Intelligen Design
Glenn
"Since the time of Darwin, evolutionists have known about the weaknesses
of the theory of evolution and descent with modification. Yet, they have
not abandoned it simply because they say, "it's the best theory we've
got". Descent, through these "ad hoc" hypotheses, has been forced into
an unfalsifiable position, lest it be falsified. Today, biologists have
a new and growing theory of life's origin: intelligent design. As
intelligent design theory matures and develops as a scientific theory,
evolution may not be the "best" any longer, and the "design hypothesis"
may once again be considered as a viable explanation for the origins of
lifeforms on earth."
Bobby D. Bryant
> http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/falsify.htm
>
> "Since the time of Darwin, evolutionists have known about the weaknesses
> of the theory of evolution and descent with modification.
Name three.
> Yet, they have not abandoned it simply because they say, "it's the best
> theory we've got".
Name three.
Don't nest double-quotes within double-quotes.
> Descent, through these "ad hoc" hypotheses, has been forced into an
> unfalsifiable position, lest it be falsified.
You deny descent?
> Today, biologists have a new and growing theory of life's origin:
> intelligent design.
s/biologists/kooks/
> As intelligent design theory matures and develops as a scientific
> theory,
It's not a scientific theory at all, let alone a maturing, developing one.
> evolution may not be the "best" any longer, and the "design hypothesis"
> may once again be considered as a viable explanation for the origins of
> lifeforms on earth."
Still don't know the difference between evolution and abiogenesis, do you?
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
John Harshman
Glenn wrote:
Interesting quote. What do you think about this issue? Were you quoting
with approval, disapproval, or strict neutrality?
Mitch Alsup
> http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/falsify.htm
>
> "Since the time of Darwin, evolutionists have known about the weaknesses
> of the theory of evolution and descent with modification. Yet, they have
> not abandoned it simply because they say, "it's the best theory we've
> got". Descent, through these "ad hoc" hypotheses, has been forced into
> an unfalsifiable position, lest it be falsified.
Descent with modification wuold be falsified if a beaver gave birth to a
stork? Yes? Has this happened? No! Therefore, evolution is falsifiable!
> Today, biologists have
> a new and growing theory of life's origin: intelligent design. As
> intelligent design theory matures and develops as a scientific theory,
Wouldn't your argument become massively easier if the creator would
show up once in a while?
> evolution may not be the "best" any longer, and the "design hypothesis"
> may once again be considered as a viable explanation for the origins of
> lifeforms on earth."
Best joke I've heard all week.
Mitch
Alfred Einstead
> Today, biologists have a new and growing theory of life's origin:
> intelligent design.
But in order to have intelligent design, you need to have an
intelligent design! Humans are a monstrosity of ad hoc kludges
and horrifically incompetent "design decisions" (looking so bad
that it's like someone just threw a bunch of parts up in the air
and said 'done!') which our societies have already spent too
much time dedicating too many resources trying to fix. Automobiles,
computers, communications networks, houses, clothing, the entire
medical and health profession -- all these things to fix a "design"
that no "designer" ever had any business putting together in the
first place!
And all that wasted effort creating a massively parallel
computer of a brain and then squandering it all by hooking it
up to the world with low bandwidth channels practically worse
than a single lousy RS-232 link. What a waste of effort, if
it really was a "design".
The critical systems are ALWAYS designed with redundant backup.
That means at 2 hearts, not one. There's no capacity for
self-repair (i.e., self-cloning of replacement organs during
a period of stasis following severe injury); extremely slow
and inefficient locomotion (where's the jet propulsion system
linked to the respiratory system? Or for God's sake, even
wheels?!) Signals going a mere paltry few hundred miles per
hour. I mean come on. Is it too much both to use something
that actually conducts electricity and allows signals to go
around light speed?
The list just goes on and on.
The "design" shows no evidence of intelligence.
The mere proposition of the theory is the height of hubris of
a species too full of itself which has clearly overstayed its
welcome aboard the top of the food chain.
Steven J.
continually incorporating _ad hoc_ hypotheses. It has the mother of
all _ad hoc_ hypotheses built into it from the beginning: the identity
(by which ID propenents mean not merely the name, but the motives,
methods, and abilities of the Designer) are said to be irrelevant to
and inaccessible by science.
That is, they have no idea how their proposed explanation is supposed
to work, or what sort of systems the Designer should be expected to
design, or to refrain from designing. They've no foggiest idea
whether the Designer should give every creation identical
cytochrome-c, or arrange variants in a nested hiearchy, or arrange
variants in a pattern clearly NOT a nested hierarchy. Because of
this, they can't explain why anything in nature is the way it is,
rather than some other imaginable way.
ID theory predicts *nothing* except that there will be aspects of
biological complexity and diversity not explicable by current theories
-- and these gaps will be seized upon as places to stuff a "Designer
of the gaps."
-- Steven J.
John Harshman
Alfred Einstead wrote:
> Glenn <gshe...@qwest.net> wrote:
>
>>Today, biologists have a new and growing theory of life's origin:
>>intelligent design.
>>
Stop the presses. Glenn didn't write that. He only quoted it. Nobody
knows if Glenn likes intelligent design or not, because he never says
what he believes himself.
[snip]
Steven Carr
> http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/falsify.htm
This web site says ID is science as it makes testable claims.
One claim it makes is :-
'Fossil forms will appear suddenly and without any precursors.'
We have seen fossil forms with precursors, so ID is falsified.
Does it mean that it predicts there will be *some* fossils without any
precursors? How can ID proponents shown this? As they are fond of
saying 'Absence of evidence is not evidence of abscence'.
The web site also claims 'Genes and functional parts often are not
distributed in a manner predicted by ancestry, and are often found in
clearly unrelated organisms.' Isn't this just a plain lie?
Glenn
Steven J. wrote:
> Glenn <gshe...@qwest.net> wrote in message news:<3E8D3A42...@qwest.net>...
>
>>http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/falsify.htm
>>
>>"Since the time of Darwin, evolutionists have known about the weaknesses
>>of the theory of evolution and descent with modification. Yet, they have
>>not abandoned it simply because they say, "it's the best theory we've
>>got". Descent, through these "ad hoc" hypotheses, has been forced into
>>an unfalsifiable position, lest it be falsified. Today, biologists have
>>a new and growing theory of life's origin: intelligent design. As
>>intelligent design theory matures and develops as a scientific theory,
>>evolution may not be the "best" any longer, and the "design hypothesis"
>>may once again be considered as a viable explanation for the origins of
>>lifeforms on earth."
>>
>>
> The "design hypothesis" need not protect itself from falsification by
> continually incorporating _ad hoc_ hypotheses. It has the mother of
> all _ad hoc_ hypotheses built into it from the beginning: the identity
> (by which ID propenents mean not merely the name, but the motives,
> methods, and abilities of the Designer) are said to be irrelevant to
> and inaccessible by science.
EH?? The "identity" of a designer is not necessary, nor are the
abilities required to be known to detect design in structures.
And you said yourself that mechanisms are not needed as long as there is
evidence of an event(s).
You'll have to do a little better than that, Steven.
>
> That is, they have no idea how their proposed explanation is supposed
> to work, or what sort of systems the Designer should be expected to
> design, or to refrain from designing. They've no foggiest idea
> whether the Designer should give every creation identical
> cytochrome-c, or arrange variants in a nested hiearchy, or arrange
> variants in a pattern clearly NOT a nested hierarchy. Because of
> this, they can't explain why anything in nature is the way it is,
> rather than some other imaginable way.
All I know is that I'm not taking your word for this.
>
> ID theory predicts *nothing* except that there will be aspects of
> biological complexity and diversity not explicable by current theories
> -- and these gaps will be seized upon as places to stuff a "Designer
> of the gaps."
>
Unlike what Ho and Sanders claim "But a real synthesis should begin
by identifying conflicting elements in the theory, rather than in
accommodating contradictions as quickly as they arise."
Howard Hershey
;-)
Glenn
Steven Carr wrote:
> Glenn <gshe...@qwest.net> wrote in message news:<3E8D3A42...@qwest.net>...
>
>>http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/falsify.htm
>>
>
> This web site says ID is science as it makes testable claims.
>
> One claim it makes is :-
> 'Fossil forms will appear suddenly and without any precursors.'
>
> We have seen fossil forms with precursors, so ID is falsified.
>
If you have *seen* many of these forms *with* their precursors in the fossil record,
then common descent is falsified.
Or
Fossil forms don't "appear", they just lay there.
Or
Evolutionists' *claims* that they are precursors does not falsify
anything except the claim that evolutionists dont make claims.
>
> Does it mean that it predicts there will be *some* fossils without any
> precursors? How can ID proponents shown this? As they are fond of
> saying 'Absence of evidence is not evidence of abscence'.
I couldn't answer that about them, but ID proponents could argue that
there are no precursors.
>
> The web site also claims 'Genes and functional parts often are not
> distributed in a manner predicted by ancestry, and are often found in
> clearly unrelated organisms.' Isn't this just a plain lie?
>
You tell me!
http://www.alternativescience.com/homology.htm
"Yet when biologists did begin to acquire an understanding of the
molecular mechanism of genetics, they found that apparently homologous
structures in different species are specified by quite different genes.
Pandora's box turned out to be empty."
Glenn
Howard Hershey wrote:
> O.K. Who was the "intelligent designer" who left the 't' off "intelligent".
> ;-)
>
Guess I deserve that...
Mark VandeWettering
>
>
> Steven J. wrote:
>
>> Glenn <gshe...@qwest.net> wrote in message news:<3E8D3A42...@qwest.net>...
>>
>>>http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/falsify.htm
>>>
>>>"Since the time of Darwin, evolutionists have known about the weaknesses
>>>of the theory of evolution and descent with modification. Yet, they have
>>>not abandoned it simply because they say, "it's the best theory we've
>>>got". Descent, through these "ad hoc" hypotheses, has been forced into
>>>an unfalsifiable position, lest it be falsified. Today, biologists have
>>>a new and growing theory of life's origin: intelligent design. As
>>>intelligent design theory matures and develops as a scientific theory,
>>>evolution may not be the "best" any longer, and the "design hypothesis"
>>>may once again be considered as a viable explanation for the origins of
>>>lifeforms on earth."
>>>
>>>
>> The "design hypothesis" need not protect itself from falsification by
>> continually incorporating _ad hoc_ hypotheses. It has the mother of
>> all _ad hoc_ hypotheses built into it from the beginning: the identity
>> (by which ID propenents mean not merely the name, but the motives,
>> methods, and abilities of the Designer) are said to be irrelevant to
>> and inaccessible by science.
>
>
> EH?? The "identity" of a designer is not necessary, nor are the
> abilities required to be known to detect design in structures.
When you say that such a design is detected, how are we to judge the validity
of your claim without knowing what powers and properties your designer has?
> And you said yourself that mechanisms are not needed as long as there is
> evidence of an event(s).
That's rather the point. "Design" is never seen as an event: it's merely
a property that ID'ers apply after the event. If we actually could witness
the event, we would undoutably learn something about our designer.
> You'll have to do a little better than that, Steven.
It is ID'ers that will have to do better.
>> That is, they have no idea how their proposed explanation is supposed
>> to work, or what sort of systems the Designer should be expected to
>> design, or to refrain from designing. They've no foggiest idea
>> whether the Designer should give every creation identical
>> cytochrome-c, or arrange variants in a nested hiearchy, or arrange
>> variants in a pattern clearly NOT a nested hierarchy. Because of
>> this, they can't explain why anything in nature is the way it is,
>> rather than some other imaginable way.
>
> All I know is that I'm not taking your word for this.
Lame. If you think he's lying or mistaken, provide evidence for such.
It's a pretty weak tactic in debate to mearly claim that your opponent is a
liar, and then refuse to back it up.
>> ID theory predicts *nothing* except that there will be aspects of
>> biological complexity and diversity not explicable by current theories
>> -- and these gaps will be seized upon as places to stuff a "Designer
>> of the gaps."
>>
> Unlike what Ho and Sanders claim "But a real synthesis should begin
> by identifying conflicting elements in the theory, rather than in
> accommodating contradictions as quickly as they arise."
Mark
Lenny Flank
How dreadful.
What again did you say the scientific theory of intelligent design
was? How again did you say we could test it using the scientific
method?
===============================================
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked Website:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
"DebunkCreation" email list at Yahoogroups:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation/join
Lenny Flank
> > Today, biologists have a new and growing theory of life's origin:
> > intelligent design.
>
Reeeaalllyyyy.
Would you mind telling me about this "new and growing theory"?
Any testible scientific theory of intelligent design should be able to
give testible answers to other questions: (1) what is the Intelligent
Designer, where is it, why is it THIS proposed Designer instead of
THAT one, and what establishes that there is just ONE Intelligent
Designer and not, say, ten or a hundred of them working in committee,
(2) what exactly did the Intelligent Designer(s) do, (3) what
mechanisms did the Designer(s) use and where can we see these
mechanisms in action today, and (4) what objective criteria can we use
to determine what entities are "intelligently designed" and what
entities aren't.
If your, uh, "scientific theory" isn't able to answer any of these
questions yet, then please feel free to tell me how you propose to
scientifically answer them. What experiments or tests can we perform,
in principle, to answer these questions.
Also, since any scientific theory must be potentially falsifiable,
tell me what experimental results or data would, in principle, falsify
the scientific theory of creation or intelligent design.
I look forward to seeing your "scientific theories".
Unless, of course, there AREN'T any . . . . .
Steven J.
> Steven J. wrote:
>
-- [snip]
>
> > The "design hypothesis" need not protect itself from falsification by
> > continually incorporating _ad hoc_ hypotheses. It has the mother of
> > all _ad hoc_ hypotheses built into it from the beginning: the identity
> > (by which ID propenents mean not merely the name, but the motives,
> > methods, and abilities of the Designer) are said to be irrelevant to
> > and inaccessible by science.
>
>
> EH?? The "identity" of a designer is not necessary, nor are the
> abilities required to be known to detect design in structures.
> And you said yourself that mechanisms are not needed as long as there is
> evidence of an event(s).
> You'll have to do a little better than that, Steven.
>
identifying "irreducibly complexity" or "specified complexity," but by
recognizing similarities to things known to be designed, in structure,
composition and methods of construction, and purpose. To take Paley's
famous watch example, he could tell that the watch has gears and
springs, because he recognized them as members of known classes of
manufactured items. He recognized that it told time, because he
already had the concept of telling time. Whether he understood either
how these gears and springs told time, or how they were manufactured,
is another question. At the low extreme of complexity, one recognizes
the crudest stone tools of early hominids because they show the sorts
of chips we recognize as the results of human manipulation. Design is
recognized by analogy with the work of known and observed designers.
This applies, of course, to SETI as well -- the search for
extraterrestrial intelligence depends crucially on the assumption that
ETIs would design in similar ways and for similar purposes to those of
humans. One could, I suppose, hypothesize a Designer of radically
different capabilities, methods, and goals; if one had a sufficiently
detailed hypothesis, one could predict what sort of results one should
expect of that design. That is, one must *recognize* the
specifications of the complexity. IDers argue, on the one hand, that
living things are obviously designed for their functions. But when
examples of seemingly bad or just eccentric design (what Designer
would use one basic wing design for all birds, flying or nonflying,
and another for all bats, of all sizes?) are adduced, they retort that
we can't know the purposes of the Designer. Well, if we can't know
them, we can't very well marvel at how wonderfully the design
accomplishes them, can we?
Now, ID proponents argue that SCI can be recognized because no natural
mechanism can produce it, and intelligence can, even if we can't be
sure what exactly the specification is. But even to the extent that
currently known regularities of nature, operating alone or in
combination in currently known ways, can't explain a phenomenon, all
that shows is that some currently unknown mechanism (whether employed
by an intelligent Agent, or purely nonteleological) produced it.
Without an exhaustive knowledge of all nonteleological regularities of
nature, and all their possible combinations, we can't rule out the
possibility of unknown, natural, unintelligent causes. Nor, of
course, can we rule out intelligent causes of sorts (e.g.
intelligences no more interested in our morals, welfare, or worship
than we would be in that of bacteria in a petri dish) that would not
greatly interest most ID supporters.
>
> > That is, they have no idea how their proposed explanation is supposed
> > to work, or what sort of systems the Designer should be expected to
> > design, or to refrain from designing. They've no foggiest idea
> > whether the Designer should give every creation identical
> > cytochrome-c, or arrange variants in a nested hiearchy, or arrange
> > variants in a pattern clearly NOT a nested hierarchy. Because of
> > this, they can't explain why anything in nature is the way it is,
> > rather than some other imaginable way.
>
>
> All I know is that I'm not taking your word for this.
>
*shrug* Take the IDers' own word for it. In Phillip Johnson's
_Darwin on Trial_ , Behe's _Darwin's Black Box_, and quite a few other
books, the author deals with some variant of the "panda's thumb"
argument that the sort of design we see in living things is *not* the
sort of design we would expect from any observed sort of intelligent
designer. The response is invariably that this is a theological, not
scientific, position -- that we aren't entitled to any assumptions
about how the Designer would work. But if we aren't entitled to any
assumptions about how the Designer would work, we surely can't make
any predictions about what design will and will not look like.
Therefore we can't tell design from the results of unknown, but
unintelligent, causes -- or, indeed, from the results of known
unintelligent causes (maybe the Designer crafts each snowflake
individually and intelligently -- how would we ever know otherwise?).
>
> >
> > ID theory predicts *nothing* except that there will be aspects of
> > biological complexity and diversity not explicable by current theories
> > -- and these gaps will be seized upon as places to stuff a "Designer
> > of the gaps."
> >
> Unlike what Ho and Sanders claim "But a real synthesis should begin
> by identifying conflicting elements in the theory, rather than in
> accommodating contradictions as quickly as they arise."
>
Very unlike that, indeed. ID does not seize on newly identified
mechanisms with which to explain this or that aspect of design. Its
flaws do not include finding one purpose or technique for design, and
using it to explain the bacterial flagellum, while seizing on a
different sort of design for a completely different purpose to explain
the immune system. It does not seek mechanisms or explanations for
anything at all, or make predictions detailed enough that it needs to
rescue them with _ad hoc_ explanations. Rather, it simply argues that
this, and that, and some other thing can't be explained in perfect
detail by current models, so "theDesignerdidit" (in some unspecified
manner, at some unspecified time, for some unspecified purpose) is
somehow a superior explanation.
-- Steven J.
Lenny Flank
> Steven J. wrote:
>
> > Glenn <gshe...@qwest.net> wrote in message news:<3E8D3A42...@qwest.net>...
> >
> >>http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/falsify.htm
> >>
> >>"Since the time of Darwin, evolutionists have known about the weaknesses
> >>of the theory of evolution and descent with modification. Yet, they have
> >>not abandoned it simply because they say, "it's the best theory we've
> >>got". Descent, through these "ad hoc" hypotheses, has been forced into
> >>an unfalsifiable position, lest it be falsified. Today, biologists have
> >>a new and growing theory of life's origin: intelligent design. As
> >>intelligent design theory matures and develops as a scientific theory,
> >>evolution may not be the "best" any longer, and the "design hypothesis"
> >>may once again be considered as a viable explanation for the origins of
> >>lifeforms on earth."
> >>
> >>
> > The "design hypothesis" need not protect itself from falsification by
> > continually incorporating _ad hoc_ hypotheses. It has the mother of
> > all _ad hoc_ hypotheses built into it from the beginning: the identity
> > (by which ID propenents mean not merely the name, but the motives,
> > methods, and abilities of the Designer) are said to be irrelevant to
> > and inaccessible by science.
>
>
> EH?? The "identity" of a designer is not necessary, nor are the
> abilities required to be known to detect design in structures.
How convenient for you.
But OK, I'll play along. DON'T identify your designer, then. <shrug>
Just tell me (1) what it did, precisely, and (2) how it did it.
Wait, let me guess-----you don't have to answer that either, right?
Noctiluca
> Steven J. wrote:
>
> > Glenn <gshe...@qwest.net> wrote in message news:<3E8D3A42...@qwest.net>...
> >
> >>http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/falsify.htm
> >>
> >>"Since the time of Darwin, evolutionists have known about the weaknesses
> >>of the theory of evolution and descent with modification. Yet, they have
> >>not abandoned it simply because they say, "it's the best theory we've
> >>got". Descent, through these "ad hoc" hypotheses, has been forced into
> >>an unfalsifiable position, lest it be falsified. Today, biologists have
> >>a new and growing theory of life's origin: intelligent design. As
> >>intelligent design theory matures and develops as a scientific theory,
> >>evolution may not be the "best" any longer, and the "design hypothesis"
> >>may once again be considered as a viable explanation for the origins of
> >>lifeforms on earth."
> >>
> >>
> > The "design hypothesis" need not protect itself from falsification by
> > continually incorporating _ad hoc_ hypotheses. It has the mother of
> > all _ad hoc_ hypotheses built into it from the beginning: the identity
> > (by which ID propenents mean not merely the name, but the motives,
> > methods, and abilities of the Designer) are said to be irrelevant to
> > and inaccessible by science.
>
>
> EH?? The "identity" of a designer is not necessary, nor are the
> abilities required to be known to detect design in structures.
> And you said yourself that mechanisms are not needed as long as there is
> evidence of an event(s).
> You'll have to do a little better than that, Steven.
You're joking, right?
What veneer of impenetrability makes this argument so attractive to
IDists?
Consider this analogy.
Imagine that an archaeologist unearths an artifact that, after some
study, he announces is intelligently designed. This causes little
consternation within the archaeological community or society at large.
After further research, however, he triumphantly proclaims this
artifact to be designed by an intelligence "other than human." As
expected he is swarmed and entreated, not just by colleagues but by
laymen as well, for data and observations that support this claim.
You, Glenn, or any IDist reading this, just happen to be one of these
archaeological colleagues and you want him to describe to you in
detail how he knows this object is of non-human intelligence. In
correspondence and meetings with him he outlines what he considers
those characteristics that drove his conclusion. But you are
unimpressed because you can think of several alternate, and more
parsimonious, explanations that fit the data, some of them perhaps
including human design. It is certainly not immediately obvious to you
or most other archaeologists that this artifact is of non-human, or
even "intelligent", design.
So what do you do?
Let me suggest that, in the absence of compelling evidence intrinsic
to the artifact, you would insist that for your colleague's ideas to
be taken seriously he is going to have to give you some idea as to the
nature of the designer of the artifact, and those attributes of said
designer that would support a connection between him/her/it and the
object itself.
ID theorists are fond of the facile comparisons with human designed
objects as support for their perspective. This, in my opinion, is a
massive mistake on their part because it is precisely the comparison,
or more importantly the contrast, with human design that points out
the need for them to produce evidence of a designer.
If we lived in a universe of dwarfs and klingons and poltergeists and
greys and leprechauns that went around drawing up and knocking off
stuff all the time this might not be as much of an issue. But human
designed artifacts are the *only* intelligently designed things of
which we know. For the comparison with human design to have any
validity it must be seen in opposition, or *as opposed* to some other
designed things, i.e. something is much more similar to human design
than it is to hutt. That is, one is comparing and evaluating numbers
and qualities of similarities. In the absence of this what one is left
with is a comparison with something that is unique and the consequent
and logical emphasis on the importance of those characters which are
not alike, the contrasts. In a scenario such as the comparison of
biological organisms with human designed objects you cannot have one
without the other, and it would be a trifle to come up with far more
dissimilarities than similarities.
The notion of equivalence between biological organisms and human
design is vacuous. The task of proving that science cannot now nor
will it ever be able to produce naturalist explanations for proposed
ID phenomena is impossible.
There is no theory of ID, there is no demonstrated body of work.
All that ID is left with is the production of evidence for the
designer.
robert
<snip>
Glenn
Noctiluca wrote:
Big problem here with your analogy.
> After further research, however, he triumphantly proclaims this
> artifact to be designed by an intelligence "other than human." As
> expected he is swarmed and entreated, not just by colleagues but by
> laymen as well, for data and observations that support this claim.
> You, Glenn, or any IDist reading this, just happen to be one of these
> archaeological colleagues and you want him to describe to you in
> detail how he knows this object is of non-human intelligence. In
> correspondence and meetings with him he outlines what he considers
> those characteristics that drove his conclusion. But you are
> unimpressed because you can think of several alternate, and more
> parsimonious, explanations that fit the data, some of them perhaps
> including human design. It is certainly not immediately obvious to you
> or most other archaeologists that this artifact is of non-human, or
> even "intelligent", design.
> So what do you do?
>
At this point, tell you that the point is in identifying intelligent
design, not the designer in particular, and that all your words here
could have been summed up in a single sentence, or just "Sky-Pixie".
>
> Let me suggest that, in the absence of compelling evidence intrinsic
> to the artifact, you would insist that for your colleague's ideas to
> be taken seriously he is going to have to give you some idea as to the
> nature of the designer of the artifact, and those attributes of said
> designer that would support a connection between him/her/it and the
> object itself.
>
You can suggest that the nature of designer be identified and connection
to the object, but the suggestion bears no weight on determining
intelligent design.
>
> ID theorists are fond of the facile comparisons with human designed
> objects as support for their perspective. This, in my opinion, is a
> massive mistake on their part because it is precisely the comparison,
> or more importantly the contrast, with human design that points out
> the need for them to produce evidence of a designer.
> If we lived in a universe of dwarfs and klingons and poltergeists and
> greys and leprechauns that went around drawing up and knocking off
> stuff all the time this might not be as much of an issue. But human
> designed artifacts are the *only* intelligently designed things of
> which we know. For the comparison with human design to have any
> validity it must be seen in opposition, or *as opposed* to some other
> designed things, i.e. something is much more similar to human design
> than it is to hutt. That is, one is comparing and evaluating numbers
> and qualities of similarities. In the absence of this what one is left
> with is a comparison with something that is unique and the consequent
> and logical emphasis on the importance of those characters which are
> not alike, the contrasts. In a scenario such as the comparison of
> biological organisms with human designed objects you cannot have one
> without the other, and it would be a trifle to come up with far more
> dissimilarities than similarities.
>
Sounds like you want determination of intelligent design to be dependent
upon similar design criteria. I'd rather not constrain science in that way.
>
> The notion of equivalence between biological organisms and human
> design is vacuous.
If an alien from another planet knocks on your door, you will say that
there is no way to say he is an alien from another planet, as
we have no aliens from another planet on this planet from which to compare.
>The task of proving that science cannot now nor
> will it ever be able to produce naturalist explanations for proposed
> ID phenomena is impossible.
Not because you say so. Especially when you state with conviction that
something will never be able to happen.
> There is no theory of ID, there is no demonstrated body of work.
> All that ID is left with is the production of evidence for the
> designer.
>
You would have undoubtedly proclaimed Darwins work as theory had you
been in that time. So much for this philosophy about science being a
"work in progress".
Look to your own theory about a common ancestor to life, give me the
evidence of that first ancestor, when life first became life from dead
materials, be specific about your own theory; when did "evolution" begin?
Steven J.
> Noctiluca wrote:
>
-- [snip]
>
> > Consider this analogy.
> > Imagine that an archaeologist unearths an artifact that, after some
> > study, he announces is intelligently designed. This causes little
> > consternation within the archaeological community or society at large.
>
>
> Big problem here with your analogy.
>
it seems to me that the problem is that we have examples of humans,
and of human-designed things, and things which are not designed by
humans, so we can tell them apart by their different traits. In
contrast, we don't have clear-cut cases of Unknown Designer-designed
things, and things not designed by this Designer, or the Designer at
hand to examine directly. On the other hand, we *do* have an
observable mechanism, in the form of mutation and natural selection,
and we can observe some of the things *it* has done to populations of
living things, so we can at least talk intelligently about whether
common descent and adaption on a large scale can be attributed to it.
>
> > After further research, however, he triumphantly proclaims this
> > artifact to be designed by an intelligence "other than human." As
> > expected he is swarmed and entreated, not just by colleagues but by
> > laymen as well, for data and observations that support this claim.
> > You, Glenn, or any IDist reading this, just happen to be one of these
> > archaeological colleagues and you want him to describe to you in
> > detail how he knows this object is of non-human intelligence. In
> > correspondence and meetings with him he outlines what he considers
> > those characteristics that drove his conclusion. But you are
> > unimpressed because you can think of several alternate, and more
> > parsimonious, explanations that fit the data, some of them perhaps
> > including human design. It is certainly not immediately obvious to you
> > or most other archaeologists that this artifact is of non-human, or
> > even "intelligent", design.
> > So what do you do?
>
>
> At this point, tell you that the point is in identifying intelligent
> design, not the designer in particular, and that all your words here
> could have been summed up in a single sentence, or just "Sky-Pixie".
>
mechanism that can explain the alleged artifact. Even if all of them
are shown to be inadequate, all that would show is that the "artifact"
must be attributed to *unknown* causes. Until you can show how one
particular hypothesis about those causes (e.g. that they include an
Intelligent Designer) makes falsifiable predictions about the artifact
that avoid falsification, there is no reason to prefer any particular
unknown cause to any other, or to assume that the unknown cause
possesses anything we'd call intelligence or purpose.
>
> > Let me suggest that, in the absence of compelling evidence intrinsic
> > to the artifact, you would insist that for your colleague's ideas to
> > be taken seriously he is going to have to give you some idea as to the
> > nature of the designer of the artifact, and those attributes of said
> > designer that would support a connection between him/her/it and the
> > object itself.
>
>
> You can suggest that the nature of designer be identified and connection
> to the object, but the suggestion bears no weight on determining
> intelligent design.
>
bearing on identifying design, then "design" is just a synonym for
"produced by unknown causes operating in unknown ways." We don't
*know* that intelligence is the only cause capable of producing
"specified complexity" (in fact, we have reason to believe otherwise,
and we know, in fact, that it is NOT the only cause capable of
producing irreducible complexity). That is because we don't *know*
the capabilities of all possible unknown causes, alone and in
combinations with other causes under various circumstances.
So the only way we could be justified in attributing alleged "design"
to a designer is if we could show that it matched the properties
predicted by the posited abilities, goals, and design philosophy of
that designer. In short, we would have to know something about the
designer's identity.
>
> > ID theorists are fond of the facile comparisons with human designed
> > objects as support for their perspective. This, in my opinion, is a
> > massive mistake on their part because it is precisely the comparison,
> > or more importantly the contrast, with human design that points out
> > the need for them to produce evidence of a designer.
> > If we lived in a universe of dwarfs and klingons and poltergeists and
> > greys and leprechauns that went around drawing up and knocking off
> > stuff all the time this might not be as much of an issue. But human
> > designed artifacts are the *only* intelligently designed things of
> > which we know. For the comparison with human design to have any
> > validity it must be seen in opposition, or *as opposed* to some other
> > designed things, i.e. something is much more similar to human design
> > than it is to hutt. That is, one is comparing and evaluating numbers
> > and qualities of similarities. In the absence of this what one is left
> > with is a comparison with something that is unique and the consequent
> > and logical emphasis on the importance of those characters which are
> > not alike, the contrasts. In a scenario such as the comparison of
> > biological organisms with human designed objects you cannot have one
> > without the other, and it would be a trifle to come up with far more
> > dissimilarities than similarities.
>
>
> Sounds like you want determination of intelligent design to be dependent
> upon similar design criteria. I'd rather not constrain science in that way.
>
You mean, constrain it by requiring actual evidence? This does not
seem consistent with the position you have purported to take on other
threads.
>
> >
> > The notion of equivalence between biological organisms and human
> > design is vacuous.
>
> If an alien from another planet knocks on your door, you will say that
> there is no way to say he is an alien from another planet, as
> we have no aliens from another planet on this planet from which to compare.
>
Actually, one could make a case by comparing him to organisms from
*this* planet, thereby establishing that [a] he is a living organism
(by virtue of his similarities to other living organisms), but [b] he
does not fit anywhere into the nested hieararchy of life on this
planet, has no plausible relatives or evolutionary forebears here, has
no place on this world where he could have been hiding all this time,
and seems to advanced to be produced by the (known) capabilities of
current genetic engineering.
That is, one can compare the alleged alien to organisms *known* NOT to
be from another planet. Can you compare life to things you *know*
were not designed (recalling that the IDers favorite candidate for
Designer is the Creator of the entire universe)?
>
> > The task of proving that science cannot now nor
> > will it ever be able to produce naturalist explanations for proposed
> > ID phenomena is impossible.
>
>
> Not because you say so. Especially when you state with conviction that
> something will never be able to happen.
>
What Noctiluna is saying here is that science will never know all the
laws of nature and all the ways they might operate -- or at least, if
it ever figures them out, scientists still won't *know* for sure that
they have all the answers. Do you believe he is incorrect in this
assessment? After all, such total knowledge of the universe is what
it would take to rule out ALL possible naturalistic explanations for
life.
>
> > There is no theory of ID, there is no demonstrated body of work.
> > All that ID is left with is the production of evidence for the
> > designer.
> >
> You would have undoubtedly proclaimed Darwins work as theory had you
> been in that time. So much for this philosophy about science being a
> "work in progress".
>
Noctiluna would undoubtedly proclaimed Darwin's work as a theory,
whether 140 years ago, or today. It *is* a theory; it makes
predictions, and explains why the data is the way it is, rather than
various other imaginable ways it could be. Note that "theory" is not
a category of idea inferior to "fact." A fact is some idea supported
by enough evidence that refusing to provisionally assent to it would
be intellectually perverse. A well-confirmed explanation is both a
theory and a fact.
ID simply is a god-of-the-gaps apologetic, not an explanation or a
fact.
>
> Look to your own theory about a common ancestor to life, give me the
> evidence of that first ancestor, when life first became life from dead
> materials, be specific about your own theory; when did "evolution" begin?
>
I do not know how life first originated, and neither do you, and
"designdidit"is not a testable theory on the matter. Evolution, at
least on this planet, seems to have begun around four billion years
ago.
-- Steven J.
John Harshman
Glenn wrote:
>
> Steven Carr wrote:
>
>
>>Glenn <gshe...@qwest.net> wrote in message news:<3E8D3A42...@qwest.net>...
>>
>>
>>>http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/falsify.htm
>>>
>>>
>>This web site says ID is science as it makes testable claims.
>>
>>One claim it makes is :-
>>'Fossil forms will appear suddenly and without any precursors.'
>>
>>We have seen fossil forms with precursors, so ID is falsified.
>>
>
> >
>
> If you have *seen* many of these forms *with* their precursors in the fossil record,
>
> then common descent is falsified.
That would be true if ancestors were required to become extinct when
their descendants were born. This is as false for species as it is for
individuals. In essence, what you say here is equivalent to the old
creationist canard, "If we come from monkeys, how come there are still
monkeys?"
> Or
> Fossil forms don't "appear", they just lay there.
I've never said this before to anyone, but it would be a good idea for
you to make use of emoticons, because it's impossible to tell when you
are joking.
> Or
>
> Evolutionists' *claims* that they are precursors does not falsify
> anything except the claim that evolutionists dont make claims.
True. But we could try examining the evidence used to make those claims.
Would you like to?
>>Does it mean that it predicts there will be *some* fossils without any
>>precursors? How can ID proponents shown this? As they are fond of
>>saying 'Absence of evidence is not evidence of abscence'.
>
> I couldn't answer that about them, but ID proponents could argue that
> there are no precursors.
Or they could not. Many ID proponents do seem to believe in common
descent. Michael Behe for example. How would you recognize a precursor
or a non-precursor? What do you think of common descent?
>>The web site also claims 'Genes and functional parts often are not
>>distributed in a manner predicted by ancestry, and are often found in
>>clearly unrelated organisms.' Isn't this just a plain lie?
>>
>>
> You tell me!
There's no way to tell if it's a lie or merely ignorance. The important
question is whether it's true or not. Do you have an opinion on this,
and if so what is it?
> http://www.alternativescience.com/homology.htm
> "Yet when biologists did begin to acquire an understanding of the
> molecular mechanism of genetics, they found that apparently homologous
> structures in different species are specified by quite different genes.
> Pandora's box turned out to be empty."
Unfortunately they give no reference for this claim. I am aware of no
instance in which this has been shown to be the case. Do you?
I am however aware of many instances in which homologous structures are
specified by similar genes. Homeobox genes are multiple cases in point.
Do you have any idea what that quote is talking about?
Glenn
John Harshman wrote:
>
> Glenn wrote:
>
>
>>Steven Carr wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/falsify.htm
>>>>
>>>This web site says ID is science as it makes testable claims.
>>>
>>>One claim it makes is :-
>>>'Fossil forms will appear suddenly and without any precursors.'
>>>
>>>We have seen fossil forms with precursors, so ID is falsified.
>>
>>If you have *seen* many of these forms *with* their precursors in the fossil record,
>>then common descent is falsified.
>>
> That would be true if ancestors were required to become extinct when
> their descendants were born. This is as false for species as it is for
> individuals. In essence, what you say here is equivalent to the old
> creationist canard, "If we come from monkeys, how come there are still
> monkeys?"
>
No, it would be equivalent to saying if we came from what we came from,
how come what we came from are still around.
A definite problem for evolution, but certainly evolutionists would
claim to get around it. The present form having evolved from a previous
form while for millions of years the previous form not evolving would
not be consistent with any kind of evolution, gradual or other.
What it means really is that you can't "see" what you claim you can.
howard hershey
Glenn wrote:
>
> Steven Carr wrote:
>
>
>>Glenn <gshe...@qwest.net> wrote in message news:<3E8D3A42...@qwest.net>...
>>
>>
>>>http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/falsify.htm
[snip]
>>The web site also claims 'Genes and functional parts often are not
>>distributed in a manner predicted by ancestry, and are often found in
>>clearly unrelated organisms.' Isn't this just a plain lie?
>>
>
> You tell me!
>
> http://www.alternativescience.com/homology.htm
> "Yet when biologists did begin to acquire an understanding of the
> molecular mechanism of genetics, they found that apparently homologous
> structures in different species are specified by quite different genes.
> Pandora's box turned out to be empty."
Not only is this page wrong about the meanings of all the terms it uses,
starting with homologous, it is just plain wrong. One determines
whether a gene is homologous to another gene by looking at its sequence,
not necessarily its current function. The hox box binding genes of
flies and humans are homologous, but do not perform the same function at
the morphological level. They do perform the same function at the level
of enzyme or protein activity (specifically, they bind hox box sequences
and affect transcriptional activity of those genes).
First of all, there are essentially no structures in any species that
are *specified by* any single gene. Rather, morphological structures
are produced by a developmental sequence of gene activity in specific
sites. Some of those genes can serve different related functions at
other sites. The genes that are activated to generate the homologous
forelimbs of whales and crows and cows and humans, OTOH, are quite
homologous to each other, as are the genes that are serially activated
to produce the eye (or whatever). Those genes that are activated in a
regulatory cascade in different organisms specify the same enzymatic
activities and determine the development of the forelimbs in all the
species and also show sequence homology.
Second, the Denton argument depends upon explicitly contradicting the
usual argument used for ICness of a 'system'; namely he claims that
because *mutation* that (presumably) removes an active gene indicates
that these proteins often play a regulatory role in several different
functions in the organism, that means that they do not serve the same
function in any of them. In terms of the IC argument, of course, each
protein in a 'system' can only have a single function and can never have
multiple activities, since that would allow a protein to duplicate and
specialize or change function without causing loss of the original
activity or being invented from scratch to serve a sole and only
possible integrated function.
John Harshman
Glenn wrote:
>
> John Harshman wrote:
>
>
>>Glenn wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Steven Carr wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/falsify.htm
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>This web site says ID is science as it makes testable claims.
>>>>
>>>>One claim it makes is :-
>>>>'Fossil forms will appear suddenly and without any precursors.'
>>>>
>>>>We have seen fossil forms with precursors, so ID is falsified.
>>>>
>>>If you have *seen* many of these forms *with* their precursors in the fossil record,
>>>then common descent is falsified.
>>>
>>>
>>That would be true if ancestors were required to become extinct when
>>their descendants were born. This is as false for species as it is for
>>individuals. In essence, what you say here is equivalent to the old
>>creationist canard, "If we come from monkeys, how come there are still
>>monkeys?"
>
> No, it would be equivalent to saying if we came from what we came from,
> how come what we came from are still around.
Is there a difference between what I said and what you said? If so, what?
> A definite problem for evolution, but certainly evolutionists would
> claim to get around it. The present form having evolved from a previous
> form while for millions of years the previous form not evolving would
> not be consistent with any kind of evolution, gradual or other.
Explain why this is true. Are you saying that evolutionary stasis is
impossible? Are you saying that evolutionary branching is impossible?
Are you saying that if a species splits into two species, both of them
must change to the same degree later on? Because I don't see how the
persistence of ancestors is a problem for evolution. It would seem to be
expected except under the most extreme (and absurd) version of
anagenetic gradualism.
> What it means really is that you can't "see" what you claim you can.
What did I claim I could see? And why does it mean that?
Glenn
John Harshman wrote:
>
> Glenn wrote:
>
>>John Harshman wrote:
>>
>>>Glenn wrote:
>>>
>>>>Steven Carr wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/falsify.htm
>>>>>>
>>>>>This web site says ID is science as it makes testable claims.
>>>>>
>>>>>One claim it makes is :-
>>>>>'Fossil forms will appear suddenly and without any precursors.'
>>>>>
>>>>>We have seen fossil forms with precursors, so ID is falsified.
>>>>>
>>>>If you have *seen* many of these forms *with* their precursors in the fossil record,
>>>>then common descent is falsified.
>>>>
>>>That would be true if ancestors were required to become extinct when
>>>their descendants were born. This is as false for species as it is for
>>>individuals. In essence, what you say here is equivalent to the old
>>>creationist canard, "If we come from monkeys, how come there are still
>>>monkeys?"
>>>
>>No, it would be equivalent to saying if we came from what we came from,
>>how come what we came from are still around.
>>
> Is there a difference between what I said and what you said? If so, what?
>
Harshman, you really believe we came from monkeys? Do you think I do?
OT, you'll notice above that my conditional statement included *many*.
>
>>A definite problem for evolution, but certainly evolutionists would
>>claim to get around it. The present form having evolved from a previous
>>form while for millions of years the previous form not evolving would
>>not be consistent with any kind of evolution, gradual or other.
>>
> Explain why this is true. Are you saying that evolutionary stasis is
> impossible? Are you saying that evolutionary branching is impossible?
> Are you saying that if a species splits into two species, both of them
> must change to the same degree later on? Because I don't see how the
> persistence of ancestors is a problem for evolution. It would seem to be
> expected except under the most extreme (and absurd) version of
> anagenetic gradualism.
>
What I have been saying is that evolutionists will claim any prediction as not
endangering common descent, just as you do now. Even supposing
geneticists proclaim tomorrow that there is no such thing as "change in
alleles in a pop over time" evolution is false, evolutionists would
still cling to common descent.
The key can be seen here in your word "must"; nothing must do anything
predictable. This pig is not predictable, not falsifiable.
>
>>What it means really is that you can't "see" what you claim you can.
>>
> What did I claim I could see? And why does it mean that?
>
I just told you why. Your claims?
Evolutionary statis is possible.
Parent species is not required to evolve at any rate.
The above is expected under some version of gradualism.
John Harshman
Glenn wrote:
>
> John Harshman wrote:
>
>
>>Glenn wrote:
>>
>>
>>>John Harshman wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Glenn wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Steven Carr wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/falsify.htm
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>This web site says ID is science as it makes testable claims.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>One claim it makes is :-
>>>>>>'Fossil forms will appear suddenly and without any precursors.'
>>>>>>
>>>>>>We have seen fossil forms with precursors, so ID is falsified.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>If you have *seen* many of these forms *with* their precursors in the fossil record,
>>>>>then common descent is falsified.
>>>>>
>>>>That would be true if ancestors were required to become extinct when
>>>>their descendants were born. This is as false for species as it is for
>>>>individuals. In essence, what you say here is equivalent to the old
>>>>creationist canard, "If we come from monkeys, how come there are still
>>>>monkeys?"
>>>>
>>>No, it would be equivalent to saying if we came from what we came from,
>>>how come what we came from are still around.
>>>
>>Is there a difference between what I said and what you said? If so, what?
>>
>>
> Harshman, you really believe we came from monkeys? Do you think I do?
Yes, I do. I'll know what you think when you decide to tell me. Do you
think we didn't come from monkeys? Why or why not?
> OT, you'll notice above that my conditional statement included *many*.
Yes, and how does that affect anything? You may be confused about one
thing. I am arguing with your claim that finding supposed ancestors and
descendants in the same strata would falsify evolution. I am not
claiming that we find ancestral taxa frequently. In fact we have no
means of distinguishing ancestors from non-ancestors. All we can really
discern are cladistic relationships. This is good enough for many
purposes, including a demonstration that common descent happens.
>>>A definite problem for evolution, but certainly evolutionists would
>>>claim to get around it. The present form having evolved from a previous
>>>form while for millions of years the previous form not evolving would
>>>not be consistent with any kind of evolution, gradual or other.
>>>
>>>
>>Explain why this is true. Are you saying that evolutionary stasis is
>>impossible? Are you saying that evolutionary branching is impossible?
>>Are you saying that if a species splits into two species, both of them
>>must change to the same degree later on? Because I don't see how the
>>persistence of ancestors is a problem for evolution. It would seem to be
>>expected except under the most extreme (and absurd) version of
>>anagenetic gradualism.
>>
> What I have been saying is that evolutionists will claim any prediction as not
> endangering common descent, just as you do now. Even supposing
> geneticists proclaim tomorrow that there is no such thing as "change in
> alleles in a pop over time" evolution is false, evolutionists would
> still cling to common descent.
You offer nothing to back up that claim, though. Persistence of
ancestral morphotypes wouldn't falsify evolution under anyone's idea of
evolution, except possibly yours and those creationists who wonder why
there are still monkeys. You need to rest your claim on some
unreasonable lengths that evolutionists go to, if you can find any.
> The key can be seen here in your word "must"; nothing must do anything
> predictable. This pig is not predictable, not falsifiable.
You are looking in the wrong place for evidence that could falsify
evolution. There are such things, conceptually. Absence of nested
hierarchies, for example.
You have come close to a personal statement, here. Would you care to
confirm it? Do you think that evolution has been falsified, if only
evolutionists would abandon their biases? Do you think that any evidence
bears on the question of whether evolution is a correct theory, and if
so, what evidence? And if so, what theory does it support?
>>>What it means really is that you can't "see" what you claim you can.
>>>
>>What did I claim I could see? And why does it mean that?
>>
> I just told you why. Your claims?
>
> Evolutionary statis is possible.
> Parent species is not required to evolve at any rate.
> The above is expected under some version of gradualism.
Your difficulties in writing clear English, or perhaps my difficulties
in understanding it, mean that I still can't tell what you are trying to
say here. Yes, I do think stasis is possible; why wouldn't it be? Yes, I
do think that parent species are not required to evolve; that follows
from stasis being possible. Yes, I do think that the above is expected
under some conditions, under some versions of gradualism and all
versions of punctuation. Is any of this wrong? Why?
If you think that persistence of ancestors should falsify evolution, you
have yet to explain why that should be true.
Glenn
John Harshman wrote:
That's good enough for me, that you do think we came from an extant
*monkey*.
I seem to be very popular in the evolutionist press today, and since you
are no more interesting than any others,
snip
AC
Odd, Glenn, I don't recall "extant" in the above quote. Why would you lie?
Even worse, why would you not at least try to hide the evidence that you
lied?
>
> I seem to be very popular in the evolutionist press today, and since you
> are no more interesting than any others,
It isn't that you are popular, it's just that you're the easiest target.
So what was it that you believed, Glenn? How do you believe that life came
to be in the many forms we see today?
--
A. Clausen
maureen...@nospam.alberni.net (Remove "nospam." to contact me)
John Harshman
Glenn wrote:
I don't think that's reading incomprehension on your part; I think it's
just a desire to score points (something you claim to detest even though
it's your most common form of discourse -- go figure).
To clarify, even though no clarification should be necessary: we don't
descend from any extant monkey species, but if you looked at our
ancestors far enough back, you would call them monkeys. And if you look
at it cladistically, we are part of Anthropoidea, for which a good
common name would be "monkey".
> I seem to be very popular in the evolutionist press today, and since you
> are no more interesting than any others,
I would still like to know what you get out of all this. All I can see
is a desire to score points without exposing yourself to any sort of
intellectual effort.
OK. From now on, I will attempt to refute, once, any arguments you
make, or quote, that I consider incorrect. I won't respond otherwise,
and I won't ask you any more questions.
Glenn
John Harshman wrote:
I was just following the conversation! I assumed you knew what monkey
meant. You seemed to with your submission of the "old creationist
canard". Sorry.
>
> To clarify, even though no clarification should be necessary: we don't
> descend from any extant monkey species, but if you looked at our
> ancestors far enough back, you would call them monkeys.
No, I would not call them monkeys. Monkeys are what we call monkeys now.
>And if you look
> at it cladistically, we are part of Anthropoidea, for which a good
> common name would be "monkey".
Making up names does not help, Harshman. It does show your difficulty of
knowing what our ancestors were though.
Andy Groves
That's not what he wrote, Glenn. If you're going to be deliberately
disingenuous, try and be a tad more subtle.
Now answer the question - do *you* think we came from monkeys? If not,
why not? What did we come from?
Andy
Steven J.
> In article <3E934548...@qwest.net>, Glenn wrote:
> >
> > John Harshman wrote:
> >
> >> Glenn wrote:
> >>
> >>>John Harshman wrote:
>
>
> >>>>>>That would be true if ancestors were required to become extinct when
> >>>>>>their descendants were born. This is as false for species as it is for
> >>>>>>individuals. In essence, what you say here is equivalent to the old
> >>>>>>creationist canard, "If we come from monkeys, how come there are still
> >>>>>>monkeys?"
>
>
> >>>>>No, it would be equivalent to saying if we came from what we came from,
> >>>>>how come what we came from are still around.
>
>
> >>>>Is there a difference between what I said and what you said? If so, what?
>
argument between two people trying to determine what the probable
truth is. Harshman has left him an opening, and he intends to lure
Harshman into a verbal trap and spring it, either in the belief that
this will impress people with his cleverness, or merely because he
enjoys behaving like an ass.
"Monkeys" are two separate groups of species, plus their common
ancestors with apes. The point has been made, often enough, that
humans are not descended from any *living* species of nonhuman
primate. So Glenn's implicit point is that, strictly speaking, saying
that a *species* need not go extinct when it gives rise to a different
species is not the same as, and does not logically follow from, saying
that a *family* or higher taxon need not go extinct when one species
in it gives rise to another species (although, actually, if a species
had to go extinct when it gave rise to another species, I don't see
how families could arise, unless *every* isolated population of that
species speciated, in different "directions," simultaneously).
If Harshman fails to figure out Glenn's point is, Glenn will use it as
an excuse to claim that Harshman has claimed that humans are descended
from another living primate *species,* because Harshman has claimed
that humans are descended from a living primate *family* (more or
less), and failed to distinguish formally between the ancestral higher
taxon having surviving members, and the actual ancestral species
leaving survivors.
Of course, failing to distinguish between taxonomical levels is *not*
the same thing as saying that the "monkey" that was our last common
ancestor with living Old World monkeys is a still extant species, but
admitting this and contenting himself with simply pointing out that
Harshman's analogy was a bit off would not have been nearly as
juvenile and annoying.
>
> >>>Harshman, you really believe we came from monkeys? Do you think I do?
>
Note that Glenn does not state his actual objection to Harshman's
question, and raises a question about his own inscrutable beliefs when
he could at least be dropping a hint (e.g. do you think that a family
is the same as a species?) as to his true meaning.
>
> >> Yes, I do. I'll know what you think when you decide to tell me. Do you
> >> think we didn't come from monkeys? Why or why not?
>
>
> > That's good enough for me, that you do think we came from an extant
> > *monkey*.
>
> Odd, Glenn, I don't recall "extant" in the above quote. Why would you lie?
> Even worse, why would you not at least try to hide the evidence that you
> lied?
>
Because if he hid the evidence of the lie, that would also hide the
evidence of the much more important, to him, point that he won the
word game (at least by his count, and he's the only one keeping
score).
>
> > I seem to be very popular in the evolutionist press today, and since you
> > are no more interesting than any others,
>
> It isn't that you are popular, it's just that you're the easiest target.
>
> So what was it that you believed, Glenn? How do you believe that life came
> to be in the many forms we see today?
>
-- Steven J.
David Sienkiewicz
Nowhere does "extant" appear in John's statement.
You put it in there - deliberately.
You misrepresented what John wrote. That's called lying, sheldon.
Why did you do that?
I'll lay odds it's to play another of your rhetorical games. I guess
we'll see - or not, since you seem to have so much trouble working up
the nerve to speak plainly.
> I seem to be very popular in the evolutionist press today, and since you
> are no more interesting than any others,
>
> snip
If no one is interesting, sheldon, why do you post?
And I wouldn't attribute the attention you're getting to popularity,
sheldon. This newgroups exists precisely because of people like you;
and you're getting stomped pretty badly.
But DO continue to share your delusions, sheldon. I've often said
that you're nothing if not entertaining.
David Sienkiewicz
By the way, sheldon, you seem to have missed John's question.
Let me repeat it for you:
"Do you think we didn't come from monkeys? Why or why not?"
And sheldon? You seem to be answering AC even though you said you wouldn't.
Are you really THAT afraid of me?
It would seem so.
< snip >
Glenn
Steven J. wrote:
> AC <maureen...@nospam.alberni.net> wrote in message news:<slrnb96jeg.gdn...@ts1.alberni.net>...
>
>>In article <3E934548...@qwest.net>, Glenn wrote:
>>
>>>John Harshman wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Glenn wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>
> -- [snip]
>
>>>>>>>>That would be true if ancestors were required to become extinct when
>>>>>>>>their descendants were born. This is as false for species as it is for
>>>>>>>>individuals. In essence, what you say here is equivalent to the old
>>>>>>>>creationist canard, "If we come from monkeys, how come there are still
>>>>>>>>monkeys?"
>>>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>>No, it would be equivalent to saying if we came from what we came from,
>>>>>>>how come what we came from are still around.
>>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>Is there a difference between what I said and what you said? If so, what?
>>>>>>
> Glenn does not answer this, because he does not see this as an
> argument between two people trying to determine what the probable
> truth is.
Sorry Steven you're not as brainy as you think you are.
There is an obvious difference between the two statments. One is the
"creationist canard", assuming that evolutionists think that our
ancestors were the monkeys we see today (extant). That was NOT what I
was describing, and Harshman's claim that it is equivalent to the canard
is just plain wrong. I expect intelligence from an opponent, without it
there is not communication. Hey, like this post of yours.
My point is that if there were many instances where ancestors from
millions of years ago are still around, would falsify evolutionary
theory. You can claim stasis all you want, but would have to deal with
it. I don't think you could, but you undoubtedly do, probably nothing
would convince you.
>Harshman has left him an opening, and he intends to lure
> Harshman into a verbal trap and spring it, either in the belief that
> this will impress people with his cleverness, or merely because he
> enjoys behaving like an ass.
No, I expect that if Harshman was being honest and thoughtful, he would
not have asked the question. He may have another motive for all these
seemingly naive questions. That would be behaving like an ass, like you are.
>
> "Monkeys" are two separate groups of species, plus their common
> ancestors with apes. The point has been made, often enough, that
> humans are not descended from any *living* species of nonhuman
> primate. So Glenn's implicit point is that, strictly speaking, saying
> that a *species* need not go extinct when it gives rise to a different
> species is not the same as, and does not logically follow from, saying
> that a *family* or higher taxon need not go extinct when one species
> in it gives rise to another species (although, actually, if a species
> had to go extinct when it gave rise to another species, I don't see
> how families could arise, unless *every* isolated population of that
> species speciated, in different "directions," simultaneously).
What it would mean if an ancestor species from millions of years ago
still exists today, that evolution would have stood still for them.
Evolution standing still is a problem for Darwanism - not in a short
period of time, but in millions of years, it is.
>
> If Harshman fails to figure out Glenn's point is, Glenn will use it as
> an excuse to claim that Harshman has claimed that humans are descended
> from another living primate *species,* because Harshman has claimed
> that humans are descended from a living primate *family* (more or
> less), and failed to distinguish formally between the ancestral higher
> taxon having surviving members, and the actual ancestral species
> leaving survivors.
>
Oh screw this.
If we were descended from a creature other than human, it would not be a
monkey. Your own theory calls monkeys cousins. We don't descend from
cousins, braniac.
If there is a creationist canard, it was created by evolutionists
stupidity, like Harshmans "Yes, I believe we were descended from monkeys."
John Harshman
Glenn wrote:
>
> Steven J. wrote:
>
>
>>AC <maureen...@nospam.alberni.net> wrote in message news:<slrnb96jeg.gdn...@ts1.alberni.net>...
>>
>>
>>>In article <3E934548...@qwest.net>, Glenn wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>John Harshman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Glenn wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>-- [snip]
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>That would be true if ancestors were required to become extinct when
>>>>>>>>>their descendants were born. This is as false for species as it is for
>>>>>>>>>individuals. In essence, what you say here is equivalent to the old
>>>>>>>>>creationist canard, "If we come from monkeys, how come there are still
>>>>>>>>>monkeys?"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>No, it would be equivalent to saying if we came from what we came from,
>>>>>>>>how come what we came from are still around.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Is there a difference between what I said and what you said? If so, what?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>Glenn does not answer this, because he does not see this as an
>>argument between two people trying to determine what the probable
>>truth is.
>
> Sorry Steven you're not as brainy as you think you are.
> There is an obvious difference between the two statments. One is the
> "creationist canard", assuming that evolutionists think that our
> ancestors were the monkeys we see today (extant).
I don't think that's a necessary part of the canard. To most
creationists who offer that gem, monkeys are monkeys, and a separation
os species into extant and otherwise is beside the point.
> That was NOT what I
> was describing, and Harshman's claim that it is equivalent to the canard
> is just plain wrong. I expect intelligence from an opponent, without it
> there is not communication. Hey, like this post of yours.
>
> My point is that if there were many instances where ancestors from
> millions of years ago are still around, would falsify evolutionary
> theory. You can claim stasis all you want, but would have to deal with
> it. I don't think you could, but you undoubtedly do, probably nothing
> would convince you.
By paleontological estimates, the average mammalian species lasts for
around 2-5 million years, and the average molluscan or insect species
around 10 million years. For that reason, I'm sure there are thousands
to millions of "ancestors from millions of years ago" still extant,
although it would be difficult to impossible for us to identify them.
Explain, if you will, why this should be a problem.
>>Harshman has left him an opening, and he intends to lure
>>Harshman into a verbal trap and spring it, either in the belief that
>>this will impress people with his cleverness, or merely because he
>>enjoys behaving like an ass.
>
> No, I expect that if Harshman was being honest and thoughtful, he would
> not have asked the question. He may have another motive for all these
> seemingly naive questions. That would be behaving like an ass, like you are.
We are monkeys by any reasonable definition of the term, just as we are
apes, primates, and mammals. Why is this a problem?
>
>>"Monkeys" are two separate groups of species, plus their common
>>ancestors with apes. The point has been made, often enough, that
>>humans are not descended from any *living* species of nonhuman
>>primate. So Glenn's implicit point is that, strictly speaking, saying
>>that a *species* need not go extinct when it gives rise to a different
>>species is not the same as, and does not logically follow from, saying
>>that a *family* or higher taxon need not go extinct when one species
>>in it gives rise to another species (although, actually, if a species
>>had to go extinct when it gave rise to another species, I don't see
>>how families could arise, unless *every* isolated population of that
>>species speciated, in different "directions," simultaneously).
That was Hennig's convention, still followed by a few systematists: when
a species splits, you assign new names to both branches. Most
systematists think it's a bad idea.
> What it would mean if an ancestor species from millions of years ago
> still exists today, that evolution would have stood still for them.
> Evolution standing still is a problem for Darwanism - not in a short
> period of time, but in millions of years, it is.
No, it's not a problem, in the sense that its existence doesn't falsify
common descent. It may require a new mechanism (e.g. punk eek) or it may
not, but there's no reason to suppose that stasis disproves common
descent or even the importance of natural selection.
>>If Harshman fails to figure out Glenn's point is, Glenn will use it as
>>an excuse to claim that Harshman has claimed that humans are descended
>>from another living primate *species,* because Harshman has claimed
>>that humans are descended from a living primate *family* (more or
>>less), and failed to distinguish formally between the ancestral higher
>>taxon having surviving members, and the actual ancestral species
>>leaving survivors.
>>
>>
> Oh screw this.
>
> If we were descended from a creature other than human, it would not be a
> monkey. Your own theory calls monkeys cousins. We don't descend from
> cousins, braniac.
Living monkeys are cousins, as are all other living species. But our
common ancestor was a monkey too. Surely your definition of "monkey"
doesn't include only living species. That wouldn't allow us to call any
extinct species a monkey.
> If there is a creationist canard, it was created by evolutionists
> stupidity, like Harshmans "Yes, I believe we were descended from monkeys."
No, it was created by creationist stupidity, thinking that evolution
requires species (and entire families) to transform en masse. It's
identical to another common creationist claim: "If we descended from
Homo erectus, then how come Homo sapiens and Homo erectus are
contemporaries?", and indeed their stratigraphic ranges do overlap slightly.
Andy Groves
> John Harshman wrote:
<snip>
> > To clarify, even though no clarification should be necessary: we don't
> > descend from any extant monkey species, but if you looked at our
> > ancestors far enough back, you would call them monkeys.
>
>
> No, I would not call them monkeys. Monkeys are what we call monkeys now.
Priceless.
For his next trick, Glenn will tell us what monkeys were called when
they used to be monkeys, but aren't monkeys any more.....
Andy
Andy Groves
How does slipping "extant" into the conversation count as "just
following the conversation"??? I would rather term it "being
transparently intellectually dishonest".
>
> >
> > To clarify, even though no clarification should be necessary: we don't
> > descend from any extant monkey species, but if you looked at our
> > ancestors far enough back, you would call them monkeys.
>
>
> No, I would not call them monkeys. Monkeys are what we call monkeys now.
So what would you call them?
> >And if you look
> > at it cladistically, we are part of Anthropoidea, for which a good
> > common name would be "monkey".
>
>
> Making up names does not help, Harshman. It does show your difficulty of
> knowing what our ancestors were though.
Which of the above names are "made up", Glenn?
Andy
Mark Isaak
wrote:
>My point is that if there were many instances where ancestors from
>millions of years ago are still around, would falsify evolutionary
>theory.
I had to read about 50 of your posts before I ever saw you make a
point. And surprise, surprise. Your point is wrong.
--
Mark Isaak at...@earthlink.net
Don't read everything you belive.
David Sienkiewicz
> Steven J. wrote:
>
> > AC <maureen...@nospam.alberni.net> wrote in message news:<slrnb96jeg.gdn...@ts1.alberni.net>...
> >
> >>In article <3E934548...@qwest.net>, Glenn wrote:
> >>
> >>>John Harshman wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Glenn wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>John Harshman wrote:
> >>>>>
> > -- [snip]
> >
> >>>>>>>>That would be true if ancestors were required to become extinct when
> >>>>>>>>their descendants were born. This is as false for species as it is for
> >>>>>>>>individuals. In essence, what you say here is equivalent to the old
> >>>>>>>>creationist canard, "If we come from monkeys, how come there are still
> >>>>>>>>monkeys?"
> >>>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>>No, it would be equivalent to saying if we came from what we came from,
> >>>>>>>how come what we came from are still around.
> >>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>Is there a difference between what I said and what you said? If so, what?
> >>>>>>
> > Glenn does not answer this, because he does not see this as an
> > argument between two people trying to determine what the probable
> > truth is.
>
>
> Sorry Steven you're not as brainy as you think you are.
If I had to pick which of you suffers from this problem, sheldon, it
wouldn't be Steven.
> There is an obvious difference between the two statments. One is the
> "creationist canard", assuming that evolutionists think that our
> ancestors were the monkeys we see today (extant).
Are you capable of citing even ONE "evolutionist" who makes this
claim.
Harshman didn't. What he did was exactly what Steven said he did. He
stepped into a rhetorical trap that you set. Unfortunately, you were
very clumsy when you sprang it.
The fact is that you then claimed that John said something that he
didn't say. So you lied. The whole thing was set up so that you
could presume to deceive.
In case you didn't notice, sheldon, it didn't fool anyone.
> That was NOT what I
> was describing, and Harshman's claim that it is equivalent to the canard
> is just plain wrong. I expect intelligence from an opponent, without it
> there is not communication.
Intelligence such as "your evidence is not evidence?"
> Hey, like this post of yours.
Ah, I think I know what's happened here.
Steven has replied to you a lot, sheldon, and you've run from most of
the replies.
I think you see Steven the same way you see me - far too intelligent
and astute to deal with.
So you figure if you get petulant and insulting, he'll throw up his
hands and leave you to your own devices.
> My point is that if there were many instances where ancestors from
> millions of years ago are still around, would falsify evolutionary
> theory.
Your point is wrong, sheldon. Tell me which part of evolutionary
theory precludes this.
> You can claim stasis all you want, but would have to deal with
> it.
The fact that there are species that don't change for significant
periods of time IS explained by evolutionary theory, sheldon.
> I don't think you could,
What you think or don't think is not a limit on the abilities of
others, sheldon. It has no bearing whatsoever.
The sooner you learn that, the better you will do in these
discussions.
> but you undoubtedly do, probably nothing
> would convince you.
What do you have to offer as "convincing?"
Insults? Evasion? Ignorance?
That's all anyone sees when they read your posts, sheldon.
> >Harshman has left him an opening, and he intends to lure
> > Harshman into a verbal trap and spring it, either in the belief that
> > this will impress people with his cleverness, or merely because he
> > enjoys behaving like an ass.
Steven called it right down the line, sheldon, and you're angry
because he exposed you, so:
> No, I expect that if Harshman was being honest and thoughtful, he would
> not have asked the question.
Why would John have not asked the question if he was being honest and
thoughtful?
> He may have another motive for all these
> seemingly naive questions.
What was naive about the question, sheldon?
I'll grant that if someone thinks you will actually answer or discuss
honestly, THAT is naive; but asking the question was not.
> That would be behaving like an ass, like you are.
Steven is exposing your tactics. Naturally, you would think that this
constitutes asinine behavior.
> > "Monkeys" are two separate groups of species, plus their common
> > ancestors with apes. The point has been made, often enough, that
> > humans are not descended from any *living* species of nonhuman
> > primate. So Glenn's implicit point is that, strictly speaking, saying
> > that a *species* need not go extinct when it gives rise to a different
> > species is not the same as, and does not logically follow from, saying
> > that a *family* or higher taxon need not go extinct when one species
> > in it gives rise to another species (although, actually, if a species
> > had to go extinct when it gave rise to another species, I don't see
> > how families could arise, unless *every* isolated population of that
> > species speciated, in different "directions," simultaneously).
>
>
> What it would mean if an ancestor species from millions of years ago
> still exists today, that evolution would have stood still for them.
> Evolution standing still is a problem for Darwanism - not in a short
> period of time, but in millions of years, it is.
Why is it a problem, sheldon?
Unlike you, I've read Darwin. I don't see a problem with this and
neither did he, as I recall.
> > If Harshman fails to figure out Glenn's point is, Glenn will use it as
> > an excuse to claim that Harshman has claimed that humans are descended
> > from another living primate *species,* because Harshman has claimed
> > that humans are descended from a living primate *family* (more or
> > less), and failed to distinguish formally between the ancestral higher
> > taxon having surviving members, and the actual ancestral species
> > leaving survivors.
> >
> Oh screw this.
Why not, sheldon? You've already screwed it UP.
> If we were descended from a creature other than human, it would not be a
> monkey. Your own theory calls monkeys cousins. We don't descend from
> cousins, braniac.
Chez Watt Nomination.
> If there is a creationist canard, it was created by evolutionists
> stupidity, like Harshmans "Yes, I believe we were descended from monkeys."
A phrase that, as Steven has shown, you set up for rhetorical - not
intellectual - purpose.
David Sienkiewicz
< snip >
> > If Harshman fails to figure out Glenn's point is, Glenn will use it as
> > an excuse to claim that Harshman has claimed that humans are descended
> > from another living primate *species,* because Harshman has claimed
> > that humans are descended from a living primate *family* (more or
> > less), and failed to distinguish formally between the ancestral higher
> > taxon having surviving members, and the actual ancestral species
> > leaving survivors.
> >
> Oh screw this.
>
> If we were descended from a creature other than human, it would not be a
> monkey. Your own theory calls monkeys cousins. We don't descend from
> cousins, braniac.
Nominated.
< snip >
Andy Groves
> On Wed, 9 Apr 2003 06:27:09 +0000 (UTC), Glenn <gshe...@qwest.net>
> wrote:
>
> >My point is that if there were many instances where ancestors from
> >millions of years ago are still around, would falsify evolutionary
> >theory.
>
> I had to read about 50 of your posts before I ever saw you make a
> point. And surprise, surprise. Your point is wrong.
I think that's one reason why he's terrified to actually venture his own opinions.
Andy
Glenn
John Harshman wrote:
Eh? You just said that most creationist think monkeys are monkeys. That *is* the point.
>
>>That was NOT what I
>>was describing, and Harshman's claim that it is equivalent to the canard
>>is just plain wrong. I expect intelligence from an opponent, without it
>>there is not communication. Hey, like this post of yours.
>>
>>My point is that if there were many instances where ancestors from
>>millions of years ago are still around, would falsify evolutionary
>>theory. You can claim stasis all you want, but would have to deal with
>>it. I don't think you could, but you undoubtedly do, probably nothing
>>would convince you.
>>
>
>
> By paleontological estimates, the average mammalian species lasts for
> around 2-5 million years, and the average molluscan or insect species
> around 10 million years. For that reason, I'm sure there are thousands
> to millions of "ancestors from millions of years ago" still extant,
> although it would be difficult to impossible for us to identify them.
>
> Explain, if you will, why this should be a problem.
>
Why you can claim estimates yet in the same breath say it would be difficult
to impossible? Hell, if they are extant, they are still here!
You'd have comparisons from the same extant species with fossils of the
same species from millions of years ago. If you can tell from fossil to
fossil by paleontological estimates, how much easier would it be having
the real thing!
If you don't see this as an obvious problem, I can't help you.
>
>>>Harshman has left him an opening, and he intends to lure
>>>Harshman into a verbal trap and spring it, either in the belief that
>>>this will impress people with his cleverness, or merely because he
>>>enjoys behaving like an ass.
>>>
>>No, I expect that if Harshman was being honest and thoughtful, he would
>>not have asked the question. He may have another motive for all these
>>seemingly naive questions. That would be behaving like an ass, like you are.
>>
> We are monkeys by any reasonable definition of the term, just as we are
> apes, primates, and mammals. Why is this a problem?
>
Why is your claim of "any reasonable definition" a problem??
Did you descend from your speciated cousin?
>
>>>"Monkeys" are two separate groups of species, plus their common
>>>ancestors with apes. The point has been made, often enough, that
>>>humans are not descended from any *living* species of nonhuman
>>>primate. So Glenn's implicit point is that, strictly speaking, saying
>>>that a *species* need not go extinct when it gives rise to a different
>>>species is not the same as, and does not logically follow from, saying
>>>that a *family* or higher taxon need not go extinct when one species
>>>in it gives rise to another species (although, actually, if a species
>>>had to go extinct when it gave rise to another species, I don't see
>>>how families could arise, unless *every* isolated population of that
>>>species speciated, in different "directions," simultaneously).
>>>
>
>
> That was Hennig's convention, still followed by a few systematists: when
> a species splits, you assign new names to both branches. Most
> systematists think it's a bad idea.
>
>
>>What it would mean if an ancestor species from millions of years ago
>>still exists today, that evolution would have stood still for them.
>>Evolution standing still is a problem for Darwanism - not in a short
>>period of time, but in millions of years, it is.
>>
>
>
> No, it's not a problem, in the sense that its existence doesn't falsify
> common descent. It may require a new mechanism (e.g. punk eek) or it may
> not, but there's no reason to suppose that stasis disproves common
> descent or even the importance of natural selection.
Punk eek is a mechanism? You just keep getting better and better.
Douglas Theobald describes PE as a hypothesis:
http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~theobal/PE.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html
"Gould and Eldredge did not specify any particular genetic mechanism
for PE. PE does not require large scale mutations."
You may have forgotten that I said if *many* were found, would disprove common descent.
Stasis *does* contradict gradualism, or any form of *evolution*.
To claim that stasis would only possibly require another mechanism to
explain diversity and common descent is ridiculous.
>
>
>>>If Harshman fails to figure out Glenn's point is, Glenn will use it as
>>>an excuse to claim that Harshman has claimed that humans are descended
>>>
>>>from another living primate *species,* because Harshman has claimed
>>
>>>that humans are descended from a living primate *family* (more or
>>>less), and failed to distinguish formally between the ancestral higher
>>>taxon having surviving members, and the actual ancestral species
>>>leaving survivors.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Oh screw this.
>>
>>If we were descended from a creature other than human, it would not be a
>>monkey. Your own theory calls monkeys cousins. We don't descend from
>>cousins, braniac.
>>
>
>
> Living monkeys are cousins, as are all other living species. But our
> common ancestor was a monkey too.
And that, folks, typifies the evolutionists mindset and argument.
Harshman, cousins are not common ancestors.
>Surely your definition of "monkey"
> doesn't include only living species. That wouldn't allow us to call any
> extinct species a monkey.
>
That is not true. I can call common ancestors of monkeys, monkeys.
You can't call monkeys human anymore than you can call humans monkeys.
>
>
>>If there is a creationist canard, it was created by evolutionists
>>stupidity, like Harshmans "Yes, I believe we were descended from monkeys."
>>
>
>
> No, it was created by creationist stupidity, thinking that evolution
> requires species (and entire families) to transform en masse. It's
> identical to another common creationist claim: "If we descended from
> Homo erectus, then how come Homo sapiens and Homo erectus are
> contemporaries?", and indeed their stratigraphic ranges do overlap slightly.
>
Um, no, its not the same, if you are referring to a fossil you consider as an
example of an extinct species. Extinct is not extant.
And indeed pigs and evolutionists stratigraphic ranges do overlap
slightly. Pigs and evolutionists are contemporaries.
Glenn
Andy Groves wrote:
I know you would. Thats one reason why you aren't terribly interesting.
>
>>>To clarify, even though no clarification should be necessary: we don't
>>>descend from any extant monkey species, but if you looked at our
>>>ancestors far enough back, you would call them monkeys.
>>>
>>
>>No, I would not call them monkeys. Monkeys are what we call monkeys now.
>>
>
> So what would you call them?
>
Fairys.
>
>>>And if you look
>>>at it cladistically, we are part of Anthropoidea, for which a good
>>>common name would be "monkey".
>>>
>>
>>Making up names does not help, Harshman. It does show your difficulty of
>>knowing what our ancestors were though.
>>
>
> Which of the above names are "made up", Glenn?
>
All of them, Andy. Try to focus.
John Wilkins
...
> > Steven J. wrote:
...
> >>"Monkeys" are two separate groups of species, plus their common
> >>ancestors with apes. The point has been made, often enough, that
> >>humans are not descended from any *living* species of nonhuman
> >>primate. So Glenn's implicit point is that, strictly speaking, saying
> >>that a *species* need not go extinct when it gives rise to a different
> >>species is not the same as, and does not logically follow from, saying
> >>that a *family* or higher taxon need not go extinct when one species
> >>in it gives rise to another species (although, actually, if a species
> >>had to go extinct when it gave rise to another species, I don't see
> >>how families could arise, unless *every* isolated population of that
> >>species speciated, in different "directions," simultaneously).
>
>
> That was Hennig's convention, still followed by a few systematists: when
> a species splits, you assign new names to both branches. Most
> systematists think it's a bad idea.
The Hennigian extinction was the extinction of the names, not the
lineage that was no longer monophletic. Hennig insisted that names be
unambiguous, and monophyletic, because for him a species was a segment
of an unsplit lineage between two nodes on a cladogram (which for him
equalled a phylogenetic tree). Dierdl Kornet has since proposed an
Internodal Concept of species. The problem here lies in supposing that
set theoretic considerations must of necessity match biological
processes. The Hennigian conception is still defended by Meier and
Willmann in Germany
1. Hennig, Willi. 1950. Gründzeuge einer Theorie der Phylogenetischen
Systematik. Berlin: Aufbau Verlag.
2. ---. 1966. Phylogenetic systematics. Translated by D. D. Davis and R.
Zangerl. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
3. Kornet, D. 1993. Internodal species concept. J Theor Biol
104:407-435.
4. ---. 1993. Permanent splits as speciation events: A formal
reconstruction of the internodal species concept. Journal of Theoretical
Biology 164:407-435.
5. Kornet, D, and JW McAllister. 1993. The composite species concept. In
Reconstructing species: Demarcations in genealogical networks.
Rijksherbarium, Leiden: Unpublished phD dissertation, Institute for
Rheoretical Biology.
6. Meier, R, and R Willman. 1997. The Hennigian species concept. In
Species concepts and phylogenetic theory: A debate, edited by Q. Wheeler
and R. Meier. New York: Columbia University Press.
...
--
John Wilkins
"Listen to your heart, not the voices in your head" - Marge Simpson
John Harshman
Glenn wrote:
No, you don't understand. I'm saying creationists make no distinction
among species of monkeys, extant or extinct. And you have apparently
forgotten what your point was.
>>>That was NOT what I
>>>was describing, and Harshman's claim that it is equivalent to the canard
>>>is just plain wrong. I expect intelligence from an opponent, without it
>>>there is not communication. Hey, like this post of yours.
>>>
>>>My point is that if there were many instances where ancestors from
>>>millions of years ago are still around, would falsify evolutionary
>>>theory. You can claim stasis all you want, but would have to deal with
>>>it. I don't think you could, but you undoubtedly do, probably nothing
>>>would convince you.
>>
>>By paleontological estimates, the average mammalian species lasts for
>>around 2-5 million years, and the average molluscan or insect species
>>around 10 million years. For that reason, I'm sure there are thousands
>>to millions of "ancestors from millions of years ago" still extant,
>>although it would be difficult to impossible for us to identify them.
>>
>>Explain, if you will, why this should be a problem.
>
> Why you can claim estimates yet in the same breath say it would be difficult
> to impossible? Hell, if they are extant, they are still here!
> You'd have comparisons from the same extant species with fossils of the
> same species from millions of years ago. If you can tell from fossil to
> fossil by paleontological estimates, how much easier would it be having
> the real thing!
The difficulty lies in telling whether one known species is or is not
the ancestor of another known species. There is no reasonable
methodology for doing so. My claim that there are many is purely a
statistical one, based on the observed mean lifetimes of species, and
the observation that they are all related by common descent. It doesn't
require me to point out any ancestor-descendant pairs.
> If you don't see this as an obvious problem, I can't help you.
Agreed. You can't help me.
>>>>Harshman has left him an opening, and he intends to lure
>>>>Harshman into a verbal trap and spring it, either in the belief that
>>>>this will impress people with his cleverness, or merely because he
>>>>enjoys behaving like an ass.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>No, I expect that if Harshman was being honest and thoughtful, he would
>>>not have asked the question. He may have another motive for all these
>>>seemingly naive questions. That would be behaving like an ass, like you are.
>>>
>>>
>>We are monkeys by any reasonable definition of the term, just as we are
>>apes, primates, and mammals. Why is this a problem?
>
> Why is your claim of "any reasonable definition" a problem??
It's not. Perhaps you think it is, and if so you are welcome to explain why.
> Did you descend from your speciated cousin?
No, I didn't. However, my father is still alive.
Why can't it be both?
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html
>
> "Gould and Eldredge did not specify any particular genetic mechanism
> for PE. PE does not require large scale mutations."
True. However, they did specify a mechanism, though it wasn't genetic
per se. Punk eek, originally, was merely a paleontological application
of Ernst Mayr's theories of speciation. Mayr did specify a genetic
mechanism, though I don't think it's a very good one.
> You may have forgotten that I said if *many* were found, would disprove common descent.
>
> Stasis *does* contradict gradualism, or any form of *evolution*.
> To claim that stasis would only possibly require another mechanism to
> explain diversity and common descent is ridiculous.
Explain why stasis contradicts either gradualism or any form of
evolution, because I don't see the contradiction. Apparently you are the
only person clever enough to see it.
>>>>If Harshman fails to figure out Glenn's point is, Glenn will use it as
>>>>an excuse to claim that Harshman has claimed that humans are descended
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>from another living primate *species,* because Harshman has claimed
>>>
>>>
>>>>that humans are descended from a living primate *family* (more or
>>>>less), and failed to distinguish formally between the ancestral higher
>>>>taxon having surviving members, and the actual ancestral species
>>>>leaving survivors.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Oh screw this.
>>>
>>>If we were descended from a creature other than human, it would not be a
>>>monkey. Your own theory calls monkeys cousins. We don't descend from
>>>cousins, braniac.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Living monkeys are cousins, as are all other living species. But our
>>common ancestor was a monkey too.
>
> And that, folks, typifies the evolutionists mindset and argument.
> Harshman, cousins are not common ancestors.
Right. And I never said so. We are not descended from any living species
of monkey. We are descended from an unknown, extinct species of monkey.
You may not like that, and you will probably make fun of the "unknown"
part, but you can't go on claiming that I say we're descended from our
cousins.
>>Surely your definition of "monkey"
>>doesn't include only living species. That wouldn't allow us to call any
>>extinct species a monkey.
>
> That is not true. I can call common ancestors of monkeys, monkeys.
Then why can't you call common ancestors of monkeys and humans monkeys?
What's the difference? By the way, the common ancestor of monkeys *is*
the common ancestor of monkeys and humans, because monkeys (in the
colloquial sense) are not monophyletic. Old World monkeys, apes, and
humans form a clade, which is the sister group of New World monkeys. Do
you understand any of this?
> You can't call monkeys human anymore than you can call humans monkeys.
Right. You can't call monkeys human, because "human" refers to a more
restrictive clade. You can however call humans monkeys. Just like you
can call primates mammals but you can't call mammals primates.
>>
>>>If there is a creationist canard, it was created by evolutionists
>>>stupidity, like Harshmans "Yes, I believe we were descended from monkeys."
>>>
>>>
>>
>>No, it was created by creationist stupidity, thinking that evolution
>>requires species (and entire families) to transform en masse. It's
>>identical to another common creationist claim: "If we descended from
>>Homo erectus, then how come Homo sapiens and Homo erectus are
>>contemporaries?", and indeed their stratigraphic ranges do overlap slightly.
>>
> Um, no, its not the same, if you are referring to a fossil you consider as an
> example of an extinct species. Extinct is not extant.
Your incomprehension may be feigned, but I don't have the energy to
explore all the ways you are making no sense here.
> And indeed pigs and evolutionists stratigraphic ranges do overlap
> slightly. Pigs and evolutionists are contemporaries.
True, but I don't see how this makes any sense. Rather like the rest of
your argument.
Andy Groves
Another stunning comeback, Glenn. I'm sorry if calling you on your
little third-rate point-scoring is not "terribly interesting".
> >>>To clarify, even though no clarification should be necessary: we don't
> >>>descend from any extant monkey species, but if you looked at our
> >>>ancestors far enough back, you would call them monkeys.
> >>>
> >>
> >>No, I would not call them monkeys. Monkeys are what we call monkeys now.
> >>
> >
> > So what would you call them?
> >
> Fairys.
Let me get this clear, Glenn. Based on the above two statements, you
appear to be saying that you believe our early ancestors were fairies.
Is this correct?
> >>>And if you look
> >>>at it cladistically, we are part of Anthropoidea, for which a good
> >>>common name would be "monkey".
> >>>
> >>
> >>Making up names does not help, Harshman. It does show your difficulty of
> >>knowing what our ancestors were though.
> >>
> >
> > Which of the above names are "made up", Glenn?
> >
> All of them, Andy. Try to focus.
Which of the above names did John make up, Glenn?
Andy
Steven J.
of the clade Anthropoidea which has not evolved to the "ape grade."
That would certainly include not only living Old World and New World
monkeys, but their last common ancestor -- which (since Old World
monkeys are more closely related to us than to New World monkeys)
would be one of *our* ancestors (as would be our last common ancestor
with Old World monkeys, which was also a "monkey").
Now, modern taxonomy frowns on paraphyletic groups (groups that
include only but not all the descendants of their last common
ancestor). So you could argue that, either "monkeys" don't really
exist (which would certainly preclude us from being descended from
them, but seems rather drastic), or else declare that "monkeys" are
the common name for the Anthropoidea, in which case we are not only
descended from monkeys, but *are* (like other apes) monkeys ourselves.
But you can't very well declare that "monkeys" means anything, but
that it doesn't mean our last ancestor with a tail.
>
> My point is that if there were many instances where ancestors from
> millions of years ago are still around, would falsify evolutionary
> theory. You can claim stasis all you want, but would have to deal with
> it. I don't think you could, but you undoubtedly do, probably nothing
> would convince you.
>
Harshman, of course, did not say that humans were descended from any
living species of monkey. But as for your point: how many millions of
years would it take? _Homo erectus_ stuck around for a couple of
million years, without enough change to justify dividing the fossils
into two species. A primate species remaining in stasis for 30
million years would certainly be unlikely, given the environmental
changes that have wracked this planet in that time (in a stable
environment, a species can last unchanged for a *very* long time). So
it would be very unexpected, from an evolutionary point of view, if
our last monkey ancestral species still survived. But again, Harshman
said no such thing.
>
> > Harshman has left him an opening, and he intends to lure
> > Harshman into a verbal trap and spring it, either in the belief that
> > this will impress people with his cleverness, or merely because he
> > enjoys behaving like an ass.
>
>
> No, I expect that if Harshman was being honest and thoughtful, he would
> not have asked the question. He may have another motive for all these
> seemingly naive questions. That would be behaving like an ass, like you are.
>
If he had been duly attentive to the probability that you were playing
word games and "gotcha!" rather than actually arguing over rival
positions, he would have parsed your statement more carefully. So I
suppose you could accuse him of a lack of "thoughtfulness" -- he
mistakenly thought you might be interested in an exchange of ideas.
But there is no excuse for your slur on his honesty.
> >
> > "Monkeys" are two separate groups of species, plus their common
> > ancestors with apes. The point has been made, often enough, that
> > humans are not descended from any *living* species of nonhuman
> > primate. So Glenn's implicit point is that, strictly speaking, saying
> > that a *species* need not go extinct when it gives rise to a different
> > species is not the same as, and does not logically follow from, saying
> > that a *family* or higher taxon need not go extinct when one species
> > in it gives rise to another species (although, actually, if a species
> > had to go extinct when it gave rise to another species, I don't see
> > how families could arise, unless *every* isolated population of that
> > species speciated, in different "directions," simultaneously).
>
> What it would mean if an ancestor species from millions of years ago
> still exists today, that evolution would have stood still for them.
> Evolution standing still is a problem for Darwanism - not in a short
> period of time, but in millions of years, it is.
>
There's no particular reason evolution can't stand still. If a
species is well adapted to its ecological niche, and its environment
remains stable, then virtually all new mutations will be selected
against, as its vastly unlikely that any of them will be an
improvement. There are quite a few cases of species with a good
fossil record remaining unchanged for millions of years; there are a
very few remaining unchanged for tens of millions.
But again, Harshman has not said that any single monkey species has
survived unchanged for 30 or 40 million years. There are many species
of monkeys, some extinct (some in the last century, and some millions
of years ago). That the particular monkey that was our ancestor is
extinct no more falsifies "we are descended from monkeys, and monkeys
are still around," than the extinction of our last common ancestor
with carp falsifies the statement "we are descended from fish, and
fish are still around."
>
> > If Harshman fails to figure out Glenn's point is, Glenn will use it as
> > an excuse to claim that Harshman has claimed that humans are descended
> > from another living primate *species,* because Harshman has claimed
> > that humans are descended from a living primate *family* (more or
> > less), and failed to distinguish formally between the ancestral higher
> > taxon having surviving members, and the actual ancestral species
> > leaving survivors.
> >
> Oh screw this.
>
> If we were descended from a creature other than human, it would not be a
> monkey. Your own theory calls monkeys cousins. We don't descend from
> cousins, braniac.
>
*Living* monkey species are cousins, which does not prevent other,
long extinct monkey species from being our ancestors. No living human
is my great-great- grandfather, but that does not mean that my
great-great-grandfather was not a human. No living nonhuman ape is
ancestral to _Homo sapiens_, but that does not prevent some extinct
ape from being ancestral to us.
>
> If there is a creationist canard, it was created by evolutionists
> stupidity, like Harshmans "Yes, I believe we were descended from monkeys."
>
No, I believe you are mistaken here.
-- Steven J.
syvanen
He is deceptive because he uses the English language fairly well. But
he definitely does not understand the science that he tries to dance
around. Every one in a while, though, he happens to stumble into a
substantive point and exposes his ignorance. I guess he trying to
appeal to the other ignorant lurkers and to sound like he knows what
he is talking about. I would love to get him into a discussion on the
substance of his (claims? implications? whatevers?), but clearly he
tries to avoid substance.
Mike Syvanen
Glenn
John Harshman wrote:
You're adding a qualifier to the old creationist canard that isn't there
but in your imagination.
>And you have apparently forgotten what your point was.
>
No, emphasized *that* instead of *is*. But there are many "points" in a debate, which
I'm sure you understand. I can not say *that* is apparent, though.
It doesn't require you to point anything out, and allows you to claim
most anything. There is a real problem with that.
>
>>If you don't see this as an obvious problem, I can't help you.
>>
>
>
> Agreed. You can't help me.
>
"Me" being common descent.
>
>>>>>Harshman has left him an opening, and he intends to lure
>>>>>Harshman into a verbal trap and spring it, either in the belief that
>>>>>this will impress people with his cleverness, or merely because he
>>>>>enjoys behaving like an ass.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>No, I expect that if Harshman was being honest and thoughtful, he would
>>>>not have asked the question. He may have another motive for all these
>>>>seemingly naive questions. That would be behaving like an ass, like you are.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>We are monkeys by any reasonable definition of the term, just as we are
>>>apes, primates, and mammals. Why is this a problem?
>>>
>>Why is your claim of "any reasonable definition" a problem??
>>
>
>
> It's not. Perhaps you think it is, and if so you are welcome to explain why.
>
>
>>Did you descend from your speciated cousin?
>>
>
>
> No, I didn't. However, my father is still alive.
>
>
snip
Glenn
Andy Groves wrote:
snip
>>>>I was just following the conversation! I assumed you knew what monkey
>>>>meant. You seemed to with your submission of the "old creationist
>>>>canard". Sorry.
>>>>
>>>How does slipping "extant" into the conversation count as "just
>>>following the conversation"??? I would rather term it "being
>>>transparently intellectually dishonest".
>>>
>>I know you would. Thats one reason why you aren't terribly interesting.
>
> Another stunning comeback, Glenn. I'm sorry if calling you on your
> little third-rate point-scoring is not "terribly interesting".
>
No it isn't, your "calling me" by "terming" my behavior as "transparently
intellectually dishonest" isn't particulary interesting at all. I can
get ad hominem from any evolutionist. And frankly, it is third rate.
For your information, moron, "extant" has been in the thread ever since
this particular subject appeared, with the concept of extant species.
This will come close enough:
"No, it would be equivalent to saying if we came from what we came from,
how come what we came from are still around."
Keep up the good work, *evolutionist*.
Tracy P. Hamilton
turn on. John Harshman <harshman....@pacbell.net> said:
>
>
>Glenn wrote:
>
>>
>> John Harshman wrote:
[snip]
Note: Harshman was quite clear on monkeys not just being
extant monkeys.
>>>We are monkeys by any reasonable definition of the term, just as we are
>>>apes, primates, and mammals. Why is this a problem?
>>
>> Why is your claim of "any reasonable definition" a problem??
>
>
>It's not. Perhaps you think it is, and if so you are welcome to explain why.
>
>> Did you descend from your speciated cousin?
>
>
>No, I didn't. However, my father is still alive.
Your cousin is a human, you did not descend from him (unless you
are in West Virginia), yet you descended from humans.
I wonder if Glenn will think about what a monkey is.
Could he give an example, like whether a tarsier is a monkey?
I wonder if he would understand why I have asked the question:
"If chimps descended from humans, why are there still humans
around?" as a response to "If humans evolved from
chimps, how come there are still chimps around?"
It really is relevant to this topic of what you call something,
and *why*, whether Glenn realizes it or not. No creationist to
date has.
[snip where Glenn does not realize the difference between
genetic mechanism, and other types of mechanism such
as natural selection]
>> Stasis *does* contradict gradualism, or any form of *evolution*.
>> To claim that stasis would only possibly require another mechanism to
>> explain diversity and common descent is ridiculous.
>
>
>Explain why stasis contradicts either gradualism or any form of
>evolution, because I don't see the contradiction. Apparently you are the
>only person clever enough to see it.
[snip]
>>>Living monkeys are cousins, as are all other living species. But our
>>>common ancestor was a monkey too.
>>
>> And that, folks, typifies the evolutionists mindset and argument.
>> Harshman, cousins are not common ancestors.
>Right. And I never said so. We are not descended from any living species
>of monkey. We are descended from an unknown, extinct species of monkey.
>You may not like that, and you will probably make fun of the "unknown"
>part, but you can't go on claiming that I say we're descended from our
>cousins.
Not honestly, anyhow.
>>>Surely your definition of "monkey"
>>>doesn't include only living species. That wouldn't allow us to call any
>>>extinct species a monkey.
>>
>> That is not true. I can call common ancestors of monkeys, monkeys.
>
>
>Then why can't you call common ancestors of monkeys and humans monkeys?
and why couldn't you call them humans? What is the difference?
(I know the difference, but wonder if Glenn does)
>What's the difference? By the way, the common ancestor of monkeys *is*
>the common ancestor of monkeys and humans, because monkeys (in the
>colloquial sense) are not monophyletic. Old World monkeys, apes, and
>humans form a clade, which is the sister group of New World monkeys. Do
>you understand any of this?
>
>> You can't call monkeys human anymore than you can call humans monkeys.
>
>
>Right. You can't call monkeys human, because "human" refers to a more
>restrictive clade. You can however call humans monkeys. Just like you
>can call primates mammals but you can't call mammals primates.
No fair giving away the answer! I wonder if Glenn understood it.
[snip]
Tracy P. Hamilton
Building Manager, Alco Hall
University of Ediacara
Andy Groves
> Andy Groves wrote:
>
> snip
> >>>>I was just following the conversation! I assumed you knew what monkey
> >>>>meant. You seemed to with your submission of the "old creationist
> >>>>canard". Sorry.
> >>>>
> >>>How does slipping "extant" into the conversation count as "just
> >>>following the conversation"??? I would rather term it "being
> >>>transparently intellectually dishonest".
> >>>
> >>I know you would. Thats one reason why you aren't terribly interesting.
> >
> > Another stunning comeback, Glenn. I'm sorry if calling you on your
> > little third-rate point-scoring is not "terribly interesting".
> >
> No it isn't, your "calling me" by "terming" my behavior as "transparently
>
> intellectually dishonest" isn't particulary interesting at all. I can
> get ad hominem from any evolutionist. And frankly, it is third rate.
>
> For your information, moron, "extant" has been in the thread ever since
> this particular subject appeared, with the concept of extant species.
> This will come close enough:
No it won't Glenn. You deliberately used the word to suggest that John
said something that he clearly didn't say.
The exchange went like this:
GLENN: Harshman, you really believe we came from monkeys? Do you think
I do?
JOHN: Yes, I do. I'll know what you think when you decide to tell me.
Do you think we didn't come from monkeys? Why or why not?
GLENN: That's good enough for me, that you do think we came from an
extant *monkey*.
JOHN: I don't think that's reading incomprehension on your part; I
think it's
just a desire to score points (something you claim to detest even
though
it's your most common form of discourse -- go figure).
The fact that the word "extant" was used before in the thread is
irrelevant. You used it to misrepresent John's view to try and score
a point.
Andy
AC
Well, not only is Mr. Glenn Sheldon a yellow coward, but he is also a liar.
What a surprise.
--
A. Clausen
maureen...@nospam.alberni.net (Remove "nospam." to contact me)
Glenn
Andy Groves wrote:
> Glenn <gshe...@qwest.net> wrote in message news:<3E94F7D1...@qwest.net>...
>
>>Andy Groves wrote:
>>
>>snip
>>
>>>>>>I was just following the conversation! I assumed you knew what monkey
>>>>>>meant. You seemed to with your submission of the "old creationist
>>>>>>canard". Sorry.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>How does slipping "extant" into the conversation count as "just
>>>>>following the conversation"??? I would rather term it "being
>>>>>transparently intellectually dishonest".
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>I know you would. Thats one reason why you aren't terribly interesting.
>>>>
>>>Another stunning comeback, Glenn. I'm sorry if calling you on your
>>>little third-rate point-scoring is not "terribly interesting".
>>>
>>>
>>No it isn't, your "calling me" by "terming" my behavior as "transparently
>>
>>intellectually dishonest" isn't particulary interesting at all. I can
>>get ad hominem from any evolutionist. And frankly, it is third rate.
>>
>>For your information, moron, "extant" has been in the thread ever since
>>this particular subject appeared, with the concept of extant species.
>>This will come close enough:
>>
"No, it would be equivalent to saying if we came from what we came from,
how come what we came from are still around."
>
> No it won't Glenn. You deliberately used the word to suggest that John
> said something that he clearly didn't say.
No, I deliberately used the word extant because that is what "are still
around" means, and John apparently thought there was no difference
between what I said and what he said, although it was in the form of a
question. I replied with a question, whether he really believed we came
from monkeys, to which he replied he did. Look below at the reconstruction.
>
> The exchange went like this:
NO, it went like this:
JOHN: That would be true if ancestors were required to become extinct
when their descendants were born. This is as false for species as it is
for individuals.
In essence, what you say here is equivalent to the old creationist
canard, "If we came from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys?"
GLENN: No, it would be equivalent to saying if we came from what we came
from, how come what we came from are still around.
JOHN: Is there a difference between what I said and what you said? If
so, what?
>
> GLENN: Harshman, you really believe we came from monkeys? Do you think
> I do?
>
> JOHN: Yes, I do. I'll know what you think when you decide to tell me.
> Do you think we didn't come from monkeys? Why or why not?
>
> GLENN: That's good enough for me, that you do think we came from an
> extant *monkey*.
>
> JOHN: I don't think that's reading incomprehension on your part; I
> think it's
> just a desire to score points (something you claim to detest even
> though
> it's your most common form of discourse -- go figure).
>
>
> The fact that the word "extant" was used before in the thread is
> irrelevant.
Clearly, you would have liked to allow that misconception to stand, by
snipping that part out and leaving just what you wanted to be seen.
>You used it to misrepresent John's view to try and score
> a point.
>
Take your "misrepresent" whine and shove it. If John didn't see any
difference in his "canard" and my correction, then he was saying that he
thinks we came from monkeys who are still around. Besides, John
certainly thinks ancestor species can survive to live alongside descendents.
I really don't care if you morons continue to claim that we came from monkeys. It makes you
all look like monkeys. Common Descent has it that monkeys and humans
came from a common ancestor. Calling that common ancestor a monkey only
makes you and your religion look like monkeys, which is ok by me.
AC
You, like Mr. McCoy, have been revealed as a liar, Mr. Sheldon. This
pathetic attempt to rewrite the thread only confirms your fundemental
dishonesty.
Poor Mr. Sheldon. Perhaps you should go back to scamming people over
dousing.
John Harshman
AC wrote:
No, I think Glenn actually has something like a point here. There is a
difference, though I don't think it's a major difference. It all depends
on what you allow "what we came from" to mean. Glenn implicitly
restricts the meaning to "species", and I don't. See below.
Actually, I think Glenn has a little bit of a point there. There is a
difference between "ancestral species" and "ancestral group", especially
if you believe in the reality of species. However, the two concepts are
quite similar. If we are descended from extinct "monkeys" (using the
term informally to describe tailed anthropoids), then there was
certainly a time when the human lineage coexisted with its ancestral
monkey lineage. That is, there was a speciation event at which (or near
which) one or more of the derived characteristics of apes evolved, while
another population retained the primitive state. So coexistence of
ancestor and descendant species is implied though not entailed
(unintentional pun) by the statement.
We are still left with no justification for Glenn's two apparent claims:
1. Coexistence of ancestor and descendant species would falsify evolution.
2. We are not descended from monkeys.
He may be reduced to defending the second claim in merely a semantic
way, i.e. by using a definition of "monkey" that includes only extant
species. But I think he really does believe we are not related to
monkeys by common descent, and I wonder if he will either attempt to
present evidence for that claim, or refute evidence for the counterclaim
(that we are related).
>>I really don't care if you morons continue to claim that we came from monkeys. It makes you
>>all look like monkeys. Common Descent has it that monkeys and humans
>>came from a common ancestor. Calling that common ancestor a monkey only
>>makes you and your religion look like monkeys, which is ok by me.
Why shouldn't we call the common ancestor a monkey? What better term
would you suggest?
Andy Groves
Glenn, there is a difference between saying we originated from monkeys
and that we originated from monkey species that are alive today. You
suggested that John was claiming the latter, when the context of the
discussion suggested he was not.
No, Glenn, he was not.
> Besides, John
> certainly thinks ancestor species can survive to live alongside descendents.
In some cases, yes.
>
> I really don't care if you morons continue to claim that we came from
> monkeys. It makes you all look like monkeys. Common Descent has it
> that monkeys and humans came from a common ancestor. Calling that
> common ancestor a monkey only
> makes you and your religion look like monkeys, which is ok by me.
What do you suggest we call that ancestor?
Andy
Steven J.
> Andy Groves wrote:
>
> > Glenn <gshe...@qwest.net> wrote in message news:<3E94F7D1...@qwest.net>...
>
>
> >>For your information, moron, "extant" has been in the thread ever since
> >>this particular subject appeared, with the concept of extant species.
> >>This will come close enough:
> >>
>
> "No, it would be equivalent to saying if we came from what we came from,
> how come what we came from are still around."
>
> >
> > No it won't Glenn. You deliberately used the word to suggest that John
> > said something that he clearly didn't say.
>
>
> No, I deliberately used the word extant because that is what "are still
> around" means, and John apparently thought there was no difference
> between what I said and what he said, although it was in the form of a
> question. I replied with a question, whether he really believed we came
> from monkeys, to which he replied he did. Look below at the reconstruction.
>
demonstrate that "what we came from" means "species" specifically,
rather than "clade" or "higher taxon" or "group" more generally. John
Harshman certainly stated that our monkey ancestors belonged to some
*group* that still has living members; at no point did he indicate
that those ancestors belonged to some *species* that is still extant.
>
> > The exchange went like this:
>
>
> NO, it went like this:
>
> JOHN: That would be true if ancestors were required to become extinct
> when their descendants were born. This is as false for species as it is
> for individuals.
> In essence, what you say here is equivalent to the old creationist
> canard, "If we came from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys?"
>
> GLENN: No, it would be equivalent to saying if we came from what we came
> from, how come what we came from are still around.
>
> JOHN: Is there a difference between what I said and what you said? If
> so, what?
>
referes to a species or higher level, and surely the distinction is
important. Are we descended from, e.g. _Paranthropus robustus_? No.
Are we descended from extinct hominins (of which _P. robustus_ is an
example)? Yes. Are we descended from any living species of monkey?
No. Are we descended from any tailed species of Anthropoidea, whether
extant or extinct? Yes.
>
> > GLENN: Harshman, you really believe we came from monkeys? Do you think
> > I do?
> >
> > JOHN: Yes, I do. I'll know what you think when you decide to tell me.
> > Do you think we didn't come from monkeys? Why or why not?
> >
> > GLENN: That's good enough for me, that you do think we came from an
> > extant *monkey*.
> >
> > JOHN: I don't think that's reading incomprehension on your part; I
> > think it's
> > just a desire to score points (something you claim to detest even
> > though
> > it's your most common form of discourse -- go figure).
> >
> >
> > The fact that the word "extant" was used before in the thread is
> > irrelevant.
>
> Clearly, you would have liked to allow that misconception to stand, by
> snipping that part out and leaving just what you wanted to be seen.
>
> >You used it to misrepresent John's view to try and score
> > a point.
> >
>
> Take your "misrepresent" whine and shove it. If John didn't see any
> difference in his "canard" and my correction, then he was saying that he
> thinks we came from monkeys who are still around. Besides, John
> certainly thinks ancestor species can survive to live alongside descendents.
>
"correction," that is because he did not anticipate you failing to
distinguish between the claim that we are descended from members of a
still extant group, and the claim that we are descended from a still
extent *species* in that group. I find it hard to believe that you
were genuinely confused on this point, or that you sincerely believed
that John had claimed (or that anyone participating in the thread
would think he had claimed) that we are descended from an extant
monkey species.
And yes, John certainly holds that ancestral species can continue to
live alongside descendant species. Again, did you really take this as
a claim that the particular monkey species that was the last common
ancestor of the Hominoidea and Cercopithidae was definitely still
around, or did you simply take it as an opportunity to take a cheap
shot?
>
> I really don't care if you morons continue to claim that we came from monkeys.
> It makes you all look like monkeys. Common Descent has it that monkeys and
> humans came from a common ancestor. Calling that common ancestor a monkey only
> makes you and your religion look like monkeys, which is ok by me.
>
Well, if we are members of the Anthropoidea, then logically, we have
to *look* like members of the Anthropoidea, just as seahorses have to
*look* like bony fish, even though they don't look like *typical* bony
fish.
Evolution is not a religion. In general, neither religions nor
scientific theories are the sorts of entities that can look like
animals.
-- Steven J.
Shepherd Moon
> Glenn <gshe...@qwest.net> wrote in message news:<3E8F238...@qwest.net>...
> > Steven J. wrote:
> >
> > > Glenn <gshe...@qwest.net> wrote in message news:<3E8D3A42...@qwest.net>...
[...]
> >
> > EH?? The "identity" of a designer is not necessary, nor are the
> > abilities required to be known to detect design in structures.
> > And you said yourself that mechanisms are not needed as long as there is
> > evidence of an event(s).
> > You'll have to do a little better than that, Steven.
>
> You're joking, right?
>
> What veneer of impenetrability makes this argument so attractive to
> IDists?
>
> Consider this analogy.
> Imagine that an archaeologist unearths an artifact that, after some
> study, he announces is intelligently designed. This causes little
> consternation within the archaeological community or society at large.
> After further research, however, he triumphantly proclaims this
> artifact to be designed by an intelligence "other than human." As
> expected he is swarmed and entreated, not just by colleagues but by
> laymen as well, for data and observations that support this claim.
> You, Glenn, or any IDist reading this, just happen to be one of these
> archaeological colleagues and you want him to describe to you in
> detail how he knows this object is of non-human intelligence. In
> correspondence and meetings with him he outlines what he considers
> those characteristics that drove his conclusion. But you are
> unimpressed because you can think of several alternate, and more
> parsimonious, explanations that fit the data, some of them perhaps
> including human design. It is certainly not immediately obvious to you
> or most other archaeologists that this artifact is of non-human, or
> even "intelligent", design.
> So what do you do?
This is an excellent point, and an important step that perhaps many
who debate against IDCs don't begin with. The first proposition you
have isolated is:
According to ID, an organism, or part of an organism, exhibits
similarities in structure or function to objects designed by humans or
other naturalistic intelligences.
How do we know that this is indeed the correct proposition? Well,
because as far as we know, all ID examples use human-designed objects
as the basis for comparison. (SETI is an exception, although even here
the intelligence in question is naturalistic.) Now, because we have
established that the basis for comparison is with (bear with me)
non-supernatural design -- as opposed to natural design or mere
undirected natural causes, then how does ID conclude that organisms
exhibit supernatural design?
Don't let IDCs fool you. Supernatural design is the only design that
they are interested in trying to wedge in the science classroom door.
That, to me, is because of two reasons:
1. Supernatural design implies design by God.
2. Supernatural design is characterized by ID as lying outside the
realm of observation. (Why this should always have to be the case is a
question I would like to see IDCs answer.)
I suspect that evolutionary biologists would be open to a
demonstration of the existence of natural design. (That is, evidence
of how natural selection led to a sequence of adaptations that
resulted in a feature that exhibits design properties. Perhaps even
evidence of non-random mutations that show design.) But I don't see
why they should need to entertain the logic of supernatural design as
described above.
So, in the end, we are left with purported evidence of supernatural
design, when if anything, the evidence points to more fertile and
exciting lines of research, based on evolutionary principles, to try
to discover how organisms might have acquired these features.
> Let me suggest that, in the absence of compelling evidence intrinsic
> to the artifact, you would insist that for your colleague's ideas to
> be taken seriously he is going to have to give you some idea as to the
> nature of the designer of the artifact, and those attributes of said
> designer that would support a connection between him/her/it and the
> object itself.
>
> ID theorists are fond of the facile comparisons with human designed
> objects as support for their perspective. This, in my opinion, is a
> massive mistake on their part because it is precisely the comparison,
> or more importantly the contrast, with human design that points out
> the need for them to produce evidence of a designer.
> If we lived in a universe of dwarfs and klingons and poltergeists and
> greys and leprechauns that went around drawing up and knocking off
> stuff all the time this might not be as much of an issue. But human
> designed artifacts are the *only* intelligently designed things of
> which we know.
This can be argued, depending on one's definition of "intelligence."
Certainly the vast majority of designed objects are the work of humans
(and, earlier, of other hominids). But if one defines intelligence as
taking into account a goal, then many animals design artifacts. Bird
nests--designed shelters--are the obvious ones, but there are also
examples of chimpanzees stripping branches to use as tools to retrieve
ants from holes in ant hills, beavers building dams, and so on.
Nevertheless, your main point is, I think, much more difficult to
argue. Even if there are other types of design that we see in our
natural world, this offers absolutely no support for--and indeed,
contradicts--the ID argument that such structures exhibit supernatural
design.
>For the comparison with human design to have any
> validity it must be seen in opposition, or *as opposed* to some other
> designed things, i.e. something is much more similar to human design
> than it is to hutt. That is, one is comparing and evaluating numbers
> and qualities of similarities. In the absence of this what one is left
> with is a comparison with something that is unique and the consequent
> and logical emphasis on the importance of those characters which are
> not alike, the contrasts. In a scenario such as the comparison of
> biological organisms with human designed objects you cannot have one
> without the other, and it would be a trifle to come up with far more
> dissimilarities than similarities.
>
> The notion of equivalence between biological organisms and human
> design is vacuous. The task of proving that science cannot now nor
> will it ever be able to produce naturalist explanations for proposed
> ID phenomena is impossible.
> There is no theory of ID, there is no demonstrated body of work.
> All that ID is left with is the production of evidence for the
> designer.
I think the IDC counterargument to all of the above is that, because
humans themselves show design features, our ability to design objects
is really just evidence that some supernatural intelligence
front-loaded us with that design information. So part of the issue is
that IDCs see design in features that look like things we make, and
the other part is that IDCs see design in things that seem way too
complicated to have occurred through "blind chance" and natural
processes. But in the first case IDC runs into the problem you
described, and in the second case, IDC has not made the case that the
things really are so complicated that natural causes are ruled out.
Regards,
Shepherdmoon
Glenn
John Harshman wrote:
>
> Actually, I think Glenn has a little bit of a point there. There is a
> difference between "ancestral species" and "ancestral group", especially
> if you believe in the reality of species. However, the two concepts are
> quite similar. If we are descended from extinct "monkeys" (using the
> term informally to describe tailed anthropoids), then there was
> certainly a time when the human lineage coexisted with its ancestral
> monkey lineage. That is, there was a speciation event at which (or near
> which) one or more of the derived characteristics of apes evolved, while
> another population retained the primitive state.
Retained for a period of time.
>So coexistence of
> ancestor and descendant species is implied though not entailed
> (unintentional pun) by the statement.
No. Evolution is implied, change over time.
>
> We are still left with no justification for Glenn's two apparent claims:
I have given it already.
>
> 1. Coexistence of ancestor and descendant species would falsify evolution.
>
But I did specify "many" observed instances, and a time scale on the order of
millions, the time allegedly from "monkeys" to humans.
Link that up to evolution. And then explain why "retained the primitive state"
extant species should not be seen as a threat to evolutionary theory.
>
> 2. We are not descended from monkeys.
>
Because you can call a common ancestor whatever you wish (it is done),
but that does not make them "monkeys", nor does it support that we
shared a common ancestor.
>
> He may be reduced to defending the second claim in merely a semantic
> way, i.e. by using a definition of "monkey" that includes only extant
> species. But I think he really does believe we are not related to
> monkeys by common descent, and I wonder if he will either attempt to
> present evidence for that claim, or refute evidence for the counterclaim
> (that we are related).
>
You said it, counterclaim.
Even if I allowed my religious beliefs to interfere with objectivity,
what makes you think that I would not "like" to think that monkeys and
humans shared a common ancestor, or that they shared a common design?
You keep "thinking" these things in print, but what other than
stereotyping do you have as evidence.
>
> Why shouldn't we call the common ancestor a monkey? What better term
> would you suggest?
>
Think I already answered that before too, seriously.
Oranges.
....when you can show proof of this common ancestor.
Glenn
Steven J. wrote:
> Yes, "extant" means "are still around." Now, all you have to do is
> demonstrate that "what we came from" means "species" specifically,
> rather than "clade" or "higher taxon" or "group" more generally. John
> Harshman certainly stated that our monkey ancestors belonged to some
> *group* that still has living members; at no point did he indicate
> that those ancestors belonged to some *species* that is still extant.
>
Nobody has or ever will come from a "clade" or "higher taxon".
Everyone will come from a species. That is a known.
Whether a species came from an artificial grouping is not known, and the
evidence of that is clearly in the lack of species identification.
John Wilkins
> John Harshman wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Actually, I think Glenn has a little bit of a point there. There is a
> > difference between "ancestral species" and "ancestral group", especially
> > if you believe in the reality of species. However, the two concepts are
> > quite similar. If we are descended from extinct "monkeys" (using the
> > term informally to describe tailed anthropoids), then there was
> > certainly a time when the human lineage coexisted with its ancestral
> > monkey lineage. That is, there was a speciation event at which (or near
> > which) one or more of the derived characteristics of apes evolved, while
> > another population retained the primitive state.
>
> Retained for a period of time.
That is understood.
>
> >So coexistence of
> > ancestor and descendant species is implied though not entailed
> > (unintentional pun) by the statement.
>
> No. Evolution is implied, change over time.
That, too is understood, but it is not in contradiction to what John
said. Until the ancestral species went extinct, it is a logical
necessity that the two species, one the ancestor and one the new species
from which we eventually evolved, coexisted. The only way this could not
be true is if the new species immediate extinguished the old, or the
event that formed the new extinguished the old at the same time. Could
happen, but we expect it to be the exception, not the rule.
> >
> > We are still left with no justification for Glenn's two apparent claims:
>
> I have given it already.
Not to my mind. All I see is that you assert there must be a
contradiction of the ancestral species surviving the evolution of a
daughter species from it. No theoretician thinks that. I think you are
confused here.
>
> >
> > 1. Coexistence of ancestor and descendant species would falsify
> > evolution.
>
> But I did specify "many" observed instances, and a time scale on the order
> of millions, the time allegedly from "monkeys" to humans.
>
> Link that up to evolution. And then explain why "retained the primitive
> state" extant species should not be seen as a threat to evolutionary
> theory.
Because when a new species evolves, it "buds off" from the main species,
leaving it unaffected unless they compete in a small region for the same
resources. Typically we expect this will not occur. I budded off two
children. I remain alive and (relatively) the same as I was (less sane,
perhaps). Species are in that respect like asexual organisms that
reproduce by budding, like a hydra.
The existing species may be very well adapted to its main range. It is
thought that new species are usually outliers that adapt to novel
conditions after being isolated from the main species range and
environments. Why then should we be forced to expect the original
species to change if it is already well adapted?
Some people seem to think that evolution is like a landslide - all
things are doomed to change continuously. This is not true. Evolution is
like water flowing downhill. Some of it finds hollows that hold it there
indefinitely, while other streams continue on.
> >
> > 2. We are not descended from monkeys.
>
> Because you can call a common ancestor whatever you wish (it is done),
> but that does not make them "monkeys", nor does it support that we
> shared a common ancestor.
If they are in every relevant respect just like monkeys, then ordinary
usage would call them monkeys. The current view is that our lineage
comes out of the Catarrhines - the group of which Old World (Eurasian
and African) monkeys and apes evolved. Our ancestor is more closely
related to monkeys and apes than to the New World monkeys
(Platyrrhines), so to say our last common ancestor (LCA) was a "monkey"
is misleading; but it was a Catarrhine. Likewise, we share a more recent
LCA with apes than we do with (modern) Old World monkeys.
So if we treat "monkey" as equal to Old World and New World monkeys, our
LCA was *not* a monkey. But if we treat "anything that is a primate and
has a tail" as equal to "monkey", then our LCA with monkeys clearly
*was* a monkey. The term is ambiguous. John is using this latter sense
when he says we were once monkeys.
Of course, before Catarrhines and Platyrrhines there was a *prior* LCA
that split off from the shared lineage with lemurs and tarsiers. And
just today I found in _Scientific American_ (March 2003, p 12-13) a
lovely fossil discovery of around 55 million years ago, _Carpolestes
simpsonii_, which is a very primitive primate before either group
evolved - it had grasping fingers, but still had laterally positioned
eyes. The discoverers speculate that this was an adaptation to the newly
evolved fruit, flowers, gums and nectars on flowering plants, and that
they were in competition with rodents, who were also tree dwellers but
could not reach the tips of branches.
>
> >
> > He may be reduced to defending the second claim in merely a semantic
> > way, i.e. by using a definition of "monkey" that includes only extant
> > species. But I think he really does believe we are not related to
> > monkeys by common descent, and I wonder if he will either attempt to
> > present evidence for that claim, or refute evidence for the counterclaim
> > (that we are related).
> >
> You said it, counterclaim.
>
> Even if I allowed my religious beliefs to interfere with objectivity,
> what makes you think that I would not "like" to think that monkeys and
> humans shared a common ancestor, or that they shared a common design?
> You keep "thinking" these things in print, but what other than
> stereotyping do you have as evidence.
Your continued attack on the idea in the face of massive amounts of
modern, fossil and molecular evidence, it can only be a personal
preference. If you can mount an evidentiary case, we will all be amazed
and astounded and, if it checks out, will change our minds. I'm sure
John would and I certainly would. But if that were possible, it would
have been done a century ago.
>
>
> >
> > Why shouldn't we call the common ancestor a monkey? What better term
> > would you suggest?
> >
> Think I already answered that before too, seriously.
>
> Oranges.
As in Orangutans? No, that was tried a long time back and failed. But
you are getting closer - at least we are more closely related to Orangs
than to extant Old World Monkeys.
[Yes, I know he was joking]
> ....when you can show proof of this common ancestor.
What counts as *proof*? You never really say.
John Wilkins
> Steven J. wrote:
>
>
> > Yes, "extant" means "are still around." Now, all you have to do is
> > demonstrate that "what we came from" means "species" specifically,
> > rather than "clade" or "higher taxon" or "group" more generally. John
> > Harshman certainly stated that our monkey ancestors belonged to some
> > *group* that still has living members; at no point did he indicate
> > that those ancestors belonged to some *species* that is still extant.
> >
> Nobody has or ever will come from a "clade" or "higher taxon".
Yes! Correct!
>
> Everyone will come from a species. That is a known.
Yes! Correct!
>
> Whether a species came from an artificial grouping is not known, and the
> evidence of that is clearly in the lack of species identification.
Wrong! Incorrect! Every clade was once a *single* species. It is the
species adn the descendent species of that species. "Clade" is merely a
Greek term for "branch" (klados, to be precise). Every *rank* of
taxonomy is artificial (i.e., arbitrary sizes of branches), but every
*branch* is real enough.
And the lack of species identification of ancestors is due to the fact
that as time goes by we lose information about exact sequences of
events. Here's a classical example:
You have a ball bearing at the bottom of a bowl. You know only that it
was once not in the bowl (you have a photograph of the empty bowl), and
that it was not dropped into it (because the bowl would have broken - it
is very fine china). What pathway did the bowl take to get to the
bottom? Was it from the 9 o'clock position? Did it go directly in to the
centre, or did it spin around the bowl a few times like a roulette
wheel?
If you cannot answer this, are you justified in saying that the ball
bearing did not roll to its current position, but was created as it is?
Information about the past is lost. But we can say the *kinds* of ways
things got to where they are, and if we get photos of the ball in
various positions, we may have enought o rule out some possible
pathways. If we are really lucky, then we get sufficient photos to make
a kind of "movie" - even though it is possible for the ball to have
passed through a much more complex pathway than the "obvious" one - as
the effect of wagon wheels moving "backwards" in old westerns shows us.
David Sienkiewicz
> Steven J. wrote:
>
>
> > Yes, "extant" means "are still around." Now, all you have to do is
> > demonstrate that "what we came from" means "species" specifically,
> > rather than "clade" or "higher taxon" or "group" more generally. John
> > Harshman certainly stated that our monkey ancestors belonged to some
> > *group* that still has living members; at no point did he indicate
> > that those ancestors belonged to some *species* that is still extant.
> >
> Nobody has or ever will come from a "clade" or "higher taxon".
Let's watch just how stupid this line of "reasoning" from you can be
shown to be, sheldon:
> Everyone will come from a species. That is a known.
It is?
No one comes from a genus? No one comes from a family? An order? A
class?
> Whether a species came from an artificial grouping is not known,
sheldon, a species IS an "artificial grouping."
> and the
> evidence of that is clearly in the lack of species identification.
"The lack of species identification?"
sheldon, let me tell you what I think. I think you are completely
lost in this thread. I think Steven left you in the dust at the point
where he started quoting YOU. I think that's why you snipped away
most of his comments. Typically, you felt you had to say SOMETHING,
however; and typically, what you said makes no sense.
Steven J.
> Steven J. wrote:
>
>
> > Yes, "extant" means "are still around." Now, all you have to do is
> > demonstrate that "what we came from" means "species" specifically,
> > rather than "clade" or "higher taxon" or "group" more generally. John
> > Harshman certainly stated that our monkey ancestors belonged to some
> > *group* that still has living members; at no point did he indicate
> > that those ancestors belonged to some *species* that is still extant.
> >
> Nobody has or ever will come from a "clade" or "higher taxon".
>
importance of this nit will be shown below.
>
> Everyone will come from a species. That is a known.
>
Common ancestry requires cladogenesis (a species giving rise to more
than one descendant species) rather than, or in addition to,
anagenesis (an entire species evolving into a new species). You
understand this, of course. But it implies that we are not evolved
from an *entire* species, but only from one population of a species;
other populations gave rise to other species, or persisted unchanged
until extinction.
Now, you may assert that since we are descended only from a local
population of a species, rather than from an entire species (since
even in anagenesis, most members of a population will, in the long
run, leave not even a single descendant), and thus "nobody has or ever
will come from a species." This would be a consistent position, I
think, but not the one you were arguing earlier in the thread.
Or you may regard us as "coming from" any clade, from the local
population, to the entire species, to the entire genus, family, or
order containing that species. All of these are clades, and all of
them are equally valid clades, united by exactly the same criterion --
descent from a (more or less remote) common ancestral population.
Now, species are in a sense more "real" than these higher taxa, since
(for sexually reproducing species, at least) they can interbreed and
mix their various gene pools. But this sense is not relevant for
distinguishing the *species* from which we evolved, from the higher
taxa from which we evolved, since of course at some point before
speciation, other populations of the ancestral species must have
*stopped* mixing gene pools with the population that became our
ancestors (otherwise, that ancestral species could not have been our
*common* ancestor with anything).
If you're willing to count *any* clade one population of which was,
and some populations of which were not, among our ancestors as
ancestral to us, you might as well count every such clade, whether it
be called "species," "family," "class," or "kingdom."
>
> Whether a species came from an artificial grouping is not known, and the
> evidence of that is clearly in the lack of species identification.
>
But again, the groupings are not artificial in any relevant sense.
They are artificial in the sense that there are only subjective
criteria to determine whether two species are similar enough to belong
to the same genus, or family, or other higher taxon. But that is
simply a question of how to divide up clades into subclades; the
question of whether species A is more closely related to species B
than either is to C is not purely subjective.
The inability to identify a specific ancestral species, or population,
in order to identify two species as belonging to a clade with that
species as common ancestor, would imply that even horses and donkeys,
or blue jays and Stellar's jays, can't belong to some valid larger
group, because the common ancestor can't be identified with
confidence. The inference of common ancestry is based on shared
homologies, regardless of whether we are talking about subspecies, or
classes, or indeed manuscript copies of some lost original document.
-- Steven J.
John Harshman
Steven J. wrote:
> Glenn <gshe...@qwest.net> wrote in message news:<3E975B5A...@qwest.net>...
>
>>Steven J. wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Yes, "extant" means "are still around." Now, all you have to do is
>>>demonstrate that "what we came from" means "species" specifically,
>>>rather than "clade" or "higher taxon" or "group" more generally. John
>>>Harshman certainly stated that our monkey ancestors belonged to some
>>>*group* that still has living members; at no point did he indicate
>>>that those ancestors belonged to some *species* that is still extant.
>>>
>>>
>>Nobody has or ever will come from a "clade" or "higher taxon".
>>
>>
> Species are clades. So are local populations of a species. The
> importance of this nit will be shown below.
Species are not necessarily clades. That depends on your definition of
species, and how closely you look. Under most species definitions a
paraphyletic species is perfectly acceptable, and even under the
phylogenetic species concept, strict monophyly depends on coalescence,
which may not yet have occurred at any given time.
But I don't really think this affects the rest of your post [snipped],
despite what you said above.
John Harshman
Glenn wrote:
>
> John Harshman wrote:
>
>
[snip most of it, which John Wilkins has already answered just fine]
> Even if I allowed my religious beliefs to interfere with objectivity,
> what makes you think that I would not "like" to think that monkeys and
> humans shared a common ancestor, or that they shared a common design?
> You keep "thinking" these things in print, but what other than
> stereotyping do you have as evidence.
What *do* you think, Glenn? Why so afraid of exposing your opinions on
this subject?
>>Why shouldn't we call the common ancestor a monkey? What better term
>>would you suggest?
>>
>>
> Think I already answered that before too, seriously.
>
> Oranges.
> ....when you can show proof of this common ancestor.
Sure. Here's one. Would you care to discuss it? This is pulled for no
particular reason, except that I happen to have the data set, which
makes it convenient, from a huge literature, all of which shows the same
thing.
Miyamoto, M. M., C. A. Porter, and M. Goodman. 2000. c-Myc gene
sequences and the phylogeny of bats and other eutherian mammals. Syst.
Biol. 49:501-514.
This paper shows that humans are closely related to chimps, and more
closely to chimps than to gibbons, and more closely to gibbons than to a
NW monkey, and more closely to the monkey than to various non-primate
mammals. The only logical inference from this paper is that humans and
monkeys share a common ancestor. This paper doesn't do it, but others I
could show you demonstrate that the common ancestor was nested within a
paraphyletic group that we commonly call monkeys, and therefore would be
called a monkey were it around today.
Stanley Friesen
>
>I have given it already.
>
>> 1. Coexistence of ancestor and descendant species would falsify evolution.
>
>But I did specify "many" observed instances, and a time scale on the order of
>millions, the time allegedly from "monkeys" to humans.
>Link that up to evolution. And then explain why "retained the primitive state"
>extant species should not be seen as a threat to evolutionary theory.
>
descendant for *any* amount of time, long or short, and with any
frequency. Indeed, given the manner of the origin of new species,
overlap will be the norm, and thus very, very common.
There is no such thing as "primitive" in evolution, only ancestral
(plesiomorphic) and derived (apomorphic). The plesiomorphic state may
continue to exist so long as there is even *one* environment where it is
advantageous relative to the apomorphic state. E.g. monkeys (with
tails) inhabit a different *niche* than apes (tailless), and each
condition is advantageous for its respective lifestyle.
>
>>
>> 2. We are not descended from monkeys.
>
>Because you can call a common ancestor whatever you wish (it is done),
>but that does not make them "monkeys", nor does it support that we
>shared a common ancestor.
The name doesn't, but the genetics and the fossil record *do* support
the conclusion of a common ancestor.
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
Matt Silberstein
<sar...@friesen.net>:
>Glenn <gshe...@qwest.net> wrote:
>>John Harshman wrote:
>>>
>>> We are still left with no justification for Glenn's two apparent claims:
>>
>>I have given it already.
>>
>>> 1. Coexistence of ancestor and descendant species would falsify evolution.
>>
>>But I did specify "many" observed instances, and a time scale on the order of
>>millions, the time allegedly from "monkeys" to humans.
>>Link that up to evolution. And then explain why "retained the primitive state"
>>extant species should not be seen as a threat to evolutionary theory.
>>
>Except that evolution is compatible with overlap between ancestor and
>descendant for *any* amount of time, long or short, and with any
>frequency. Indeed, given the manner of the origin of new species,
>overlap will be the norm, and thus very, very common.
>
>There is no such thing as "primitive" in evolution, only ancestral
>(plesiomorphic) and derived (apomorphic).
This is the kind of thing that Glenn can/will jump on. Sure there
is "primitive", it just means what you call plesiomorphic.
Different people use different words to refer to the same thing.
> The plesiomorphic state may
>continue to exist so long as there is even *one* environment where it is
>advantageous relative to the apomorphic state. E.g. monkeys (with
>tails) inhabit a different *niche* than apes (tailless), and each
>condition is advantageous for its respective lifestyle.
>>
>>>
>>> 2. We are not descended from monkeys.
>>
>>Because you can call a common ancestor whatever you wish (it is done),
>>but that does not make them "monkeys", nor does it support that we
>>shared a common ancestor.
>
>The name doesn't, but the genetics and the fossil record *do* support
>the conclusion of a common ancestor.
Naming is important, but naming does not change the thing named.
--
Matt Silberstein TBC HRL OMM
We are not here to judge other people,
we are just here to be better than they are.
Glenn
John Harshman wrote:
>
> Glenn wrote:
>
>>John Harshman wrote:
>
>>Even if I allowed my religious beliefs to interfere with objectivity,
>>what makes you think that I would not "like" to think that monkeys and
>>humans shared a common ancestor, or that they shared a common design?
>>You keep "thinking" these things in print, but what other than
>>stereotyping do you have as evidence.
>>
> What *do* you think, Glenn? Why so afraid of exposing your opinions on
> this subject?
>
I would like to think that you could show some evidence of why you think that
many common ancestors found surviving with their descendents would not
falsify Common Descent. You know I'm not speaking about your cousin, nor
in 100s of millions of years.
What and where are these? All extinct because the fossil record tells us so?
Sahelanthropus tchadensis
Orrorin tugenensis
Australopithecus ramidus
Ardipithecus ramidus
Australopithecus anamensis
Australopithecus afarensis
Homo antiquus
Australopithecus bahrelghazali
Kenyanthropus platyops
Australopithecus africanus
Australopithecus garhi
Paraustralopithecus aethiopicus
Australopithecus aethiopicus
Paranthropus robustus
Australopithecus robustus
Australopithecus walkeri
Zinjanthropus boisei
Australopithecus boisei
Paranthropus crassidens
Australopithecus crassidens
Homo antiquus praegens
Australopithecus praegens
Homo habilis
Homo louisleakeyi
Pithecanthropus rudolfensis
Homo rudolfensis
Homo microcranous
Homo georgicus
Homo ergaster
Pithecanthropus erectus
Homo erectus Trinil
Homo antecessor
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo rhodesiensis
Homo helmei
Homo neanderthalensis
John Harshman
Glenn wrote:
>
> John Harshman wrote:
>
>
>>Glenn wrote:
>>
>>
>>>John Harshman wrote:
>>>
>>
>>
>>>Even if I allowed my religious beliefs to interfere with objectivity,
>>>what makes you think that I would not "like" to think that monkeys and
>>>humans shared a common ancestor, or that they shared a common design?
>>>You keep "thinking" these things in print, but what other than
>>>stereotyping do you have as evidence.
>>>
>>>
>>What *do* you think, Glenn? Why so afraid of exposing your opinions on
>>this subject?
>>
>>
> I would like to think that you could show some evidence of why you think that
>
> many common ancestors found surviving with their descendents would not
> falsify Common Descent. You know I'm not speaking about your cousin, nor
> in 100s of millions of years.
I think that for the same reason I think toothpicks don't falsify common
descent. Nobody has ever suggested a good reason why either of them
would falsify common descent. You have suggested no reason except,
apparently, a belief that stasis should be impossible, which is a weird
position for a creationist to take.
We expect ancestral species to survive along with their descendants more
often than not. Why would they go extinct?
> What and where are these? All extinct because the fossil record tells us so?
They are all extinct because we don't find them living on the earth now.
I have no idea what you are trying to get at here. As usual, you fail
to connect any of your little dots.
[snip big list of hominids, posted for reasons entirely unclear to me.]
John Wilkins
I find this an interesting topic. For example, Mishler and Donoghue and
their collaborator Theriot have proposed a Monophyletic Species Concept
as a phylogenetic concept (the other is the Autapomorphic conception of
Rosen, Nelson, Platnick, Eldredge and Cracraft). It seems to me
basically flawed, because not only are most species *not* monophyletic
as you say, but the notion of monophyly applies *only if you already
have taxa to construct a phylogenetic tree* - that is to say, if you can
make out species as monophyletic, then they aren't species but are
supraspecific (unless you add to the mix something *other* than
monophyly as the marker of specific rank); because the taxa used to
construct the cladogram would then count as species - as terminal nodes
on the tree.
Populations, for example, are the "root" of species in most cases
(including, of course, metapopulations in the case of entire species
transforming; where gene flow maintains cohesion). If you begin to
construct a tree using markers of the populations, you have already
taken them to be of terminal taxon rank. On the monophyletic conception,
they *are* species, or at least terminal taxa, which amounts to the same
thing on this view.
Of course, this is denied by the Monophyletic SC proponents. Mishelr and
Theriot define "monophyly" as a "synchronic cut", that is, as a simple
division of a historical tree, which is rather different from the
initial account and common meaning of monophyly. That I take to be more
like a convex set of taxa, and a single taxon cannot be that. Also, it
is sensitive to the multiple origins problem, where species arise more
than once.
Glenn
John Harshman wrote:
>
> Glenn wrote:
>
>
>>John Harshman wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Glenn wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>John Harshman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>Even if I allowed my religious beliefs to interfere with objectivity,
>>>>what makes you think that I would not "like" to think that monkeys and
>>>>humans shared a common ancestor, or that they shared a common design?
>>>>You keep "thinking" these things in print, but what other than
>>>>stereotyping do you have as evidence.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>What *do* you think, Glenn? Why so afraid of exposing your opinions on
>>>this subject?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>I would like to think that you could show some evidence of why you think that
>>many common ancestors found surviving with their descendents would not
>>falsify Common Descent. You know I'm not speaking about your cousin, nor
>>in 100s of millions of years.
>>
>
>
> I think that for the same reason I think toothpicks don't falsify common
> descent. Nobody has ever suggested a good reason why either of them
> would falsify common descent.
You're probably serious. Evolution is change, and if we observed no
change, that wouldn't falsify evolution. No wonder you have problems
with understanding natural selection is a tautology.
>You have suggested no reason except,
> apparently, a belief that stasis should be impossible, which is a weird
> position for a creationist to take.
I have not "apparently suggested" that stasis should be impossible.
Claiming that I have is an unsurprising position for an evolutionist to
take.
>
> We expect ancestral species to survive along with their descendants more
> often than not. Why would they go extinct?
>
I just gave you some room to play your game, and you have, assuming the question
is regarding cousins. You do not expect Proconsul nyanzae to survive
along with humans anymore than you think humans are the descendants of
toothpicks.
>
>>What and where are these? All extinct because the fossil record tells us so?
>>
> They are all extinct because we don't find them living on the earth now.
So you say. Surely some species have gone extinct. But if your statement
is correct, extinction does not prove relationships.
> I have no idea what you are trying to get at here. As usual, you fail
> to connect any of your little dots.
>
"I would like to think that you could show some evidence of why you think that
many common ancestors found surviving with their descendents would not
falsify Common Descent."
Here's your answer: "We expect ancestral species to survive along with their descendants more
often than not."
Then prove it with this list. "Going extinct" has no clothes.
>
> [snip big list of hominids, posted for reasons entirely unclear to me.]
>
I'm sure that you believe that because the feet of monkeys and humans are similar,
that they share a common ancestor. You'd need considerably more hard
evidence than saying that "evolution happens" or "extinction" to
convince me of that, or that any on the list you snipped shared a common
ancestor.
John Harshman
Glenn wrote:
>
> John Harshman wrote:
>
>
>>Glenn wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>John Harshman wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Glenn wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Even if I allowed my religious beliefs to interfere with objectivity,
>>>>>what makes you think that I would not "like" to think that monkeys and
>>>>>humans shared a common ancestor, or that they shared a common design?
>>>>>You keep "thinking" these things in print, but what other than
>>>>>stereotyping do you have as evidence.
>>>>>
>>>>What *do* you think, Glenn? Why so afraid of exposing your opinions on
>>>>this subject?
>>>>
>>>I would like to think that you could show some evidence of why you think that
>>>many common ancestors found surviving with their descendents would not
>>>falsify Common Descent. You know I'm not speaking about your cousin, nor
>>>in 100s of millions of years.
>>
>>I think that for the same reason I think toothpicks don't falsify common
>>descent. Nobody has ever suggested a good reason why either of them
>>would falsify common descent.
>
> You're probably serious. Evolution is change, and if we observed no
> change, that wouldn't falsify evolution.
If we *never* observed change, that would falsify evolution. But that
doesn't mean we have to *always* observe change. Change doesn't have to
be continuous. It can be episodic. Your argument makes no sense.
> No wonder you have problems
> with understanding natural selection is a tautology.
I do have problems understanding that, all right.
>>You have suggested no reason except,
>>apparently, a belief that stasis should be impossible, which is a weird
>>position for a creationist to take.
>
> I have not "apparently suggested" that stasis should be impossible.
> Claiming that I have is an unsurprising position for an evolutionist to
> take.
As usual, you deny having expressed an opinion without clarifying what
you actually do think or have said. Look, you claimed that we must
observe change at all times for evolution to be correct. This is exactly
the same as supposing that for evolution to be correct, there can be no
stasis.
>
>>We expect ancestral species to survive along with their descendants more
>>often than not. Why would they go extinct?
>>
> I just gave you some room to play your game, and you have, assuming the question
> is regarding cousins. You do not expect Proconsul nyanzae to survive
> along with humans anymore than you think humans are the descendants of
> toothpicks.
Proconsul is a bit too early for it to be likely to survive, since the
average mammal species lasts only 1-5my. Humans seem unusual in some
ways, in that all our closest relatives are indeed extinct, and perhaps
we had something to do with that. That's not true for many taxa.
Another problem with the ancestor question, as I keep mentioning and you
keep snipping without comment, is that we can't really recognize
ancestors in the world around us. It has been suggested that Ursus
arctos is the ancestor of Ursus maritimus. There's no data to contradict
that, but then again how would we tell?
>>>What and where are these? All extinct because the fossil record tells us so?
>>>
>>>
>>They are all extinct because we don't find them living on the earth now.
>
> So you say. Surely some species have gone extinct. But if your statement
> is correct, extinction does not prove relationships.
Are you contending that some of the species on your list are still
alive? And who ever said that extinction proved relationships? It would
seem fairly irrelevant to relationships. You are being extremely opaque
here.
>> I have no idea what you are trying to get at here. As usual, you fail
>>to connect any of your little dots.
> "I would like to think that you could show some evidence of why you think that
> many common ancestors found surviving with their descendents would not
> falsify Common Descent."
> Here's your answer: "We expect ancestral species to survive along with their descendants more
> often than not."
>
> Then prove it with this list. "Going extinct" has no clothes.
Well, many of these species did coexist at one time or another. However,
as I have been saying for some time now, we really have no way of
telling whether one species is the ancestor of another species.
It's clear that no human ancestors are now extant, but humans must be
the exception here, probably because hominids have tended to compete
with each other for a similar, broad niche. I expect that there are
thousands of insect species that share the world with their ancestral
species, though again I can't point to them because there is just no way
to recognize ancestors.
>>[snip big list of hominids, posted for reasons entirely unclear to me.]
>>
> I'm sure that you believe that because the feet of monkeys and humans are similar,
> that they share a common ancestor.
That's certainly one reason out of many.
> You'd need considerably more hard
> evidence than saying that "evolution happens" or "extinction" to
> convince me of that, or that any on the list you snipped shared a common
> ancestor.
I gave you a reference, which once again you snipped without comment.
What's the point of giving you hard evidence if you won't even look at it?
John Harshman
John Wilkins wrote:
Whoa, hold on. You can say that only if you have a list of species or a
criterion for species-hood that is independent of species concept.
Either that or you are saying that because some species recognized under
the BSC are not monophyletic species, the monophyletic species concept
is flawed, which makes no sense.
> but the notion of monophyly applies *only if you already
> have taxa to construct a phylogenetic tree* - that is to say, if you can
> make out species as monophyletic, then they aren't species but are
> supraspecific (unless you add to the mix something *other* than
> monophyly as the marker of specific rank); because the taxa used to
> construct the cladogram would then count as species - as terminal nodes
> on the tree.
I've seen this argument, and it makes no sense to me. A species is
monophyletic if it includes all the descendants of some ancestral
population. No tree needed, except a reticulating tree of individuals,
if that. The big problem with all concepts of monophyly is that tokogeny
and phylogeny aren't separable into neat bins.
> Populations, for example, are the "root" of species in most cases
> (including, of course, metapopulations in the case of entire species
> transforming; where gene flow maintains cohesion). If you begin to
> construct a tree using markers of the populations, you have already
> taken them to be of terminal taxon rank. On the monophyletic conception,
> they *are* species, or at least terminal taxa, which amounts to the same
> thing on this view.
I'm afraid I don't understand your point, but it sounds quite formalist
to the extent that I do get it. You can use individuals as terminal taxa
if you like. Does that make them species?
> Of course, this is denied by the Monophyletic SC proponents. Mishelr and
> Theriot define "monophyly" as a "synchronic cut", that is, as a simple
> division of a historical tree, which is rather different from the
> initial account and common meaning of monophyly. That I take to be more
> like a convex set of taxa,
Not so. A convex set can be paraphyletic, for one thing.
> and a single taxon cannot be that.
A single taxon is an abstraction. Anything above the level of the
individual is divisible into parts, and it may be that some of those
parts are monophyletic, depending on phylogeny/tokogeny (that is, the
pattern of ancestry and descent of individuals, or even of nucleotides).
> Also, it
> is sensitive to the multiple origins problem, where species arise more
> than once.
My position is that neat definitions of phylogeny and monophyly
disappear if you look too close. Genes flow, identical mutations happen
multiple times, reticulations happen.
John Wilkins
Well... that's true. Phylogenetic concepts seem to have no problem with
majorly different cuttings of the joints of nature - I gather they tend
to be very promiscuous in bird taxonomy, for example (someone quoted 4
times the number of species on the autapomorphic conception). But I make
hasty comments here to avoid doing so in the thesis...
>
> > but the notion of monophyly applies *only if you already
> > have taxa to construct a phylogenetic tree* - that is to say, if you can
> > make out species as monophyletic, then they aren't species but are
> > supraspecific (unless you add to the mix something *other* than
> > monophyly as the marker of specific rank); because the taxa used to
> > construct the cladogram would then count as species - as terminal nodes
> > on the tree.
>
>
> I've seen this argument, and it makes no sense to me. A species is
> monophyletic if it includes all the descendants of some ancestral
> population. No tree needed, except a reticulating tree of individuals,
> if that. The big problem with all concepts of monophyly is that tokogeny
> and phylogeny aren't separable into neat bins.
No, but I don't see how that is contrary to the argument - and anyway we
know of species that clearly are not the result of speciation from
single populations (e.g., introgressive species or multiple origins -
the "respeciation problem"). In effect to say that articulating lineages
(cladogenetic lineages) and reticulating lineages (tokogenetic lineages)
are not easily separable in the real world *is* to say that you cannot
make out that species are monophyletic (in each and every case - of
course *some* are).
>
>
> > Populations, for example, are the "root" of species in most cases
> > (including, of course, metapopulations in the case of entire species
> > transforming; where gene flow maintains cohesion). If you begin to
> > construct a tree using markers of the populations, you have already
> > taken them to be of terminal taxon rank. On the monophyletic conception,
> > they *are* species, or at least terminal taxa, which amounts to the same
> > thing on this view.
>
>
> I'm afraid I don't understand your point, but it sounds quite formalist
> to the extent that I do get it. You can use individuals as terminal taxa
> if you like. Does that make them species?
It does if you can (i) make out a claim that only individuals are
terminal taxa (in asexuals, for example) and (ii) require that species
are the least group that is monophyletic. This isn't a knockdown
argument against the MSC; but it does suggest that we are no longer
talking about the sort of taxon we used to when we used the term
"species", and perhaps now we must start to treat terminal taxa as
something else; e.g., Turesson's ecotypes or coenospecies, or perhaps
syngameons or demes. But every time this has been tried, the terms end
up being used differently and "species" reasserts itself. This might
just be a holdout of the Linnaean system and two centuries of habit; but
then again, perhaps there is something there.
Yes, BTW, it is a formal argument. I'm a philosopher after all :-)
>
>
> > Of course, this is denied by the Monophyletic SC proponents. Mishelr and
> > Theriot define "monophyly" as a "synchronic cut", that is, as a simple
> > division of a historical tree, which is rather different from the
> > initial account and common meaning of monophyly. That I take to be more
> > like a convex set of taxa,
>
>
> Not so. A convex set can be paraphyletic, for one thing.
I actually hesitated before using that term. I was not quite sure I had
it right. Damn.
>
> > and a single taxon cannot be that.
>
>
> A single taxon is an abstraction. Anything above the level of the
> individual is divisible into parts, and it may be that some of those
> parts are monophyletic, depending on phylogeny/tokogeny (that is, the
> pattern of ancestry and descent of individuals, or even of nucleotides).
So you are of the "species conventionalist" camp. Fair enough - it is
becoming fashionable (perhaps with good reason - some fashions are
"adaptive"). Pleijel is one of those, for instance, that I call a
"species denier" - he wants to replace the concept with "least inclusive
units" and others such as Hey want to replace it with "evolutionary
significant units". Of course we have a history of replacement concepts.
In my mind, none of them are much different apart from one aspect - they
deny that there is a single absolute *rank* of species. On that point I
agree.
>
> > Also, it
> > is sensitive to the multiple origins problem, where species arise more
> > than once.
>
>
> My position is that neat definitions of phylogeny and monophyly
> disappear if you look too close. Genes flow, identical mutations happen
> multiple times, reticulations happen.
So now I have another sig line: reticulations happen...
Glenn
John Harshman wrote:
So much for the "molecular clock". It is your argument that makes no
sense here, sir.
>
>>No wonder you have problems
>>with understanding natural selection is a tautology.
>>
>
>
> I do have problems understanding that, all right.
>
>
>>>You have suggested no reason except,
>>>apparently, a belief that stasis should be impossible, which is a weird
>>>position for a creationist to take.
>>>
>>I have not "apparently suggested" that stasis should be impossible.
>>Claiming that I have is an unsurprising position for an evolutionist to
>>take.
>>
>
>
> As usual, you deny having expressed an opinion without clarifying what
> you actually do think or have said. Look, you claimed that we must
> observe change at all times for evolution to be correct. This is exactly
> the same as supposing that for evolution to be correct, there can be no
> stasis.
>
Only for evolutionary theory.
>
>>>We expect ancestral species to survive along with their descendants more
>>>often than not. Why would they go extinct?
>>>
>>>
>>I just gave you some room to play your game, and you have, assuming the question
>>is regarding cousins. You do not expect Proconsul nyanzae to survive
>>along with humans anymore than you think humans are the descendants of
>>toothpicks.
>>
>
>
> Proconsul is a bit too early for it to be likely to survive, since the
> average mammal species lasts only 1-5my.
Based on the your inference about the fossil record. Care to give away
any secrets as to why a species must last any period of time?
>Humans seem unusual in some
> ways, in that all our closest relatives are indeed extinct, and perhaps
> we had something to do with that. That's not true for many taxa.
It isn't?
>
> Another problem with the ancestor question, as I keep mentioning and you
> keep snipping without comment, is that we can't really recognize
> ancestors in the world around us.
Damn, you just made a positive statement implying knowledge about the
"truth" of taxa.
>It has been suggested that Ursus
> arctos is the ancestor of Ursus maritimus. There's no data to contradict
> that, but then again how would we tell?
>
If you can't compare an extant species with a fossil and be sure, then how the hell
do you think in your wildest imaginations you can tell anything?
>
>>>>What and where are these? All extinct because the fossil record tells us so?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>They are all extinct because we don't find them living on the earth now.
>>>
>>So you say. Surely some species have gone extinct. But if your statement
>>is correct, extinction does not prove relationships.
>>
>
>
> Are you contending that some of the species on your list are still
> alive?
No, I'm contending that you don't know but pretend it's "fact".
>And who ever said that extinction proved relationships? It would
> seem fairly irrelevant to relationships. You are being extremely opaque
> here.
>
You say "we can't really recognize the ancestors in the world around us" yet claim
that they are extinct. How do you justify your beliefs??
>
>>> I have no idea what you are trying to get at here. As usual, you fail
>>>to connect any of your little dots.
>>>
>
>
>>"I would like to think that you could show some evidence of why you think that
>>many common ancestors found surviving with their descendents would not
>>falsify Common Descent."
>>Here's your answer: "We expect ancestral species to survive along with their descendants more
>>often than not."
>>
>>Then prove it with this list. "Going extinct" has no clothes.
>>
>
>
> Well, many of these species did coexist at one time or another.
Really! Because they "date" the same?
>However,
> as I have been saying for some time now, we really have no way of
> telling whether one species is the ancestor of another species.
>
Yes, I heard you. I'm surprised you would admit that.
> It's clear that no human ancestors are now extant,
Now its clear? When will you make up your mind?
>but humans must be
> the exception here, probably because hominids have tended to compete
> with each other for a similar, broad niche. I expect that there are
> thousands of insect species that share the world with their ancestral
> species, though again I can't point to them because there is just no way
> to recognize ancestors.
>
Probably, expect, can't point to... do you even realize what you are saying?
>
>>>[snip big list of hominids, posted for reasons entirely unclear to me.]
>>>
>>I'm sure that you believe that because the feet of monkeys and humans are similar,
>>that they share a common ancestor.
>>
> That's certainly one reason out of many.
>
It is *absolutely NO* reason at all, nada.
>
>>You'd need considerably more hard
>>evidence than saying that "evolution happens" or "extinction" to
>>convince me of that, or that any on the list you snipped shared a common
>>ancestor.
>>
> I gave you a reference, which once again you snipped without comment.
> What's the point of giving you hard evidence if you won't even look at it?
>
Who says it's hard evidence? Do you think posting a reference not easily obtained
will score you points? Or that "evidence" from a newly emerging field
will vindicate the last 100 years of guessing?
Dave Oldridge
There are too many factors changing the environment AND the genome for
long-term stasis to prevail on any global level. It would be like
expecting the earth's atmosphere to exactly follow the rotation of the
crust.
So yes, we can say categorically that no species will last forever (even
if we move beyond this planet) and that there is, therefore a discribution
of species longevities. From the fossil record, we can even estimate that
the mean longevity of a species is about 5 million years.
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.
Stanley Friesen
>In talk.origins I read this message from Stanley Friesen
><sar...@friesen.net>:
>>Except that evolution is compatible with overlap between ancestor and
>>descendant for *any* amount of time, long or short, and with any
>>frequency. Indeed, given the manner of the origin of new species,
>>overlap will be the norm, and thus very, very common.
>>
>>There is no such thing as "primitive" in evolution, only ancestral
>>(plesiomorphic) and derived (apomorphic).
>
>This is the kind of thing that Glenn can/will jump on. Sure there
>is "primitive", it just means what you call plesiomorphic.
>Different people use different words to refer to the same thing.
There is a subtle difference in meaning - plesiomorphic has no
implication of lower value. It removes the expectation that a
plesiomorphic character will prove less adaptive.
Andy Groves
John thinks it's hard evidence, Glenn. He wrote it above.
Andy
Steven J.
> John Harshman wrote:
>
> > Glenn wrote:
> >
> >>John Harshman wrote:
> >
> >>>Glenn wrote:
> >
> >>>>John Harshman wrote:
> >
> >>>>>Glenn wrote:
> >
> >>>>>>John Harshman wrote:
>
>
> >>>>>What *do* you think, Glenn? Why so afraid of exposing your opinions on
> >>>>>this subject?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>I would like to think that you could show some evidence of why you think
> >>>>that many common ancestors found surviving with their descendents would
> >>>>not falsify Common Descent. You know I'm not speaking about your cousin,
> >>>>nor in 100s of millions of years.
> >>>>
> >>>I think that for the same reason I think toothpicks don't falsify common
> >>>descent. Nobody has ever suggested a good reason why either of them
> >>>would falsify common descent.
> >>>
> >>You're probably serious. Evolution is change, and if we observed no
> >>change, that wouldn't falsify evolution.
>
falsify theories of why rain occurs. The theory of evolution does not
require any particular population to change over any particular span
of time; rather, it explains why some populations do change.
>
> > If we *never* observed change, that would falsify evolution. But that
> > doesn't mean we have to *always* observe change. Change doesn't have to
> > be continuous. It can be episodic. Your argument makes no sense.
> >
>
> So much for the "molecular clock". It is your argument that makes no
> sense here, sir.
>
for any mutation to occur and become fixed in a given gene over any
particular span of time. It is known that the molecular clock keeps
imperfect time, precisely because mutations can occur and become fixed
more often that one would "normally" expect, or less often, in any
given lineage.
Secondly, the molecular clock involves neutral or nearly neutral
mutations; one could not tell, from examining a fossil, whether there
were neutral differences between the genes it no longer has, and the
genes of an extant species that appears morphologically identical.
>
> >>No wonder you have problems
> >>with understanding natural selection is a tautology.
> >
> > I do have problems understanding that, all right.
> >
> >>>You have suggested no reason except,
> >>>apparently, a belief that stasis should be impossible, which is a weird
> >>>position for a creationist to take.
> >>>
> >>I have not "apparently suggested" that stasis should be impossible.
> >>Claiming that I have is an unsurprising position for an evolutionist to
> >>take.
> >
More precisely, you have implied that stasis cannot last for a very
long time, although it would hardly be noticed in the fossil record if
it could not last millions of years. You have never stated how long,
precisely, is too long, or exlained what, exactly, prevents stasis
from lasting longer than that.
> >
> > As usual, you deny having expressed an opinion without clarifying what
> > you actually do think or have said. Look, you claimed that we must
> > observe change at all times for evolution to be correct. This is exactly
> > the same as supposing that for evolution to be correct, there can be no
> > stasis.
> >
>
> Only for evolutionary theory.
>
>
> >>>We expect ancestral species to survive along with their descendants more
> >>>often than not. Why would they go extinct?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>I just gave you some room to play your game, and you have, assuming the
> >>question is regarding cousins. You do not expect Proconsul nyanzae to
> >>survive along with humans anymore than you think humans are the descendants
> >>of toothpicks.
> >
> > Proconsul is a bit too early for it to be likely to survive, since the
> > average mammal species lasts only 1-5my.
>
>
> Based on the your inference about the fossil record. Care to give away
> any secrets as to why a species must last any period of time?
>
Presumably, it would last, after adapting to its environment and
niche, for as long as those persisted unaltered.
>
> > Humans seem unusual in some
> > ways, in that all our closest relatives are indeed extinct, and perhaps
> > we had something to do with that. That's not true for many taxa.
>
> It isn't?
>
No. There are two extant species of _Pan_ (chimps and bonobos), two
of gorillas, a couple of orangutans, and several of _Hylobates_
(gibbons). Most extant genera, and most extant families, have several
living species. _Homo_ had several different extant species until a
few thousand decades ago, after which all of them but _Homo sapiens_
became extinct species.
> >
> > Another problem with the ancestor question, as I keep mentioning and you
> > keep snipping without comment, is that we can't really recognize
> > ancestors in the world around us.
>
>
> Damn, you just made a positive statement implying knowledge about the
> "truth" of taxa.
>
> > It has been suggested that Ursus
> > arctos is the ancestor of Ursus maritimus. There's no data to contradict
> > that, but then again how would we tell?
> >
>
> If you can't compare an extant species with a fossil and be sure, then how the
> hell do you think in your wildest imaginations you can tell anything?
>
Do you remember John McCoy's "quotes from famous evolutionists" thread
a couple of weeks back? It was easy to find a web page with the exact
same text, and infer that McCoy had copied-and-pasted it. Given that
I could find only one such page using Google, and that it was by
Anointed One, who advertises on Google, it seems *probable* that McCoy
copied the list from this site. But I do not *know* that; he and
Anointed One may have copied the list from some other site, for
example.
By the same token, the pervasive pattern of homologies, morphological
and biochemical, in living things argues strongly for copying from a
common source -- and the nested hierarchy of those homologies argues
for common descent rather than common design as the method of that
copying. Just as I can't prove that McCoy plagiarized from Anointed
One rather than some other website with the same text, no one can
prove that _U. arctos_ is the ancestor of _U. maritimus_, rather than
a collateral evolved descendant of the actual ancestor. No one can
prove whether _Archaeopteryx_ was the ancestor of modern birds, or a
side branch off the line leading to them. But the evidence for common
descent, like the evidence for plagiarism, remains.
>
> >>>>What and where are these? All extinct because the fossil record tells us
> >>>>so?
> >>>>
> >>>They are all extinct because we don't find them living on the earth now.
> >>>
> >>So you say. Surely some species have gone extinct. But if your statement
> >>is correct, extinction does not prove relationships.
> >
It's very hard to follow whatever you're using in place of logic.
Certainly extinction does not prove relationships. Homologies prove
relationships, to the extent that "proof" exists in science. No,
generally, the fact that you find fossils of a species, but no living
examples of that species, is a fairly good hint that the species is
extinct. Surely there are not many places in Africa where a host of
relict hominid species could still be hiding undetected.
> >
> > Are you contending that some of the species on your list are still
> > alive?
>
>
> No, I'm contending that you don't know but pretend it's "fact".
>
Well, then, why merely bring up putatively extinct hominids? I'm sure
that, by your rigorous standards of epistomological nihilism, we don't
know that _T. rex_ is extinct, or the passenger pigeon. Of course,
the definition of "fact" commonly used in science is "a proposition so
well-confirmed that to deny it provisional acceptance would be
perverse." That is, calling something a "fact" does not, strictly
speaking, imply certainty about it. Surely there is abundant reason
to suppose that, e.g. the australopiths are extinct. If it turns out,
regarding some particular species or the an previously unknown modern
species of the genus, that we were wrong, well, we were wrong.
>
> >And who ever said that extinction proved relationships? It would
> >seem fairly irrelevant to relationships. You are being extremely opaque
> >here.
> >
> You say "we can't really recognize the ancestors in the world around us" yet
> claim that they are extinct. How do you justify your beliefs??
>
It could be an inference based on probability, given that the average
mammalian species lasts less than five million years, but it's been
more than 30 million years since our last common ancestor with modern
monkeys. Or it could be based, in part, on modern monkeys' all being
too derived -- none lack certain traits that distinguish all modern
monkeys from all modern apes. That last is a bit of handwaving on my
part; I'm not sure what adaptions, if any, are possessed by all Old
World monkeys and no apes. But it's a common feature in reasoning
about relationships -- a proposed ancestor should not have derived
traits that none of its presumed descendants have, even in modified
form.
>
> >>> I have no idea what you are trying to get at here. As usual, you fail
> >>>to connect any of your little dots.
> >
> >>"I would like to think that you could show some evidence of why you think
> >>that many common ancestors found surviving with their descendents would not
> >>falsify Common Descent."
> >>Here's your answer: "We expect ancestral species to survive along with their
> >>descendants often than not."
> >>
> >>Then prove it with this list. "Going extinct" has no clothes.
>
He did not say that he expected ancestral species to survive
*indefinitely*; indeed, he expressly said the opposite.
>
> > Well, many of these species did coexist at one time or another.
>
>
> Really! Because they "date" the same?
>
Yes, basically.
>
> > However,
> > as I have been saying for some time now, we really have no way of
> > telling whether one species is the ancestor of another species.
> >
>
> Yes, I heard you. I'm surprised you would admit that.
>
Again, one cannot tell a direct ancestor from an only slightly
modified collateral descendant of the true common ancestor.
>
> > It's clear that no human ancestors are now extant,
>
> Now its clear? When will you make up your mind?
>
When will you learn to reason clearly and use English properly?
>
> > but humans must be
> > the exception here, probably because hominids have tended to compete
> > with each other for a similar, broad niche. I expect that there are
> > thousands of insect species that share the world with their ancestral
> > species, though again I can't point to them because there is just no way
> > to recognize ancestors.
> >
>
> Probably, expect, can't point to... do you even realize what you are saying?
>
Yes, he's saying that he understands the distinction between certainty
and accuracy.
> >
> >>>[snip big list of hominids, posted for reasons entirely unclear to me.]
> >>>
> >>I'm sure that you believe that because the feet of monkeys and humans are
> >>similar, that they share a common ancestor.
> >>
> > That's certainly one reason out of many.
>
> It is *absolutely NO* reason at all, nada.
>
Really? We don't routinely grasp branches with our feet, so why should
they retain features (the five toes, including the big toe) that
aren't needed for the human foot's current function?
>
> >>You'd need considerably more hard
> >>evidence than saying that "evolution happens" or "extinction" to
> >>convince me of that, or that any on the list you snipped shared a common
> >>ancestor.
> >>
> > I gave you a reference, which once again you snipped without comment.
> > What's the point of giving you hard evidence if you won't even look at it?
> >
> Who says it's hard evidence? Do you think posting a reference not easily
> obtained will score you points? Or that "evidence" from a newly emerging field
> will vindicate the last 100 years of guessing?
>
Off hand, I'd say that when new observations agree with the pattern
predicted 100 years ago, that that vindicates the "guessing" and
counts as evidence.
-- Steven J.
John Harshman
Glenn wrote:
>
> John Harshman wrote:
>
[etc.]
>>>>>>>Even if I allowed my religious beliefs to interfere with objectivity,
>>>>>>>what makes you think that I would not "like" to think that monkeys and
>>>>>>>humans shared a common ancestor, or that they shared a common design?
>>>>>>>You keep "thinking" these things in print, but what other than
>>>>>>>stereotyping do you have as evidence.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>What *do* you think, Glenn? Why so afraid of exposing your opinions on
>>>>>>this subject?
>>>>>>
>>>>>I would like to think that you could show some evidence of why you think that
>>>>>many common ancestors found surviving with their descendents would not
>>>>>falsify Common Descent. You know I'm not speaking about your cousin, nor
>>>>>in 100s of millions of years.
>>>>>
>>>>I think that for the same reason I think toothpicks don't falsify common
>>>>descent. Nobody has ever suggested a good reason why either of them
>>>>would falsify common descent.
>>>>
>>>You're probably serious. Evolution is change, and if we observed no
>>>change, that wouldn't falsify evolution.
>>
>>If we *never* observed change, that would falsify evolution. But that
>>doesn't mean we have to *always* observe change. Change doesn't have to
>>be continuous. It can be episodic. Your argument makes no sense.
>
> So much for the "molecular clock". It is your argument that makes no
> sense here, sir.
We were talking about morphological evolution. I will agree that there
is no stasis in neutral molecular evolution, but then again this has no
effect on phenotype.
>>>No wonder you have problems
>>>with understanding natural selection is a tautology.
>>
>>I do have problems understanding that, all right.
>>
>>>>You have suggested no reason except,
>>>>apparently, a belief that stasis should be impossible, which is a weird
>>>>position for a creationist to take.
>>>>
>>>I have not "apparently suggested" that stasis should be impossible.
>>>Claiming that I have is an unsurprising position for an evolutionist to
>>>take.
>>
>>As usual, you deny having expressed an opinion without clarifying what
>>you actually do think or have said. Look, you claimed that we must
>>observe change at all times for evolution to be correct. This is exactly
>>the same as supposing that for evolution to be correct, there can be no
>>stasis.
>
> Only for evolutionary theory.
Once again you fail entirely to clarify what you meant. I'm going to
guess that this one-liner refers to changes through time in evolutionary
theory, which seems like a pointless and irrelevant rejoinder. You can
tell me if I guessed right, then then you can (but won't) clarify
anything else you said.
>>>>We expect ancestral species to survive along with their descendants more
>>>>often than not. Why would they go extinct?
>>>>
>>>I just gave you some room to play your game, and you have, assuming the question
>>>is regarding cousins. You do not expect Proconsul nyanzae to survive
>>>along with humans anymore than you think humans are the descendants of
>>>toothpicks.
>>
>>Proconsul is a bit too early for it to be likely to survive, since the
>>average mammal species lasts only 1-5my.
>
> Based on the your inference about the fossil record. Care to give away
> any secrets as to why a species must last any period of time?
I don't think there are any such secrets. Species lifetimes can end for
all sorts of reasons, and there is a distribution of them, in which
15-20my is way out on the right tail.
>
>>Humans seem unusual in some
>>ways, in that all our closest relatives are indeed extinct, and perhaps
>>we had something to do with that. That's not true for many taxa.
>
> It isn't?
Yes. Remember, this is a statistical argument, so I can't point to real
cases. But if we understand anything about how speciation works, it must
be often true that the ancestral and descendant species are
geographically isolated from each other, and thus one is unable to cause
the extinction of the other.
>
>>Another problem with the ancestor question, as I keep mentioning and you
>>keep snipping without comment, is that we can't really recognize
>>ancestors in the world around us.
>
> Damn, you just made a positive statement implying knowledge about the
> "truth" of taxa.
Yes. We can tell some things and we can't tell others. Surely that's not
surprising.
>>It has been suggested that Ursus
>>arctos is the ancestor of Ursus maritimus. There's no data to contradict
>>that, but then again how would we tell?
>
> If you can't compare an extant species with a fossil and be sure, then how the hell
> do you think in your wildest imaginations you can tell anything?
This appears to be the old creationist tactic "if we don't know
everything then we don't know anything". There are many reasons we can't
be sure. First, you can't always tell from fossils whether two organisms
belong to the same species. Many pairs of species are not
distinguishable based on their skeletons. Second, until we have fossils
of every species that ever lived, how do we know we have the ancestor's
fossil, and not just a cousin if the ancestor? And third, species is a
difficult concept to extend in time; how can we really tell if two
similar organisms separated by a million years would be capable of
interbreeding (the most popular definition)?
What you can tell, rather than direct ancestry, is cladistic
relationship. Do you know what that means? If you don't I will be glad
to explain.
>>>>>What and where are these? All extinct because the fossil record tells us so?
>>>>>
>>>>They are all extinct because we don't find them living on the earth now.
>>>>
>>>So you say. Surely some species have gone extinct. But if your statement
>>>is correct, extinction does not prove relationships.
>>
>>Are you contending that some of the species on your list are still
>>alive?
>
> No, I'm contending that you don't know but pretend it's "fact".
I think we can be pretty sure. If they still existed we would know about
them. No large primate could remain hidden that long. You may have other
opinions; for all I know you're a major Bigfoot fan. Still, I don't see
how it affects our argument one way or another if one of these species
is still around.
>>And who ever said that extinction proved relationships? It would
>>seem fairly irrelevant to relationships. You are being extremely opaque
>>here.
>>
> You say "we can't really recognize the ancestors in the world around us" yet claim
> that they are extinct. How do you justify your beliefs??
Our ancestors are extinct because all possible candidates are extinct.
We don't have to know whether any of those candidates really is an
ancestor, we just have to know that none of the living species is a
possible candidate. Of course we can't ever be entirely certain that any
given species is extinct until we have exhaustively searched the entire
world, but I'm willing to bet good money that we will never find a live
passenger pigeon nevertheless. Same for a live australopithecine.
>>>>I have no idea what you are trying to get at here. As usual, you fail
>>>>to connect any of your little dots.
>>
>>>"I would like to think that you could show some evidence of why you think that
>>>many common ancestors found surviving with their descendents would not
>>>falsify Common Descent."
>>>Here's your answer: "We expect ancestral species to survive along with their descendants more
>>>often than not."
>>>
>>>Then prove it with this list. "Going extinct" has no clothes.
>>
>>Well, many of these species did coexist at one time or another.
>
> Really! Because they "date" the same?
Yes. Or because one specimen dates in between two specimens of another
species. Or, in some cases, because they are found in the same strata.
>>However,
>> as I have been saying for some time now, we really have no way of
>>telling whether one species is the ancestor of another species.
>
> Yes, I heard you. I'm surprised you would admit that.
Probably because you think such an admission falsifies evolution or
renders it unfalsifiable. Right?
>>It's clear that no human ancestors are now extant,
>
> Now its clear? When will you make up your mind?
If you would make an attempt to understand my position rather than just
scoring points this might work a bit better. There is no inconsistency
in anything I have said here. I'll explain again. We can't say that one
particular species is the ancestor of another, but we can often say that
one particular species is not the ancestor of another. If you ask me
whether Ursus arctos is the ancestor of Ursus maritimus I would say that
I don't know. If you ask me whether Saccharomyces cerevisiae is the
ancestor of Ursus maritimus I would say that it isn't. Clear?
>>but humans must be
>>the exception here, probably because hominids have tended to compete
>>with each other for a similar, broad niche. I expect that there are
>>thousands of insect species that share the world with their ancestral
>>species, though again I can't point to them because there is just no way
>> to recognize ancestors.
>
> Probably, expect, can't point to... do you even realize what you are saying?
Yes. I'm afraid that you don't, however. Perhaps if you made even the
slightest attempt?
>
>>>>[snip big list of hominids, posted for reasons entirely unclear to me.]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>I'm sure that you believe that because the feet of monkeys and humans are similar,
>>>that they share a common ancestor.
>>>
>>>
>>That's certainly one reason out of many.
>
> It is *absolutely NO* reason at all, nada.
What's your alternative explanation for the similarity? What's your
alternative explanation for all the other similarities that fit into the
same nested pattern?
>>>You'd need considerably more hard
>>>evidence than saying that "evolution happens" or "extinction" to
>>>convince me of that, or that any on the list you snipped shared a common
>>>ancestor.
>>>
>>I gave you a reference, which once again you snipped without comment.
>>What's the point of giving you hard evidence if you won't even look at it?
>>
> Who says it's hard evidence?
I say it's hard evidence. If it isn't, what would you consider to be
hard evidence?
> Do you think posting a reference not easily obtained
> will score you points?
It's in an easily obtained, prominent journal that you can get in any
college library. Surely there's some college or other within your reach.
>Or that "evidence" from a newly emerging field
> will vindicate the last 100 years of guessing?
The molecular revolution certainly has enabled us to gather new data
thousands of times faster than previously, but I wouldn't consider the
last hundred years to be guessing. After all, they seem to have got it
mostly right. They "guessed" that humans were primates, and that our
closest relatives were among the African apes. The only recent surprises
have been in timing and in our actually being nested within the African
apes. Not bad.
John Harshman
John Wilkins wrote:
> John Harshman <harshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>>John Wilkins wrote:
[more attributions snipped]
>>>I find this an interesting topic. For example, Mishler and Donoghue and
>>>their collaborator Theriot have proposed a Monophyletic Species Concept
>>>as a phylogenetic concept (the other is the Autapomorphic conception of
>>>Rosen, Nelson, Platnick, Eldredge and Cracraft). It seems to me
>>>basically flawed, because not only are most species *not* monophyletic
>>>as you say,
>>
>>Whoa, hold on. You can say that only if you have a list of species or a
>>criterion for species-hood that is independent of species concept.
>>Either that or you are saying that because some species recognized under
>>the BSC are not monophyletic species, the monophyletic species concept
>>is flawed, which makes no sense.
>
> Well... that's true. Phylogenetic concepts seem to have no problem with
> majorly different cuttings of the joints of nature - I gather they tend
> to be very promiscuous in bird taxonomy, for example (someone quoted 4
> times the number of species on the autapomorphic conception). But I make
> hasty comments here to avoid doing so in the thesis...
There are various competing ideas of phylogenetic species in bird
taxonomy. One of them might give us 4x species, but was that estimate
from a proponent or opponent? The debate is getting really nasty. In
fact I saw one talk in which the speaker actually compared his the size
of his penis with thosse of his opponents (by inference only) and
determined that his was much larger. A joke, but in the middle of a
supposed scientific talk?? I would suppose that the most popular version
of the PSC will only increase the number of species by 50 percent at
most, and this is mostly due to discovery of cryptic genetic variation,
in which what we thought was one species, with no described subspecies,
nevertheless differs between populations by some huge quantity, say 6%
mtDNA distance where the average species contains only 1-2% divergence
within it. Whatever the number, I see this as no argument. There are as
many species as there are, and convenience is not a scientific argument.
>>>but the notion of monophyly applies *only if you already
>>>have taxa to construct a phylogenetic tree* - that is to say, if you can
>>>make out species as monophyletic, then they aren't species but are
>>>supraspecific (unless you add to the mix something *other* than
>>>monophyly as the marker of specific rank); because the taxa used to
>>>construct the cladogram would then count as species - as terminal nodes
>>>on the tree.
>>>
>>
>>I've seen this argument, and it makes no sense to me. A species is
>>monophyletic if it includes all the descendants of some ancestral
>>population. No tree needed, except a reticulating tree of individuals,
>>if that. The big problem with all concepts of monophyly is that tokogeny
>>and phylogeny aren't separable into neat bins.
>
> No, but I don't see how that is contrary to the argument - and anyway we
> know of species that clearly are not the result of speciation from
> single populations (e.g., introgressive species or multiple origins -
> the "respeciation problem"). In effect to say that articulating lineages
> (cladogenetic lineages) and reticulating lineages (tokogenetic lineages)
> are not easily separable in the real world *is* to say that you cannot
> make out that species are monophyletic (in each and every case - of
> course *some* are).
Which is why some people want to talk about metaspecies. So, species can
be monophyletic? At least we've disposed of that one.
I might as well set out my position. I like species. Species are a handy
abstraction of something we see in nature, which is the non-random
distribution of diversity. Within one small region, within a restricted
stretch of time, we can distinguish "different species" quite well. It's
when we extend the concept in space and time that we run into trouble.
And species are abstractions. No species concept perfectly captures what
we see, or what we could see if we looked closely enough. Even if we
restricted ourselves to one moderately small clade, like, say, birds,
there will be many cases where no species concept allows us unambiguous,
objective sorting of all individuals into species bins.
Monophyly too is an abstraction, though again a useful one. The closer
we look, the less it means. Was it Donoghue and/or Maddison (or maybe
Rod Page) who introduced the idea of species lineages as pipes through
which gene lineages flow? Long, narrow pipes make monophyly real, while
short, wide pipes make it hard to define. (Wide and narrow being
measures of population size, and long or short being time between
divergence events.)
I like to work at a scale where these abstractions come closest to real.
The longer ago a divergence happened, the more likely it is that all the
genes have coalesced, and so we get monophyly. And branches have been
pruned by extinction, making speciation events farther apart. And if
this hasn't happened, we can just call it a hard polytomy and stop worrying.
John Harshman
Stanley Friesen wrote:
You're both right. But we're talking about the difference between
connotation and denotation. "Primitive" literally just means
"plesiomorphic", at least in systematics, but it does have the baggage
you mention, and for that reason some people (but not all) discourage
its use. Glenn will jump on what he will jump on, and there's no way to
discourage him.
John Wilkins
The estimate was made by a critic. The proponent (names withheld to
protect... ummm... the taxonomists) said, in effect, well if that's what
we get then that's how many there are; live with it.
And it doesn't surprise me about the dick joke - a lot of science, as
with any human enterprise, is based on behaviour that is essentially
social dominance driven. We are pack animals after all - why should it
surprise anyone that we engage in pissing contests?
The subsequent discussion showed that this does not translate over all
groups - while birds might increase, somebody suggested that another
group - I think it was spiders - would change not at all. The
implication was that spiders were properly described in the first place
because differences between them were less artificial than those of
birds, which are more like us and subject to resemblance "deflation".
I agree with the last sentence entirely - there are as many species as
there are - we may not have assays for them all, but the reality is
scientist-independent. Someone (I think Hobbes, but I've never been able
to track it down again) once said, the world is the way the world is;
why, then, should we seek to be deceived?
>
>
> >>>but the notion of monophyly applies *only if you already have taxa to
> >>>construct a phylogenetic tree* - that is to say, if you can make out
> >>>species as monophyletic, then they aren't species but are supraspecific
> >>>(unless you add to the mix something *other* than monophyly as the
> >>>marker of specific rank); because the taxa used to construct the
> >>>cladogram would then count as species - as terminal nodes on the tree.
> >>>
> >>
> >>I've seen this argument, and it makes no sense to me. A species is
> >>monophyletic if it includes all the descendants of some ancestral
> >>population. No tree needed, except a reticulating tree of individuals,
> >>if that. The big problem with all concepts of monophyly is that tokogeny
> >>and phylogeny aren't separable into neat bins.
> >
> > No, but I don't see how that is contrary to the argument - and anyway we
> > know of species that clearly are not the result of speciation from
> > single populations (e.g., introgressive species or multiple origins -
> > the "respeciation problem"). In effect to say that articulating lineages
> > (cladogenetic lineages) and reticulating lineages (tokogenetic lineages)
> > are not easily separable in the real world *is* to say that you cannot
> > make out that species are monophyletic (in each and every case - of
> > course *some* are).
>
>
> Which is why some people want to talk about metaspecies. So, species can
> be monophyletic? At least we've disposed of that one.
Gotta ref for the metaspecies term? And the big problem in species
concept discussions seems to me to be a failure to distinguish between
the scope operators "some", "many", "most", and "all"... _Some_, and
perhaps _most_ sexual species could be monophyletic (that's not up to a
philosophical debate to establish; that's an empirically determinable
matter). But a One True Species Concept will cover *all* species. The
MSC is not a universal notion. Perhaps a universal notion is impossible;
but any concept that claims without further qualification that species
*are* X implicitly defines *all* species.
>
...
> >>A single taxon is an abstraction. Anything above the level of the
> >>individual is divisible into parts, and it may be that some of those
> >>parts are monophyletic, depending on phylogeny/tokogeny (that is, the
> >>pattern of ancestry and descent of individuals, or even of nucleotides).
> >>
> >
> > So you are of the "species conventionalist" camp. Fair enough - it is
> > becoming fashionable (perhaps with good reason - some fashions are
> > "adaptive"). Pleijel is one of those, for instance, that I call a
> > "species denier" - he wants to replace the concept with "least inclusive
> > units" and others such as Hey want to replace it with "evolutionary
> > significant units". Of course we have a history of replacement concepts.
> > In my mind, none of them are much different apart from one aspect - they
> > deny that there is a single absolute *rank* of species. On that point I
> > agree.
>
>
> I might as well set out my position. I like species. Species are a handy
> abstraction of something we see in nature, which is the non-random
> distribution of diversity. Within one small region, within a restricted
> stretch of time, we can distinguish "different species" quite well. It's
> when we extend the concept in space and time that we run into trouble.
> And species are abstractions. No species concept perfectly captures what
> we see, or what we could see if we looked closely enough. Even if we
> restricted ourselves to one moderately small clade, like, say, birds,
> there will be many cases where no species concept allows us unambiguous,
> objective sorting of all individuals into species bins.
Yes. Vagueness seems to be a hard problem here. While we may expect this
on transformational accounts of taxa over space and time, it doesn't
make it any easier. But if we have a word that does serious duty in
science, then we must means by it some definite thing, or perhaps it is
a homonym for a number of concepts that are related only historically.
This is what I aim to discover in the thesis.
And what I find is that there is a longstanding debate over whether all
differences (which is what species are defined by in classical logic)
are of the same order; generally the answer is no. The *biological*
problem with species commences when that logic sense is interpreted by
Linnaeus as a fixed and universal rank. But there remains the sense that
"species" of living things are just the groups that can no longer be
divided without encountering the concrete organisms. That is still the
"universal" meaning of the word.
>
> Monophyly too is an abstraction, though again a useful one. The closer
> we look, the less it means. Was it Donoghue and/or Maddison (or maybe
> Rod Page) who introduced the idea of species lineages as pipes through
> which gene lineages flow? Long, narrow pipes make monophyly real, while
> short, wide pipes make it hard to define. (Wide and narrow being
> measures of population size, and long or short being time between
> divergence events.)
I don't know Page, but the pipe idea goes at least back to Simpson and
Dobzhansky. However, like any vaguely specified notion (like the "great
difference" in mtDNA you mention above) is sensitive to the claim of
subjectivity, and "wide" versus "narrow" pipes is no difference. All
such terms describe the capacities of the *observer* not the thing
observed. Narrow to whom? Wide to whom?
>
> I like to work at a scale where these abstractions come closest to real.
> The longer ago a divergence happened, the more likely it is that all the
> genes have coalesced, and so we get monophyly. And branches have been
> pruned by extinction, making speciation events farther apart. And if this
> hasn't happened, we can just call it a hard polytomy and stop worrying.
And thus we abandon (in my view, correctly) the MSC.
...
I enjoy discussing this stuff with you, John (even if it bores everybody
else silly) - you already have a major thank you in the Acknowledgements
section, and in the forthcoming B&P paper.
John Harshman
John Wilkins wrote:
> John Harshman <harshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>>John Wilkins wrote:
>>
>>
>>>John Harshman <harshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>John Wilkins wrote:
>>>No, but I don't see how that is contrary to the argument - and anyway we
>>>know of species that clearly are not the result of speciation from
>>>single populations (e.g., introgressive species or multiple origins -
>>>the "respeciation problem"). In effect to say that articulating lineages
>>>(cladogenetic lineages) and reticulating lineages (tokogenetic lineages)
>>>are not easily separable in the real world *is* to say that you cannot
>>>make out that species are monophyletic (in each and every case - of
>>>course *some* are).
>>>
>>
>>Which is why some people want to talk about metaspecies. So, species can
>>be monophyletic? At least we've disposed of that one.
>>
>
> Gotta ref for the metaspecies term?
Not a particular one. But it's certainly in much of the bird literature.
A metaspecies is what we would call a biological species that isn't
monophyletic. If you extract all the phylogenetic species, there are
things left over, and we can call them metaspecies. I'm pretty sure the
term has been used in Syst. Biol. several times over the past few years.
Can you search Syst. Biol. Online? You might also want to search the
bird literature (or Biosis) for the name Robert Zink, who is the most
likely person I can think of to have talked about bird metaspecies.
> And the big problem in species
> concept discussions seems to me to be a failure to distinguish between
> the scope operators "some", "many", "most", and "all"... _Some_, and
> perhaps _most_ sexual species could be monophyletic (that's not up to a
> philosophical debate to establish; that's an empirically determinable
> matter). But a One True Species Concept will cover *all* species. The
> MSC is not a universal notion. Perhaps a universal notion is impossible;
> but any concept that claims without further qualification that species
> *are* X implicitly defines *all* species.
Always a problem. How to come up with one concept to cover sexual and
asexual species both?
I may not be expressing this well, but wide and narrow are not being
used here as descriptors, but as endpoints on a continuum. The wider and
shorter, the less likely is unified coalescence (of all loci to a single
topology); the narrower and longer, the more likely.
>>I like to work at a scale where these abstractions come closest to real.
>>The longer ago a divergence happened, the more likely it is that all the
>>genes have coalesced, and so we get monophyly. And branches have been
>>pruned by extinction, making speciation events farther apart. And if this
>>hasn't happened, we can just call it a hard polytomy and stop worrying.
>>
>
> And thus we abandon (in my view, correctly) the MSC.
> ...
>
> I enjoy discussing this stuff with you, John (even if it bores everybody
> else silly) - you already have a major thank you in the Acknowledgements
> section, and in the forthcoming B&P paper.
Aw, shucks. 'Tweren't nothin'. Would it be possible to get a PDF of the
published paper?
John Wilkins
> John Wilkins wrote:
>
> > John Harshman <harshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
...
> >
> > Gotta ref for the metaspecies term?
>
>
> Not a particular one. But it's certainly in much of the bird literature.
> A metaspecies is what we would call a biological species that isn't
> monophyletic. If you extract all the phylogenetic species, there are
> things left over, and we can call them metaspecies. I'm pretty sure the
> term has been used in Syst. Biol. several times over the past few years.
> Can you search Syst. Biol. Online? You might also want to search the
> bird literature (or Biosis) for the name Robert Zink, who is the most
> likely person I can think of to have talked about bird metaspecies.
Ta. Will and can do.
>
> > And the big problem in species
> > concept discussions seems to me to be a failure to distinguish between
> > the scope operators "some", "many", "most", and "all"... _Some_, and
> > perhaps _most_ sexual species could be monophyletic (that's not up to a
> > philosophical debate to establish; that's an empirically determinable
> > matter). But a One True Species Concept will cover *all* species. The
> > MSC is not a universal notion. Perhaps a universal notion is impossible;
> > but any concept that claims without further qualification that species
> > *are* X implicitly defines *all* species.
>
>
> Always a problem. How to come up with one concept to cover sexual and
> asexual species both?
I have this long thesis that you may find interesting, if I ever get the
bloody thing to complete first draft. I discuss the issue in the light
of the origins of the species concept itself. It's also in the B&P paper
in summary form - I'll send it on when I get my reprints.
...
> >
> > I enjoy discussing this stuff with you, John (even if it bores everybody
> > else silly) - you already have a major thank you in the Acknowledgements
> > section, and in the forthcoming B&P paper.
>
>
> Aw, shucks. 'Tweren't nothin'. Would it be possible to get a PDF of the
> published paper?
vide supra...
--
John Wilkins
B'dies, Brutius
John Wilkins
> John Harshman <harshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > John Wilkins wrote:
> >
> > > John Harshman <harshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
> ...
> > >
> > > Gotta ref for the metaspecies term?
> >
> >
> > Not a particular one. But it's certainly in much of the bird literature.
> > A metaspecies is what we would call a biological species that isn't
> > monophyletic. If you extract all the phylogenetic species, there are
> > things left over, and we can call them metaspecies. I'm pretty sure the
> > term has been used in Syst. Biol. several times over the past few years.
> > Can you search Syst. Biol. Online? You might also want to search the
> > bird literature (or Biosis) for the name Robert Zink, who is the most
> > likely person I can think of to have talked about bird metaspecies.
>
> Ta. Will and can do.
And I found:
1. Archibald, J. D. 1993. The Importance of Phylogenetic Analysis for
the Assessment of Species Turnover - a Case-History of Paleocene Mammals
in North-America. Paleobiology 19 (1):1-27.
2. ---. 1994. Metataxon Concepts and Assessing Possible Ancestry Using
Phylogenetic Systematics. Systematic Biology 43 (1):27-40.
3. Caterino, M. S. 1998. A phylogenetic revision of Spilodiscus Lewis
(Coleoptera: Histeridae). Journal of Natural History 32 (8):1129-1168.
4. Lee, Michael S. Y. 1995. Species concepts and the recognition of
ancestors. Historical Biology 10:329-339.
5. Linder, H. P. 1995. Setting Conservation Priorities - the Importance
of Endemism and Phylogeny in the Southern African Orchid Genus
Herschelia. Conservation Biology 9 (3):585-595.
6. Luckow, M. 1995. Species Concepts - Assumptions, Methods, and
Applications. Systematic Botany 20 (4):589-605.
7. Rieppel, O., and L. Grande. 1998. A well-preserved fossil amphiumid
(Lissamphibia: Caudata) from the Eocene Green River formation of
Wyoming. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 18 (4):700-708.
The Archibald 1994 and Luckow 1995 seem most relevant. Any chance you
could get the PDFs of these? I no longer have access to PQD due to a
library stuffup with my enrolment. I'll email Mike Lee directly for his.
John Harshman
John Wilkins wrote:
> John Wilkins <wil...@wehi.edu.au> wrote:
>
>
>>John Harshman <harshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>John Wilkins wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>John Harshman <harshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>...
>>
>>>>Gotta ref for the metaspecies term?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Not a particular one. But it's certainly in much of the bird literature.
>>>A metaspecies is what we would call a biological species that isn't
>>>monophyletic. If you extract all the phylogenetic species, there are
>>>things left over, and we can call them metaspecies. I'm pretty sure the
>>>term has been used in Syst. Biol. several times over the past few years.
>>>Can you search Syst. Biol. Online? You might also want to search the
>>>bird literature (or Biosis) for the name Robert Zink, who is the most
>>>likely person I can think of to have talked about bird metaspecies.
>>>
>>Ta. Will and can do.
>>
>
> And I found:
>
> 1. Archibald, J. D. 1993. The Importance of Phylogenetic Analysis for
> the Assessment of Species Turnover - a Case-History of Paleocene Mammals
> in North-America. Paleobiology 19 (1):1-27.
> 2. ---. 1994. Metataxon Concepts and Assessing Possible Ancestry Using
> Phylogenetic Systematics. Systematic Biology 43 (1):27-40.
> 3. Caterino, M. S. 1998. A phylogenetic revision of Spilodiscus Lewis
> (Coleoptera: Histeridae). Journal of Natural History 32 (8):1129-1168.
> 4. Lee, Michael S. Y. 1995. Species concepts and the recognition of
> ancestors. Historical Biology 10:329-339.
> 5. Linder, H. P. 1995. Setting Conservation Priorities - the Importance
> of Endemism and Phylogeny in the Southern African Orchid Genus
> Herschelia. Conservation Biology 9 (3):585-595.
> 6. Luckow, M. 1995. Species Concepts - Assumptions, Methods, and
> Applications. Systematic Botany 20 (4):589-605.
> 7. Rieppel, O., and L. Grande. 1998. A well-preserved fossil amphiumid
> (Lissamphibia: Caudata) from the Eocene Green River formation of
> Wyoming. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 18 (4):700-708.
>
> The Archibald 1994 and Luckow 1995 seem most relevant. Any chance you
> could get the PDFs of these? I no longer have access to PQD due to a
> library stuffup with my enrolment. I'll email Mike Lee directly for his.
Not me. I'm 3000 miles away from the only library with an electronic
subscription to which I have (theoretical at the moment) access. I could
get the Syst. Biol. one if it's in Syst. Biol. Online, but I don't think
they've done that year yet. Ask someone with a real university job.
Was this a search for "metaspecies" in the abstract? I still think that
there should be metaspecies in several of Bob Zink's papers, even if
they aren't in the abstract.