Malthus and favorable variations being preserved.

29 views
Skip to first unread message

backspace

unread,
Dec 11, 2011, 4:48:05 AM12/11/11
to
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/29/natsel.html

Darwin (1958, p. 120) concluded after he read Malthus' work on
population that, ". . . it at once struck me that under these
circumstances favorable variations would tend to be preserved and
unfavorable ones destroyed. The result of this would be the formation
of new species."

Other than noting the variations were preserved , how does fellow YEC
Jerry Bergman determine that Darwin measured their favorability ?

Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org

unread,
Dec 11, 2011, 8:54:17 AM12/11/11
to
1958? Oh, well. Read on: elsewhere in the article, JB asserts that
the Darwinian measure of favourable variation is the number of
offspring produced.

This is not accurate in reality or in Darwin's thinking. Your
offspring have to survive to produce offspring themselves, or it
doesn't count. Although, being still short, that's probably too
simple, as well.

In a review of a TV nature documentary that I might be able to find,
the reviewer was struck by the fact that the many spores or eggs
released by some underwater plant, animal, whatever, are almost all
eaten by a species that lives only on this food.

And there's the rhyme about the codfish and the hen.

Species do the measuring of favourable adaptation themselves; if they
survive and reproduce, they're favoured.

Ron O

unread,
Dec 11, 2011, 9:21:01 AM12/11/11
to
Have you ever thought of spending your time reading actual scientific
articles instead of creationist claptrap?

Why not get a textbook like Futuyma's Evolutionary Biology? After you
have mastered that start reading journals like Evolution.

You might actually learn something instead of letting your brain
continue to rot. Really, for all the time you have wasted on
creationist claptrap you could have gotten a legitimate degree in the
subject.

Ron Okimoto

backspace

unread,
Dec 11, 2011, 10:53:06 AM12/11/11
to
On Dec 11, 1:54 pm, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
orig...@moderators.isc.org" > Species do the measuring of favourable
adaptation themselves; if they
> survive and reproduce, they're favoured.

By this logic anything that exists if favored for being in existence,
which is what Darwin's logic reduces to.

IN the context that Darwin used favourable and preserved; these
dissimilar terms self-referentially refer to
the same fact, saying the same thing twice, making his conclusion(new
species) a non-sequitur.

Lets elaborate on his tautology with other examples using the same
terms:
Favorable copper atoms were preserved or copper were favorable for
preservation. But everything in existence is favorable for being
preserved: this says that the same thing twice. We can reduce
DArwin's tautology to a truism:

1) Species are preserved and therefore new species will arise.

There is no need to say that favorable species are preserved, the fact
that they are preserved implies they were favorable. He then
associated this tautological bafoonism with Patrick Matthew's 'natural
means of competitive selection' , contracting it to 'natural
selection' in order to avoid crediting Matthew.

The last 150 years everybody have been formulating *meaningless
sentences* because they did't use 'natural selection' as the metaphor
for Matthew's 'natural means of competitive selection', they had no
idea what they were saying.

Bob Casanova

unread,
Dec 11, 2011, 12:34:08 PM12/11/11
to
On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 07:53:06 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
<steph...@gmail.com>:

>On Dec 11, 1:54 pm, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
>orig...@moderators.isc.org" > Species do the measuring of favourable
>adaptation themselves; if they
>> survive and reproduce, they're favoured.

>By this logic anything that exists if favored for being in existence,

Not quite: Any species which exists is comprised of
individuals whose ancestors were survivors of a selection
process performed by the environment. You'll note that this
reverses the cause/effect of your statement.

>which is what Darwin's logic reduces to.

Since Darwin's forte was primarily observation, and his
conclusions were based on that observation, how does your
evaluation of his logic enter the question?

<snip additional errors>
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

backspace

unread,
Dec 11, 2011, 1:00:47 PM12/11/11
to
On Dec 11, 5:34 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 07:53:06 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
> <stephan...@gmail.com>:
>
> >On Dec 11, 1:54 pm, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
> >orig...@moderators.isc.org" > Species do the measuring of favourable
> >adaptation themselves; if they
> >> survive and reproduce, they're favoured.
> >By this logic anything that exists if favored for being in existence,
>
> Not quite: Any species which exists is comprised of
> individuals whose ancestors were survivors of a selection
> process performed by the environment. You'll note that this
> reverses the cause/effect of your statement.
>
> >which is what Darwin's logic reduces to.
>
> Since Darwin's forte was primarily observation, and his
> conclusions were based on that observation, how does your
> evaluation of his logic enter the question?
>
> <snip additional errors>
> --
>
> Bob C.
>
> "Evidence confirming an observation is
> evidence that the observation is wrong."
>                           - McNameless

Rephrase, replacing selection with Erasmus Darwin's cultivation as in
Artificial cultivation from his book Zoonomia. Darwin lifted AC and
changed it to AS and Patrick Matthew restated Buffon, Lamarck and
Erasmus as shown by http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Samuel_Butler:

Rephrase:
Any species which exists is comprised of individuals whose ancestors
were survivors of a CULTIVATION process performed by the
environment.

Rephrase again in terms of Patrick Matthew:

Species are comprised of individuals whose ancestors were survivors of
a CULTIVATION process performed by the environment.

Reduce again:
Species consist of individuals who survived the CULTIVATION process
performed by the environment.

Finally:
Species consist of those who survived the 'competitive means of
natural cultivation' by the environment.

Possible interpretation:
New species who's ancestors didn't possess the present attributes were
constituted with new attributes
by surviving the 'competitive means of natural cultivation' by the
environment'.

Further interpretation:
Anything that exists obtained attributes that weren't previously there
by out-competing the other
within a competitive cultivating environment'.

Which Reduces to Democritus Atomism or what Henry Fairfield Osborn
referred to as the 'Doctrine of Atoms' - http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/HenryFairfieldOsborn
in his book: From the Greeks to Darwin.

Democritus believed that atoms existed for eternity , thus he didn't
have to explain where they came from in the first place. The present
atoms obtained attributes they did not previously posses via the
'natural means of competitive selection,cultivation or survival',
while the atoms they competed against didn't obtain the attributes and
were thus eliminated.

Problem with this story is that it is http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Popper
unfalsifiable, because we would be told the same thing if the other
atom came to dominate its atomic ecological niche.
















David Hare-Scott

unread,
Dec 11, 2011, 4:24:33 PM12/11/11
to
Laaaadeeeees and Gemums place your bets!

How many iterations will it be before "measuring favourability" becomes
"survival of the fittest is a tautology"?

a) two

b) three

c) four

d) more than four

I will put $100 on b)

David

Burkhard

unread,
Dec 11, 2011, 5:11:19 PM12/11/11
to
Sure, and if people tell you that Manchester United won the premier
league last season, you'll ask them how else apart from scoring more
goals than their competitors their success was measured. You then
follow it up by saying that "Manchester won the premier league" is a
tautology since if Arsenal had won the trophy, you'd have been given the
same story about them scoring more goals than their competitors.


Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org

unread,
Dec 11, 2011, 5:44:16 PM12/11/11
to
Dude. <http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/
0fec01be77523654>

Backsie's first reply in this thread, and it's "tautology", "truism", /
and/ "non sequitur".

On reflection, this session may have been a cunning trick to get us to
read Jerry Bergman's article. I'm sorry I didn't detect that. Of
course that's going to be mainly a "spot the deliberate untruth, false
misunderstanding, and slanted adverb" exercise.

Bob Casanova

unread,
Dec 12, 2011, 5:00:56 PM12/12/11
to
On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 10:00:47 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
<steph...@gmail.com>:

>On Dec 11, 5:34 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 07:53:06 -0800 (PST), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
>> <stephan...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> >On Dec 11, 1:54 pm, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
>> >orig...@moderators.isc.org" > Species do the measuring of favourable
>> >adaptation themselves; if they
>> >> survive and reproduce, they're favoured.
>> >By this logic anything that exists if favored for being in existence,
>>
>> Not quite: Any species which exists is comprised of
>> individuals whose ancestors were survivors of a selection
>> process performed by the environment. You'll note that this
>> reverses the cause/effect of your statement.
>>
>> >which is what Darwin's logic reduces to.
>>
>> Since Darwin's forte was primarily observation, and his
>> conclusions were based on that observation, how does your
>> evaluation of his logic enter the question?

OK so far, although the term "cultivation" has connotations
of intent not justified by the lack of intent in the
process. So your rephrase and interpretation adds no
clarity; in fact, it reduces it.

>Which Reduces to Democritus Atomism or what Henry Fairfield Osborn
>referred to as the 'Doctrine of Atoms' - http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/HenryFairfieldOsborn
>in his book: From the Greeks to Darwin.
>
>Democritus believed that atoms existed for eternity , thus he didn't
>have to explain where they came from in the first place. The present
>atoms obtained attributes they did not previously posses via the
>'natural means of competitive selection,cultivation or survival',
>while the atoms they competed against didn't obtain the attributes and
>were thus eliminated.

Oops; no, it doesn't. Atoms are unchangeable (except through
processes which are predictable regarding the change itself
and the pathway). There is no "evolution" of atoms in the
sense of biological evolution.

>Problem with this story is that it is http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Popper
>unfalsifiable, because we would be told the same thing if the other
>atom came to dominate its atomic ecological niche.

You seem to think that since *some* descendants will replace
the original population (assuming the species doesn't go
extinct with no descendant species) this is somehow a
problem for evolution. It's not, since evolution only
predicts that in general a population will comprise those
descendants whose ancestors were best adapted to the
environment in which they lived.

But since your analogy (atoms vs living things) is incorrect
you have no point.

Kermit

unread,
Dec 13, 2011, 1:40:28 PM12/13/11
to
On Dec 11, 7:53 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 11, 1:54 pm, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
> orig...@moderators.isc.org" > Species do the measuring of favourable
> adaptation themselves; if they
>
> > survive and reproduce, they're favoured.
>
> By this logic anything that exists if favored for being in existence,
> which is what Darwin's logic reduces to.

Evolutionary theory, which is no longer Darwin's, is only concerned
with biological evolution.

> IN the context that Darwin used favourable and preserved; these
> dissimilar terms self-referentially refer to
> the same fact, saying the same thing twice, making his conclusion(new
> species) a non-sequitur.

The winner of the race is the one who comes in first.
By your logic, this is not true, and therefore it means nothing to say
that races are usually won by somebody.

But anybody half a brain knows that there are *reasons why the
winner won. These possible explanations include:
The winner is the oldest of several children, giving him an advantage
in strength, leg length, etc.
The winner is taller or has other genetic characteristics favoring
race winning.
The winner is experienced, and therefore can pace himself better.
The winner is a trained athlete, and the others are not.
The winner cheated.
Etc.

When Darwin used the phrase "survival of the fittest" (which he did
not come up with) It was shorthand for saying that those organisms
which are best suited for an environment are mostly likely to have
offspring, and their characteristics will therefore spread throughout
the gene pool. If conditions favor those characteristics for a
prolonged period, then profound differences will accumulate in that
species.

When you ignore what scientists (starting with Darwin) say about the
effects of those accumulated changes (different alleles) in a species,
you are not hiding the evidence, you are only demonstrating your own
dishonesty.

Among other things, you are arguing (poorly) against the possibility
of breeding any domestic animals or plants. Word magic and deliberate
misrepresentations will not make the evidence go away.

<snip absurdist forced derivations from the above obtuse claim>

Kermit

backspace

unread,
Dec 13, 2011, 2:25:43 PM12/13/11
to
On Dec 13, 6:40 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> When Darwin used the phrase "survival of the fittest" (which he did
> not come up with) It was shorthand for saying that those organisms
> which  are best suited for an environment are mostly likely to have
> offspring, and their characteristics will therefore spread throughout
> the gene pool.

It was Wallace that suggested that NS be used as a metaphor for SoF.
In another context ns can be used as a metaphor for Preferential
decision - http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Preferential_decision

See http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology for the Wallace issue.
The last 150 years NS wasn't used as a metaphor for anything by
various authors , thus they formulated http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Meaningless_sentence

"Best suited" and "most likely to have offspring" self-referentially
refers to the same fact, saying the same thing twice using dissimilar
terms, meaning that any conclusion is a non-sequitur.

> If conditions favor those characteristics for a
> prolonged period, then profound differences will accumulate in that
> species.

Which is an indisputable proposition and thus not a theory. A theory
can in principle be disputed. We are only after theories, not
unfalsifiable facts or propositions.

Burkhard

unread,
Dec 13, 2011, 2:37:58 PM12/13/11
to
On Dec 13, 7:25 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 13, 6:40 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > When Darwin used the phrase "survival of the fittest" (which he did
> > not come up with) It was shorthand for saying that those organisms
> > which  are best suited for an environment are mostly likely to have
> > offspring, and their characteristics will therefore spread throughout
> > the gene pool.
>
> It was Wallace that suggested that NS be used as a metaphor for SoF.
> In another context ns can be used as a metaphor for Preferential
> decision -http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Preferential_decision
>
> Seehttp://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTologyfor the Wallace issue.
> The last 150 years NS wasn't used as a metaphor for anything by
> various authors , thus they formulatedhttp://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Meaningless_sentence
>
> "Best suited"  and "most likely to have offspring" self-referentially
> refers to the same fact, saying the same thing twice using dissimilar
> terms, meaning that any conclusion is a non-sequitur.
>
> > If conditions favor those characteristics for a
> > prolonged period, then profound differences will accumulate in that
> > species.
>
> Which is an indisputable proposition and thus not a theory. A theory
> can in principle be disputed. We are only after theories, not
> unfalsifiable facts or propositions.

The above could easily be disputed if you observed a world in which
nothing ever changes, or changes occur all the time and too rapidly
to establish patterns.

Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org

unread,
Dec 13, 2011, 2:40:20 PM12/13/11
to
Some atom isotope nuclei are unstable with a short decay half-life,
some have a long half-life, some are basically stable. Over time, the
short half-life isotopes decay quickly and convert to other, less
stable or more stable nuclei, but we end up with mainly stable and
nearly-stable nuclei, with short-life atoms appearing mainly as the
result of decay of long-life nuclei, and of cosmic rays and such.

So, selection here consists mostly of not spontaneously ceasing to
exist.

backspace

unread,
Dec 13, 2011, 3:17:30 PM12/13/11
to
On Dec 12, 10:00 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 10:00:47 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
> <stephan...@gmail.com>:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Dec 11, 5:34 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 07:53:06 -0800 (PST), the following
> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
> >> <stephan...@gmail.com>:
>
> >> >On Dec 11, 1:54 pm, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
> >> >orig...@moderators.isc.org" > Species do the measuring of favourable
> >> >adaptation themselves; if they
> >> >> survive and reproduce, they're favoured.
> >> >By this logic anything that exists if favored for being in existence,
>
> >> Not quite: Any species which exists is comprised of
> >> individuals whose ancestors were survivors of a selection
> >> process performed by the environment. You'll note that this
> >> reverses the cause/effect of your statement.
>
> >> >which is what Darwin's logic reduces to.
>
> >> Since Darwin's forte was primarily observation, and his
> >> conclusions were based on that observation, how does your
> >> evaluation of his logic enter the question?
> >Rephrase, replacing selection with Erasmus Darwin's cultivation as in
> >Artificial cultivation from his book Zoonomia. Darwin lifted AC and
> >changed it to AS and Patrick Matthew restated Buffon, Lamarck and
> >Erasmus as shown byhttp://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Samuel_Butler:
> >referred to as the 'Doctrine of Atoms'  -http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/HenryFairfieldOsborn
> >in his book: From the Greeks to Darwin.
>
> >Democritus believed that atoms existed for eternity , thus he didn't
> >have to explain where they came from in the first place. The present
> >atoms obtained attributes they did not previously posses via the
> >'natural means of competitive selection,cultivation or survival',
> >while the atoms they competed against didn't obtain the attributes and
> >were thus eliminated.
>
> Oops; no, it doesn't. Atoms are unchangeable (except through
> processes which are predictable regarding the change itself
> and the pathway). There is no "evolution" of atoms in the
> sense of biological evolution.
>
> >Problem with this story is that it ishttp://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Popper
> >unfalsifiable, because we would be told the same thing if the other
> >atom came to dominate its atomic ecological niche.
>
> You seem to think that since *some* descendants will replace
> the original population (assuming the species doesn't go
> extinct with no descendant species) this is somehow a
> problem for evolution. It's not, since evolution only
> predicts that in general a population will comprise those
> descendants whose ancestors were best adapted to the
> environment in which they lived.
>
> But since your analogy (atoms vs living things) is incorrect
> you have no point.
> --
>
> Bob C.
>
> "Evidence confirming an observation is
> evidence that the observation is wrong."
>                           - McNameless

In pigeons we can *select* or *cultivate* as in Erasmus Darwin's
Artificial Cultivation for chars. we desire. Wild pigeons and AC
pigeons both implemented gyro, IMU control algorithms and compensate
for their magnetometer delay using some type of feed-forward control.
In magnetometers used on UAV's the delay is 0.08seconds between
readings, which given the speed a uav travels at leads to orientation
errors and thus feed-forward control is used to compensate .

The uav isn't adapted or adapting to anything, it only expresses its
attributes. Wild pigeons surviving natures 'natural competitive
selection,survival,accumulation or cultivation' process as well as
pigeons bred in captivity for certain attributes still do only one
thing: express pre-existing control algorithm attributes that their
ancestors possessed.

At no point in time were the present attributes acquired, they were
there hidden in the genome. Feed-forward control , PID or what pigeons
use Neural network control were present in both the artificially
cultivated(selected) and *naturally selected,preserved* pigeons.

Control engineers inform us that control theory involves an
indissoluble association between mathematical constructs. This control
algorithm was passed from pigeon to pigeon in an Behe IC or D'Arcy
Wentworth Thompson 'composite integrity' manner. The algorithm was
'there' somewhere 'waiting' for the chick to grow and finally
stabilize itself in flight.

Where exactly was this algorithm stored and how did this algorithm get
transferred from the blob of amino acids that formed the egg? The
algorithm was stored in the mind of Jesus Christ it has no physical
location.

backspace

unread,
Dec 13, 2011, 3:27:33 PM12/13/11
to
Again, we find the same forms, or forms which (save for external
ornament) are mathematically identical, repeating themselves in all
periods of the world's geological history ; and, irrespective of
climate or local conditions, we see them mixed up, one with another,
in the depths and on the shores of every sea. It is hard indeed (to my
mind) to see where Natural Selection necessarily enters in, or to
admit that it has had any share whatsoever in the production of these
varied conformations. Unless indeed we use the term Natural Selection
in a sense so wide as to deprive it of any purely biological
significance; and so recognize as a sort of Natural Selection
whatsoever nexus of causes suffices to differentiate between the
likely and the unlikely, the scarce and the frequent, the easy and the
hard : and leads accordingly, under the peculiar conditions,
limitations and restraints which we call "ordinary circumstances," one
type of crystal, one form of cloud, one chemical compound, to be of
frequent occurrence and another to be rare. -

By D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson -
http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/D%27Arcy_Wentworth_Thompson

I don't understand the passage quoted from Thompson, would somebody
explain it to me please.

Burkhard

unread,
Dec 13, 2011, 3:48:57 PM12/13/11
to
Mhh, I guess some people would find the claim Chris had a pigeon brain
offensive, but I guess it takes all sorts.

Ray Martinez

unread,
Dec 13, 2011, 4:27:55 PM12/13/11
to
Because the writings of Darwinists are so nonsensical and illogical,
Creationists seek out the writings of other Creationists hoping to
obtain a better understanding. The problem is that the claims of
Darwinists are so outlandish we humbly assume that we have
misunderstood. Backspace, by his own admission, who is normally an
excellent critic of Darwinism, is having trouble understanding Jerry
Bergman----so he asks an honest question. Bergman is attempting to
explain the claims of Darwin; hence the real problem here: the claims
of Charles Darwin. If Darwin wasn't involved then there would be no
misunderstandings or OP.

I have been reading the writings of Darwin for many years now. In the
quote below I know Darwin is recounting how he came across the idea of
something he calls "natural selection." But other than that I
literally have no clue as to what he is talking about. I interpret the
quote to be some sort of Atheist masturbation fantasy, material nature
originating species instead of immaterial Intelligence?

#1 Chez Watt of all time belongs to Charles Darwin (from the OP):

"I happened to read for amusement Malthus on Population, and being
well prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence which
everywhere goes on from long-continued observation of the habits of
animals and plants, it at once struck me that under these
circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and
unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The result of this would be the
formation of new species" (Autobio: 120).

Perhaps you or your good friend Tony Pagano could tell me if I have
understood?

Tony is not only well versed in geocentrism, but he also accepts
microevolution, common descent and of course natural selection (in
case you didn't know).

Ray

Kermit

unread,
Dec 13, 2011, 4:48:50 PM12/13/11
to
On Dec 13, 11:25 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 13, 6:40 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > When Darwin used the phrase "survival of the fittest" (which he did
> > not come up with) It was shorthand for saying that those organisms
> > which  are best suited for an environment are mostly likely to have
> > offspring, and their characteristics will therefore spread throughout
> > the gene pool.
>
> It was Wallace that suggested that NS be used as a metaphor for SoF.
> In another context ns can be used as a metaphor for Preferential
> decision -http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Preferential_decision
>
> Seehttp://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTologyfor the Wallace issue.
> The last 150 years NS wasn't used as a metaphor for anything by
> various authors , thus they formulatedhttp://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Meaningless_sentence
>
> "Best suited"  and "most likely to have offspring" self-referentially
> refers to the same fact, saying the same thing twice using dissimilar
> terms, meaning that any conclusion is a non-sequitur.

So, are you saying that we cannot in principle determine why the
winner of the race won?

Also, of course, we do not conclude anything from your insipid straw
man. Instead we ask "Why did these organisms thrive and not those?"
and "what processes were involved in the various species changing over
time?".

We do not say "Gosh. Species changed over time. We know that because
they are different than they used to be. What can we conclude from
that?"

We ask "Why and how did they change?".

>
> > If conditions favor those characteristics for a
> > prolonged period, then profound differences will accumulate in that
> > species.
>
> Which is an indisputable proposition and thus not a theory. A theory
> can in principle be disputed. We are only after theories, not
> unfalsifiable facts or propositions.

The fact that species change profoundly over time is an indisputed
proposition?

No, it's an observation based on data from a number of fields of
science, and it is very much disputed (but not in the scientific
community). I am glad to see that you accept it, however.

Why you would call it untestable, however, is a puzzle. (Not really, I
know that your modus operandi is obfuscation - this is a rhetorical
question.

Kermit



Kermit

unread,
Dec 13, 2011, 4:57:08 PM12/13/11
to
On Dec 13, 12:27 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Again, we find the same forms, or forms which (save for external
> ornament) are mathematically identical, repeating themselves in all
> periods of the world's geological history ; and, irrespective of
> climate or local conditions, we see them mixed up, one with another,
> in the depths and on the shores of every sea. It is hard indeed (to my
> mind) to see where Natural Selection necessarily enters in, or to
> admit that it has had any share whatsoever in the production of these
> varied conformations. Unless indeed we use the term Natural Selection
> in a sense so wide as to deprive it of any purely biological
> significance; and so recognize as a sort of Natural Selection
> whatsoever nexus of causes suffices to differentiate between the
> likely and the unlikely, the scarce and the frequent, the easy and the
> hard : and leads accordingly, under the peculiar conditions,
> limitations and restraints which we call "ordinary circumstances," one
> type of crystal, one form of cloud, one chemical compound, to be of
> frequent occurrence and another to be rare. -
>
> By D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson -http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/D%27Arcy_Wentworth_Thompson
>
> I don't understand the passage quoted from Thompson, would somebody
> explain it to me please.

Do you have anything written in the last 100 years?

Do you have anything to say about the evidence, the science?

We really don't give a damn about your religious obsessions with
prophets and founders and moral authorities. Science studies reality.
The evidence is what counts.

An idea may be advanced slightly sooner because a bright mind was born
at a particular time, but the available evidence is what primarily
determines the nature of current theories. Without Wallace and Darwin,
evolutionary science would look very much the same today.

Kermit

Karel

unread,
Dec 13, 2011, 4:57:53 PM12/13/11
to
To appreciate Darwin's eureka-moment it is good to remember
what Malthus was claiming: that populations, if unchecked,
would increase in a power series which could not be matched
by increases in resources and that therefore population
increase would run into a wall of (relatively) diminishing
resources.

It is unclear to me if Darwin ever accepted Malthus completely,
but it is clear what he picked up from him: in the natural world
much more progeny is generated than can sustained by the
resources of the environment (observed fact); resulting in a
severe culling of the progeny (observed fact); offering the
circumstances in which favourable variations would be preserved
(the anchor point for his subsequent research).

Regards,

Karel

Frank J

unread,
Dec 13, 2011, 4:59:57 PM12/13/11
to
Just a comment on the "Tony...accepts...common descent." What made you
conclude that? The best I can recall from the rare times he alludes to
his own position instead of obsessing over "Darwinism" (like you and
every other anti-evolution activist ant troll) is that he went from
YEC to OEC, then back, bypassing the more common heliocentric YEC and
going straight to geocentric YEC. Which strongly suggests that he
thinks that many "kinds" popped up independently from nonliving
matter, as you apparently believe. So if you have any evidence to the
contrary I'll be glad to revise my assessment.

Though I should add that anyone who evades questions about which
"kinds" do not share common ancestors, or *when* those "kinds"
originated, can be reasonably suspected of privately accepting common
descent. Though they all have a huge incentive to never admit it.
>
> Ray- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Kermit

unread,
Dec 13, 2011, 5:07:55 PM12/13/11
to
Please explain how you determined this. Please offer a cite or link to
the evidence.

>
> At no point in time were the present attributes acquired, they were
> there hidden in the genome.

So your ability to believe post that claim was in the genome of our
amphibious ancestors (Tiktaalik or something similar)?

> Feed-forward control , PID or what pigeons
> use Neural network control were present in both the artificially
> cultivated(selected) and *naturally selected,preserved* pigeons.

Please offer evidence for your claim that new phenotypes were "in the
genome" of ancestral species.

>
> Control engineers inform us that control theory involves an
> indissoluble association between mathematical constructs. This control
> algorithm was passed from pigeon to pigeon in an Behe IC

Which he admitted under oath was bogus.

> or D'Arcy
> Wentworth Thompson 'composite integrity' manner.

Thompson was a serious scientist, but not mainstream. His ideas were
overstated but important. Chemistry and physics constrain living
organisms but are not the main reason for the *differences between a
species and others, whether contemporary, ancestral, or descendants.

> The algorithm was
> 'there' somewhere 'waiting' for the chick to grow and finally
> stabilize itself in flight.

But not in its remote ancestors. I'm not sure that algorithm is an
appropriate term here.

>
> Where exactly was this algorithm stored and how did this algorithm get
> transferred from the blob of amino acids that formed the egg?

There is no algorithm, there are only molecules doing the chemistry
that molecules do.

> The
> algorithm was stored in the mind of Jesus Christ it has no physical
> location.

Your imagination only; I agree.

Kermit

John Harshman

unread,
Dec 13, 2011, 5:16:04 PM12/13/11
to
Common descent is a matter of degree. Ray denies that any two species
are related. Tony accepts that some species are related, though he will
never quite say which ones. So Tony accepts common descent to a greater
degree than Ray does, though not to the degree reasonable people do.

Ray Martinez

unread,
Dec 13, 2011, 6:28:48 PM12/13/11
to
CD, contrary to the belief of JH, is not "a matter of degree."
Rejecting the existence of CD, as I do, falsifies the matter to be
about degree. The fact that Tony accepts CD to any degree, like JH,
means he accepts the concept to exist in nature.

What Tony does not understand is that the concept and term belongs to
a large set of terms and concepts that describe the consequences of
natural agency (that is, causation that originates in and from the
closed system of Nature itself). Since Tony claims to be an IDist he
needs to adopt and accept concepts and terms that correspond to
Intelligent agency, not natural agency. Both are mutually exclusive.

It is manifestly unreasonable to believe species produce species based
on the fact that the concept of design is observed in every aspect of
nature. The observation tells objective people that Intelligent agency
is operating in nature, causing species to exist, not natural agency.

Ray

Ray Martinez

unread,
Dec 13, 2011, 6:49:16 PM12/13/11
to
If you are seconding? then you must say so.

Ray

John Harshman

unread,
Dec 13, 2011, 6:59:17 PM12/13/11
to
Ray, Ray, Ray. Of course you accept common descent. You accept it within
species only, but you do accept it. And of course it's a matter of
degree, as you tacitly acknowledge by the phrase "to any degree". You
try to put a sharp dividing line between within-species descent and
across-species descent and erase all other possible lines, but that's
just your own obsession talking, not any feature of the concept itself.

> What Tony does not understand is that the concept and term belongs to
> a large set of terms and concepts that describe the consequences of
> natural agency (that is, causation that originates in and from the
> closed system of Nature itself). Since Tony claims to be an IDist he
> needs to adopt and accept concepts and terms that correspond to
> Intelligent agency, not natural agency. Both are mutually exclusive.

You remind me of nothing so much as a Trotskyist battling a Stalinist,
or a Homoousian fighting a Homoiousian.

> It is manifestly unreasonable to believe species produce species based
> on the fact that the concept of design is observed in every aspect of
> nature.

Why is common descent incompatible with design? What if god made
occasional tweaks in otherwise perfectly ordinary zygotes?

> The observation tells objective people that Intelligent agency
> is operating in nature, causing species to exist, not natural agency.

Do you think that descent within species happens? Is it natural?

Dana Tweedy

unread,
Dec 13, 2011, 7:44:02 PM12/13/11
to
He's not "seconding", Ray. He's trying to explain to you what Darwin
meant. Like usual, you miss the point entirely.



DJT

Dana Tweedy

unread,
Dec 13, 2011, 7:42:46 PM12/13/11
to
On 12/13/11 2:27 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Dec 11, 6:21 am, Ron O<rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Dec 11, 3:48 am, backspace<stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/29/natsel.html
>>
>>> Darwin (1958, p. 120) concluded after he read Malthus' work on
>>> population that, ". . . it at once struck me that under these
>>> circumstances favorable variations would tend to be preserved and
>>> unfavorable ones destroyed. The result of this would be the formation
>>> of new species."
>>
>>> Other than noting the variations were preserved , how does fellow YEC
>>> Jerry Bergman determine that Darwin measured their favorability ?
>>
>> Have you ever thought of spending your time reading actual scientific
>> articles instead of creationist claptrap?
>>
>> Why not get a textbook like Futuyma's Evolutionary Biology? After you
>> have mastered that start reading journals like Evolution.
>>
>> You might actually learn something instead of letting your brain
>> continue to rot. Really, for all the time you have wasted on
>> creationist claptrap you could have gotten a legitimate degree in the
>> subject.
>>
>> Ron Okimoto
>
> Because the writings of Darwinists are so nonsensical and illogical,
> Creationists seek out the writings of other Creationists hoping to
> obtain a better understanding.

Ray, have you noticed whenever you accuse "evolutionists" of being
"nonsensical" or "illogical" you always present examples of your
nonsense, and illogic?




> The problem is that the claims of
> Darwinists are so outlandish we humbly assume that we have
> misunderstood.

Most often, you have misunderstood, not because of any "outlandishness"
of commonplace claims made by scientists.




> Backspace, by his own admission, who is normally an
> excellent critic of Darwinism, is having trouble understanding Jerry
> Bergman----so he asks an honest question. Bergman is attempting to
> explain the claims of Darwin; hence the real problem here: the claims
> of Charles Darwin. If Darwin wasn't involved then there would be no
> misunderstandings or OP.

Doesn't follow, Ray. This is a good illustration of your own illogic.




>
> I have been reading the writings of Darwin for many years now.


How? if you can't even understand Hume, how are you reading Darwin?



> In the
> quote below I know Darwin is recounting how he came across the idea of
> something he calls "natural selection." But other than that I
> literally have no clue as to what he is talking about. I interpret the
> quote to be some sort of Atheist masturbation fantasy, material nature
> originating species instead of immaterial Intelligence?

Since Darwin wasn't an atheist, why make that interpretation?
"Material nature" has been observed to produce things. "Immaterial
intelligence" has never been observed to produce anything.



>
> #1 Chez Watt of all time belongs to Charles Darwin (from the OP):
>
> "I happened to read for amusement Malthus on Population, and being
> well prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence which
> everywhere goes on from long-continued observation of the habits of
> animals and plants, it at once struck me that under these
> circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and
> unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The result of this would be the
> formation of new species" (Autobio: 120).
>
> Perhaps you or your good friend Tony Pagano could tell me if I have
> understood?

Like usual, Ray, you've misunderstood.



>
> Tony is not only well versed in geocentrism, but he also accepts
> microevolution, common descent and of course natural selection (in
> case you didn't know).

Natural selection is a well attested in nature. That you deny it just
indicates your own lack of intelligence.

DJT

Dana Tweedy

unread,
Dec 13, 2011, 7:53:37 PM12/13/11
to
Between you and Tony it is, Ray. Like usual, you misunderstood.



> Rejecting the existence of CD, as I do, falsifies the matter to be
> about degree.

Except that John wasn't saying you accept a degree of common descent.



> The fact that Tony accepts CD to any degree, like JH,
> means he accepts the concept to exist in nature.

Which only means that Tony is slightly less ignorant than you are, Ray.



>
> What Tony does not understand is that the concept and term belongs to
> a large set of terms and concepts that describe the consequences of
> natural agency (that is, causation that originates in and from the
> closed system of Nature itself).

Of course, those "consequences" occur if one assumes that a supernatural
being is responsible for those processes as well. It doesn't matter if
nature is a "closed system" or has input from the supernatural. Natural
selection still operates the same either way.


This is one of Ray's major mistakes. Naturally, he refuses to admit
this mistake, no matter how often it's pointed out to him.




> Since Tony claims to be an IDist he
> needs to adopt and accept concepts and terms that correspond to
> Intelligent agency, not natural agency. Both are mutually exclusive.

Except that they are not mutually exclusive, as has been pointed out to
Ray many times. This is another mistake he refuses to admit.




>
> It is manifestly unreasonable to believe species produce species based
> on the fact that the concept of design is observed in every aspect of
> nature.

As already shown to Ray,(and he refuses to admit) concepts cannot be
observed, as they are abstractions. Ray is unable to state what
features he feels corresponds to a "concept of design", that would be
diagnostic of actual design, as opposed to the mere appearance of design.

Moreover, there's no reason why the appearance of design cannot exist
along side a process by which species beget other species.

Will Ray admit his errors in logic here? Not likely.




> The observation tells objective people that Intelligent agency
> is operating in nature, causing species to exist, not natural agency.

Since no such "observation" is possible, without stating what features
are unique to "design" as opposed to appearance of design, it can't
"tell" anyone, anything. Ray assumes his own conclusion, and mistakenly
assumes himself to be "objective".

DJT

John Harshman

unread,
Dec 13, 2011, 9:22:35 PM12/13/11
to
You mean between Tony and almost everyone else. If we accept that common
descent means "between species", then Ray rejects it absolutely, but
Tony doesn't.

>> Rejecting the existence of CD, as I do, falsifies the matter to be
>> about degree.
>
> Except that John wasn't saying you accept a degree of common descent.

Indeed I wasn't, but it's true that he does unless you take the term to
have an implied "between species" added after.

>> The fact that Tony accepts CD to any degree, like JH,
>> means he accepts the concept to exist in nature.
>
> Which only means that Tony is slightly less ignorant than you are, Ray.

On some subjects. Remember that Ray is at least a heliocentrist. Then
again, Tony doesn't seem to confuse concepts with phenomena.

>> What Tony does not understand is that the concept and term belongs to
>> a large set of terms and concepts that describe the consequences of
>> natural agency (that is, causation that originates in and from the
>> closed system of Nature itself).
>
> Of course, those "consequences" occur if one assumes that a supernatural
> being is responsible for those processes as well. It doesn't matter if
> nature is a "closed system" or has input from the supernatural. Natural
> selection still operates the same either way.
>
> This is one of Ray's major mistakes. Naturally, he refuses to admit
> this mistake, no matter how often it's pointed out to him.

If you believe Ray, there's nothing natural about it.

>> Since Tony claims to be an IDist he
>> needs to adopt and accept concepts and terms that correspond to
>> Intelligent agency, not natural agency. Both are mutually exclusive.
>
> Except that they are not mutually exclusive, as has been pointed out to
> Ray many times. This is another mistake he refuses to admit.

I believe the inability to reason is God's punishment of Ray for
believing in creationism.

>> It is manifestly unreasonable to believe species produce species based
>> on the fact that the concept of design is observed in every aspect of
>> nature.
>
> As already shown to Ray,(and he refuses to admit) concepts cannot be
> observed, as they are abstractions. Ray is unable to state what
> features he feels corresponds to a "concept of design", that would be
> diagnostic of actual design, as opposed to the mere appearance of design.
>
> Moreover, there's no reason why the appearance of design cannot exist
> along side a process by which species beget other species.
>
> Will Ray admit his errors in logic here? Not likely.
>
>> The observation tells objective people that Intelligent agency
>> is operating in nature, causing species to exist, not natural agency.
>
> Since no such "observation" is possible, without stating what features
> are unique to "design" as opposed to appearance of design, it can't
> "tell" anyone, anything. Ray assumes his own conclusion, and mistakenly
> assumes himself to be "objective".

That's because he's an objectivist.

jillery

unread,
Dec 13, 2011, 9:31:04 PM12/13/11
to
Yes, with the caveat that "favorable" doesn't imply some intrinsic
superiority to any variation, but is instead defined by the
environment at the time of the culling.

I find compelling Darwin's analogy wrt artificial selection. Natural
selection is artificial selection with people replaced by Malthusian
culling.

T Pagano

unread,
Dec 13, 2011, 9:31:25 PM12/13/11
to
In what way is there something wrong with Darwin's reasoning? Darwin
extrapolated from Malthus's hypothesis about human events to the
biological world in general. That is, he hypothesized that perhaps
all (or most) populations sharing ecological niches always and
everywhere fought to consume limited resources. If true it would be a
driving force in differential survival and differential reproduction.
In hind sight we know that Darwin's extrapolation of Malthus's
hypothesis is not true. And Darwin's assumption that favorable
mutations tend to be preserved is likewise not known to be true.
Nonetheless our hind sight doesn't turn Darwin's conjectures into
something untoward.







>>>>> Tony is not only well versed in geocentrism, but he also accepts
>>>>> microevolution, common descent and of course natural selection (in
>>>>> case you didn't know).

1. I never claim to be well versed in anything. Instead I repeatedly
admit my infinite ignorance.

2. While I don't like the term "microevolution," (and rarely use it)
there is little controvery about its use. It is little more than a
short hand label for any observable change from one generation to the
next. For example, the relative change in the numbers of light to
dark moths over time in a particular population.
a. I don't have to irrationally deny microevolutionary change
(as does Ray) to deny that atheists have been wholly unable to show
that such changes explain the origin of a single structure, system or
creature.
b. Ray's claim of immutability; that is, his position that
there is absolutely no change from one generation to the next is
nonsense and evidence that he is delusional.

3. Likewise there is little to upset me about the label "common
descent" since it means little more than "a set of individuals share a
common ancestor." Ray's family tree is evidence of "common descent."
a. Again I don't have to irrationally deny common descent (as does
Ray) to deny that atheists have been wholly unable to show any
continuity from extant life back to some unknown First Common
Ancestor.
b. Ray's absolutionism in this instance makes him appear
delusional.

4. While atheists have inappropriately and inaccurately
anthropomorphized "natural selection" it was neverthless a wonderfully
interesting insight on the part of Darwin. Ray's delusional denials
notwithstanding "natural selection" is nothing more than a term which
collects the process of "differential survival" and "differential
reproduction" which are quite observable.
a. Again I don't have to irrationally deny "natural
selection" (as does Ray) to point out that it is largely conservative
and has never been shown to be a force for progression, coherent
change. David Wolpert proved that all evolutionary algorithms are no
better at finding a fitness peak than a dumb, blind search.
b. Ray's denialism makes him look delusional.


>>>> Just a comment on the "Tony...accepts...common descent." What made you
>>>> conclude that?

Limited Common Descent is indisputable. I doubt the Theory of Common
Descent which claims that all species share common ancestors in a
continuous, unbroken line to the First Common Ancestor.

>>>> The best I can recall from the rare times he alludes to
>>>> his own position instead of obsessing over "Darwinism" (like you and
>>>> every other anti-evolution activist ant troll) is that he went from
>>>> YEC to OEC, then back, bypassing the more common heliocentric YEC and
>>>> going straight to geocentric YEC.

I don't obsess over Darwinism. I argue unequivocally that it is
false. Darwin admitted that the fossil record did not show the
continuity and transformationism his theory predicted. The fossil
record shows nothing new today. Lenski's 20+ year, 40,000+ generation
E coli experiment mirrors in the living world exactly what the 800
million year fossil record shows---discontinuity, stasis, and
limited/bounded change.



>>>> Which strongly suggests that he
>>>> thinks that many "kinds" popped up independently from nonliving
>>>> matter, as you apparently believe. So if you have any evidence to the
>>>> contrary I'll be glad to revise my assessment.

Scripture's historical sketch of special creation of discontinuous
kinds is corroborated by the fossil record. It corroborates Special
Creation and not the ubiquitious, transformational change explained by
Darwin's theory.

>>>> Though I should add that anyone who evades questions about which
>>>> "kinds" do not share common ancestors, or *when* those "kinds"
>>>> originated, can be reasonably suspected of privately accepting common
>>>> descent. Though they all have a huge incentive to never admit it.

The kinds were created approximately 6000-10000 years ago. I have
repeatedly admitted that I simply don't know how to define "kind." I
suggest that the kinds (whatever they might be) constitute the roots
of several trees of common descent. I suggest that all the
information necessary for any divergence from root to nodes was
contained in the root. This is a wild ass guess which is not
contradicted by the fossil record or the living world. Common descent
is not denied only its extent.

Our own Dr Theobald's relatively recent interesting scientific article
purports to show that several "trees" is less likely than one. As of
yet I don't have the time to adequately review his argument but intend
to.


>>> Common descent is a matter of degree. Ray denies that any two species
>>> are related. Tony accepts that some species are related, though he will
>>> never quite say which ones. So Tony accepts common descent to a greater
>>> degree than Ray does, though not to the degree reasonable people do.

Common descent is undeniable. And limited, minor change from one
generation to the next within populations is undeniable. What I doubt
is the uwarranted extrapolations drawn from these facts.



>>
>> CD, contrary to the belief of JH, is not "a matter of degree."
>> Rejecting the existence of CD, as I do, falsifies the matter to be
>> about degree. The fact that Tony accepts CD to any degree, like JH,
>> means he accepts the concept to exist in nature.

Ray's family tree is evidence of limited common descent.

And cichlid speciation (and their observable species flocks) is
evidence that species are not nearly as immutable as Ray believes.
Furthermore the fact that they are not immutable does not imply that
some purely naturalistic process possesed the power to create them in
the first place.



>
>Ray, Ray, Ray. Of course you accept common descent. You accept it within
>species only, but you do accept it. And of course it's a matter of
>degree, as you tacitly acknowledge by the phrase "to any degree". You
>try to put a sharp dividing line between within-species descent and
>across-species descent and erase all other possible lines, but that's
>just your own obsession talking, not any feature of the concept itself.
>
>> What Tony does not understand is that the concept and term belongs to
>> a large set of terms and concepts that describe the consequences of
>> natural agency (that is, causation that originates in and from the
>> closed system of Nature itself).

Ray is both deluded and confused. Ray has failed to show that
observable natural processes with limited causal power is incompatible
with Special Creation in particular or Dembski's ID in general.



>> Since Tony claims to be an IDist he
>> needs to adopt and accept concepts and terms that correspond to
>> Intelligent agency, not natural agency. Both are mutually exclusive.

Since Ray takes events in biological prehistory and history in
absolutist terms he assumes that everyone must do so. That I think
there is merit to Dembski's theory and that ID explains some events
does not require that I presume it explains every event.

And while Ray takes an ID absolutism with regard to the origin of
biological entities he takes a decidedly naturalistic position with
regard to the origin of the material world in general and the geologic
prehistory/history of the earth in particular. This is inconsistent,
irrational and ultimately delusional.

>
>You remind me of nothing so much as a Trotskyist battling a Stalinist,
>or a Homoousian fighting a Homoiousian.

>
>> It is manifestly unreasonable to believe species produce species based
>> on the fact that the concept of design is observed in every aspect of
>> nature.

This presumes that the arbitrary classification "species" also
possesses the attribute of immutability. Since we can plainly see
that population groups classified as "species" are obviously not
"immutable" Ray's whole house of cards collapses. Immutability is
the false thread that runs throughout Ray's arguments. His book
whether it ever actually arrives will, for this reason, be dead on
arrival.



>
>Why is common descent incompatible with design?

Ray never says.


Regards,
T Pagano

Ray Martinez

unread,
Dec 13, 2011, 10:06:08 PM12/13/11
to
All this says is that YOU cannot fathom what is meant when one says he
rejects the concept of CD as existing in nature. In other words you
are totally brainwashed by Darwinism.

There is no such thing as CD "within species." Variation itself is not
microevolution or CD. You are attempting to cover your tracks by
changing the subject to how CD allegedly occurs (birth)? Why?

> And of course it's a matter of
> degree, as you tacitly acknowledge by the phrase "to any degree".

The context was persons who accept concept existence (you and Tony).

> You
> try to put a sharp dividing line between within-species descent and
> across-species descent and erase all other possible lines, but that's
> just your own obsession talking, not any feature of the concept itself.
>

The concept of "common descent" does not exist in nature. I stand with
Linnaeus, Cuvier, Paley, Sedgwick, and very many other natural
theologians. Your comments might apply to Tony (who has Kurt Wise in
his corner, LOL), but you need to come to grips with the meaning of
"rejection" and "non-existence." These do not convey exceptions.

> > What Tony does not understand is that the concept and term belongs to
> > a large set of terms and concepts that describe the consequences of
> > natural agency (that is, causation that originates in and from the
> > closed system of Nature itself). Since Tony claims to be an IDist he
> > needs to adopt and accept concepts and terms that correspond to
> > Intelligent agency, not natural agency. Both are mutually exclusive.
>
> You remind me of nothing so much as a Trotskyist battling a Stalinist,
> or a Homoousian fighting a Homoiousian.
>
> > It is manifestly unreasonable to believe species produce species based
> > on the fact that the concept of design is observed in every aspect of
> > nature.
>
> Why is common descent incompatible with design? What if god made
> occasional tweaks in otherwise perfectly ordinary zygotes?
>

CD was accepted as being caused by unintelligent natural agencies
originating in and from the closed system of Nature itself. The
preceding claim of fact rejects, a priori, existence of design because
design can only originate outside of the closed system of Nature (from
Heaven). If design exists CD is illusory (to be kind), delusion (to be
accurate). In addition: both concepts, CD and design, presuppose
antonymic agents of causation. Either you are genuinely ignorant of
these basic facts or you are engaged in propaganda, attempting to keep
people like Dana Tweedy and Tony Pagano (CEists) in the prison of
pernicious misunderstanding. Since you are a declared Atheist, the
latter must be true.

> > The observation tells objective people that Intelligent agency
> > is operating in nature, causing species to exist, not natural agency.
>
> Do you think that descent within species happens? Is it natural?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Natural causation (Naturalism-Materialism), as understood since the
rise of Darwinism, does not exist.

The delusion is working on persons who accept evolution, not God. But
Dawkins and I agree that a delusion is at work.

Ray (anti-evolutionist)

Ray Martinez

unread,
Dec 13, 2011, 10:54:33 PM12/13/11
to
On Dec 13, 6:31 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 15:59:17 -0800, John Harshman
>

While we are led to believe that Tony is replying to JH, the actual
content is directed at me, by name.
Imagine that; Tony the "Creationist and IDist" agrees with the Father
of Atheist "science." It was Darwin's theory that science came to
accept. He used fully materialist assumptions and interpretations to
explain nature (Materialism). Yet Tony the "Creationist and IDist"
kisses Darwin's Atheist ass from the get-go ("is there something wrong
with Darwin's reasoning"?). The Old Testament calls this bowing down
to Baal. The New Testament depiction is more graphic: Judas, while
under the direct control of Satan, kissed Jesus while betraying Him to
His enemies (in this case Tony betrays Christ while doing the bidding
of Darwin, Dawkins and Harshman). Tony is under the same control. This
is why we have faith, good or bad, whatever the Bible says is true.

"DURING THESE two years [1] 1837-1838] I was led to think much about
religion. Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, and I
remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though
themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable
authority on some point of morality. I suppose it was the novelty of
the argument that amused them. But I had gradually come, by this time
[1837-1838], to see that the Old Testament from its manifestly false
history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, the rainbow as a sign,
etc., etc., and from its attributing to God the feelings of a
revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of
the Hindoos, or the beliefs of any barbarian....By further reflecting
that the clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man
believe in the miracles by which Christianity is supported,—that the
more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do
miracles become,—that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous
to a degree almost incomprehensible by us,—that the Gospels cannot be
proved to have been written simultaneously with the events,—that they
differ in many important details, far too important as it seemed to me
to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eye-witnesses;—by such
reflections as these, which I give not as having the least novelty or
value, but as they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in
Christianity as a divine revelation....Thus disbelief crept over me at
a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that
I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single
second that my conclusion was correct. I can indeed hardly see how
anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true" (Charles Darwin, Autobio:
85; [1] "October 1836 to January 1839.—F. D.").

My on-going claim is that Tony is ignorant and/or confused and/or
deluded. Real Creationists and IDists do not accept material
assumptions and side with Atheists; rather, real Creationists and
IDists accept immaterial assumptions. Harshman must be estatic with
the fact that ***Tony Pagano*** accepts the main claim of Atheism:
natural causation-selection.

No such phenomenon exists in nature; except in the deluded minds of
Atheists and confused "Creationists and IDists."

Genesis is true: God Himself causes each new species to exist (Special
Creation). Tony does not understand that Immaterial agency, and
material agency as understood since the rise of Darwinism, are
mutually exclusive, enemy combatants. And he has not the integrity to
admit to such an elementary error. I think I have explained why,
above.

Ray (anti-evolutionist)

John Harshman

unread,
Dec 13, 2011, 10:55:51 PM12/13/11
to
It's not universally true, but it is true often enough. Further, it's
even more often true that there are many more organisms born than can
survive. So it's looking good for Darwin so far.

> And Darwin's assumption that favorable
> mutations tend to be preserved is likewise not known to be true.

What? Of course it is. Besides, how could it be false? What could make
favorable mutations tend not to be preserved?

> Nonetheless our hind sight doesn't turn Darwin's conjectures into
> something untoward.

>
>>>>>> Tony is not only well versed in geocentrism, but he also accepts
>>>>>> microevolution, common descent and of course natural selection (in
>>>>>> case you didn't know).
>
> 1. I never claim to be well versed in anything. Instead I repeatedly
> admit my infinite ignorance.

About everything?

> 2. While I don't like the term "microevolution," (and rarely use it)
> there is little controvery about its use. It is little more than a
> short hand label for any observable change from one generation to the
> next. For example, the relative change in the numbers of light to
> dark moths over time in a particular population.
> a. I don't have to irrationally deny microevolutionary change
> (as does Ray) to deny that atheists have been wholly unable to show
> that such changes explain the origin of a single structure, system or
> creature.
> b. Ray's claim of immutability; that is, his position that
> there is absolutely no change from one generation to the next is
> nonsense and evidence that he is delusional.

It's never been completely clear what Ray is claiming.

> 3. Likewise there is little to upset me about the label "common
> descent" since it means little more than "a set of individuals share a
> common ancestor." Ray's family tree is evidence of "common descent."
> a. Again I don't have to irrationally deny common descent (as does
> Ray) to deny that atheists have been wholly unable to show any
> continuity from extant life back to some unknown First Common
> Ancestor.
> b. Ray's absolutionism in this instance makes him appear
> delusional.

There's plenty of delusional to go around.

> 4. While atheists have inappropriately and inaccurately
> anthropomorphized "natural selection" it was neverthless a wonderfully
> interesting insight on the part of Darwin. Ray's delusional denials
> notwithstanding "natural selection" is nothing more than a term which
> collects the process of "differential survival" and "differential
> reproduction" which are quite observable.

Not quite. "differential reproduction correlated with genotype"; the
extra is necessary; otherwise it would include purely stochastic variation.

> a. Again I don't have to irrationally deny "natural
> selection" (as does Ray) to point out that it is largely conservative
> and has never been shown to be a force for progression, coherent
> change. David Wolpert proved that all evolutionary algorithms are no
> better at finding a fitness peak than a dumb, blind search.

No he didn't. If you don't believe me, ask Wolpert. NFL assumes that
success is averaged over all possible fitness surfaces, the vast
majority of which have no correlation among adjacent genotypes. But this
is nothing like what we see in nature. Success isn't averaged over all
possible fitness surfaces, only over the particular surface that exists,
and in real fitness surfaces, adjacent genotypes are most definitely
correlated.

> b. Ray's denialism makes him look delusional.

Again, there's plenty of delusional to go around.

>>>>> Just a comment on the "Tony...accepts...common descent." What made you
>>>>> conclude that?
>
> Limited Common Descent is indisputable. I doubt the Theory of Common
> Descent which claims that all species share common ancestors in a
> continuous, unbroken line to the First Common Ancestor.

And you have resisted all attempts to get you to clarify just what you
acept and what you don't, beyond this vague pronouncement. For example,
if you haven't forgotten my little challenge (your turn, by the way),
are you willing to agree that all paleognath birds share a common
ancestor? If so, why? If not, why not?

>>>>> The best I can recall from the rare times he alludes to
>>>>> his own position instead of obsessing over "Darwinism" (like you and
>>>>> every other anti-evolution activist ant troll) is that he went from
>>>>> YEC to OEC, then back, bypassing the more common heliocentric YEC and
>>>>> going straight to geocentric YEC.
>
> I don't obsess over Darwinism. I argue unequivocally that it is
> false. Darwin admitted that the fossil record did not show the
> continuity and transformationism his theory predicted.

In fact, his theory doesn't predict that the fossil record will show
continuity, only that continuity must once have existed. Do you see the
difference? Darwin did.

> The fossil
> record shows nothing new today. Lenski's 20+ year, 40,000+ generation
> E coli experiment mirrors in the living world exactly what the 800
> million year fossil record shows---discontinuity, stasis, and
> limited/bounded change.

How can you say that the fossil record shows anything at all, since you
think it was all laid down in a single flood? I will also point out that
you misunderstand the very concept of stasis.

>>>>> Which strongly suggests that he
>>>>> thinks that many "kinds" popped up independently from nonliving
>>>>> matter, as you apparently believe. So if you have any evidence to the
>>>>> contrary I'll be glad to revise my assessment.
>
> Scripture's historical sketch of special creation of discontinuous
> kinds is corroborated by the fossil record. It corroborates Special
> Creation and not the ubiquitious, transformational change explained by
> Darwin's theory.

Does it? How so?

>>>>> Though I should add that anyone who evades questions about which
>>>>> "kinds" do not share common ancestors, or *when* those "kinds"
>>>>> originated, can be reasonably suspected of privately accepting common
>>>>> descent. Though they all have a huge incentive to never admit it.
>
> The kinds were created approximately 6000-10000 years ago.

But the fossil record doesn't show anything like that. It shows
different "kinds", if that's what you want to call them, appearing at
different times over a period of hundreds of millions of years. The
notion that a worldwide flood is instead responsible runs into all sorts
of difficulties that you refuse to address.

> I have
> repeatedly admitted that I simply don't know how to define "kind." I
> suggest that the kinds (whatever they might be) constitute the roots
> of several trees of common descent. I suggest that all the
> information necessary for any divergence from root to nodes was
> contained in the root.

How would this be accomplished?

> This is a wild ass guess which is not
> contradicted by the fossil record or the living world. Common descent
> is not denied only its extent.

If there were indeed separate kinds, wouldn't it be likely that we would
be able to distinguish them using genetic data? Why, then, is there no
such ability? How can it be that you can't recognize kinds, if there are
any such?

> Our own Dr Theobald's relatively recent interesting scientific article
> purports to show that several "trees" is less likely than one. As of
> yet I don't have the time to adequately review his argument but intend
> to.

You have the time. You just don't have the competence.

>>>> Common descent is a matter of degree. Ray denies that any two species
>>>> are related. Tony accepts that some species are related, though he will
>>>> never quite say which ones. So Tony accepts common descent to a greater
>>>> degree than Ray does, though not to the degree reasonable people do.
>
> Common descent is undeniable. And limited, minor change from one
> generation to the next within populations is undeniable. What I doubt
> is the uwarranted extrapolations drawn from these facts.

What you doubt is whatever you don't want to believe. We could discuss
the evidence if you liked. Perhaps in that challenge thread you have
been ignoring for the last couple of weeks.

>>> CD, contrary to the belief of JH, is not "a matter of degree."
>>> Rejecting the existence of CD, as I do, falsifies the matter to be
>>> about degree. The fact that Tony accepts CD to any degree, like JH,
>>> means he accepts the concept to exist in nature.
>
> Ray's family tree is evidence of limited common descent.
>
> And cichlid speciation (and their observable species flocks) is
> evidence that species are not nearly as immutable as Ray believes.
> Furthermore the fact that they are not immutable does not imply that
> some purely naturalistic process possesed the power to create them in
> the first place.

Really? What evidence do you have that cichlid species flocks have a
common ancestor?

>> Ray, Ray, Ray. Of course you accept common descent. You accept it within
>> species only, but you do accept it. And of course it's a matter of
>> degree, as you tacitly acknowledge by the phrase "to any degree". You
>> try to put a sharp dividing line between within-species descent and
>> across-species descent and erase all other possible lines, but that's
>> just your own obsession talking, not any feature of the concept itself.
>>
>>> What Tony does not understand is that the concept and term belongs to
>>> a large set of terms and concepts that describe the consequences of
>>> natural agency (that is, causation that originates in and from the
>>> closed system of Nature itself).
>
> Ray is both deluded and confused. Ray has failed to show that
> observable natural processes with limited causal power is incompatible
> with Special Creation in particular or Dembski's ID in general.

True.

>>> Since Tony claims to be an IDist he
>>> needs to adopt and accept concepts and terms that correspond to
>>> Intelligent agency, not natural agency. Both are mutually exclusive.
>
> Since Ray takes events in biological prehistory and history in
> absolutist terms he assumes that everyone must do so. That I think
> there is merit to Dembski's theory and that ID explains some events
> does not require that I presume it explains every event.

What events does it explain, and what events does it not?

> And while Ray takes an ID absolutism with regard to the origin of
> biological entities he takes a decidedly naturalistic position with
> regard to the origin of the material world in general and the geologic
> prehistory/history of the earth in particular. This is inconsistent,
> irrational and ultimately delusional.

>> You remind me of nothing so much as a Trotskyist battling a Stalinist,
>> or a Homoousian fighting a Homoiousian.

Tony, in case you were unaware, you're the Stalinist/Homoiousian. Or you
could be the other one if you like. I'm easy.

>>> It is manifestly unreasonable to believe species produce species based
>>> on the fact that the concept of design is observed in every aspect of
>>> nature.
>
> This presumes that the arbitrary classification "species" also
> possesses the attribute of immutability. Since we can plainly see
> that population groups classified as "species" are obviously not
> "immutable" Ray's whole house of cards collapses. Immutability is
> the false thread that runs throughout Ray's arguments. His book
> whether it ever actually arrives will, for this reason, be dead on
> arrival.

Nobody is holding their breath anyway. Still, it's unclear what
"immutable" means to Ray.

>> Why is common descent incompatible with design?
>
> Ray never says.

Don't be so smug. There's a lot you never say too. Try responding. Try
answering questions put to you.

John Harshman

unread,
Dec 13, 2011, 11:05:44 PM12/13/11
to
You seem to have invested common descent with all manner of mystical
connotations. It just refers to their being ancestors and descendants.
Do you have ancestors? One may hope you don't have descendants.

>> And of course it's a matter of
>> degree, as you tacitly acknowledge by the phrase "to any degree".
>
> The context was persons who accept concept existence (you and Tony).

Then there are degrees. That's what "degrees" means.

>> You
>> try to put a sharp dividing line between within-species descent and
>> across-species descent and erase all other possible lines, but that's
>> just your own obsession talking, not any feature of the concept itself.
>
> The concept of "common descent" does not exist in nature. I stand with
> Linnaeus, Cuvier, Paley, Sedgwick, and very many other natural
> theologians. Your comments might apply to Tony (who has Kurt Wise in
> his corner, LOL), but you need to come to grips with the meaning of
> "rejection" and "non-existence." These do not convey exceptions.

Your ranting is becoming increasingly opaque.

>>> What Tony does not understand is that the concept and term belongs to
>>> a large set of terms and concepts that describe the consequences of
>>> natural agency (that is, causation that originates in and from the
>>> closed system of Nature itself). Since Tony claims to be an IDist he
>>> needs to adopt and accept concepts and terms that correspond to
>>> Intelligent agency, not natural agency. Both are mutually exclusive.
>> You remind me of nothing so much as a Trotskyist battling a Stalinist,
>> or a Homoousian fighting a Homoiousian.
>>
>>> It is manifestly unreasonable to believe species produce species based
>>> on the fact that the concept of design is observed in every aspect of
>>> nature.
>> Why is common descent incompatible with design? What if god made
>> occasional tweaks in otherwise perfectly ordinary zygotes?
>
> CD was accepted as being caused by unintelligent natural agencies
> originating in and from the closed system of Nature itself.

That isn't a necessary feature of common descent. It just happens to be
true.

> The
> preceding claim of fact rejects, a priori, existence of design because
> design can only originate outside of the closed system of Nature (from
> Heaven). If design exists CD is illusory (to be kind), delusion (to be
> accurate). In addition: both concepts, CD and design, presuppose
> antonymic agents of causation. Either you are genuinely ignorant of
> these basic facts or you are engaged in propaganda, attempting to keep
> people like Dana Tweedy and Tony Pagano (CEists) in the prison of
> pernicious misunderstanding. Since you are a declared Atheist, the
> latter must be true.

That's what passes for logic in your mind? Tony has the right of it
here. You take an absolutist position and don't even recognize that
there is any middle ground. It's either alway design or always nature;
but it's clearly conceivable for events to be sometimes design and
sometimes nature.

>>> The observation tells objective people that Intelligent agency
>>> is operating in nature, causing species to exist, not natural agency.
>> Do you think that descent within species happens? Is it natural?

> Natural causation (Naturalism-Materialism), as understood since the
> rise of Darwinism, does not exist.

That's the answer to the second question. But what about the first
question? Is there descent within species? If there is, then according
to you it isn't natural. So why can't there be descent between species,
also not natural? You aren't making sense here.

> The delusion is working on persons who accept evolution, not God. But
> Dawkins and I agree that a delusion is at work.

Like I said to Tony, there's plenty of delusion to go around.

Dana Tweedy

unread,
Dec 13, 2011, 11:25:33 PM12/13/11
to
On 12/13/11 8:54 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Dec 13, 6:31 pm, T Pagano<not.va...@address.net> wrote:
snip


>>
>> In what way is there something wrong with Darwin's reasoning?
>
> Imagine that; Tony the "Creationist and IDist" agrees with the Father
> of Atheist "science."

Darwin was not the father of science, atheist or otherwise. The science
that Darwin used is not atheist in any way.



> It was Darwin's theory that science came to
> accept.

Because of the evidence he presented. It's been expanded on in the
years since Darwin.




> He used fully materialist assumptions and interpretations to
> explain nature (Materialism).

All science uses "fully materialist assumptions", because the material
is all science can study. That doesn't mean that scientists themselves
must reject any belief in the supernatural. This has been explained to
you many times, and you still keep making the same mistake.


> Yet Tony the "Creationist and IDist"
> kisses Darwin's Atheist ass from the get-go ("is there something wrong
> with Darwin's reasoning"?).

Besides the fact that Darwin wasn't an atheist, you haven't answered the
question. What do you find wrong with Darwin's reasoning?



> The Old Testament calls this bowing down
> to Baal.

No, the old testament doesn't say anything about acceptance of science.




> The New Testament depiction is more graphic: Judas, while
> under the direct control of Satan, kissed Jesus while betraying Him to
> His enemies (in this case Tony betrays Christ while doing the bidding
> of Darwin, Dawkins and Harshman). Tony is under the same control. This
> is why we have faith, good or bad, whatever the Bible says is true.


As already pointed out, Ray, you don't have any faith. Accepting
science is not betraying God.



snip of irrelevant quotation from Darwin regarding his religious beliefs.




>
> My on-going claim is that Tony is ignorant and/or confused and/or
> deluded.


I would agree that Tony is all of the above, but you, Ray are even
worse. At least Tony retains some capacity of reasoning.




> Real Creationists and IDists do not accept material
> assumptions and side with Atheists; rather, real Creationists and
> IDists accept immaterial assumptions. Harshman must be estatic with
> the fact that ***Tony Pagano*** accepts the main claim of Atheism:
> natural causation-selection.

Ray, you are excluding everyone but yourself as being a "real
creationist". Every sane persons on Earth accepts "material
assumptions" in one way or another.

Also, Ray, the 'main claim' of atheism is that God, or gods don't exist.
Accepting "material causation" is what every sane persons does in
daily life.




>
> No such phenomenon exists in nature; except in the deluded minds of
> Atheists and confused "Creationists and IDists."

Yet there are countless examples of natural processes, and no observed
instances of supernatural causation.





>
> Genesis is true: God Himself causes each new species to exist (Special
> Creation).

Then why has "special creation" never been observed?




> Tony does not understand that Immaterial agency, and
> material agency as understood since the rise of Darwinism, are
> mutually exclusive, enemy combatants. And he has not the integrity to
> admit to such an elementary error. I think I have explained why,
> above.

Tony does not "understand" something that is your own irrational
assertion. It's more an indication that Tony isn't totally irrational.
Ray is incapable of admitting his own error, and so refuses to remove
the log from his own eye.


DJT

Dana Tweedy

unread,
Dec 13, 2011, 11:52:50 PM12/13/11
to
On 12/13/11 8:06 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Dec 13, 3:59 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
snip


>>> CD, contrary to the belief of JH, is not "a matter of degree."
>>> Rejecting the existence of CD, as I do, falsifies the matter to be
>>> about degree. The fact that Tony accepts CD to any degree, like JH,
>>> means he accepts the concept to exist in nature.
>>
>> Ray, Ray, Ray. Of course you accept common descent. You accept it within
>> species only, but you do accept it.
>
> All this says is that YOU cannot fathom what is meant when one says he
> rejects the concept of CD as existing in nature. In other words you
> are totally brainwashed by Darwinism.
>
> There is no such thing as CD "within species."

Ray, are you, or are you not a product of your own parents? The only
way that common descent can not exist "within species" is for all
individuals to have "poofed" into existence, with no parents at all.
Denying common descent within species is totally off the wall insane.



> Variation itself is not
> microevolution or CD.

Nor did anyone claim they were. Common descent is individuals being
related by genetic heritage. Myself, my brothers and sister and all my
cousins are descendants from my grandfather. Recombination of DNA means
that my brothers and sisters are not my identical clones.

Variation is what happens when there are different alleles in the
population. Do you deny that different alleles exist?


Microevolution is when the allele frequencies in a population change
over generations. Do you see that microevolution, variation, and
common descent are separate things?



> You are attempting to cover your tracks by
> changing the subject to how CD allegedly occurs (birth)? Why?

Common descent happens when several individuals descend from a common
source. Why you are denying this obvious fact is beyond puzzling.




>
>> And of course it's a matter of
>> degree, as you tacitly acknowledge by the phrase "to any degree".
>
> The context was persons who accept concept existence (you and Tony).

Anyone who recognizes that extended families exist must accept common
descent, at least within species. Your staggering illogical
assertions keep coming...




>
>> You
>> try to put a sharp dividing line between within-species descent and
>> across-species descent and erase all other possible lines, but that's
>> just your own obsession talking, not any feature of the concept itself.
>>
>
> The concept of "common descent" does not exist in nature.

You keep saying that, but you obviously don't understand what "concept"
means, nor do you seem to know what "common descent" implies.

Are you really trying to say that brothers and cousins are not related???


> I stand with
> Linnaeus, Cuvier, Paley, Sedgwick, and very many other natural
> theologians.

All of the above understood that common descent happened, at least
within species. Linnaeus, Cuvier, Paley et al would be embarrassed by
your attempt to invoke their names to support your own insanity.


> Your comments might apply to Tony (who has Kurt Wise in
> his corner, LOL), but you need to come to grips with the meaning of
> "rejection" and "non-existence." These do not convey exceptions.

They also do not convey any grasp of the subject at all. Your claims
of "rejection" and "non existence" are mind bogglingly absurd.




>
>>> What Tony does not understand is that the concept and term belongs to
>>> a large set of terms and concepts that describe the consequences of
>>> natural agency (that is, causation that originates in and from the
>>> closed system of Nature itself). Since Tony claims to be an IDist he
>>> needs to adopt and accept concepts and terms that correspond to
>>> Intelligent agency, not natural agency. Both are mutually exclusive.
>>
>> You remind me of nothing so much as a Trotskyist battling a Stalinist,
>> or a Homoousian fighting a Homoiousian.
>>
>>> It is manifestly unreasonable to believe species produce species based
>>> on the fact that the concept of design is observed in every aspect of
>>> nature.
>>
>> Why is common descent incompatible with design? What if god made
>> occasional tweaks in otherwise perfectly ordinary zygotes?
>>
>
> CD was accepted as being caused by unintelligent natural agencies
> originating in and from the closed system of Nature itself.

Ray, you keep repeating this as if you weren't shown to be wrong time,
and time again. Why do you keep repeating this error? Why can't you
admit your mistake?

Besides being wrong, it wouldn't matter how common descent was
"accepted". what matters is the observations of common descent, and the
genetic connections, which can only be explained by common descent.
Deal with the reality, not your personal fantasy.


> The
> preceding claim of fact rejects, a priori, existence of design because
> design can only originate outside of the closed system of Nature (from
> Heaven).

What evidence do you wish to present that "design can only originate
outside of...Nature" ? Are you really trying to suggest that humans
are incapable of design? You also are begging the question of how one
distinguishes between actual design, and the appearance of design.



> If design exists CD is illusory (to be kind), delusion (to be
> accurate).

That doesn't follow, Ray. If design does exist, there's no reason why
common descent can't exist along with design. Even if anyone accepted
your absurd suggestion that design only comes from "heaven", all it
would require is God to add some design from time to time to common
descent. Do you feel that God is not capable of doing such a thing?


Of course, this ignores the fact that nature does not require "heaven"
to provide the appearance of design. Natural processes can, and do
produce such an appearance.


> In addition: both concepts, CD and design, presuppose
> antonymic agents of causation.

No, they don't. That's another one of your major mistakes.




> Either you are genuinely ignorant of
> these basic facts or you are engaged in propaganda, attempting to keep
> people like Dana Tweedy and Tony Pagano (CEists) in the prison of
> pernicious misunderstanding. Since you are a declared Atheist, the
> latter must be true.

Ray, I am not in any "prison", and the misunderstanding is obviously
your own. You need to remember your own fantasies are not facts, and no
one is required to accept them as such.





>
>>> The observation tells objective people that Intelligent agency
>>> is operating in nature, causing species to exist, not natural agency.
>>
>> Do you think that descent within species happens? Is it natural?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Natural causation (Naturalism-Materialism), as understood since the
> rise of Darwinism, does not exist.

This is an entirely unsupported assertion, which is contrary to all
evidence. Belief of things contrary to evidence is delusion.




>
> The delusion is working on persons who accept evolution, not God. But
> Dawkins and I agree that a delusion is at work.

The delusion is your own, as you have indicated above.


DJT

Karel

unread,
Dec 14, 2011, 4:10:26 AM12/14/11
to
I am ready to allow for irony, but if I do that, I will also
have to admit that he prefers irony over addressing the issues
at hand.

Regards,

Karel

Ernest Major

unread,
Dec 14, 2011, 8:11:11 AM12/14/11
to
In message
<0b92f092-0aed-45d3...@h4g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, Ray
Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes
Chez Watts don't require to be seconded. Did you wish your words to be
considered in the next ballot? Claiming that you have no idea about was
Charles Darwin was writing about makes a mockery of your claim to be
writing a book that will refute evolution.

>
>Ray
>

--
alias Ernest Major

Steven L.

unread,
Dec 14, 2011, 8:15:46 AM12/14/11
to


"John Harshman" <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:XZidnbx-xdQ...@giganews.com:
CD refers to a lot more than that. Otherwise it would just be
"descent," not "COMMON descent."

It refers to their being common ancestors of diverse species. Even of
diverse genera.

CD doesn't just refer to Ray or you or I having ancestors. It refers to
us having non-human ancestors.

Phillip Johnson has agreed that this is still compatible with
Intelligent Design.



-- Steven L.


Ernest Major

unread,
Dec 14, 2011, 8:18:35 AM12/14/11
to
In message
<e33f23b3-5074-4af5...@b32g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, Ray
Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes
>All this says is that YOU cannot fathom what is meant when one says he
>rejects the concept of CD as existing in nature. In other words you are
>totally brainwashed by Darwinism.
>
>There is no such thing as CD "within species." Variation itself is not
>microevolution or CD. You are attempting to cover your tracks by
>changing the subject to how CD allegedly occurs (birth)? Why?

So, you deny descent from Adam?
--
alias Ernest Major

Steven L.

unread,
Dec 14, 2011, 8:20:26 AM12/14/11
to


"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e33f23b3-5074-4af5...@b32g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
We certainly see CD existing in nature when it's caused by humans
(domestication by artificial selection).

You do agree that all breeds of dogs have wolves as their ancestors,
right? Before humans, there were no dogs, right? We humans *created*
dogs.

Now one way to think of Intelligent Design is that the Designer used
artificial selection to breed various species, just like we bred over a
hundred breeds of dogs. That is, He decided to eliminate certain
species (which went extinct, like dinosaurs) and let others flourish
(like birds).

That would be a type of Intelligent Design that is compatible with
Common Descent.

Why do you rule out even that possibility?





-- Steven L.



backspace

unread,
Dec 14, 2011, 8:58:12 AM12/14/11
to
for what full sentence are you using the term ns as a metaphor.
Because ns must always be used as a metaphor.

hersheyh

unread,
Dec 14, 2011, 9:22:46 AM12/14/11
to
On Wednesday, December 14, 2011 8:58:12 AM UTC-5, backspace wrote:
> On Dec 14, 2:31 am, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 13:57:53 -0800 (PST), Karel
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > <GCPAXS...@spammotel.com> wrote:
> > >On 13 dec, 22:27, Ray Martinez
> wrote:
> > >> On Dec 11, 6:21 am, Ron O <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
Well, if you require that any form of "selection" must have an 'intelligent
selector', then, by definition, natural selection is a metaphor. Is that
a problem? Normal people use metaphors all the time. The sun sets and
the sun rises, after all, without the need to explain in excruciating detail
that it really doesn't, but merely appears to do so from a certain perspective and
that the sun really doesn't "chose" to set or rise like it did when Apollo
rode his fiery chariot across the sky.

John Harshman

unread,
Dec 14, 2011, 10:48:41 AM12/14/11
to
Or even all species. My point is that there are degrees of common
descent, and among those degrees is common descent within species. Why not?

> CD doesn't just refer to Ray or you or I having ancestors. It refers to
> us having non-human ancestors.

Who says? Common descent means that two entities share ancestors. Why
can't those entities be two humans?

> Phillip Johnson has agreed that this is still compatible with
> Intelligent Design.

Doesn't Johnson still deny common descent (of all life), or is he just
not saying?

backspace

unread,
Dec 14, 2011, 11:24:07 AM12/14/11
to
natural selection as metaphor for which full sentence?

Dana Tweedy

unread,
Dec 14, 2011, 12:05:11 PM12/14/11
to
On 12/14/11 9:24 AM, backspace wrote:
snip

>>
>> Natural selection is a well attested in nature. That you deny it just
>> indicates your own lack of intelligence.
>>
>> DJT
>
> natural selection as metaphor for which full sentence?

Natural selection is not a metaphor for a sentence. It's a process that
happens to populations.


DJT




>

backspace

unread,
Dec 14, 2011, 12:18:58 PM12/14/11
to
Natural selection isn't a process but a semantic term that as a term
must be used only as a metaphor for a full sentence to avoid
ambiguity.

So again I ask, NS as a metaphor for which full sentence?


Dana Tweedy

unread,
Dec 14, 2011, 12:39:46 PM12/14/11
to
what makes you think natural selection is a metaphor for anything? Why
must it be used only as a metaphor? You aren't making sense.



>
> So again I ask, NS as a metaphor for which full sentence?


So, again, I point out that natural selection is a process, not a
metaphor.

DJT

Bob Casanova

unread,
Dec 14, 2011, 1:13:09 PM12/14/11
to
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 12:17:30 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
<steph...@gmail.com>:

>On Dec 12, 10:00 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 10:00:47 -0800 (PST), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
>> <stephan...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Dec 11, 5:34 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 07:53:06 -0800 (PST), the following
>> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
>> >> <stephan...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> >> >On Dec 11, 1:54 pm, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
>> >> >orig...@moderators.isc.org" > Species do the measuring of favourable
>> >> >adaptation themselves; if they
>> >> >> survive and reproduce, they're favoured.
>> >> >By this logic anything that exists if favored for being in existence,
>>
>> >> Not quite: Any species which exists is comprised of
>> >> individuals whose ancestors were survivors of a selection
>> >> process performed by the environment. You'll note that this
>> >> reverses the cause/effect of your statement.
>>
>> >> >which is what Darwin's logic reduces to.
>>
>> >> Since Darwin's forte was primarily observation, and his
>> >> conclusions were based on that observation, how does your
>> >> evaluation of his logic enter the question?
>> >Rephrase, replacing selection with Erasmus Darwin's cultivation as in
>> >Artificial cultivation from his book Zoonomia. Darwin lifted AC and
>> >changed it to AS and Patrick Matthew restated Buffon, Lamarck and
>> >Erasmus as shown byhttp://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Samuel_Butler:
>>
>> >Rephrase:
>> >Any species which exists is comprised of  individuals whose ancestors
>> >were survivors of a CULTIVATION  process performed by the
>> >environment.
>>
>> >Rephrase again in terms of Patrick Matthew:
>>
>> >Species are comprised of individuals whose ancestors were survivors of
>> >a CULTIVATION  process performed by the environment.
>>
>> >Reduce again:
>> >Species consist of individuals who survived the CULTIVATION  process
>> >performed by the environment.
>>
>> >Finally:
>> >Species consist of those who survived the 'competitive means of
>> >natural cultivation' by the environment.
>>
>> >Possible interpretation:
>> >New species who's ancestors didn't possess the present attributes were
>> >constituted with new attributes
>> >by surviving the 'competitive means of natural cultivation' by the
>> >environment'.
>>
>> >Further interpretation:
>> >Anything that exists obtained attributes that weren't previously there
>> >by out-competing the other
>> >within a competitive cultivating environment'.
>>
>> OK so far, although the term "cultivation" has connotations
>> of intent not justified by the lack of intent in the
>> process. So your rephrase and interpretation adds no
>> clarity; in fact, it reduces it.
>>
>> >Which Reduces to Democritus Atomism or what Henry Fairfield Osborn
>> >referred to as the 'Doctrine of Atoms'  -http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/HenryFairfieldOsborn
>> >in his book: From the Greeks to Darwin.
>>
>> >Democritus believed that atoms existed for eternity , thus he didn't
>> >have to explain where they came from in the first place. The present
>> >atoms obtained attributes they did not previously posses via the
>> >'natural means of competitive selection,cultivation or survival',
>> >while the atoms they competed against didn't obtain the attributes and
>> >were thus eliminated.
>>
>> Oops; no, it doesn't. Atoms are unchangeable (except through
>> processes which are predictable regarding the change itself
>> and the pathway). There is no "evolution" of atoms in the
>> sense of biological evolution.
>>
>> >Problem with this story is that it ishttp://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Popper
>> >unfalsifiable, because we would be told the same thing if the other
>> >atom came to dominate its atomic ecological niche.
>>
>> You seem to think that since *some* descendants will replace
>> the original population (assuming the species doesn't go
>> extinct with no descendant species) this is somehow a
>> problem for evolution. It's not, since evolution only
>> predicts that in general a population will comprise those
>> descendants whose ancestors were best adapted to the
>> environment in which they lived.
>>
>> But since your analogy (atoms vs living things) is incorrect
>> you have no point.

>In pigeons we can *select* or *cultivate* as in Erasmus Darwin's
>Artificial Cultivation for chars. we desire. Wild pigeons and AC
>pigeons both implemented gyro, IMU control algorithms and compensate
>for their magnetometer delay using some type of feed-forward control.
>In magnetometers used on UAV's the delay is 0.08seconds between
>readings, which given the speed a uav travels at leads to orientation
>errors and thus feed-forward control is used to compensate .
>
>The uav isn't adapted or adapting to anything, it only expresses its
>attributes. Wild pigeons surviving natures 'natural competitive
>selection,survival,accumulation or cultivation' process as well as
>pigeons bred in captivity for certain attributes still do only one
>thing: express pre-existing control algorithm attributes that their
>ancestors possessed.
>
>At no point in time were the present attributes acquired, they were
>there hidden in the genome. Feed-forward control , PID or what pigeons
>use Neural network control were present in both the artificially
>cultivated(selected) and *naturally selected,preserved* pigeons.
>
>Control engineers inform us that control theory involves an
>indissoluble association between mathematical constructs. This control
>algorithm was passed from pigeon to pigeon in an Behe IC or D'Arcy
>Wentworth Thompson 'composite integrity' manner. The algorithm was
>'there' somewhere 'waiting' for the chick to grow and finally
>stabilize itself in flight.

And what, exactly, has this to do with selection, other than
the fact that selection can only act on existing traits,
something no one denies?

>Where exactly was this algorithm stored and how did this algorithm get
>transferred from the blob of amino acids that formed the egg?

In the genome, which we know exists and which we have begun
to decipher.

> The
>algorithm was stored in the mind of Jesus Christ

....which we have no evidence exists...

> it has no physical
>location.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

Burkhard

unread,
Dec 14, 2011, 1:43:23 PM12/14/11
to
On Dec 13, 8:27 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Again, we find the same forms, or forms which (save for external
> ornament) are mathematically identical, repeating themselves in all
> periods of the world's geological history ; and, irrespective of
> climate or local conditions, we see them mixed up, one with another,
> in the depths and on the shores of every sea. It is hard indeed (to my
> mind) to see where Natural Selection necessarily enters in, or to
> admit that it has had any share whatsoever in the production of these
> varied conformations. Unless indeed we use the term Natural Selection
> in a sense so wide as to deprive it of any purely biological
> significance; and so recognize as a sort of Natural Selection
> whatsoever nexus of causes suffices to differentiate between the
> likely and the unlikely, the scarce and the frequent, the easy and the
> hard : and leads accordingly, under the peculiar conditions,
> limitations and restraints which we call "ordinary circumstances," one
> type of crystal, one form of cloud, one chemical compound, to be of
> frequent occurrence and another to be rare. -
>
> By D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson -http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/D%27Arcy_Wentworth_Thompson
>
> I don't understand the passage quoted from Thompson, would somebody
> explain it to me please.

I don't know which part you find difficult, but essentially,
Thompson's argument was that the laws of physics constraint the
possible range of biological forms more massively than (he thought)
biological theories of evolution give credit for. The evidence he
gives for this are structural similarities that we find across animate
and inanimate nature, and across time and space.

jillery

unread,
Dec 14, 2011, 2:36:44 PM12/14/11