Ray, can you explain this?

[Martin Harran]

Ray,

Demonstration of the various stages of development of the eye in
various species has been well documented; this is how Jerry Coyne
describes the first stages in "Why Evolution is True":

"A possible sequence of such changes begins with simple eyespots made
of light-sensitive pigment, as seen in flatworms.

The skin then folds in, forming a cup that protects the eyespot and
allows it to better localize the light source. Limpets have eyes like
this.

In the chambered nautilus, we see a further narrowing of the cup's
opening to produce an improved image […]

In ragworms the cup is capped by a protective transparent cover to
protect the opening.

In abalones, part of the fluid in the eye has coagulated to form a
lens, which helps focus light, and in many species, such as mammals,
nearby muscles have been co-opted to move the lens and vary its
focus."

[Split into separate lines by me]

According to you, there is no such thing as evolution, not even what
some people describe as "micro evolution". How then do you explain the
different stages of eye development in these and other species? Do you
think that God created flatworms, limpets, nautilus, ragworms and
abalones as separate species each with different types of eye and that
this appearance of order is just coincidence?

If you think it is just coincidence, then it would be interesting to
hear your suggestions on why God should have created so many different
versions of the eye instead of just one or even a small number of
efficient ones.

[Bill Rogers]

Another example of atheist delusions masquerading as "Christian" evolutionism. The same clearly shows that Martin is an atheist who accepts atheist naturalism and denies the role of God.

[Wolffan]

On 2018 Jan 07, Bill Rogers wrote
(in article<04260aab-af05-45b3...@googlegroups.com>):

You did that so well that I had to check the From: line...

[Ray Martinez]

On Sunday, January 7, 2018 at 3:35:05 AM UTC-8, Martin Harran wrote:
> Ray,
>
> Demonstration of the various stages of development of the eye in
> various species has been well documented; this is how Jerry Coyne
> describes the first stages in "Why Evolution is True":
>
> "A possible sequence of such changes begins with simple eyespots made
> of light-sensitive pigment, as seen in flatworms.
>
> The skin then folds in, forming a cup that protects the eyespot and
> allows it to better localize the light source. Limpets have eyes like
> this.
>
> In the chambered nautilus, we see a further narrowing of the cup's
> opening to produce an improved image […]
>
> In ragworms the cup is capped by a protective transparent cover to
> protect the opening.
>
> In abalones, part of the fluid in the eye has coagulated to form a
> lens, which helps focus light, and in many species, such as mammals,
> nearby muscles have been co-opted to move the lens and vary its
> focus."
>
> [Split into separate lines by me]
>
> According to you, there is no such thing as evolution, not even what
> some people describe as "micro evolution".

Not some people, but it's science that does in fact accept microevolution unanimously. Yet prior to 1860 there existed not even one practicing-publishing naturalist in Britain or America who accepted the mutability of species, not even one (reference available upon request).

> How then do you explain the
> different stages of eye development in these and other species? Do you
> think that God created flatworms, limpets, nautilus, ragworms and
> abalones as separate species each with different types of eye and that
> this appearance of order is just coincidence?

Prior to the rise of Darwinism, science accepted each species designed and thus created in real time periodically (immutability). I maintain that post 1859 science exists in an ever expanding tangential state of error. Darwinism is a wild branch on the tree-trunk of science.

> If you think it is just coincidence, then it would be interesting to
> hear your suggestions on why God should have created so many different
> versions of the eye instead of just one or even a small number of
> efficient ones.

Each version of the mammalian eye does not represent a series of coincidences, but reflects conscious design at every stage. Each stage or state infers the overall work of a Creator. Pre-1859 Victorian science accepted each species created independently (Darwin 1859:6; London: John Murray).

What we have here in the OP is an evolutionary assumption at play and/or at work, and the same is being passed off as evidence that macroevolution has occurred. Existence of these states or stages is not in dispute. What's in dispute is the claim or eplanation that the stages comprise evidence that evolution has occurred. All you've done is briefly allude to the existence of the stages while assuming each stage evolved from an earlier stage. Restating an assumption does not constitute evidence. Existence of gradating similarity does not constitute evidence supporting macroevolution because the argument assumes existence of gradating similarity means evolution, speciation, and macroevolution has occurred. This is false. Evolution has not occurred until selection has occurred and until these changes have accumulated. All the OP does is allude to the existence of gradating similarity then assumes the work of evolution. But in scientific reality evolution has not occurred until selection has occurred. No where in your case for evolution does one see any mention of selection thus your case for evolution is based entirely on an assumption that evolution as a cause has occurred when similarity between species becomes documented. Science has always said that evolution has only occurred when cumulative selection has occurred. Therefore your case for evolution, as phrased, is based on assumption and assumption, as I'm sure you would agree, isn't evidence.

Ray

[Burkhard]

Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Sunday, January 7, 2018 at 3:35:05 AM UTC-8, Martin Harran wrote:
>> Ray,
>>
>> Demonstration of the various stages of development of the eye in
>> various species has been well documented; this is how Jerry Coyne
>> describes the first stages in "Why Evolution is True":
>>
>> "A possible sequence of such changes begins with simple eyespots made
>> of light-sensitive pigment, as seen in flatworms.
>>
>> The skin then folds in, forming a cup that protects the eyespot and
>> allows it to better localize the light source. Limpets have eyes like
>> this.
>>
>> In the chambered nautilus, we see a further narrowing of the cup's
>> opening to produce an improved image […]
>>
>> In ragworms the cup is capped by a protective transparent cover to
>> protect the opening.
>>
>> In abalones, part of the fluid in the eye has coagulated to form a
>> lens, which helps focus light, and in many species, such as mammals,
>> nearby muscles have been co-opted to move the lens and vary its
>> focus."
>>
>> [Split into separate lines by me]
>>
>> According to you, there is no such thing as evolution, not even what
>> some people describe as "micro evolution".
>
> Not some people, but it's science that does in fact accept microevolution unanimously. Yet prior to 1860 there existed not even one practicing-publishing naturalist in Britain or America who accepted the mutability of species, not even one (reference available upon request).

As fakse as last time you claimed this

Robert Edmond Grant Observations on the nature and importance of
geology. Edinburgh New Philos. J. (1826) 14, 270-84.:
Robert Chalmers, (1844), Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation
Robert Jameson was a Lamarckian who taught Darwin, and another of hs
etachers, John Stevens Henslow accepted what you would call micro
evolution, that is evolution below the species level

[Ray Martinez]

On Tuesday, January 9, 2018 at 5:25:02 PM UTC-8, Burkhard wrote:
> > Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > On Sunday, January 7, 2018 at 3:35:05 AM UTC-8, Martin Harran wrote:
> > >> Ray,
> > >>
> > >> Demonstration of the various stages of development of the eye in
> > >> various species has been well documented; this is how Jerry Coyne
> > >> describes the first stages in "Why Evolution is True":
> > >>
> > >> "A possible sequence of such changes begins with simple eyespots made
> > >> of light-sensitive pigment, as seen in flatworms.
> > >>
> > >> The skin then folds in, forming a cup that protects the eyespot and
> > >> allows it to better localize the light source. Limpets have eyes like
> > >> this.
> > >>
> > >> In the chambered nautilus, we see a further narrowing of the cup's
> > >> opening to produce an improved image […]
> > >>
> > >> In ragworms the cup is capped by a protective transparent cover to
> > >> protect the opening.
> > >>
> > >> In abalones, part of the fluid in the eye has coagulated to form a
> > >> lens, which helps focus light, and in many species, such as mammals,
> > >> nearby muscles have been co-opted to move the lens and vary its
> > >> focus."
> > >>
> > >> [Split into separate lines by me]
> > >>
> > >> According to you, there is no such thing as evolution, not even what
> > >> some people describe as "micro evolution".
> > >
> > > Not some people, but it's science that does in fact accept microevolution unanimously. Yet prior to 1860 there existed not even one practicing-publishing naturalist in Britain or America who accepted the mutability of species, not even one (reference available upon request).
> >

> > As false as last time you claimed this

> >
> > Robert Edmond Grant Observations on the nature and importance of
> > geology. Edinburgh New Philos. J. (1826) 14, 270-84.:
>

Note the date (1826) which is 33 years prior to the publication of the Origin. For the next three decades plus three years a pro-evolution publication, authored by a practicing-publishing naturalist, was not seen. So, like I've said, not counting Darwin, prior to 1860 there existed not even one practicing-publishing naturalist in England who accepted the mutability of species, not even one.

>
> > Robert Chalmers, (1844), Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation
>

Chambers, at the time, published anonymously and he wasn't a practicing-publishing naturalist, but an amateur. If you disagree then please list his scientific publications that were published before Vestiges?

>
> > Robert Jameson was a Lamarckian who taught Darwin, and another of his
> > teachers, John Stevens Henslow accepted what you would call micro

> > evolution, that is evolution below the species level
>

Lamarck wasn't an Evolutionist but a Creationist. He accepted special creation to have occurred periodically in real time, which means the changes that he advocated were directed, not evolutionary. This fact dictates that Jameson could not have been an Evolutionist either. Science did not accept species mutability until the rise of Darwinism.

Ray

[Barba]

Ray Martinez <r3p...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 9, 2018 at 5:25:02 PM UTC-8, Burkhard wrote:

>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>> > On Sunday, January 7, 2018 at 3:35:05 AM UTC-8, Martin Harran wrote:
>> >> Ray,
>> >>
>> >> Demonstration of the various stages of development of the eye in
>> >> various species has been well documented; this is how Jerry Coyne
>> >> describes the first stages in "Why Evolution is True":
>> >>
>> >> "A possible sequence of such changes begins with simple eyespots made
>> >> of light-sensitive pigment, as seen in flatworms.
>> >>
>> >> The skin then folds in, forming a cup that protects the eyespot and
>> >> allows it to better localize the light source. Limpets have eyes like
>> >> this.
>> >>
>> >> In the chambered nautilus, we see a further narrowing of the cup's

>> >> opening to produce an improved image [???]

>> >>
>> >> In ragworms the cup is capped by a protective transparent cover to
>> >> protect the opening.
>> >>
>> >> In abalones, part of the fluid in the eye has coagulated to form a
>> >> lens, which helps focus light, and in many species, such as mammals,
>> >> nearby muscles have been co-opted to move the lens and vary its
>> >> focus."
>> >>
>> >> [Split into separate lines by me]
>> >>
>> >> According to you, there is no such thing as evolution, not even what
>> >> some people describe as "micro evolution".
>> >
>> > Not some people, but it's science that does in fact accept microevolution
>> > unanimously. Yet prior to 1860 there existed not even one
>> > practicing-publishing naturalist in Britain or America who accepted the
>> > mutability of species, not even one (reference available upon request).
>>

>> As false as last time you claimed this

>>
>> Robert Edmond Grant Observations on the nature and importance of geology.
>> Edinburgh New Philos. J. (1826) 14, 270-84.:
>

> Note the date (1826) which is 33 years prior to the publication of the

> Origin. For the next three decades plus three years no genuine pro-
> evolution publication, by a practicing-publishing naturalist, occurred. So,
> like I said, prior to 1860 there existed not even one practicing-publishing
> naturalist in England who accepted the mutability of species, not even one.
>
So, the fact that one naturalist published about mutability of species is, for
you, proof that "not even one practicing-publishing naturalist in England who
accepted the mutability of species, not even one." And you talk about
"illogical"

>> Robert Chalmers, (1844), Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation
>

> Chambers, at the time, published anonymously and he wasn't a
> practicing-publishing naturalist, but an amateur. If you disagree then

> please list Chambers scientific publications that occurred before Vestiges?
>
So what, he was an amateur and his first edition had several errors and
imprecision, but the second and third edition were revised by Edwin Lankester,
a naturalist and George Fownes, chemist and fellow of the Royal Society, who
evidently didn't disagree with him.

>> Robert Jameson was a Lamarckian who taught Darwin, and another of his
>> teachers, John Stevens Henslow accepted what you would call micro

>> evolution, that is evolution below the species level
>

> Lamarck wasn't an Evolutionist but a Creationist. He accepted special

> creation to have occurred frequently and periodically in real time, which

> means the changes that he advocated were directed, not evolutionary.

So, he advocated changes therefore he accepted species mutability. And that
changes are not evolutionary but directed (whatever that means) does not
follow from special creation.

>This fact dictates that Jameson could not have been an Evolutionist either.
>Science did not accept species mutability until the rise of Darwinism.
>
> Ray
>

And there was also Patrick Matthew that in 1831 advanced the concept of
"natural selection", neither Darwin nor Wallace were aware of the fact but
when Mattew contacted after reading OoS D. acknowledged that the principle of
natural selection had been anticipated by Matthew in subsequent editions of
the book.

And of course there were Darwin and Wallace who were working on the thory of
Evolution, unless you think they believed in immutability before 1859....

And, by the way, your request of "one practicing-publishing naturalist in
Britain or America" is absurd and a little racist....

And, again, "Science" does not accept or reject anything, scientist do and
some did accept species mutability before 1859.

B

[snip]

[Burkhard]

That makes no sense whatsoever. As you say yourself, this was 33 years
prior to the Origins, and that obviously means that Grant is what you
claim did not text - a publishing naturalist etc etc.

You;ve already imposed a lot of arbitrary restrictions (publishing in
English e.g.m which excludes some of the most active research centers at
the time in Germany (with Humboldt) and France to make your claim pretty
pointless, but the above is simply silly - what do yo expect, a new book
each day?

>
>>
>>> Robert Chalmers, (1844), Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation
>>
>
> Chambers, at the time, published anonymously

so what? It's still a publication, that people in authority who were
unable to refute this type of work resorted to oppression that
necessitated anonymous publication notwithstanding.

Nowhere did you specific that the publication must be under the authros
own name.

>and he wasn't a practicing-publishing naturalist, but an amateur. If
you disagree then please list his scientific publications that were
published before Vestiges?

You did not ask for lots of publications, and even with one book, he is
waaaay ahead of you, despite your announcements over the past decades.
His Vestiges required actual research, it is a publication and thus
meets your criteria as stated.

As for other publications, he was editor of the Journal of popular
Literature, Science and the Arts and contributed frequently papers also
on scientific topics, e.g. the role of electricity in animal muscles
(No. 455 Volume 18, New Series, September 18, 1852(, Glaciation the Lake
district (Volume 17, New Series, June 19, 1852) or on how naturalists
best collect aquatic plants (Volume 18, New Series, July 10, 1852).
While not deep, and sometimes mere reports, not original research,
communication with the wider pubic are one role for researchers.

Also, he was a Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, the preeminent
organization for researchers in that time, with admission strictly on
merit. He was also Fellow of the Royal Geological Society (just like
Darwin would be) which was specifically for naturalists.
,
At that time, every field of science was dominated by people we'd call
today amateurs, that's because the modern scientific industry did not
exist yet - Darwin also didn't hold a university position, and Chambers
is closer to a modern understanding of scientists than Paley say by a
long distance.

>
>>
>>> Robert Jameson was a Lamarckian who taught Darwin, and another of his
>>> teachers, John Stevens Henslow accepted what you would call micro
>>> evolution, that is evolution below the species level
>>
>
> Lamarck wasn't an Evolutionist but a Creationist.

So what, even if one accepts your trained definition of "creationist" -
you asked for people who reject species fixism, he did.

>He accepted special creation to have occurred periodically in real time, which means the changes that he advocated were directed, not evolutionary. This fact dictates that Jameson could not have been an Evolutionist either. Science did not accept species mutability until the rise of Darwinism.

Rather glaring non-sequitur refuted by the facts. They did in fact
reject fixism and said so explicitly. That they also believed in God
simply shows that your claim that the being a Christian and accepting
evolution was wrong even before Darwin, but everyone keeps telling you
that anyway.

In any case, they are clear counterexamples ot your claim - published,
English speaking, and rejecting fixism.

[Martin Harran]

I am reading that as you believing that each of those species with its
corresponding stage of eye development was created separately by God;
please correct me if I am wrong.

So, what about the second part of my question - have you any
suggestions as to why God created so many different versions of the
eye instead of just one or even a small number of efficient ones?

Just to enlarge upon that a little bit, I would be interested to hear
you explain why you regard the appearance of design as conclusive
evidence yet dismiss what clearly appears to be an ordered sequence as
evidence?

[Ray Martinez]

The facts say ONE naturalist published _a_ pro-mutability publication 33 years prior to the Origin of 1859. This means no pro-mutability publications appeared in England between 1826 and 1859. How could you miss that? Obviously your pro-evolution bias has gotten in the way. The reason no pro-evolution publications appeared during the stated time span is because science accepted observation of design or species immutability.

>
> >> Robert Chalmers, (1844), Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation
> >
> > Chambers, at the time, published anonymously and he wasn't a
> > practicing-publishing naturalist, but an amateur. If you disagree then
> > please list Chambers scientific publications that occurred before Vestiges?
> >
> So what, he was an amateur and his first edition had several errors and

> imprecision....

My point was about professional, practicing, publishing naturalists. Not amateurs who published, at the time, anonymously. The ultimate point is that science, not counting Darwin, accepted immutability unanimously (1826-1859)

You're fighting for one naturalist who disappeared after 1826. This means immutability enjoyed unanimous ***scientific*** acceptance for over three decades.

> ....but the second and third edition were revised by Edwin Lankester,

> a naturalist and George Fownes, chemist and fellow of the Royal Society, who
> evidently didn't disagree with him.
>
> >> Robert Jameson was a Lamarckian who taught Darwin, and another of his
> >> teachers, John Stevens Henslow accepted what you would call micro
> >> evolution, that is evolution below the species level
> >
> > Lamarck wasn't an Evolutionist but a Creationist. He accepted special
> > creation to have occurred frequently and periodically in real time, which
> > means the changes that he advocated were directed, not evolutionary.
>
> So, he advocated changes therefore he accepted species mutability. And that
> changes are not evolutionary but directed (whatever that means) does not
> follow from special creation.
>
> >This fact dictates that Jameson could not have been an Evolutionist either.
> >Science did not accept species mutability until the rise of Darwinism.
> >
> > Ray
> >
>
> And there was also Patrick Matthew that in 1831 advanced the concept of
> "natural selection", neither Darwin nor Wallace were aware of the fact but
> when Mattew contacted after reading OoS D. acknowledged that the principle of
> natural selection had been anticipated by Matthew in subsequent editions of
> the book.

Matthew wasn't a practicing, publishing man of science, unlike Darwin. And his conception of selection appeared in the Appendix of an obscure book about Naval Timber and Arboriculture.

>
> And of course there were Darwin and Wallace who were working on the thory of
> Evolution, unless you think they believed in immutability before 1859....

At the time, Wallace was employed as a specimen collector by museums. He was not considered a member of the Victorian scientific establishment.

>
> And, by the way, your request of "one practicing-publishing naturalist in
> Britain or America" is absurd and a little racist....
>
> And, again, "Science" does not accept or reject anything, scientist do and
> some did accept species mutability before 1859.
>
> B
>
> [snip]

It's not racist or absurd to point out that 33 years prior to the publication of the Origin, not one practicing-publishing man of science accepted the mutability of species, not even one.

Ray

[Burkhard]

And that means your claim that, and I quote, "1860 there existed not

even one practicing-publishing naturalist in Britain or America who
accepted the mutability of species, not even one (reference available

upon request)" is proven wrong. Unless you have your own unique meaning
for the word "one" or "not" as you have for so many other things

>How could you miss that?

Because it wasn't the point under contention, which was your specific
statement, I guess.

>Obviously your pro-evolution bias has gotten in the way. The reason no pro-evolution publications appeared during the stated time span is because science accepted observation of design or species immutability.
>
>>
>>>> Robert Chalmers, (1844), Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation
>>>
>>> Chambers, at the time, published anonymously and he wasn't a
>>> practicing-publishing naturalist, but an amateur. If you disagree then
>>> please list Chambers scientific publications that occurred before Vestiges?
>>>
>> So what, he was an amateur and his first edition had several errors and
>> imprecision....
>
> My point was about professional, practicing, publishing naturalists. Not amateurs who published, at the time, anonymously.

Chambers was a professional editor, and contributed numerous pieces of
scientific interest to his journal. And the Vestiges had been read and
greatly influenced many of the professional practicing etc naturalists
of the time, including Bates, Wallace. The Lancet, the foremost medical
science journal, carried a favorable review, the one in the Lancet by
Edward Forbes FRS, FGS, Professor of botany at King's College London and
curator of the Geological Society of London.

Edwin Lankester FRS, FRMS, MRCS had reviewed the first edition,
anonymously btw, which was far less uncommon than you seem to think for
the Atheneaum, one of the leading quarterly reviews of the time, and was
impressed enough to assist with the much improved second edition.
Lankester was at that time President of the British Association and the
founder of the Biological Section of the BA, President of the Royal
Microscopical Society, and elected Fellow of the Royal Society.

Adam Sedgwick, Woodwardian Professor of Geology at Cambridge,wrote a
more critical analysis, also anonymously, in the Edinburgh Review - but
that means he took it serious enough for scientific debate.

So the professional, practicing, publishing naturalists of the time
disagree with your opinion that it was not a contribution to scientific
research.

His collaborator and letter correspondent, Henry Walter Bates, FRS FLS
FGS, discoverer of the eponymous Bates mimicry, would have disagreed. As
would have Darwin, who had read his 1855 paper "On the Law Which Has
Regulated the Introduction of New Species", written to Wallace about it
and praised it greatly.

Wallace's thoughts in that paper on the laws governing the geographic
distribution of related species laid the foundations for his later
recognition as "father of biogeography"

Prior to his famous paper to Darwin, he had published two books (200%
more than you) and several articles, his second expedition was funded by
a research grant from the Royal Geographical Society

>
>>
>> And, by the way, your request of "one practicing-publishing naturalist in
>> Britain or America" is absurd and a little racist....
>>
>> And, again, "Science" does not accept or reject anything, scientist do and
>> some did accept species mutability before 1859.
>>
>> B
>>
>> [snip]
>
> It's not racist

What's borderline racist, or rather chauvinist, is your exclusion of the
many excellent non-English speaking naturalists.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 14:06:12 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<r3p...@gmail.com>:

>On Wednesday, January 10, 2018 at 1:50:04 AM UTC-8, Barba wrote:

>> Ray Martinez <r3p...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> > On Tuesday, January 9, 2018 at 5:25:02 PM UTC-8, Burkhard wrote:

>> >> Ray Martinez wrote:

<snip to the point>

>> >> > Not some people, but it's science that does in fact accept microevolution
>> >> > unanimously. Yet prior to 1860 there existed not even one
>> >> > practicing-publishing naturalist in Britain or America who accepted the
>> >> > mutability of species, not even one (reference available upon request).

>> >> As false as last time you claimed this
>> >>
>> >> Robert Edmond Grant Observations on the nature and importance of geology.
>> >> Edinburgh New Philos. J. (1826) 14, 270-84.:

>> > Note the date (1826) which is 33 years prior to the publication of the
>> > Origin. For the next three decades plus three years no genuine pro-
>> > evolution publication, by a practicing-publishing naturalist, occurred. So,
>> > like I said, prior to 1860 there existed not even one practicing-publishing
>> > naturalist in England who accepted the mutability of species, not even one.

>> So, the fact that one naturalist published about mutability of species is, for
>> you, proof that "not even one practicing-publishing naturalist in England who
>> accepted the mutability of species, not even one." And you talk about
>> "illogical"

>The facts say ONE naturalist published _a_ pro-mutability publication 33 years prior to the Origin of 1859. This means no pro-mutability publications appeared in England between 1826 and 1859. How could you miss that?

Quoted for your post above:

"...prior to 1860 there existed not even one

practicing-publishing naturalist in Britain or America who

accepted the mutability of species, not even one."

That does *not* say "between 1826 and 1859"; it says "prior
to 1860". Is "prior to" yet *another* example of English
words and phrases whose accepted meaning you reject?

<snip>
--

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

[Martin Harran]

No response, Ray?

[freon96]

This is all so simple. A creature kept bumping into things
so it decided to morph photosensitive cells into eyes. Later
it discovered that it couldn't eat what it was bumping into
so it transformed some cells into a mouth. This proves that
a Fairy God Mother watches over us and grants our wishes. We
see these fantastic adjustments all the time but pretend
they're something else.

Bill

[Martin Harran]

On Wed, 17 Jan 2018 13:22:19 -0600, freon96 <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Martin Harran wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 12:20:58 +0000, Martin Harran
>> <martin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 9 Jan 2018 16:58:16 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
>>><r3p...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sunday, January 7, 2018 at 3:35:05 AM UTC-8, Martin
>>>>Harran wrote:
>>>>> Ray,
>>>>>
>>>>> Demonstration of the various stages of development of
>>>>> the eye in various species has been well documented;
>>>>> this is how Jerry Coyne describes the first stages in
>>>>> "Why Evolution is True":
>>>>>
>>>>> "A possible sequence of such changes begins with simple
>>>>> eyespots made of light-sensitive pigment, as seen in
>>>>> flatworms.
>>>>>
>>>>> The skin then folds in, forming a cup that protects the
>>>>> eyespot and allows it to better localize the light
>>>>> source. Limpets have eyes like this.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the chambered nautilus, we see a further narrowing

>>>>> of the cup's opening to produce an improved image [?]

Thank you for reminding us that you haven't the faintest clue about
how evolution actually works.

Not that it really should matter to you as you are convinced that
because we can't know *everything* with certainty, we might as well
assume that everything could be imaginary and that, of course, would
include your own total lack of knowledg - after all, your guesswork
might be more accurate than the conclusions drawn by trained experts
after years of investigation.

[Ray Martinez]

It does. You're misreading.

> As you say yourself, this was 33 years
> prior to the Origins, and that obviously means that Grant is what you
> claim did not text - a publishing naturalist etc etc.

I said a practicing-publishing naturalist who accepted species mutability did not exist in England or America prior to Darwin publishing the Origin in 1859. The preceding statement is true. By your own admission one existed 33 years prior in 1826. This means none existed, not counting Darwin, from 1826 to 1859. It's very hard for me to understand what you don't understand?

Again, I've acknowledged Grant as a practicing-publishing pro-mutability naturalist. But he ceased to be a practicing publishing pro-mutability naturalist in 1826. From this date TO 1859 none existed in England. If you disagree then all you have to do is identify a practicing-publishing naturalist who published a pro-evolution paper or book between 1826 and 1859?

>
> You;ve already imposed a lot of arbitrary restrictions (publishing in
> English e.g.m which excludes some of the most active research centers at
> the time in Germany (with Humboldt) and France to make your claim pretty
> pointless, but the above is simply silly - what do yo expect, a new book
> each day?

I included America. Can you identify even one practicing-publishing American or British naturalist who accepted the mutability of species 33 years prior to 1859?

According to Darwin none existed (Darwin "Autobiography" 1958:123,124).

According to Ronald L. Numbers only one American naturalist, Samuel S. Haldeman, "had expressed any public sympathy" for transmutation prior to 1859 "and even he stopped short of endorsing it" ("Darwinism Comes To America" 1998:24; the President and Fellows of Harvard College).

>
> >
> >>
> >>> Robert Chalmers, (1844), Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation
> >>
> >
> > Chambers, at the time, published anonymously
>
> so what? It's still a publication, that people in authority who were
> unable to refute this type of work resorted to oppression that
> necessitated anonymous publication notwithstanding.

I asked for practicing naturalists----men of science. A perfectly reasonable standard. The point is that transmutation was not accepted scientifically prior to 1859.

>
> Nowhere did you specific that the publication must be under the authros
> own name.

I'm making the point that science did not accept species mutability prior to the rise of Darwinism. Science accepted species immutability.

> >
> and he wasn't a practicing-publishing naturalist, but an amateur. If
> you disagree then please list his scientific publications that were
> published before Vestiges?
> >
> You did not ask for lots of publications, and even with one book, he is
> waaaay ahead of you, despite your announcements over the past decades.
> His Vestiges required actual research, it is a publication and thus
> meets your criteria as stated.

Chambers at the time published anonymously because transmutation was disreputable, and he wasn't a member of the Victorian Lyell-Owen scientific establishment.

>
> As for other publications, he was editor of the Journal of popular
> Literature, Science and the Arts and contributed frequently papers also
> on scientific topics, e.g. the role of electricity in animal muscles
> (No. 455 Volume 18, New Series, September 18, 1852(, Glaciation the Lake
> district (Volume 17, New Series, June 19, 1852) or on how naturalists
> best collect aquatic plants (Volume 18, New Series, July 10, 1852).
> While not deep, and sometimes mere reports, not original research,
> communication with the wider pubic are one role for researchers.
>
> Also, he was a Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, the preeminent
> organization for researchers in that time, with admission strictly on
> merit. He was also Fellow of the Royal Geological Society (just like
> Darwin would be) which was specifically for naturalists.

He published anonymously. Chambers was not a practicing-publishing naturalist at the time. He was a learned amateur.

> ,
> At that time, every field of science was dominated by people we'd call
> today amateurs, that's because the modern scientific industry did not
> exist yet - Darwin also didn't hold a university position, and Chambers
> is closer to a modern understanding of scientists than Paley say by a
> long distance.

Ridiculous.

Again, you're fighting for one person. Let's say we admit Chambers. We can still count the number of pro-mutability naturalists on one hand. This means almost all practicing-publishing naturalists were Creationists and of course Clergymen.

>
>
>
> >
> >>
> >>> Robert Jameson was a Lamarckian who taught Darwin, and another of his
> >>> teachers, John Stevens Henslow accepted what you would call micro
> >>> evolution, that is evolution below the species level
> >>
> >
> > Lamarck wasn't an Evolutionist but a Creationist.
>
> So what, even if one accepts your trained definition of "creationist" -
> you asked for people who reject species fixism, he did.

How desperate are you? Do you realize that you're fighting for persons who accepted real time special creation?

>
> >He accepted special creation to have occurred periodically in real time, which means the changes that he advocated were directed, not evolutionary. This fact dictates that Jameson could not have been an Evolutionist either. Science did not accept species mutability until the rise of Darwinism.
>
> Rather glaring non-sequitur refuted by the facts. They did in fact
> reject fixism and said so explicitly.

One cannot accept periodic special creation and be considered an Evolutionist.

>
> That they also believed in God
> simply shows that your claim that the being a Christian and accepting
> evolution was wrong even before Darwin, but everyone keeps telling you
> that anyway.

A botched statement.

>
> In any case, they are clear counterexamples of your claim - published,

> English speaking, and rejecting fixism.

According to Burk, one can accept periodic interventions and still be identified accurately as an Evolutionist, which is completely illogical.

I've said countless times that Evolutionists think illogically with no awareness of the fact.

Ray

[lbjohn...@yahoo.com]

This is all so simple. A creature kept bumping into things
so it decided to morph photosensitive cells into eyes. Later
it discovered that it couldn't eat what it was bumping into
so it transformed some cells into a mouth. This proves that
a Fairy God Mother watches over us and grants our wishes. We
see these fantastic adjustments all the time but pretend
they're something else.

Bill

Oh cmon! It is a little more complex than that! It had to decide it was
bumping into something first, before it could decide to grow eyes to
make a decision. So the key is self-decision as in “Thou art God”!

Other than that your insight is “ indescribably beautiful “. I’m going to
have it inscribed on a lamp and placed in my front window. (Now, if
I could only think of an appropriate Italian word....hmm)

[Tim Anderson]

You've got your fairytale backwards. Mouths came before eyes by a very large margin of time. It's also possible that mouths came before the ability to bump into anything.

[freon96]

Martin Harran wrote:

...

>>
>>This is all so simple. A creature kept bumping into things
>>so it decided to morph photosensitive cells into eyes.
>>Later it discovered that it couldn't eat what it was
>>bumping into so it transformed some cells into a mouth.
>>This proves that a Fairy God Mother watches over us and
>>grants our wishes. We see these fantastic adjustments all
>>the time but pretend they're something else.
>
> Thank you for reminding us that you haven't the faintest
> clue about how evolution actually works.
>
> Not that it really should matter to you as you are
> convinced that because we can't know *everything* with
> certainty, we might as well
> assume that everything could be imaginary and that, of
> course, would
> include your own total lack of knowledg - after all, your
> guesswork might be more accurate than the conclusions
> drawn by trained experts after years of investigation.

Consider that the training experts receive is to convince
them that their training is worthwhile. The first step is to
develop a special vocabulary with special symbols and terms
and fixed concepts. These experts are tested to ensure they
know what to say when tested. Once this indoctrination is
complete, error become impossible.

Now the Fairy God Mother of Nature has only to speak a wish
into existence, no esoteric incantations required, no need
for convoluted explanations that only make sense to the well
trained expert.

Bill

[Rolf]

"Tim Anderson" <timoth...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0a152094-d0c5-43fc...@googlegroups.com...

> On Thursday, January 18, 2018 at 6:25:03 AM UTC+11, Bill wrote:
>> Martin Harran wrote:
>>
>> > On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 12:20:58 +0000, Martin Harran
>> > <martin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Tue, 9 Jan 2018 16:58:16 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
>> >><r3p...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>On Sunday, January 7, 2018 at 3:35:05 AM UTC-8, Martin
>> >>>Harran wrote:
>> >>>> Ray,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Demonstration of the various stages of development of
>> >>>> the eye in various species has been well documented;
>> >>>> this is how Jerry Coyne describes the first stages in
>> >>>> "Why Evolution is True":
>> >>>>
>> >>>> "A possible sequence of such changes begins with simple
>> >>>> eyespots made of light-sensitive pigment, as seen in
>> >>>> flatworms.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The skin then folds in, forming a cup that protects the
>> >>>> eyespot and allows it to better localize the light
>> >>>> source. Limpets have eyes like this.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> In the chambered nautilus, we see a further narrowing

>> >>>> of the cup's opening to produce an improved image [.]

ISTM reasonable to assume that a mouth or any other means of food intake is
the least expendable feature of any creature? .

[Rolf]

"Ray Martinez" <r3p...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cf875d08-3830-4cfa...@googlegroups.com...

> On Wednesday, January 10, 2018 at 3:30:05 AM UTC-8, Burkhard wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, January 9, 2018 at 5:25:02 PM UTC-8, Burkhard wrote:
>> >>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>> >>>> On Sunday, January 7, 2018 at 3:35:05 AM UTC-8, Martin Harran wrote:
>> >>>>> Ray,
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Demonstration of the various stages of development of the eye in
>> >>>>> various species has been well documented; this is how Jerry Coyne
>> >>>>> describes the first stages in "Why Evolution is True":
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> "A possible sequence of such changes begins with simple eyespots
>> >>>>> made
>> >>>>> of light-sensitive pigment, as seen in flatworms.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> The skin then folds in, forming a cup that protects the eyespot and
>> >>>>> allows it to better localize the light source. Limpets have eyes
>> >>>>> like
>> >>>>> this.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> In the chambered nautilus, we see a further narrowing of the cup's

>> >>>>> opening to produce an improved image [.]

You can repeat that ad nauseam but it would still be false.

ISTM that evolution is a fact, like a perpeteuum mobile.

Immutabilism is a perversion. Mutations happen all the time, they are
inavoidable. They are not always favorable, but they sometimes are! The
basic design(!) of an animal is a tube with an opening at each end: Front,
intake; rear, exhaust..

Rolf

> Ray
>

[Burkhard]

The explanation why it is nonsensical is directly below.

>
>> As you say yourself, this was 33 years
>> prior to the Origins, and that obviously means that Grant is what you
>> claim did not text - a publishing naturalist etc etc.
>
> I said a practicing-publishing naturalist who accepted species mutability did not exist in England or America prior to Darwin publishing the Origin in 1859. The preceding statement is true. By your own admission one existed 33 years prior in 1826. This means none existed, not counting Darwin, from 1826 to 1859. It's very hard for me to understand what you don't understand?

Because that "logic" is idiotic even by your won low standards. Your
claims is that there was no naturalist etc before 1859 I gave you one
from 1826. !826 is before 1859. Therefore there was a publishing etc
naturalist etc before 1859. Did you not learn subtraction at school?

>
> Again, I've acknowledged Grant as a practicing-publishing pro-mutability naturalist. But he ceased to be a practicing publishing pro-mutability naturalist in 1826. From this date TO 1859 none existed in England.

So what? Your claim was not" There was no practicing etc naturalist
between 1826 to 1859", but "There was no practicing etc naturalist
before 1859"

>If you disagree then all you have to do is identify a practicing-publishing naturalist who published a pro-evolution paper or book between 1826 and 1859?

I disagree that this matters for your claim even the tiniest bit. And
Grant was still alive in 1859, so even by your weird logic he still
existed then.

By your logic, there was no publishing theologian advocating
immutability before Paley published Natural Theology, because there
probably was no to other publication just on the day before the 1.1.1802
when he piblished his book

>
>>
>> You;ve already imposed a lot of arbitrary restrictions (publishing in
>> English e.g.m which excludes some of the most active research centers at
>> the time in Germany (with Humboldt) and France to make your claim pretty
>> pointless, but the above is simply silly - what do yo expect, a new book
>> each day?
>
> I included America.

But you excluded arbitrarily every other country.

Can you identify even one practicing-publishing American or British
naturalist who accepted the mutability of species 33 years prior to 1859?

Yes, Grant. And the others I listed whom you also disregard for
arbitrary reasons.

>
> According to Darwin none existed (Darwin "Autobiography" 1958:123,124).
>
> According to Ronald L. Numbers only one American naturalist, Samuel S. Haldeman, "had expressed any public sympathy" for transmutation prior to 1859 "and even he stopped short of endorsing it" ("Darwinism Comes To America" 1998:24; the President and Fellows of Harvard College).

I've given you several counterexamples who meet, for everyone to see,
even your most criteria as originally stated.

>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Robert Chalmers, (1844), Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation
>>>>
>>>
>>> Chambers, at the time, published anonymously
>>
>> so what? It's still a publication, that people in authority who were
>> unable to refute this type of work resorted to oppression that
>> necessitated anonymous publication notwithstanding.
>
> I asked for practicing naturalists----men of science.

I'm talking here about your new criteria of "not anonymously". Nicolaus
Copernicus put forward his theory of heliocentrism anonymously, in the
form of a manuscript now known as the Commentariolus for which anonymous
publication was the norm. In 1908, English chemist William Sealy Gosset,
published a statistical result under the pseudonym of ‘Student’
introduced a method for establishing the statistical significance of
differences in means - the Student's t-test is the basis of much of
modern science. Sophie Germain submitted two groundbreaking essays on
elasticity theory anonymously, and published others pseudonymously.
Isaac Newton published some works as "Jehovah Sanctus Unus'

It was more often found, for various reasons, in the earlier days of
science, but you find it throughout the centuries, and nobody claims
these are not valid scientific contributions.

>
>A perfectly reasonable standard. The point is that transmutation was not accepted scientifically prior to 1859.

If this were the question, excluding non-English speaking scientists
would be even more nonsensical.

But it isn't. The question is your specific claim that there was not a
single publishing etc naturalist prior to Origins who accpeted
transmutation.

>
>>
>> Nowhere did you specific that the publication must be under the authors

>> own name.
>
> I'm making the point that science did not accept species mutability prior to the rise of Darwinism. Science accepted species immutability.

Under discussion is not if science accepted transmutability, under
discussion is your specific claim that there was not a single scientists
prior to Darwin who did, two very different claims. If you want to
rescind your claim and discuss something else, by all means go ahead.
But the issue here is solely whether there was a single etc...

>
>>>
>> and he wasn't a practicing-publishing naturalist, but an amateur. If
>> you disagree then please list his scientific publications that were
>> published before Vestiges?
>>>
>> You did not ask for lots of publications, and even with one book, he is
>> waaaay ahead of you, despite your announcements over the past decades.
>> His Vestiges required actual research, it is a publication and thus
>> meets your criteria as stated.
>
> Chambers at the time published anonymously because transmutation was disreputable, and he wasn't a member of the Victorian Lyell-Owen scientific establishment.

The reason why he published anonymously is as irrelevant for the issue
under discussion as the fact that he did. as for his interaction withthe
establishment, again this is yet another arbitrary criteria that you now
add to your initial claim - what else? There was no red-haired left
handed Arsenal supporting naturalist taller than 5ft8 prior to Darwin?

>
>>
>> As for other publications, he was editor of the Journal of popular
>> Literature, Science and the Arts and contributed frequently papers also
>> on scientific topics, e.g. the role of electricity in animal muscles
>> (No. 455 Volume 18, New Series, September 18, 1852(, Glaciation the Lake
>> district (Volume 17, New Series, June 19, 1852) or on how naturalists
>> best collect aquatic plants (Volume 18, New Series, July 10, 1852).
>> While not deep, and sometimes mere reports, not original research,
>> communication with the wider pubic are one role for researchers.
>>
>> Also, he was a Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, the preeminent
>> organization for researchers in that time, with admission strictly on
>> merit. He was also Fellow of the Royal Geological Society (just like
>> Darwin would be) which was specifically for naturalists.
>
> He published anonymously.

He published one of his works anonymously, I gave examples of other
publications above - publications that you requested I might add, only
to ignore them now.

> Chambers was not a practicing-publishing naturalist at the time. He was a learned amateur.

So was Darwin, by modern standards. By the standards of the time, he was
every bit, and in fact more, a naturalist than Paley.

>
>> ,
>> At that time, every field of science was dominated by people we'd call
>> today amateurs, that's because the modern scientific industry did not
>> exist yet - Darwin also didn't hold a university position, and Chambers
>> is closer to a modern understanding of scientists than Paley say by a
>> long distance.
>
> Ridiculous.

Chambers, unlike Paley, carried out original research for the Vestiges,
traveled and made observations. He then gives his findings a by that
time novel interpretation. New data and new theories is what we call
science. There is not a single new observation in Paley's book, he never
spend a day doing fieldwork or in the laboratory. Every fact he uses,
someone else discovered. And neither does he introduce a single new
theoretical concept. Rather, he takes research proper naturalists have
done and uses them to build a theological doctrine. By your won
criteria,he was neither trained as a scientist, nor did he ever held a
scientific appointment Chamber by contrast was member of the relevant
professional bodies of research-active scientists. So yes, he would be a
much better candidate for an active scientists by today's standards than
Paley.

>
> Again, you're fighting for one person. Let's say we admit Chambers.

Then your claim is falsified. A single counter example is sufficient if
the claim is that "Not a single one... did X"

>We can still count the number of pro-mutability naturalists on one
hand. This means almost all practicing-publishing naturalists were
Creationists and of course Clergymen.

Sure, a different claim, and not the one under discussion here.

>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Robert Jameson was a Lamarckian who taught Darwin, and another of his
>>>>> teachers, John Stevens Henslow accepted what you would call micro
>>>>> evolution, that is evolution below the species level
>>>>
>>>
>>> Lamarck wasn't an Evolutionist but a Creationist.
>>
>> So what, even if one accepts your trained definition of "creationist" -
>> you asked for people who reject species fixism, he did.
>
> How desperate are you?

Not desperate, just unlike you sticking to the point and being capable
of basic logical reasoning.

>Do you realize that you're fighting for persons who accepted real time special creation?

I'm not "fighting for" anyone, I give a relevant counterexample ot the
specific claim regarding mutability.

>
>>
>>> He accepted special creation to have occurred periodically in real time, which means the changes that he advocated were directed, not evolutionary. This fact dictates that Jameson could not have been an Evolutionist either. Science did not accept species mutability until the rise of Darwinism.
>>
>> Rather glaring non-sequitur refuted by the facts. They did in fact
>> reject fixism and said so explicitly.
>
> One cannot accept periodic special creation and be considered an Evolutionist.

The question is not "were there evolutionists before Darwin", the
question was were there people who accepted species mutability.

>
>>
>> That they also believed in God
>> simply shows that your claim that the being a Christian and accepting
>> evolution was wrong even before Darwin, but everyone keeps telling you
>> that anyway.
>
> A botched statement.

Doesn't surprise that you think it is. It is of course a simple
application of classical logic on my side. Laplace was a Christian. He
also developed a theory of evolutionary change. He lived before Darwin.
Therefore even before Darwin there were Christians who saw no problem
with species transmutation and evolution.

>
>>
>> In any case, they are clear counterexamples of your claim - published,
>> English speaking, and rejecting fixism.
>
> According to Burk, one can accept periodic interventions and still be identified accurately as an Evolutionist, which is completely illogical.

Maybe by your idiosyncratic meaning of "logic" which means :everything
Ray does not understand or contradicts something he wants to belief. "

For everyone else, I gave a clear counterexample to your claim, which ou
evade by changing arbitrarily the criteria.

>
> I've said countless times that Evolutionists think illogically with no awareness of the fact.

Yes, you said it countless times, and you were provably worg every
single time.
>
> Ray
>

[jillery]

On Thu, 18 Jan 2018 09:22:39 +0000, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>

I propose the adoption of a new word, "worg", to mean an expressed
objection or line of reasoning which is not only factually incorrect,
and not only incoherent, and not completely irrelevant to any comment
which preceded it, but is so to such a degree that one is left with a
sense of cognitive chaos

As its inventor, you are entitled to all rights and privileges
pertaining thereto.

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

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[jillery]

On Thu, 18 Jan 2018 06:39:40 -0500, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Make the above "not only completely irrelevant". My bad.

[Ernest Major]

On 18/01/2018 09:22, Burkhard wrote:
> Doesn't surprise that you think it is. It is of course a simple
> application of classical logic on my side. Laplace was a Christian. He
> also developed a theory of evolutionary change. He lived before Darwin.
> Therefore even before Darwin there were Christians who saw no problem
> with species transmutation and evolution.

Lamarck? Laplace was the mathematician and physicist famously noted for
not needing to invoke God to explain the motions of the solar system.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Burkhard]

sorry, yes of course Lamarck. Laplace entered my mind because he too
once published anonymously, "Notice sur les probabilites," published in
the Annuaire of the Bureau des Longitudes in 1810 - Ray seems to think
that disqualifies a work from counting as a scientific publication.

[Burkhard]

Ah, and your comment about the solar system triggered memory of another
famous anonymous publication - Kant anonymously published in 1755 the
"Allgemeine Naturgeschichte und Theorie des Himmels oder Versuch von der
Verfassung und dem mechanischen Ursprunge des ganzen Weltgebäudes nach
Newtonischen Grundsätzen abgehandelt" (Universal Natural History and
Theory of Heaven, or attempt on the Constitution and the mechanical
origins of the whole universe by Netwonian principles)

Laplace would develop his own theory independently 40 years or so later,
but we still call it Kant-Laplace-Theorie, even though Kant was arguably
closer to modern ideas than Laplace.

These theories too replaced a "fixist" predecessor with a "mutationist"
one where star systems and galaxies are periodically formed from
interstellar clouds.

[Martin Harran]

On Wed, 17 Jan 2018 18:56:52 +0000, Martin Harran

So Ray can't explain why the appearance of design is evidence of
design but appearance of sequential development is not evidence of
sequential development.

A clear demonstration of how Ray cherry picks his evidence.

[Rolf]

"Ray Martinez" <r3p...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:8878b644-3ca6-4a1a...@googlegroups.com...

But what's the point? Darwin and Wallce both realized that species evolve by
the mechanism of Natural Selection. What more is there to say? NS and
evolutuon is a fact, always was and forever will be. The asssumption so dear
to Ray, that everything is designed by his invisible designer is just that,
an assumption with no relevance to reality
.
By now, it is very safe to assume that God never interfere with events on
this planet or any other object in the universe, from the tiniest atom to
the universe itself.

Besides, it seems that Ray doesn't have many followers sharing his
anti-science opinion .He's fighting a desperate battle to preserve the image
of the omnipotent creator, "God".

ISTM to me he has not made the slightest dent in the version of the world
presented by science, in contrast to the legends and myths invented by the
ignorant ancients thousands of years ago. Because they didn't know and had
no means of learning about the origins of the world, our planet and the
solar system with all its wonders. Ignorant, only because they didn't have
any means of learning the facts - inventing myths as a substitute to fill
the gap.

After the flop of Ray's bold project of "tearing down Darwin" , he is like
a fish out of water. All his arguments boils down to a version of Goddidit.
Dembski's version is better.

Rolf

> Ray
>