it promotes their
>point of view. People who don't believe a Creator exists
>first believe that there was no creation. Since this belief
>is beyond the possibility of proof, evidence can only be a
>matter of subjective opinion.

You are an idiot. I can point to objects, and others can
observe those objects, which demonstrates their existence
(if you want to call that "proof by consensus", feel free,
but you'll be a bit lonely in your nihilism). I can throw
your sorry ass off a cliff and you'll hit the bottom. I can
whack you with a cluestick, and while you still won't have a
clue, the dent will still be there in the side of your head.
You cannot point to any deity, only to belief in that deity.
The fact that you deny that objective evidence exists
doesn't make the denial true.

Your basic problem is that you make simultaneous
contradictory assertions regarding the nature of "proof"; on
one hand, you require it to be objectively true, while on
the other, you claim that objective reality doesn't exist,
and that everything is only subjective, making the issue of
"proof" moot.

>You are just as dogmatic as those disagree with yet too
>dogmatic to be able to see it. How are your declarations
>worthy of serious consideration when there is no way to
>objectively defend them?

Since you believe that "everything is subjective", IOW
objective reality doesn't exist, what possible "defense"
could matter to you?

Mark Isaak

unread,
Apr 2, 2018, 2:35:03 PM4/2/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
I'll address this and other more general points at the end of the post.
Until then, I'll address more specific points inline.
Evolution is about process. When Darwin wrote, it was already known
that life had changed over time. The question Darwin answered was how.
"Then" nothing. We have no idea when the first plant that could
reasonably be called an orchid first existed. Nobody was on the site
taking notes at the time.

There are a heck of a lot of questions which can only be answered, "I
don't know." Trying to force another answer to those questions is
equivalent to suborning perjury.

>>>>>   However, when nature tells us that the theory is
>>>>>> wrong then continuing to believe isn't science but blind faith.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I'm as open minded as I
>>>>>   know how to be. I've done some researching
>>>>> on this subject. I've learned it is an observation by two
>>>>> paleontologist who worked in the field and realized the fossil
>>>>> record is not the same as Darwin's theory predicted, and as you
>>>>> pointed out.
>>>>> They called this feature "Punctuated Equilibrium". And they are
>>>>> scientist!
>>>>
>>>> Did you know that the original paper about punctuated equilibrium
>>>> includes an example of gradualism in the fossil record?  Do not try
>>>> to learn about punctuated equilibrium from creationist sources.
>>>> They are certain to get it wrong.
>>>>
>>> I've never heard about an original paper on punctuated equalibrium.
>>> I don't know whether the sources I read are creationist. I question
>>> whether I would have ever found anything about this from evolutionist.
>>
>> Don't bother.  In mainstream biology, it was a brief fad due mainly to
>> the prominence of one of its authors (Stephen J. Gould).  But it does
>> not say much of import (far less than creationists claim), and it has
>> not stood the test of time.
>>
> Are you saying that Gould and Eldredge were wrong? I can believe that
> what they discovered was unpopular with other evolutionist.

You keep speaking of failures of the fossil record. The failure, I
submit, is in your unrealistic *expectations* of the fossil record and
of evolutionary rates. I know of nothing in the fossil record (or
unexpectedly missing from it) which presents problems to evolutionary
theory. Regarding evolutionary rates, Darwin himself wrote that he did
not expect rates of change to be steady. Eldredge and Gould made a name
for themselves by hyping the idea that rates are particularly uneven --
sometimes virtually no change, sometimes (at time of speciation) very
rapid. To the best of my knowledge, nothing they have written on the
subject has held up, except parts that were old news already. I have
not followed the whole exchange closely, so I don't know if their ideas
have been checked and found false or have not found evidence to support
them or are too vague to check or some combination of the above.

And species that have remained unchanged for millions of years are not
all that common, in the grand scheme of things. Remember, the fossil
record is very biased. One bias is that it preserves more of those
species which exist a long time, for the simple reason that there were
more opportunities to preserve them. A further bias is that the common
fossils get more attention in literature, especially by creationists who
want to pretend that there is something wrong about them. Almost all of
the billions of species which evolved rapidly left no trace. (Another
bias is species habitat. Species which live in forests rarely get
fossilized. Species which live on the ocean floor at the mouths of
rivers get covered by mud a lot.)

If you want an example of a fairly complete fossil record, look at the
genus Homo. Human ancestors get more attention than lizards or clams,
so the search for their fossils has been more extensive, and more is
written about them. Any good review article should make clear that
there is variation in all the species, so that there is no fine dividing
line between several of the species. As you go further back, the
fossils become scarcer, so the Australopithecine record shows just a few
spots, not the wide spread of Homo fossils.

freon96

unread,
Apr 2, 2018, 2:35:03 PM4/2/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Of course I'm an idiot, how else to explain posting here?
Why else read the erudite posts of the exceedingly
intelligent and doubt them? Of course if I'm an idiot,
there's no advantage in pointing it out since it won't
establish your intellectual superiority - I'm too easy a
target.

Better to admit the truth: I am an idiot because I dispute
your non-idiocy.

>
> Your basic problem is that you make simultaneous
> contradictory assertions regarding the nature of "proof";
> on one hand, you require it to be objectively true, while
> on the other, you claim that objective reality doesn't
> exist, and that everything is only subjective, making the
> issue of "proof" moot.
>
>>You are just as dogmatic as those disagree with yet too
>>dogmatic to be able to see it. How are your declarations
>>worthy of serious consideration when there is no way to
>>objectively defend them?
>
> Since you believe that "everything is subjective", IOW
> objective reality doesn't exist, what possible "defense"
> could matter to you?

You believe that what you believe is real because you
believe it. This belief is your reality which means that all
contrary beliefs cannot be real. People have been
understanding their world this way since at least the Bronze
Age so you're in good company.

Bill


Bob Casanova

unread,
Apr 3, 2018, 12:40:03 PM4/3/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Mon, 02 Apr 2018 13:32:40 -0500, the following appeared
Your posts, including this one in which you ignore the
points I made to focus on a single frustration-inspired
epithet, show it clearly. Or maybe "idiot" is the wrong
term; perhaps "disingenuous troll" would be more accurate;
you have all the characteristics.

>Why else read the erudite posts of the exceedingly
>intelligent and doubt them? Of course if I'm an idiot,
>there's no advantage in pointing it out since it won't
>establish your intellectual superiority - I'm too easy a
>target.
>
>Better to admit the truth: I am an idiot because I dispute
>your non-idiocy.

How about addressing the actual points I made? Or is the
problem that you can't, while maintaining your smug
assumption of superiority?

>> Your basic problem is that you make simultaneous
>> contradictory assertions regarding the nature of "proof";
>> on one hand, you require it to be objectively true, while
>> on the other, you claim that objective reality doesn't
>> exist, and that everything is only subjective, making the
>> issue of "proof" moot.
>>
>>>You are just as dogmatic as those disagree with yet too
>>>dogmatic to be able to see it. How are your declarations
>>>worthy of serious consideration when there is no way to
>>>objectively defend them?
>>
>> Since you believe that "everything is subjective", IOW
>> objective reality doesn't exist, what possible "defense"
>> could matter to you?
>
>You believe that what you believe is real because you
>believe it. This belief is your reality which means that all
>contrary beliefs cannot be real. People have been
>understanding their world this way since at least the Bronze
>Age so you're in good company.

You really didn't read anything I wrote beyond "You're an
idiot", did you?

Once more, there's a basic difference between "I believe
this" and "I have objective evidence for this". Once you
understand the difference, and the fact that all beliefs are
*not* equally valid, you may begin to understand how science
actually works, as contrasted with your erroneous belief in
how it works. Hint: Consensus isn't sufficient, even though
you proclaim repeatedly that it's all that matters.

freon96

unread,
Apr 3, 2018, 1:45:03 PM4/3/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Bob Casanova wrote:


>
> You really didn't read anything I wrote beyond "You're an
> idiot", did you?
>
> Once more, there's a basic difference between "I believe
> this" and "I have objective evidence for this". Once you
> understand the difference, and the fact that all beliefs
> are *not* equally valid, you may begin to understand how
> science actually works, as contrasted with your erroneous
> belief in how it works. Hint: Consensus isn't sufficient,
> even though you proclaim repeatedly that it's all that
> matters.

Since you believe that I'm an idiot, my contributions will
have no value for you, why bother? Even so, it does reveal
something interesting: I cannot be taken seriously - before
I am even heard. Knowing this, I don't expect and therefore
do not recognize, requests for comments.

It may be better to ask a specific question (to which you
will know the answer of course) and then pretend you will
consider my reply. You can pose as a rational intellectual
while I maintain my role as an idiot. There is no risk to
either of us.

Bill


JD Wolfe

unread,
Apr 3, 2018, 8:00:02 PM4/3/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
It really don't make any difference. I don't have to have everything
explained to me. Whether or not Gould and Eldredge were right don't
make any difference, There is enough evidence in other area to
know that evolution is a fact. I never really doubted it. I don't
have to have answers for every thing I see.

jillery

unread,
Apr 3, 2018, 8:25:02 PM4/3/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Tue, 3 Apr 2018 19:57:49 -0400, JD Wolfe <"JD Wolfe"@gmail.com>
Nobody asked you about things you merely saw. Instead, I challenged
you about your repetitive claim that the fossil record is contrary to
evolution. Do you still believe that? If so, say on what basis you
still believe it. If not, say you don't as explicitly as you asserted
it, and stop repeating it. Failing to do one of the two is what
qualifies you as following Pagano's posting style, a point to which
you took great umbrage, still preserved in the quoted text above.

JD Wolfe

unread,
Apr 3, 2018, 11:15:02 PM4/3/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
As I said before, it is contrary, I believe it because it differs from
the predictions of gradualism. The fact is unchanged species over
millions of years is solid observed evidence. There is nothing
in evolution that is not factual, but based on theory.

jillery

unread,
Apr 4, 2018, 12:05:03 AM4/4/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Tue, 3 Apr 2018 23:14:28 -0400, JD Wolfe <"JD Wolfe"@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 4/3/2018 8:20 PM, jillery wrote:

[...]

>> Nobody asked you about things you merely saw. Instead, I challenged
>> you about your repetitive claim that the fossil record is contrary to
>> evolution. Do you still believe that? If so, say on what basis you
>> still believe it.
> >
>As I said before, it is contrary,


Of course, just because you say it, even repeatedly, doesn't make it
so. That's one of many differences between facts and opinions.


>I believe it because it differs from the predictions of gradualism.


On what basis do you know the predictions of gradualism? Please cite
your authoritative source for these predictions you believe.


>The fact is unchanged species over millions of years is solid observed evidence.


I stipulate for argument's sake there are unchanged species over
millions of years. On what basis do you claim that is contrary to the
predictions of gradualism?


>There is nothing in evolution that is not factual, but based on theory.


I have no idea what you mean by that. Please elaborate.

Bob Casanova

unread,
Apr 4, 2018, 12:30:04 PM4/4/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Tue, 03 Apr 2018 09:35:50 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
Q.E.D.

Bob Casanova

unread,
Apr 4, 2018, 12:30:04 PM4/4/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Tue, 03 Apr 2018 12:41:53 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by freon96 <fre...@gmail.com>:

>Bob Casanova wrote:
>
>
>>
>> You really didn't read anything I wrote beyond "You're an
>> idiot", did you?
>>
>> Once more, there's a basic difference between "I believe
>> this" and "I have objective evidence for this". Once you
>> understand the difference, and the fact that all beliefs
>> are *not* equally valid, you may begin to understand how
>> science actually works, as contrasted with your erroneous
>> belief in how it works. Hint: Consensus isn't sufficient,
>> even though you proclaim repeatedly that it's all that
>> matters.

>Since you believe that I'm an idiot, my contributions will
>have no value for you, why bother? Even so, it does reveal
>something interesting: I cannot be taken seriously - before
>I am even heard.

You've been heard, many times. Your errors have been
corrected, multiple times. You've ignored the corrections,
multiple times.

And you wonder why I say you're an idiot (or, as I noted
most recently, more likely a disingenuous troll).

> Knowing this, I don't expect and therefore
>do not recognize, requests for comments.

Your privilege; the corrections are still there.

>It may be better to ask a specific question (to which you
>will know the answer of course) and then pretend you will
>consider my reply. You can pose as a rational intellectual
>while I maintain my role as an idiot. There is no risk to
>either of us.

Still avoiding addressing my correction of your error, in
which you proclaimed that "naturalism is a theory"?

OK.

zencycle

unread,
Apr 4, 2018, 12:55:03 PM4/4/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Tuesday, April 3, 2018 at 11:15:02 PM UTC-4, JD Wolfe wrote:
> >
> > Nobody asked you about things you merely saw. Instead, I challenged
> > you about your repetitive claim that the fossil record is contrary to
> > evolution. Do you still believe that? If so, say on what basis you
> > still believe it.
> >
> As I said before, it is contrary, I believe it because it differs from
> the predictions of gradualism. The fact is unchanged species over
> millions of years is solid observed evidence.

I posted previously about gradualism, how the concept is generic, why there are many examples that don't fit, and why it actually fits evolution better that it _isn't_ gradual. Please reread that post (in this thread).

> There is nothing
> in evolution that is not factual, but based on theory.

Please check your grammar here, something is missing

JD Wolfe

unread,
Apr 4, 2018, 1:40:03 PM4/4/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 4/4/2018 12:01 AM, jillery wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Apr 2018 23:14:28 -0400, JD Wolfe <"JD Wolfe"@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 4/3/2018 8:20 PM, jillery wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>> Nobody asked you about things you merely saw. Instead, I challenged
>>> you about your repetitive claim that the fossil record is contrary to
>>> evolution. Do you still believe that? If so, say on what basis you
>>> still believe it.
>>>
>> As I said before, it is contrary,
>
>
> Of course, just because you say it, even repeatedly, doesn't make it
> so. That's one of many differences between facts and opinions.
>
>
>> I believe it because it differs from the predictions of gradualism.
>
>
> On what basis do you know the predictions of gradualism? Please cite
> your authoritative source for these predictions you believe.
>

Charles Darwin
From youth, apparently, Darwin believed gradualism is inherently more
rational and scientific than saltational accounts of evolution.
Thus, Mayr (1982: 509) asserts that:

As a result of studying the writings of the theologian Sumner (1824:
20), Darwin had come to the conclusion that all natural things evolve
gradually from their precursors, while discontinuities, such as sudden
saltations, are indicative of a supernatural origin, that is, indicative
of intervention by the creator. All of his life Darwin took great pains
to reconstruct a gradual evolution of phenomena that at first sight
seemed clearly the result of sudden origins.

www.macroevolution.net/darwins-emphasis-on-gradualism.html
>
>> The fact is unchanged species over millions of years is solid observed evidence.
>
>
> I stipulate fsserts that


> millions of years. On what basis do you claim that is contrary to the
> predictions of gradualism?
>
The fact that new species appear abruptly in the fossil record, remain
unchanged for millions of years, then suddenly disappear from record.

This is the observed nature of the fossil record. What we have here is
_unseen_ gradual change, but here gradual change is purely theory, not
from the fossil record.
>
>> There is nothing in evolution that is not factual, but based on theory.
>
> I have no idea what you mean by that. Please elaborate.
>
I'm sorry! When gradual change is unseen, it is still factual, but this
is based on theory, not observation.

freon96

unread,
Apr 4, 2018, 2:50:05 PM4/4/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
I did answer that but, since you interpret what I say as
idiocy (before I even say it), your confusion persists.
Everything humans say about reality is opinion that is
filtered through opinion. As I've pointed before, reality is
what we say it is. A theory is a formal opinion, following
rules and satisfying protocols but that's not enough to make
it factual.

Since our beliefs are a hierarchy of assumptions about how
reality would be if correctly understood, theory is a matter
of opinion about what we think we know. Naturalism is one of
these assumptions. We don't know if it's true but we do know
that we can make it fit so we stop thinking about it.
Science is a variety of the assumption of naturalism. It
tells us how we think but not necessarily if it matches
reality.

For you this is an error because you believe your beliefs
are believable. Those who believe differently are idiots.

Bill


Don Cates

unread,
Apr 4, 2018, 3:40:04 PM4/4/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Hmmm, nothing there about fossil record expectations. Perhaps you should
look for something where Darwin actually mentions fossils?

You do realize that almost all of Darwin's work involved the examination
of extant species, right?

>>
>>> The fact is unchanged species over millions of years is solid
>>> observed evidence.
>>
>>
>> I stipulate fsserts that
>
>
>> millions of years.  On what basis do you claim that is contrary to the
>> predictions of gradualism?
>>
> The fact that new species appear abruptly in the fossil record, remain
> unchanged for millions of years, then suddenly disappear from record.
>
> This is the observed nature of the fossil record. What we have here is
> _unseen_ gradual change, but here gradual change is purely theory, not
> from the fossil record.
>>
>>> There is nothing in evolution that is not factual, but based on theory.
>>
>> I have no idea what you mean by that.  Please elaborate.
> >
> I'm sorry! When gradual change is unseen, it is still factual, but this
> is based on theory, not observation.
>>
>> --
>> I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your
>> right to say it.
>>
>> Evelyn Beatrice Hall
>> Attributed to Voltaire
>>
>


--
--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)

zencycle

unread,
Apr 4, 2018, 4:05:05 PM4/4/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Wednesday, April 4, 2018 at 3:40:04 PM UTC-4, Don Cates wrote:
> On 2018-04-04 12:38 PM, JD Wolfe wrote:
> >
> > www.macroevolution.net/darwins-emphasis-on-gradualism.html
>
> Hmmm, nothing there about fossil record expectations. Perhaps you should
> look for something where Darwin actually mentions fossils?
>
> You do realize that almost all of Darwin's work involved the examination
> of extant species, right?
>

You have to cut JD a bit of slack, he's new here. That said, you need to click past the first page of the link. There is in fact on the next page a very relevant quote:

"Geological research, though it has added numerous species to existing and extinct genera, and has made the intervals between some few groups less wide than they otherwise would have been, yet has done scarcely anything in breaking down the distinction between [fossil] species, by connecting them together by numerous, fine, intermediate varieties; and this not having been effected, is probably the gravest and most obvious of all the many objections which may be urged against my views."

_that_ said, Looking to Darwin alone in support of evolution is a mistake. The article J linked to was actually quite good, albeit a bit long, but gives a great layman level of Stabilization theory - directly addressing JDs concerns.

JWS

unread,
Apr 4, 2018, 4:55:04 PM4/4/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
You seem to be the kind of guy that collects his thoughts
with a paper towel.

JD Wolfe

unread,
Apr 4, 2018, 9:00:02 PM4/4/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Obviously, this was Mayr discussing Darwin's commitment to gradualism
rather than saltation (sudden appearance). This was about all things -
including fossilized species - evolving gradually from their precursors.
>
> You do realize that almost all of Darwin's work involved the examination
> of extant species, right?
>
No, he theorized about fossilized species and their gradual change over
vast passage of time.

Don Cates

unread,
Apr 4, 2018, 10:25:02 PM4/4/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Why not read Darwin directly rather than second (or third) hand
snippets? He is available on-line.

>> You do realize that almost all of Darwin's work involved the
>> examination of extant species, right?
>>
> No, he theorized about fossilized species and their gradual change over
> vast passage of time.
>>>>

Are you unfamiliar with the word "almost"?

>>>>> The fact is unchanged species over millions of years is solid
>>>>> observed evidence.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I stipulate fsserts that
>>>
>>>
>>>> millions of years.  On what basis do you claim that is contrary to the
>>>> predictions of gradualism?
>>>>
>>> The fact that new species appear abruptly in the fossil record,
>>> remain unchanged for millions of years, then suddenly disappear from
>>> record.
>>>
>>> This is the observed nature of the fossil record. What we have here is
>>> _unseen_ gradual change, but here gradual change is purely theory,
>>> not from the fossil record.
>>>>
>>>>> There is nothing in evolution that is not factual, but based on
>>>>> theory.
>>>>
>>>> I have no idea what you mean by that.  Please elaborate.
>>>  >
>>> I'm sorry! When gradual change is unseen, it is still factual, but
>>> this is based on theory, not observation.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your
>>>> right to say it.
>>>>
>>>> Evelyn Beatrice Hall
>>>> Attributed to Voltaire
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>


JD Wolfe

unread,
Apr 4, 2018, 11:20:02 PM4/4/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
I don't have to. Mayr was one of the preeminent Darwinist of his day.
His conclusion is sufficient.
>
>>> You do realize that almost all of Darwin's work involved the
>>> examination of extant species, right?
>>>
>> No, he theorized about fossilized species and their gradual change over
>> vast passage of time.
>>>>>
>
> Are you unfamiliar with the word "almost"?
>
Nowhere does the word almost appear. Neither Mayr nor Darwin thought
gradualism was almost consistent with evolution. In fact Darwin
totally rejected "saltation", even when T.H. Huxley advised him against
his insistence upon gradualism. .

Ernest Major

unread,
Apr 5, 2018, 4:00:03 AM4/5/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
In some contexts gradualism is opposed to saltationism. This is the
sense in which Darwin generally used it.

In other contexts gradualism is opposed to punctuationism. Given that
Darwin recognised that possibility that morphological change in
evolution is episodic - "[A]lthough each species must have passed
through numerous transitional stages, it is probable that the periods,
during which each underwent modification, though many and long as
measured by years, have been short in comparison with the periods during
which each remained in an unchanged condition" (Darwin) - it seems
unlikely that Darwin used it in that sense.

Even so, gradualism as opposed to punctuationism isn't a steady
unvarying unyield march of evolutionary change.

>>>>
>>>> Hmmm, nothing there about fossil record expectations. Perhaps you
>>>> should look for something where Darwin actually mentions fossils?
>>>  >
>>> Obviously, this was Mayr discussing Darwin's commitment to gradualism
>>> rather than saltation (sudden appearance). This was about all things -
>>> including fossilized species - evolving gradually from their precursors.
>>>>
>>
>> Why not read Darwin directly rather than second (or third) hand
>> snippets? He is available on-line.
> >
> I don't have to. Mayr was one of the preeminent Darwinist of his day.
> His conclusion is sufficient.

But you're reading Mayr as a historian, not as a biologist. His
reputation as a historian is somewhat chequered.

http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/2006/06/13/mayrs-whig-repost/

>>
>>>> You do realize that almost all of Darwin's work involved the
>>>> examination of extant species, right?
>>>>
>>> No, he theorized about fossilized species and their gradual change over
>>> vast passage of time.
>>>>>>
>>
>> Are you unfamiliar with the word "almost"?
> >
> Nowhere does the word almost appear. Neither Mayr nor Darwin thought
> gradualism was almost consistent with evolution. In fact Darwin
> totally rejected "saltation", even when T.H. Huxley advised him against
> his insistence upon gradualism.  .

If you read up a few lines you find the words "almost all of Darwins's
work". In Darwins' day the fossil record was a minor part of the
evidence for common descent - the major parts were biogeography and the
pattern of homology. Today the fossil record remains a minor part - the
major parts are the pattern of homology (we've added a great pile of
genetic data) and biogeography.

Darwin did work of fossil as well as living barnacles. It was Owen who
wrote up the fossil mammals collected during the voyage of the Beagle -
Darwin wrote the preface and geological distribution. But if you look at
his bibliography - and discount his non-biological work - you'll find
more on living species - include a substantial amount of material on
experimental botany.
>>
>>>>>>> The fact is unchanged species over millions of years is solid
>>>>>>> observed evidence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I stipulate fsserts that
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> millions of years.  On what basis do you claim that is contrary to
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> predictions of gradualism?
>>>>>>
>>>>> The fact that new species appear abruptly in the fossil record,
>>>>> remain unchanged for millions of years, then suddenly disappear
>>>>> from record.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is the observed nature of the fossil record. What we have here is
>>>>> _unseen_ gradual change, but here gradual change is purely theory,
>>>>> not from the fossil record.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is nothing in evolution that is not factual, but based on
>>>>>>> theory.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have no idea what you mean by that.  Please elaborate.
>>>>>  >
>>>>> I'm sorry! When gradual change is unseen, it is still factual, but
>>>>> this is based on theory, not observation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your
>>>>>> right to say it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Evelyn Beatrice Hall
>>>>>> Attributed to Voltaire
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>


--
alias Ernest Major

Burkhard

unread,
Apr 5, 2018, 10:00:05 AM4/5/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
That makes him a good biologist, not necessarily a good historian. But
more importantly, the quote you give from him does not support you on
the issue that is under discussion

>>
>>>> You do realize that almost all of Darwin's work involved the
>>>> examination of extant species, right?
>>>>
>>> No, he theorized about fossilized species and their gradual change over
>>> vast passage of time.
>>>>>>
>>
>> Are you unfamiliar with the word "almost"?
>>
> Nowhere does the word almost appear.

And I quote, my emphasis added:

"You do realize that ALMOST all of Darwin's work involved the
>>>> examination of extant species, right?"


Neither Mayr nor Darwin thought
> gradualism was almost consistent with evolution.

Nobody said they did. What Don said was that Darwin's conclusion was
almost exclusive based on studying extant species.

In fact Darwin
> totally rejected "saltation", even when T.H. Huxley advised him against
> his insistence upon gradualism. .

True, but irrelevant for the issue on question, which is what the fossil
record ought to show.

I lost my hair gradually over the last thirty years. But this does not
imply that there is a long line pf photographs of me each with slightly
less hair than the other. Rather, you'd find about 15, at most, all with
marked differences in my hairiness, from pony tailed to mostly bald. If
you want by them alone, you'd get a radical "saltationist" idea of how
my head changed, which would be entirely misleading. But once you
understand that photos are taken only intermittently, typically at
special occasions, and of these only a few are ever kept, you
immediately realize that the evidence is perfectly consistent with our
theories of gradual hair loss in males.

<snip>

jillery

unread,
Apr 5, 2018, 10:35:04 AM4/5/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Wed, 4 Apr 2018 13:38:55 -0400, JD Wolfe <"JD Wolfe"@gmail.com>
I have read the entire article, and listened to the videos, and I
don't see any part which identifies how the fossil record is contrary
to evolution, or where it identifies predictions of gradualism which
are contrary to the evidence from the fossil record. Can you be more
specific?


>>> The fact is unchanged species over millions of years is solid observed evidence.
>>
>>
>>I stipulate for argument's sake there are unchanged species over
>>millions of years. On what basis do you claim that is contrary to the
>>predictions of gradualism?
>>
>The fact that new species appear abruptly in the fossil record, remain
>unchanged for millions of years, then suddenly disappear from record.
>
>This is the observed nature of the fossil record. What we have here is
>_unseen_ gradual change, but here gradual change is purely theory, not
>from the fossil record.


I'm getting a bad feeling about this, a case of déjà vu all over
again. You continue to repeat the same facts in response to multiple
challenges to identify *how* said facts justify your opinions about
those facts. Do you really not understand the problem with that?


>>> There is nothing in evolution that is not factual, but based on theory.
>>
>> I have no idea what you mean by that. Please elaborate.
> >
>I'm sorry! When gradual change is unseen, it is still factual, but this
>is based on theory, not observation.


That may be technically correct, but I don't see how it's relevant
here. I recognize that the fossil record shows abrupt change and
stasis, as you do. I also recognize that the fossil record shows
gradual change, as you do not. There's nothing theoretical about any
of this.

jillery

unread,
Apr 5, 2018, 10:35:04 AM4/5/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Wed, 4 Apr 2018 13:00:56 -0700 (PDT), zencycle
<funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, April 4, 2018 at 3:40:04 PM UTC-4, Don Cates wrote:
>> On 2018-04-04 12:38 PM, JD Wolfe wrote:
>> >
>> > www.macroevolution.net/darwins-emphasis-on-gradualism.html
>>
>> Hmmm, nothing there about fossil record expectations. Perhaps you should
>> look for something where Darwin actually mentions fossils?
>>
>> You do realize that almost all of Darwin's work involved the examination
>> of extant species, right?
>>
>
>You have to cut JD a bit of slack, he's new here.


I'm not so sure about that. I agree his NIC his new to T.O.


>That said, you need to click past the first page of the link. There is in fact on the next page a very relevant quote:
>
>"Geological research, though it has added numerous species to existing and extinct genera, and has made the intervals between some few groups less wide than they otherwise would have been, yet has done scarcely anything in breaking down the distinction between [fossil] species, by connecting them together by numerous, fine, intermediate varieties; and this not having been effected, is probably the gravest and most obvious of all the many objections which may be urged against my views."


The quote above refers to the first of two problems with the fossil
record: 1) its broken, discontinuous, and spotty nature, and 2) its
lack of biological detail. In Darwin's day, the fossil record was
woefully incomplete. Indeed, the very possibility that life on Earth
stretched beyond Bishop Ussher's 4004 B.C. and into deep geologic
time, was only recognized less than a century before.

Problem 2 wasn't well appreciated in Darwin's day, and so it's no
surprise he didn't mention it. With a current understanding of
taphonomy, it's known that much of the detail on which extant species
are distinguished, is rarely captured within fossils. I still marvel
that DNA and original biological material is preserved at all.

This is a point Harshman harps about, that the fossil record doesn't
allow cladistics to establish the exact ancestral relationships among
fossil species.


>_that_ said, Looking to Darwin alone in support of evolution is a mistake. The article J linked to was actually quite good, albeit a bit long, but gives a great layman level of Stabilization theory - directly addressing JDs concerns.


Any article about biological gradualism which starts with bald
assertions about Darwin's social views and politics, is really hard to
take seriously. It smacks of the Creationist PRATT which associates
biological evolution with Social Darwinism, eugenics, and Nazis.

But even putting that aside, the article's argument against gradualism
is based on stereotype definitions. Not sure how the article's
discussion of Stabilization theory applies to JD's concerns, as
opposed to merely asserting them using other words, but the part JD
quoted doesn't address them, as Don Cates noted. It would be helpful
if JD identified the actual parts which do.

Bob Casanova

unread,
Apr 5, 2018, 12:45:04 PM4/5/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Wed, 04 Apr 2018 13:48:53 -0500, the following appeared
No, you did not. At no time did you address my correction of
your assertion that "naturalism is a theory", or my
correction of your assertion that all that matters in
science is consensus. I even described how science actually
works. You ignored it all to fixate on my (as I noted)
frustration-inspired epithet. Stop lying; it's all there for
all to see.

> but, since you interpret what I say as
>idiocy (before I even say it), your confusion persists.
>Everything humans say about reality is opinion that is
>filtered through opinion. As I've pointed before, reality is
>what we say it is. A theory is a formal opinion, following
>rules and satisfying protocols but that's not enough to make
>it factual.
>
>Since our beliefs are a hierarchy of assumptions about how
>reality would be if correctly understood, theory is a matter
>of opinion about what we think we know.

No, it's not. In science, theory is an explanatory account
of observations which ideally predicts what new observations
will show. As I noted previously, it's not used in science
the way it's used in casual discussion, as a "guess" or
"conjecture".

> Naturalism is one of
>these assumptions. We don't know if it's true but we do know
>that we can make it fit so we stop thinking about it.
>Science is a variety of the assumption of naturalism. It
>tells us how we think but not necessarily if it matches
>reality.

If it works as designed (explains all observations and makes
accurate predictions regarding future observations, it
matches reality. That seems difficult for you to grasp.

>For you this is an error because you believe your beliefs
>are believable. Those who believe differently are idiots.

No, those who consistently assert that "everything is
relative" (IOW, there is no actual objective reality) in the
face of multiple examples to the contrary are idiots. Or, as
I noted, disingenuous trolls.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages