Welcome Patrick Hickman

[Cary Cook]

We have a new member: truth seeker and Christian freethinker Patrick Hickman.

I’m sure he will correct me if he has an issue with either of those labels.

 

Cary

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

[Brady]

Welcome Patrick!

I hope you enjoy your time here.

G. Brady Lenardos

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BYS vs MH" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bys-vs-mh+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/5f0f8c86.1c69fb81.dfb5a.7b34SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING%40gmr-mx.google.com.

[Just the Truth]

Thank you both. Cary those definitions work well.

[Cary Cook]

Brady is our Apologist in Chief. I recommend his discussion (TAG Defective?) with atheist Bill Zuersher.

 

Got scientific problems?  I recommend Ctn physicist, and Old Earth Creationist, Don Stoner.

 

But if you just want truth, ignore everyone but me.

 

Ron Morley is here too, but hasn't been active.

 

Cary

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BYS vs MH" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bys-vs-mh+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/8e77eeac-6623-4e53-b3d2-fc4b70f2d9cco%40googlegroups.com.

 

[don stoner]

Hi Patrick,

Be aware that Cary often uses terms which he defines slightly differently than normal usage might imply.

Other than that, he and I are generally able to work out mutually acceptable agreements most of the time.

- Don

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/5f0fc908.1c69fb81.c74e7.7ff1SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING%40gmr-mx.google.com.

[Just the Truth]

What's an Old Earth Creationist defined as? I'm aware of young earth, not old earth.

[don stoner]

There are actually quite a few gradations:

Y.E.C. non-standard chronology, standard creationist (fails standard laws of physics) - e.g. Ken Ham

O.E.C. standard chronology, standard creationist (fails some fossil evidence) - e.g. Glen Morton

O.E.C.(pe) standard chronology, punctuated-equilibrium creation (unaware of any failures) - e.g. Yours Truly

T.Ev.(g) standard chronology, gradualist creation (fails p.e. fossil evidence details) - e.g. Francis Collins

Ev.(pe)  standard chronology, punctuated-equilibrium evolution (fails population-dynamics mathematics) - e.g. Stephen Gould

Ev.(g)    standard chronology, gradualist evolution (fails p.e. fossil evidence details) - e.g. Richard Dawkins

- Don Stoner

On Wednesday, July 15, 2020, 09:15:39 PM PDT, Just the Truth <usm...@gmail.com> wrote:

What's an Old Earth Creationist defined as? I'm aware of young earth, not old earth.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BYS vs MH" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bys-vs-mh+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/959c7381-8c17-4aa5-89a4-d07d9959abbeo%40googlegroups.com.

[Just the Truth]

Ok, I probably fall close to your camp then. Ken Ham is a nut btw.

[don stoner]

Patrick-

That would tend to come with a general disregard for the laws of physics.

-Don

On Thursday, July 16, 2020, 06:15:14 AM PDT, Just the Truth <usm...@gmail.com> wrote:

Ok, I probably fall close to your camp then. Ken Ham is a nut btw.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BYS vs MH" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bys-vs-mh+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/11819dda-2a7d-47e8-9d81-66e080dc8485o%40googlegroups.com.

[Ronald Morley]

Hi Don,

What is the "T" in Collins' model? 

Also, is the Cambrian Explosion the only prominent place where pe occurs?

Ron

(There you go, Cary, I posted. I'm kidding, you're correct, but I spend too much damn time on the faultline conversations)

[Just the Truth]

Don,

As in how the laws of thermodynamics often do not apply to the big bang theory?

[Just the Truth]

Hi Ron!

[Ronald Morley]

Good to see you here Patrick!!

On Thursday, July 16, 2020 at 4:11:43 PM UTC-7, Patrick Hickman wrote:

Hi Ron!

[don stoner]

Hi Ron,

Sorry, "TEv" was supposed to refer to Theistic Evolution.

For many years this was kind of the standard position of most protestants.

Although the "Cambrian Explosion" was certainly a remarkable "discontinuity" in the rate of speciation, it was a sufficiently ancient event that it is difficult to resolve the timing of different individual emergences -- and "punctuations" are defined as a large amount of mutation withina single species which occurs more rapidly than would be expected based on normal mutation rates coupled with survival fitness.

P.E. (particularly the equilibria part ) is observed throughout the fossil record, but clear evidence for punctuation shows up most clearly primarily in the past few million years -- where the best chronological detail is still preserved.

More detail (likely more than really interests you):

One excellent study was reported in Stefan Bornholdt's "The Dynamics of Large Biological Systems: A

Statistical Physics View of Macroevolution. See:

https://www.amazon.com/Evolutionary-Dynamics-Exploring-Neutrality-Complexity-dp-0195142659/dp/0195142659/ref=mt_other?_encoding=UTF8&me=&qid=1594942595 (pp.65-78)

I quote from section 2. on p.67:

The picture of biological evolution that Charles Darwin drew more than a century ago is remarkably up to date, Competition between species and selection of the fittest proves to be a useful hypothesis for explaining most of the observational picture of biological evolution. However, one prominent and highly nontrivial aspect of the evolutionary record is not part of this picture: The largely discontinuous nature of the emergence of new species observed in the fossil record, which Eldredge and Gould [6] coined "punctuated equilibrium." While the Darwinian picture assumes smooth adaptation and gradual speciation, the fossil record shows speciation mostly as discontinuous jumps in morphology space that cannot be further resolved on the stratigraphic time scale of the fossil record. An example is shown in figure 1. Hardly any gradual change is seen in the branching of many species, in contrast to the central postulate of gradual evolution in Darwin's original theory. For a long time this had been assigned to the incompleteness of the fossil record and a major critic of Darwinian evolution was the large number of "missing links" in this sense. However, today it is well established that speciation occurring in a noncontinuous fashion is the rule rather than the exception in the fossil record. This evidence has first been carefully documented by Schindewolf [23], but found wider acceptance only after further work by Eldredge and Gould [8] and several years of active discussion in the scientific community[10,11].

What is the underlying reason for this remarkable dynamical feature of macroevolution? A convincing model for this behavior is still lacking. Ultimately, any valid theory of macroevolution should be able to provide a mechanism that explains this dynamics.

In section 3. the author cites Sepkoski's database of about 50,000 marine genera as a valuable resource for testing future theories [22, 25].

On one hand we have the field workers: Throughout his books, Gould repeatedly explains that this discontinuous process is what is always seen in the fossil record. Paleoanthropologists like Johanson and the Leaky clan universally acknowledge this feature of the fossil record in their books.

On the other, the theoretical and laboratory researchers, like Dawkins, who understand the theoretical basis of Darwin's theory, and its repeated verification in laboratory species having extremely large population sizes (e.g. bugs and bacteria) -- and the apparent absence in small populations (e.g. endangered species) -- unlike pests and diseases, the hunted don't simply evolve every few years to get the jump on the hunters.

The field experts know that P.E. is what DID happen -- ignoring the mathematical/theoretical basis (population dynamics) for Darwin's theory, the theorists and lab researchers know that gradualism MUST HAVE HAPPENED -- holding the theoretical basis (including philosophical naturalism) to be true at the cost of  ignoring the fossil evidence.  Truth seekers are kind of forced into either the position I have taken, or at least into one which is very close to it.

In case you are really a glutton for annoying detail:

http://www.dstoner.net/Philosophy_Religion/SurMom.html

Since the Gould-Dawkins debate (and especially since Gould's death), the two camps appear (mostly) to have worked out some kind of truce where they have stopped debating each other publicly to preserve outward appearances.

- Don

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bys-vs-mh+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/87d9cb17-17a3-4fe7-9840-01e241aa460co%40googlegroups.com

.