Talk Origins Hypocrisy: Ordinary nobody's smearing big name Evos
Ray Martinez
"There are few components of modern evolutionary theory which seem so
prone to misinterpretation as Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould's
theory of punctuated equilibria (PE for short). In this matter, the
person attempting to come to a better understanding of punctuated
equilibria will find that he or she may be hampered by the popular
writings of those same authors rather than helped."
The first thing ordinary evos did with PE is to assert Eldredge and
Gould are incapable of communicating their own PE theory. In other
words, we have a recognition that what Eldredge and Gould write is seen
as not helping the starting assumptions and needs of Evolutionary
theory's lack of transitional evidence in geological strata.
For nameless nobody's like Elsberry to completely dismiss big name
scholars as incapable to defend Evolution/PE shows how the evo machine
works: Nobody's will now defend Elsberry = subjective nonsense
attempting to obscure the damaging evidence that PE is well known to
have substantiated against gradualism/Darwin's theory.
Ray
Dana Tweedy
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1142115902.1...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html
>
> "There are few components of modern evolutionary theory which seem so
> prone to misinterpretation as Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould's
> theory of punctuated equilibria (PE for short). In this matter, the
> person attempting to come to a better understanding of punctuated
> equilibria will find that he or she may be hampered by the popular
> writings of those same authors rather than helped."
>
> The first thing ordinary evos did with PE is to assert Eldredge and
> Gould are incapable of communicating their own PE theory.
It's difficult to imagine how someone could possibly be more mistaken about
Gould, Eldredge and PE theory than Ray appears to be.
> In other
> words, we have a recognition that what Eldredge and Gould write is seen
> as not helping the starting assumptions and needs of Evolutionary
> theory's lack of transitional evidence in geological strata.
As Gould and Eldredge themselves have stated, the geologic strata does not
lack transtional fossils. What PE addresses is the relative lack of
transitionals at species level.
See:
http://www.digisys.net/users/hoppnrmt/transitionfossils.htm where Gould
states
"We believe that a coherent, punctuational theory, fully consistent with
Darwinism (though not with Darwin's own unnecessary preference for
gradualism, will be forged from a study of the genetics of regulation,
supported by the resurrection of long neglected data on the relationship
between ontogeny and phylogeny"
Another quote from Gould:
"Evolution proceeds in two major modes. In the first, phyletic
transformation, an entire population changes from one state to another. If
all evolutionary change occurred in this mode, life would not persist long.
Phyletic evolution yields no increase in diversity, only a transformation of
one thing into another. Since extinction (by extirpation, not by evolution
into something else) is so common, a biota with no mechanism for increasing
diversity would soon be wiped out. The second mode, speciation, replenishes
the earth. New species branch off from the persisting parental stock."
[Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution?s Erratic Pace", Natural History, Vol. 86,
No. 5, 1977, p. 14]"
>
> For nameless nobody's like Elsberry to completely dismiss big name
> scholars as incapable to defend Evolution/PE shows how the evo machine
> works:
Dr. Wesley Elsberry is a respected scientist, with several major published
papers. See:
http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry/zgists/wre/wre_cv.html
>Nobody's will now defend Elsberry = subjective nonsense
> attempting to obscure the damaging evidence that PE is well known to
> have substantiated against gradualism/Darwin's theory.
Wesley doesn't need defending. You are simply mistaken in your assessment
of PE.
DJT
Steven J.
Ray Martinez wrote:
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html
>
> "There are few components of modern evolutionary theory which seem so
> prone to misinterpretation as Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould's
> theory of punctuated equilibria (PE for short). In this matter, the
> person attempting to come to a better understanding of punctuated
> equilibria will find that he or she may be hampered by the popular
> writings of those same authors rather than helped."
>
> The first thing ordinary evos did with PE is to assert Eldredge and
> Gould are incapable of communicating their own PE theory. In other
> words, we have a recognition that what Eldredge and Gould write is seen
> as not helping the starting assumptions and needs of Evolutionary
> theory's lack of transitional evidence in geological strata.
>
writings." "Popular writings" in this case means writing aimed at
scientific laymen, who have not studied biology or geology in any
depth. This says nothing about how well Eldredge and Gould were able
to communicate their ideas to fellow experts, who actually read their
peer-reviewed scientific papers. It is a commonplace to note that not
every scientist is good at communicating complex ideas in simple
language to nonscientists. That this should be a problem for a noted
writer of popular works like Gould is a slightly odd statement, but not
an intrinsically outrageous or ridiculous one.
Note, although Elsberry does not explicitly do so, that a big part of
the problem is not with Gould so much as with creationists who
quote-mine his work.
Note, more importantly, that the "lack of transitional evidence" that
Gould was trying to explain was the paucity of transitionals between
species within a genus. Thus, we have series of trilobite species,
each just a little different from the one before, but with no
transitions between species (although the species themselves are
transitional between different trilobite genera). A similar situation
occurs with the horse series. But we know from laboratory work that
evolution from one species in a genus to another is possible, and
indeed most creationists accept such evolution. So Gould and Eldredge
are trying to explain why the sorts of evolution that nearly everyone
accepts as real leave so little evidence in the fossil record, while
evidence for transitions between higher taxa are, as Gould noted,
fairly common.
>
> For nameless nobody's like Elsberry to completely dismiss big name
> scholars as incapable to defend Evolution/PE shows how the evo machine
> works: Nobody's will now defend Elsberry = subjective nonsense
> attempting to obscure the damaging evidence that PE is well known to
> have substantiated against gradualism/Darwin's theory.
>
Dr. Elsberry has both peer-reviewed and popular works in print (albeit,
I'm pretty sure, fewer than Gould). If he's a nobody, then what must
you be, and why should we listen to your attacks on him? And, again,
Elsberry has not completely dismissed Gould and Eldredge; he merely
states that their popular works have been misunderstood, and seeks to
correct the misunderstandings.
Note that "punctuated equilibria" does not suggest that, e.g. a
_Compsognathus_ laid an egg and a _Confuciusornis_, or even an
_Archaeopteryx_, hatched out. It does not even suggest that a blue jay
laid an egg, and a Stellar's jay, hatched out. It merely holds that
speciation occurs over hundreds or thousands of years, in a limited
area, rather than over hundreds of millenia, over the entire range of a
species.
>
> Ray
-- Steven J.
Ray Martinez
Steven J. wrote:
> Ray Martinez wrote:
> > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html
> >
> > "There are few components of modern evolutionary theory which seem so
> > prone to misinterpretation as Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould's
> > theory of punctuated equilibria (PE for short). In this matter, the
> > person attempting to come to a better understanding of punctuated
> > equilibria will find that he or she may be hampered by the popular
> > writings of those same authors rather than helped."
> >
> > The first thing ordinary evos did with PE is to assert Eldredge and
> > Gould are incapable of communicating their own PE theory. In other
> > words, we have a recognition that what Eldredge and Gould write is seen
> > as not helping the starting assumptions and needs of Evolutionary
> > theory's lack of transitional evidence in geological strata.
> >
> Note that Elsberry referred to Gould's and Eldredge's "popular
> writings." "Popular writings" in this case means writing aimed at
> scientific laymen, who have not studied biology or geology in any
> depth. This says nothing about how well Eldredge and Gould were able
> to communicate their ideas to fellow experts, who actually read their
> peer-reviewed scientific papers.
What Elsberry actually wrote makes you a liar.
My point is intact.
> It is a commonplace to note that not
> every scientist is good at communicating complex ideas in simple
> language to nonscientists. That this should be a problem for a noted
> writer of popular works like Gould is a slightly odd statement, but not
> an intrinsically outrageous or ridiculous one.
>
> Note, although Elsberry does not explicitly do so, that a big part of
> the problem is not with Gould so much as with creationists who
> quote-mine his work.
>
Total misrepesentation of what Elsberry wrote. My point about nobody's
defending a nobody remains. IOW, words and their meaning arranged in
sentences do not mean what they say when these thoughts hurt your
theory. This is what Darwinists do with Genesis (no surprise). Nothing
means anything when your theory is shown wanting.
> Note, more importantly, that the "lack of transitional evidence" that
> Gould was trying to explain was the paucity of transitionals between
> species within a genus. Thus, we have series of trilobite species,
> each just a little different from the one before, but with no
> transitions between species (although the species themselves are
> transitional between different trilobite genera). A similar situation
> occurs with the horse series. But we know from laboratory work that
> evolution from one species in a genus to another is possible, and
> indeed most creationists accept such evolution. So Gould and Eldredge
> are trying to explain why the sorts of evolution that nearly everyone
> accepts as real leave so little evidence in the fossil record, while
> evidence for transitions between higher taxa are, as Gould noted,
> fairly common.
> >
> > For nameless nobody's like Elsberry to completely dismiss big name
> > scholars as incapable to defend Evolution/PE shows how the evo machine
> > works: Nobody's will now defend Elsberry = subjective nonsense
> > attempting to obscure the damaging evidence that PE is well known to
> > have substantiated against gradualism/Darwin's theory.
> >
> Dr. Elsberry has both peer-reviewed and popular works in print (albeit,
> I'm pretty sure, fewer than Gould). If he's a nobody, then what must
> you be, and why should we listen to your attacks on him? And, again,
> Elsberry has not completely dismissed Gould and Eldredge; he merely
> states that their popular works have been misunderstood, and seeks to
> correct the misunderstandings.
>
Elsberry did not mention the word "misunderstanding", he said people
will not be helped by reading Eldredge and Gould = admission these big
names hurt your theory.
I say people are not stupid as you and Elsberry are saying/rely on. The
pasted quote by Elsberry and the two fishes I immediately hooked
(Tweedy and you) prove how dishonest, no matter how clear the issue is,
you guys are.
Ray
Dana Tweedy
>
> Steven J. wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>> > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html
>> >
>> > "There are few components of modern evolutionary theory which seem so
>> > prone to misinterpretation as Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould's
>> > theory of punctuated equilibria (PE for short). In this matter, the
>> > person attempting to come to a better understanding of punctuated
>> > equilibria will find that he or she may be hampered by the popular
>> > writings of those same authors rather than helped."
>> >
>> > The first thing ordinary evos did with PE is to assert Eldredge and
>> > Gould are incapable of communicating their own PE theory. In other
>> > words, we have a recognition that what Eldredge and Gould write is seen
>> > as not helping the starting assumptions and needs of Evolutionary
>> > theory's lack of transitional evidence in geological strata.
>> >
>> Note that Elsberry referred to Gould's and Eldredge's "popular
>> writings." "Popular writings" in this case means writing aimed at
>> scientific laymen, who have not studied biology or geology in any
>> depth. This says nothing about how well Eldredge and Gould were able
>> to communicate their ideas to fellow experts, who actually read their
>> peer-reviewed scientific papers.
>
> What Elsberry actually wrote makes you a liar.
No, Ray, the only liar here is yourself.
>
> My point is intact.
If by "intact" you mean "in shreds".
>
>
>> It is a commonplace to note that not
>> every scientist is good at communicating complex ideas in simple
>> language to nonscientists. That this should be a problem for a noted
>> writer of popular works like Gould is a slightly odd statement, but not
>> an intrinsically outrageous or ridiculous one.
>>
>> Note, although Elsberry does not explicitly do so, that a big part of
>> the problem is not with Gould so much as with creationists who
>> quote-mine his work.
>>
>
> Total misrepesentation of what Elsberry wrote.
How so?
> My point about nobody's
> defending a nobody remains.
Except that Wesley is not a "nobody" and his words are not in need of
"defense". You are just mistaken.
>IOW, words and their meaning arranged in
> sentences do not mean what they say when these thoughts hurt your
> theory.
Nothing that Gould or Eldredge wrote "hurts" the theory of evolution.
> This is what Darwinists do with Genesis (no surprise). Nothing
> means anything when your theory is shown wanting.
When did anyond show the theory of evolution to be "wanting"?
snip
>> Dr. Elsberry has both peer-reviewed and popular works in print (albeit,
>> I'm pretty sure, fewer than Gould). If he's a nobody, then what must
>> you be, and why should we listen to your attacks on him? And, again,
>> Elsberry has not completely dismissed Gould and Eldredge; he merely
>> states that their popular works have been misunderstood, and seeks to
>> correct the misunderstandings.
>>
>
> Elsberry did not mention the word "misunderstanding"
How is "misinterpetation" different from "misunderstanding" in this context?
> , he said people
> will not be helped by reading Eldredge and Gould
No, what he said was:
" In this matter, the person attempting to come to a better understanding
of punctuated equilibria will find that he or she may be hampered by the
popular writings of those same authors rather than helped."
Obviously what he's saying is that people misunderstand PE may not be helped
by reading the popular writinigs of Gould and Eldredge.
> = admission these big
> names hurt your theory.
The "big names" don't hurt the theory, Ray. What he's saying is that people
have misunderstood the popular writings of those two scientists. Both Gould
and Eldredge are staunch supporters of evolutionary theory.
>
> I say people are not stupid as you and Elsberry are saying/rely on.
Neither Steven, or Wesley said that people are stupid. They said that
there are popular misundestandings of science, which the writings of Gould
and Eldredge may not help clear up.
>The
> pasted quote by Elsberry and the two fishes I immediately hooked
> (Tweedy and you)
Ray, if you post falsehoods, you should expect to get replies. I notice
you haven't attempted to deal with the refutations of your errors. All you
have done is engage in ad hominem.
> prove how dishonest, no matter how clear the issue is,
> you guys are.
Clearly you are mis-stating the issue. You misunderstand Dr. Elsberry,
(who is not a "nobody" in his field), and Gould and Eldredge.
DJT
Ray Martinez
Each reply is a substanceless one liner = inability to refute.
Ray
Steven J.
Ray Martinez wrote:
> Dana Tweedy wrote:
>
-- [snip of post to which Ray clearly paid no attention]
>
> Each reply is a substanceless one liner = inability to refute.
>
them so cogently and concisely as you do.
>
> Ray
-- Steven J.
peter
> > > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html
> > >
> > > "There are few components of modern evolutionary theory which seem so
> > > prone to misinterpretation as Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould's
> > > theory of punctuated equilibria (PE for short). In this matter, the
> > > person attempting to come to a better understanding of punctuated
> > > equilibria will find that he or she may be hampered by the popular
> > > writings of those same authors rather than helped."
> Elsberry did not mention the word "misunderstanding", he said people
> will not be helped by reading Eldredge and Gould = admission these big
> names hurt your theory.
No, he said specifically that people may be hampered by their "popular
writings" but in the very next sentence, **which you failed to include
above**, Elsberry continues "As in most cases, the primary literature
remains the best source of information." Guess who wrote the primary
literature defining and supporting PE? That's right, Eldredge and
Gould.
Personally I disagree with Elsberry since I feel that Gould's popular
writing was quite clear, at least when read in its entirety rather than
just picking a few quotes out of context. But Elsberry's message is
clearly not to disparage the writings of these two individuals but
rather to suggest that a better understanding can be gained by reading
their scientific journal articles rather than the necessarily
simplified descriptions provided in more popular media.
Dana Tweedy
snipping
>>
>> Clearly you are mis-stating the issue. You misunderstand Dr. Elsberry,
>> (who is not a "nobody" in his field), and Gould and Eldredge.
>>
>>
>>
>> DJT
>
> Each reply is a substanceless one liner = inability to refute.
Ray, your whole attempt at "defense" here is just a "substanceless one
liner". You don't address any of the points I brought up, and you don't
even make an attempt to answer any of the objections that Steven and I have
pointed out. It's astonishing to see refutations of your claims being
labeled "inability to refute.
Care to try again?
DJT
Augray
wrote:
Since we proposed punctuated equilibrium to explain trends, it is
infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -
whether through design or stupidity, I do not know - as admitting
that the fossil record includes no transitional forms.
Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level but
are abundant between larger groups.
- Gould, S. J. 1983. Evolution as Fact and Theory. In "Hen's
Teeth and Horse's Toes". New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
>Ray
Desertphile
> The first thing ordinary evos did with PE is to assert Eldredge and
> Gould are incapable of communicating their own PE theory. In other
Oh, dare *DARE* they?!
Now then: please provide the best argument you can think of in support
of Creationism. Thank you.
Ernest Major
Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes
In the low packing fraction category
>Each reply is a substanceless one liner = inability to refute.
--
alias Ernest Major
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.2.1/279 - Release Date: 10/03/2006
CreateThis
No, Ray, it's you who has been substanceless here. You embarrass
yourself this way every time you post. It's obvious to the most casual
reader that you not only don't know anything, but you're also a total
mental case, lunging at the end of your chain and foaming at the mouth
with hatred. If you had owners they'd have to put you down.
CT
NashtOn
> In message <1142120544.1...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Ray
> Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes
>
> In the low packing fraction category
>
>>Each reply is a substanceless one liner = inability to refute.
>
>
Chez Watt, huh.
Hasn't been updated in a long time.
Priceless. Do keep up.
--
Nicolas
"The reason the theory of evolution is so controversial is that it is
the main scientific prop for scientific naturalism. Students first learn
that "evolution is a fact," and then they gradually learn more and more
about what that "fact" means. It means that all living things are the
product of mindless material forces such as chemical laws, natural
selection, and random variation. So God is totally out of the picture,
and humans (like everything else) are the accidental product of a
purposeless universe. Do you wonder why a lot of people suspect that
these claims go far beyond the available evidence?" Phillip E.Johnson,
The Church Of Darwin
Ray Martinez
> >
> >
> > Each reply is a substanceless one liner = inability to refute.
> >
> > Ray
>
> No, Ray, it's you who has been substanceless here. You embarrass
> yourself this way every time you post. It's obvious to the most casual
> reader that you not only don't know anything, but you're also a total
> mental case, lunging at the end of your chain and foaming at the mouth
> with hatred. If you had owners they'd have to put you down.
>
> CT
Your commentary above = disapproval. Because you are an
atheist/Darwinist your disapproval = my rightness - glad I didn't get
it.
Ray Martinez, Creationist.
Ken Rode
That's what's so consistent about you, Ray -- you never get it.
Greg G.
NashtOn wrote:
> Ernest Major wrote:
> > In message <1142120544.1...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Ray
> > Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes
> >
> > In the low packing fraction category
> >
> >>Each reply is a substanceless one liner = inability to refute.
> >
> >
>
> Chez Watt, huh.
> Hasn't been updated in a long time.
>
> Priceless. Do keep up.
Actually it was reported recently that the Chez Watt Archive was
updated a few days ago. It's still ten months behind but it was
updated.
Ya gotta keep up if you're gonna criticize.
--
Greg G.
JETSON! You're FIRED!
CreateThis
>>>
>>>Each reply is a substanceless one liner = inability to refute.
>>>
>>>Ray
>>
>>No, Ray, it's you who has been substanceless here. You embarrass
>>yourself this way every time you post. It's obvious to the most casual
>>reader that you not only don't know anything, but you're also a total
>>mental case, lunging at the end of your chain and foaming at the mouth
>>with hatred. If you had owners they'd have to put you down.
>>
>>CT
>
>
> Your commentary above = disapproval.
My commentary above = ridicule.
CT
VoiceOfReason
Ray Martinez wrote:
> Steven J. wrote:
> > Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html
> > >
> > > "There are few components of modern evolutionary theory which seem so
> > > prone to misinterpretation as Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould's
> > > theory of punctuated equilibria (PE for short). In this matter, the
> > > person attempting to come to a better understanding of punctuated
> > > equilibria will find that he or she may be hampered by the popular
> > > writings of those same authors rather than helped."
> > >
> > > The first thing ordinary evos did with PE is to assert Eldredge and
> > > Gould are incapable of communicating their own PE theory. In other
> > > words, we have a recognition that what Eldredge and Gould write is seen
> > > as not helping the starting assumptions and needs of Evolutionary
> > > theory's lack of transitional evidence in geological strata.
> > >
> > Note that Elsberry referred to Gould's and Eldredge's "popular
> > writings." "Popular writings" in this case means writing aimed at
> > scientific laymen, who have not studied biology or geology in any
> > depth. This says nothing about how well Eldredge and Gould were able
> > to communicate their ideas to fellow experts, who actually read their
> > peer-reviewed scientific papers.
>
> What Elsberry actually wrote makes you a liar.
>
> My point is intact.
Your point is intact only if you ignore the facts.
> > It is a commonplace to note that not
> > every scientist is good at communicating complex ideas in simple
> > language to nonscientists. That this should be a problem for a noted
> > writer of popular works like Gould is a slightly odd statement, but not
> > an intrinsically outrageous or ridiculous one.
> >
> > Note, although Elsberry does not explicitly do so, that a big part of
> > the problem is not with Gould so much as with creationists who
> > quote-mine his work.
> >
>
> Total misrepesentation of what Elsberry wrote.
Actually YOU are the one who misrepresented what Elsberry wrote. You
quote mined the paragraph and left out the final sentence:
"As in most cases, the primary literature remains the best source of
information."
That tells a very different different story than what you're trying to
sell, and it supports what Steven was saying.
<...>
> The
> pasted quote by Elsberry and the two fishes I immediately hooked
> (Tweedy and you) prove how dishonest, no matter how clear the issue is,
> you guys are.
Your quote mining shows what a hypocrite you are.
Thurisaz the Einherjer
--
Romans 2:24 revised:
"For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you
cretinists, as it is written on aig."
Why I am not a christian:
http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus/nojebus
Richard Clayton
You didn't bother to refute any of Dana's points = Inability to refute.
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"During wars laws are silent." -- Cicero
Shane
> Ernest Major wrote:
>> In message <1142120544.1...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Ray
>> Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes
>>
>> In the low packing fraction category
>>
>>>Each reply is a substanceless one liner = inability to refute.
>>
>
> Chez Watt, huh.
> Hasn't been updated in a long time.
>
> Priceless. Do keep up.
Oh dear, Nicky is wrong again, or perhaps I should say, still. The
monthly Chez Watt listings and votes have proceded quite fine in the
last twelve months, in spite of a delay in archiving them. Poor Nicky,
can't take a trick, even on the simple stuff.
--
Shane
The truth will set you free.
neverbetter
Let me see if I've got this straight. Nobody in talk.origins has
started an insane slanderfest about Dr. Elsberry's harmless little
easily understandable quote, and you think that this somehow reflects
*badly* on the theory of evolution?
Chris H
Hey Ray, rather than spending time posting pointless stuff like this,
wouldn't your time be better spent polishing up the final draft of you
evolution killer opus? It's due this month isn't it?
--
C.
Pithecanthropus Erectus
So, being ridiculed is the basis for determining whether one is right or
wrong?
My PhD. must have gotten lost in the mail, then.
--
Freeper:
"We need to change the law and make it legal to hunt liberals with dogs. "
Me:
I understand you are being flippant, but you are coming across as stupid.
Freeper:
I wasn't being flippant. I mean it.
Pithecanthropus Erectus
The problem for most of us is that we don't have the foundational
background to fully understand the scientifical journals.
VoiceOfReason
Chris H wrote:
> Hey Ray, rather than spending time posting pointless stuff like this,
> wouldn't your time be better spent polishing up the final draft of you
> evolution killer opus? It's due this month isn't it?
That would be his Opus Rectus?
er...@swva.net
Also, Ray, if you are writing a book, it is important not to make
bumblingly incompetent mistakes such as writing "nobody's" for
"nobodies." Of course, if you have an officially labeled learning
disorder, then I apologize one hundred percent.
Eric Root
Desertphile
> Chris H wrote:
> > Hey Ray, rather than spending time posting pointless stuff like this,
> > wouldn't your time be better spent polishing up the final draft of you
> > evolution killer opus? It's due this month isn't it?
"My doG ate it!" --- Ray
> That would be his Opus Rectus?
Woof!
Desertphile
> > Hey Ray, rather than spending time posting pointless stuff like this,
> > wouldn't your time be better spent polishing up the final draft of you
> > evolution killer opus? It's due this month isn't it?
> Also, Ray, if you are writing a book, it is important not to make
> bumblingly incompetent mistakes such as writing "nobody's" for
> "nobodies." Of course, if you have an officially labeled learning
> disorder, then I apologize one hundred percent.
That lerning disorder is called "Creationism." That almost nothing is
being done to help people with the disorder is a national disgrace.
> Eric Root
Chris H
> VoiceOfReason wrote:
>
>
>>Chris H wrote:
>
>
>>>Hey Ray, rather than spending time posting pointless stuff like this,
>>>wouldn't your time be better spent polishing up the final draft of you
>>>evolution killer opus? It's due this month isn't it?
>
>
> "My doG ate it!" --- Ray
I am looking forward to the excuses, we all know he's not going to
produce anything, it's commonly known as pulling a Wyatt.
>>That would be his Opus Rectus?
>
>
> Woof!
>
--
C.
John Wilkins
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
Who are you going to believe? Me, or your own eyes?
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by NashtOn <na...@na.ca>:
>Ernest Major wrote:
>> In message <1142120544.1...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Ray
>> Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes
>> In the low packing fraction category
>>>Each reply is a substanceless one liner = inability to refute.
>Chez Watt, huh.
>Hasn't been updated in a long time.
Yeah, since March 8th. Of 2006. Those drugs really screw up
your time perception, don't they?
>Priceless. Do keep up.
My thought exactly. Well, actually it was "Do keep it up",
but the essence is there.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com>:
Apparently that's not the case. No real surprise, of course;
it's in the nature of fundies and other willfully blind
individuals.
Craig Franck
> This thread proves Darwinists, who know exactly what I am talking
> about, will, without hesitation, confuse the issue because you guys
> cannot refute my specific points (two of them).
I'd suggest you apply yourself to something that requires less
intellectual effort. It is you who are deeply confused.
--
Craig Franck
craig....@verizon.net
Cortland, NY
Ray Martinez
Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 00:34:41 GMT, the following appeared in
> talk.origins, posted by NashtOn <na...@na.ca>:
>
> >Ernest Major wrote:
>
> >> In message <1142120544.1...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Ray
> >> Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes
>
> >> In the low packing fraction category
>
> >>>Each reply is a substanceless one liner = inability to refute.
>
> >Chez Watt, huh.
> >Hasn't been updated in a long time.
>
> Yeah, since March 8th. Of 2006. Those drugs really screw up
> your time perception, don't they?
>
> >Priceless. Do keep up.
>
> My thought exactly. Well, actually it was "Do keep it up",
> but the essence is there.
> --
>
> Bob C.
>
At least Ernest has admitted his problem; unlike you, Bob.
Ray
Desertphile
> atTEmPT AT ConfusiON ConfIRMeD. you havE No POINT SInce tHE FinAl
> SEnTenCe rEinfOrCeS thE pREviouS sEntENCe OF ELsBeRry ENCOURAgInG
> ElDredgE aND GoULD wrITinGs BE iGnORED.
>
> wHy ?
>
> AnSwEr: BEcaUSE WhAT They ACtuAL wRIte is not HelPfuL To ToE. EldReDGE
> AND gOUld "maDe a MIsTakE" and pUBLIsHEd a pAPEr That HURts toE. aftEr
> IT WaS PubLiShEd they couLd Not TaKE iT BaCK. ELsBeRry pLAInLY saYS thE
> PE tWiNs shOuld NOT Be reaD = Not A MaTTER Of opInIon - thaTs wHaT HE
> WroTE. IN rEsPOnsE YOu eVOs kEEp igNoriNG THis POINT/fACt By eVAdinG
> vIA MaKING ExCusES sPeCULATiNg WHY ElsBerRy wRoTE WhAt HE wROte. BUt
> MY
> POInT is NOT aDDreSsiNG wHY, RATHer THAt hE wrotE tWO big nAMe eVOS
> SHOuld NoT bE ReAD. I tHEN ofFEr tHe reaSon WHy eLSbERRy MaKES thiS
> oUTRAgeOUs reQUeSt: pe is a RECOgnitiON tHat THe FoSsIl REcoRd dOES
> nOt
> sHoW DarwINIAn gRaDATioNs And Concedes ThIs VisibLE FaCT. THEN Pe
> attEMPTS To rE-ExpLaIn THAt WHaT IS sEen, AFTeR All DoeS SuPPORT
> DARwInIan PrEDIcTionS.
>
> this THrEad pROVES DArwINisTs, WHo Know exACtLY WhAt i aM talKInG
> ABoUt, WILl, WITHOUt hesitATion, CONfuse tHe ISsue bEcauSe You GUyS
> caNnOT Refute mY SPeCiFiC poiNts (TwO Of thEM).
Dood, you really need to add another layer or two of aluminum foil to
your hat. Don't forget to check under your bed at night for black
helicopters.
> RaY
Glend
Ray Martinez wrote:
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html
>
> "There are few components of modern evolutionary theory which seem so
> prone to misinterpretation as Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould's
> theory of punctuated equilibria (PE for short). In this matter, the
> person attempting to come to a better understanding of punctuated
> equilibria will find that he or she may be hampered by the popular
> writings of those same authors rather than helped."
>
> The first thing ordinary evos did with PE is to assert Eldredge and
> Gould are incapable of communicating their own PE theory. In other
> words, we have a recognition that what Eldredge and Gould write is seen
> as not helping the starting assumptions and needs of Evolutionary
> theory's lack of transitional evidence in geological strata.
>
> For nameless nobody's like Elsberry to completely dismiss big name
> scholars as incapable to defend Evolution/PE shows how the evo machine
> works: Nobody's will now defend Elsberry = subjective nonsense
> attempting to obscure the damaging evidence that PE is well known to
> have substantiated against gradualism/Darwin's theory.
>
authority, as does religion. It's understandable that someone who
knows nothing at all about science would make such an egregious
mistake, but it still shows what an ignorant piece of crud you are.
The second problem is that, even if we granted that Elsberry is nothing
(which I don't, it's just for argument's sake), you are far less,
hideously stupid and ignorant in comparison to Elsberry. Thus you
should shut up until you have learned many times more than you know at
present. This is based on the principle that you claim, that nobodies
shouldn't contradict knowledgeable people, self-negation if I've ever
seen it.
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm
> Ray
VoiceOfReason
Ray Martinez wrote:
> Ray Martinez wrote:
> and
> seek to confuse the simple issue = following the path that Steven J.
> embarked upon.
Look up the word "mimic." It doesn't apply here. And the only person
who appears to be "confused" by this issue is you. Everyone else seems
to understand it just fine.
> > > > > It is a commonplace to note that not
> > > > > every scientist is good at communicating complex ideas in simple
> > > > > language to nonscientists. That this should be a problem for a noted
> > > > > writer of popular works like Gould is a slightly odd statement, but not
> > > > > an intrinsically outrageous or ridiculous one.
> > > > >
> > > > > Note, although Elsberry does not explicitly do so, that a big part of
> > > > > the problem is not with Gould so much as with creationists who
> > > > > quote-mine his work.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Total misrepesentation of what Elsberry wrote.
> > >
> > > Actually YOU are the one who misrepresented what Elsberry wrote. You
> > > quote mined the paragraph and left out the final sentence:
> > >
> > > "As in most cases, the primary literature remains the best source of
> > > information."
> > >
> > > That tells a very different different story than what you're trying to
> > > sell, and it supports what Steven was saying.
>
>
> Attempt at confusion confirmed.
I agree - this confirms your attempt to confuse the issue.
> You have no point since the final
> sentence reinforces the previous sentence of Elsberry encouraging
> Eldredge and Gould writings be ignored.
"In this matter, the person attempting to come to a better
understanding of punctuated equilibria will find that he or she may be
hampered by the popular writings of those same authors rather than
helped."
This sentence does not support your claim. The conclusion is that the
primary literature is a better source of information.
> Why ?
>
> Answer: Because what they actual write is not helpful to ToE. Eldredge
> and Gould "made a mistake" and published a paper that hurts ToE.
You seem to be the only one here with that interpretation. It appears
that you misunderstood the entire article.
<...>
> This thread proves Darwinists, who know exactly what I am talking
> about, will, without hesitation, confuse the issue because you guys
> cannot refute my specific points (two of them).
Read again. Several people have refuted your points.
Ross Langerak
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html
>
> "There are few components of modern evolutionary theory which seem so
> prone to misinterpretation as Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould's
> theory of punctuated equilibria (PE for short). In this matter, the
> person attempting to come to a better understanding of punctuated
> equilibria will find that he or she may be hampered by the popular
> writings of those same authors rather than helped."
>
> The first thing ordinary evos did with PE is to assert Eldredge and
> Gould are incapable of communicating their own PE theory. In other
> words, we have a recognition that what Eldredge and Gould write is seen
> as not helping the starting assumptions and needs of Evolutionary
> theory's lack of transitional evidence in geological strata.
Just to be clear, we have many examples of transitional fossil species. See
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
Punctuated Equilibria (PE) was proposed to explain the absence of
species-to-species transitions in the fossil record. We would find a parent
species suddenly (in geological terms) replaced by a daughter species with
no intermediates. Eldredge and Gould proposed that the species-to-species
evolution took place in a small population temporarily isolated from the
parent population. When the two populations were again reunited, the
daughter population quickly replaced the parent population. But Eldredge
and Gould didn't stop with the explanation, they also found examples of
species-to-species transitions: Eldredge with trilobites and Gould with
fossil snails.
> For nameless nobody's like Elsberry to completely dismiss big name
> scholars as incapable to defend Evolution/PE shows how the evo machine
> works: Nobody's will now defend Elsberry = subjective nonsense
> attempting to obscure the damaging evidence that PE is well known to
> have substantiated against gradualism/Darwin's theory.
Punctuated Equilibria does nothing to hurt evolution. Evolution still
proceeds through random mutation and natural selection. Punctuated
Equilibria simply explains one detail of the fossil record.
Ross Langerak
"Steven J." <stev...@altavista.com> wrote in message
news:1142117299.9...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>
> Ray Martinez wrote:
> > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html
> >
> > "There are few components of modern evolutionary theory which seem so
> > prone to misinterpretation as Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould's
> > theory of punctuated equilibria (PE for short). In this matter, the
> > person attempting to come to a better understanding of punctuated
> > equilibria will find that he or she may be hampered by the popular
> > writings of those same authors rather than helped."
> >
> > The first thing ordinary evos did with PE is to assert Eldredge and
> > Gould are incapable of communicating their own PE theory. In other
> > words, we have a recognition that what Eldredge and Gould write is seen
> > as not helping the starting assumptions and needs of Evolutionary
> > theory's lack of transitional evidence in geological strata.
> >
> writings." "Popular writings" in this case means writing aimed at
> scientific laymen, who have not studied biology or geology in any
> depth. This says nothing about how well Eldredge and Gould were able
> to communicate their ideas to fellow experts, who actually read their
> every scientist is good at communicating complex ideas in simple
> language to nonscientists. That this should be a problem for a noted
> writer of popular works like Gould is a slightly odd statement, but not
> an intrinsically outrageous or ridiculous one.
>
> Note, although Elsberry does not explicitly do so, that a big part of
> the problem is not with Gould so much as with creationists who
> quote-mine his work.
>
> Gould was trying to explain was the paucity of transitionals between
> species within a genus. Thus, we have series of trilobite species,
> each just a little different from the one before, but with no
> transitions between species (although the species themselves are
> transitional between different trilobite genera). A similar situation
> occurs with the horse series. But we know from laboratory work that
> evolution from one species in a genus to another is possible, and
> indeed most creationists accept such evolution. So Gould and Eldredge
> are trying to explain why the sorts of evolution that nearly everyone
> accepts as real leave so little evidence in the fossil record, while
> evidence for transitions between higher taxa are, as Gould noted,
> fairly common.
We should point out that Eldredge and Gould did, in fact, find evidence of
species-to-species transitions in the fossil record: Eldredge with
trilobites and Gould with fossil snails. Thus, Punctuated Equilibria not
only explains a feature of the fossil record, it is also supported by
evidence.
> > For nameless nobody's like Elsberry to completely dismiss big name
> > scholars as incapable to defend Evolution/PE shows how the evo machine
> > works: Nobody's will now defend Elsberry = subjective nonsense
> > attempting to obscure the damaging evidence that PE is well known to
> > have substantiated against gradualism/Darwin's theory.
> >
> Dr. Elsberry has both peer-reviewed and popular works in print (albeit,
> I'm pretty sure, fewer than Gould). If he's a nobody, then what must
> you be, and why should we listen to your attacks on him? And, again,
> Elsberry has not completely dismissed Gould and Eldredge; he merely
> states that their popular works have been misunderstood, and seeks to
> correct the misunderstandings.
>
> Note that "punctuated equilibria" does not suggest that, e.g. a
> _Compsognathus_ laid an egg and a _Confuciusornis_, or even an
> _Archaeopteryx_, hatched out. It does not even suggest that a blue jay
> laid an egg, and a Stellar's jay, hatched out. It merely holds that
> speciation occurs over hundreds or thousands of years, in a limited
> area, rather than over hundreds of millenia, over the entire range of a
> species.
> >
> > Ray
>
> -- Steven J.
>
er...@swva.net
Wait, I get it now. Darwinist complaint that you spelled it wrong=yu
speled it rite.
Eric Root
chris.li...@gmail.com
> NashtOn wrote:
> > Ernest Major wrote:
> > > In message <1142120544.1...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Ray
> > > Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes
> > >
> > > In the low packing fraction category
> > >
> > >>Each reply is a substanceless one liner = inability to refute.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Chez Watt, huh.
> > Hasn't been updated in a long time.
> >
>
> Actually it was reported recently that the Chez Watt Archive was
> updated a few days ago. It's still ten months behind but it was
> updated.
>
> Ya gotta keep up if you're gonna criticize.
Ferrous has had some significant RL issues (buying a home I think, or
maybe moving) that have interfered with CW and archive maintenance.
Like most pre-teen-minded people, Nicola does not bother to learn how
much effort something like CW actually takes. If the little sprout
wanted to find out, she could quit mouthing off and start up a mirror
site, or even a competing CW site. After all, every CW post and nominee
is collected straight from the web- it is all public domain.
So, Nashy- why don't you put your money where your mouth is? Make your
own CW archive. Post the results in a week.
Oh, and you keep ignoring my challenge to discuss vestigial structures!
You're not afraid are you?
Chris
>
> --
> Greg G.
>
> JETSON! You're FIRED!
Ferrous Patella
> NashtOn wrote:
>> Ernest Major wrote:
>> > In message <1142120544.1...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>> > Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes
>> >
>> > In the low packing fraction category
>> >
>> >>Each reply is a substanceless one liner = inability to refute.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Chez Watt, huh.
>> Hasn't been updated in a long time.
>>
>> Priceless. Do keep up.
>
> Actually it was reported recently that the Chez Watt Archive was
> updated a few days ago. It's still ten months behind but it was
> updated.
>
Now 6 and counting.
> Ya gotta keep up if you're gonna criticize.
>
--
Ferrous Patella (Homo gerardii)
T.A., Philosophy Lab
University of Ediacara
Å vite hva man ikke vet,
er også en slags allvitenhet.
SRNissen
Ray Martinez wrote:
> FACT: Elsberry wrote the PE twins should not be read because what they
> wrote hurts ToE at face value with any given reader having ordinary
> intelligence and general knowledge of the issues.
This is not a fact. The fact is that Elsberry wrote that the PE twins
should not be read because what they wrote makes any given reader
having ordinary intelligence and general knowledge of the issues (ie,
your typical creationist) become more confused. There's a significant
difference between saying that something hurts the ToE, and saying that
something doesn't explain the ToE very well.
> E/G were so confused/honest (both are true at the same time) that they
> published, what is essentially an admission that the fossil record does
> not support Darwin's prediction.
No. The absolute closest you could come to the truth of their research,
in popular, non-scientific words, is this: "The fossil record does not
prove micro-evolution." You can't have it both ways, Mr. Martinez.
Either microevolution is the same as macroevolution, and then we can
provide lab tests that will prove microevolution to even the most
stubborn creationist, or microevolution is different from
macroevolution, and in that case, EG said nothing about macroevolution.
> Miller, in FDG, goes after E/G and scolds them. I suppose that does not
> mean what it says either ? Everything that hurts ToE = quote mine =
> everyone is "misunderstanding" = pure dishonesty/intelligence insult.
> All is not quote mine and the automatic parrot assertion shows how
> quick the blackmail game evolutionists play: Emperors New Clothes
> metaphor. This all would have been over if you had said: "Elsberry made
> a mistake - he should not discourage reading E/G."
This paragraph is not in english, Mr. Martinez. English is my second
language, and yet I write it both clearer and more concisely than you
do. That means you're doing it wrong. Please write it again in proper
english, with normal sentence structure, so I can refute it.
Specifically, do not use any versions of the "=" sign. Use whole
sentences.
>
> Ray
- Søren
Dana Tweedy
>
> Steven J. wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>> >
>> -- [snip of post to which Ray clearly paid no attention]
>> >
>> > Each reply is a substanceless one liner = inability to refute.
>> >
>> them so cogently and concisely as you do.
>> >
>> > Ray
>>
>> -- Steven J.
>
> Your disgust is contrived;
What "disgust"? Steven didn't say anyting about disgust.
> a ploy necessary to defend your previous
> post by insulting my reply. Elsberry plainly says the PE twins should
> not be read.
That's not what Wesley said. You are misrepresnting him, almost exactly
opposite of what he said.
> In response, you have offered intelligence insulting
> excuses, like shifting the blame on Creationists.
Creationists do often and blatently misquote Gould and Eldrege. Gould
himself has mentioned this.
> Do we somehow control
> what Elsberry writes ? Where did Elsberry write WHAT YOU ASSERTED ?
In his article, the one you quote mined.
>
> FACT: Elsberry wrote the PE twins should not be read because what they
> wrote hurts ToE at face value with any given reader having ordinary
> intelligence and general knowledge of the issues.
That is not what Elsberry wrote. He said that Gould and Eldrege were often
misinterpeted.
>
> E/G were so confused/honest (both are true at the same time) that they
> published, what is essentially an admission that the fossil record does
> not support Darwin's prediction.
They were honest, but not confused. They did not say the fossil record
does not support Darwin, in fact Gould says the opposite.
> Miller, in FDG, goes after E/G and scolds them.
Wrong on both counts. Miller says about Gould and Eldrege: "...whose
energeic and accomplished careers teach an important lesson about the
scientific profession. "Don't rock the boat" maight be a good advice for an
organization man trying to climb the corporate ladder, but for a scientific
career, that slogan does not work. In science, where conformatory data and
consistency with established theory are regarded as boring, the vest advice
would be to rock the boat vigourously--maybe even turn the damn thing over.
That's exactly what Edredge and Gould managed to do." (Miller, in "Finding
Darwin's God", page 83.)
Miller didn't scold Eldredge and Gould, he congratulated them. Miller
also pointed out that Creationists tended to misrepresent PE.
> I suppose that does not
> mean what it says either ?
It doesn't mean what you claimed. That's a common observation about your
claims.
> Everything that hurts ToE = quote mine
PE does not hurt the Theory of Evolution. Quoting Gould out of context is
something of a cottage industry among Creationists, and Gould is cited in
quite a few quote mines.
> =
> everyone is "misunderstanding" = pure dishonesty/intelligence insult.
The fact remains that Gould and Eldrege are often misunderstood, and their
words are often deliberately mis-stated by Creationists.
> All is not quote mine and the automatic parrot assertion shows how
> quick the blackmail game evolutionists play: Emperors New Clothes
> metaphor.
What "blackmail game" is that?
> This all would have been over if you had said: "Elsberry made
> a mistake - he should not discourage reading E/G."
First of all, Wesley didn't make a mistake. Nor did he discourage reading
Eldrege and Gould. He suggested that their work is better understood in
the primary literature, not the popularizations they wrote for non-technical
audience. You may argue with that, but it's not a mistake.
>
> The opening paragraph of the page: I wonder what Eldredge would think
> of what Elsberry wrote ?
Why not ask him?
DJT
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by "Ray Martinez"
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:
>Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 00:34:41 GMT, the following appeared in
>> talk.origins, posted by NashtOn <na...@na.ca>:
>> >Ernest Major wrote:
>> >> In message <1142120544.1...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Ray
>> >> Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes
>>
>> >> In the low packing fraction category
>> >>>Each reply is a substanceless one liner = inability to refute.
>> >Chez Watt, huh.
>> >Hasn't been updated in a long time.
>> Yeah, since March 8th. Of 2006. Those drugs really screw up
>> your time perception, don't they?
>>
>> >Priceless. Do keep up.
>> My thought exactly. Well, actually it was "Do keep it up",
>> but the essence is there.
>At least Ernest has admitted his problem; unlike you, Bob.
I admitted my problem: I have a problem understanding those
who are willfully blind, those who worship books written by
humans who claim with zero evidence to have been inspired by
a deity, and those who believe they know the only path among
thousands to follow and that anyone who believes otherwise
is an instrument of Evil.
So when are you going to admit *your* problem, Ray?
Dana Tweedy
snipping
> At least Ernest has admitted his problem; unlike you, Bob.
So, what do you blame your rage disorder on, Ray?
DJT
Dana Tweedy
snipping
>> > My point is intact.
>>
>> Your point is intact only if you ignore the facts.
>>
>
> Mimic of my point = only done because you can refute my complaint and
> seek to confuse the simple issue = following the path that Steven J.
> embarked upon.
Ray, your "point" was refuted before you even posted. You are wrong about
Eslberry, Gould, Eldrege, and Steven J.
snipping
>> That tells a very different different story than what you're trying to
>> sell, and it supports what Steven was saying.
>>
>
> Attempt at confusion confirmed.
Ray, just because you are confused, does not mean someone attempted to
confuse you.
> You have no point since the final
> sentence reinforces the previous sentence of Elsberry encouraging
> Eldredge and Gould writings be ignored.
The final sentence does not say that Eldrege and Gould should be ignored.
It said they should be read in the primary literature.
>
> Why ?
>
> Answer: Because what they actual write is not helpful to ToE.
The theory of evolution is not threatened by what Gould and Eldrege wrote.
What Elsberry was talking about is the misrepresentation of their work by
Creationists, and the confusion that ordinary people can get from reading
their popular works.
> Eldredge
> and Gould "made a mistake" and published a paper that hurts ToE.
Wrong, both times. They didn't make a mistake, and their paper didn't hurt
the Theory of Evolution.
> After
> it was published they could not take it back.
Nor would they.
> Elsberry plainly says the
> PE twins should not be read = not a matter of opinion
Wrong, Ray. Your claim is simply wrong. Wesley did not say that Gould and
Eldrege should not be read.
- thats what he
> wrote.
No, Ray, that's not what he wrote. You are simply wrong.
> In response you evos keep ignoring this point/fact by evading
> via making excuses speculating WHY Elsberry wrote what he wrote.
Again, no "excuse" is needed. You are misrepresenting what was written.
>But my
> point is not addressing why, rather that he wrote two big names evos
> should not be read.
Your point is based on a false assertion. Elsberry did NOT say that Gould
and Eldrege should not be read.
> I then offer the reason why Elsberry makes this
> outrageous request: PE is a recognition that the fossil record does not
> show Darwinian gradations and concedes this visible fact.
As Gould himself has stated, PE does not invalidate Darwin's gradations.
You are wrong once again.
> Then PE
> attempts to re-explain that what is seen, AFTER ALL does support
> Darwinian predictions.
PE is an attempt to explain why it's rare to find genus level intermediates
in the fossil record. It argues that it's an artifact of the fossil record,
and how speciation occurs. In short it's a suggestion that evolution is
not a smooth process, but a more "jerky" process.
>
> This thread proves Darwinists, who know exactly what I am talking
> about, will, without hesitation, confuse the issue because you guys
> cannot refute my specific points (two of them).
Ray, you "points" were refuted long before you even posted them. They
weren't difficult to refute, and noone needed even to break a sweat to do
so. Don't confuse your inablity to understand the refutation with lack of
refutation.
DJT
floyd
Ray Martinez wrote:
> Steven J. wrote:
> > Ray Martinez wrote:
[snip]
> My point is intact.
>
Yes it is, but if you wear a hat, hardly anyone will notice.
Wesley R. Elsberry
> prone to misinterpretation as Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould's
> theory of punctuated equilibria (PE for short). In this matter, the
> person attempting to come to a better understanding of punctuated
> equilibria will find that he or she may be hampered by the popular
> writings of those same authors rather than helped."
Completing the quote:
As in most cases, the primary literature remains the best source of
information.
> The first thing ordinary evos did with PE is to assert Eldredge and
> Gould are incapable of communicating their own PE theory. In other
> words, we have a recognition that what Eldredge and Gould write is seen
> as not helping the starting assumptions and needs of Evolutionary
> theory's lack of transitional evidence in geological strata.
> For nameless nobody's like Elsberry to completely dismiss big name
> scholars as incapable to defend Evolution/PE shows how the evo machine
> works: Nobody's will now defend Elsberry = subjective nonsense
> attempting to obscure the damaging evidence that PE is well known to
> have substantiated against gradualism/Darwin's theory.
I'll make a short response here based upon my recollection. I do think
that this issue deserves a longer treatment in the FAQ, since someone
apparently did get confused. The wording may change when I review the
sources directly again, but the following is the gist of what I will
say.
Gould published several essays in Natural History which touched upon
punctuated equilibria. A common theme in those was to discuss varying
rates of change using terms like "jerkiness". Very little emphasis was
placed on the geographic component of PE in those articles. Contrast
that with the 1972 chapter introducing PE, where the reader is assured
that there is more information in the geographic distribution than in
stratigraphy. In the 1977 article, a major component of Gould and
Eldredge's critique of most proffered examples of phyletic gradualism
was the fact that the studies (all but one) failed to analyze
characters in the population over the entire geographic extent of the
populations. These are examples of the issue I referred to in the
quoted statement. A reader whose only exposure to the concept of PE
came from the popular sources rather than the primary literature would
have a distorted impression of the importance of varying rates of
change vs. geographic distirbution in PE. It is in this sense that a
full understanding of PE may be hampered by the popular accounts rather
than aided. As I said before, the primary literature remains the best
source of information. I fully endorse reading the primary literature
on PE, if that was not clear from my original statement.
I don't really have a problem with being dismissed as someone who may
speak with authority on the topic. Paleontology isn't close to being my
chosen field of study. However, insofar as I accurately relate the
concepts of PE that have been published in the primary literature, I
think my points stand. The ultimate arbiter of all of this is not my
authority or lack of same; it is the data collected for both support
and critique of the theory of PE. Those of us who aren't
paleontologists rely on the peer-reviewed reports of those researchers,
and that is what matters here. What is annoying about Ray's post is
that he apparently got no further in reading the FAQ in question than a
portion of the first paragraph, and leaped to entirely erroneous
conclusions from that small selection.
Wesley R. Elsberry
catshark
wrote:
[...]
>I'll make a short response here based upon my recollection. I do think
>that this issue deserves a longer treatment in the FAQ, since someone
>apparently did get confused.
However, I doubt if anyone is under the impression that Ray was confused by
the article. That is just his perpetual state.
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
He may look like an idiot
and talk like an idiot,
but don't let that fool you.
He really is an idiot.
- Groucho Marx -
Ernest Major
>
>Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 00:34:41 GMT, the following appeared in
>> talk.origins, posted by NashtOn <na...@na.ca>:
>>
>> >Ernest Major wrote:
>>
>> >> In message <1142120544.1...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Ray
>> >> Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes
>>
>> >> In the low packing fraction category
>>
>> >>>Each reply is a substanceless one liner = inability to refute.
>>
>> >Chez Watt, huh.
>> >Hasn't been updated in a long time.
>>
>> Yeah, since March 8th. Of 2006. Those drugs really screw up
>> your time perception, don't they?
>>
>> >Priceless. Do keep up.
>>
>> My thought exactly. Well, actually it was "Do keep it up",
>> but the essence is there.
>> --
>>
>> Bob C.
>>
>
>At least Ernest has admitted his problem; unlike you, Bob.
>
>Ray
>
your skull produced that statement.
--
alias Ernest Major
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.2.1/279 - Release Date: 10/03/2006
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>:
>In message <1142207429.7...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Ray
>Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes
>>Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 00:34:41 GMT, the following appeared in
>>> talk.origins, posted by NashtOn <na...@na.ca>:
>>> >Ernest Major wrote:
>>> >> In message <1142120544.1...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Ray
>>> >> Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes
>>> >> In the low packing fraction category
>>> >>>Each reply is a substanceless one liner = inability to refute.
>>> >Chez Watt, huh.
>>> >Hasn't been updated in a long time.
>>> Yeah, since March 8th. Of 2006. Those drugs really screw up
>>> your time perception, don't they?
>>>
>>> >Priceless. Do keep up.
>>> My thought exactly. Well, actually it was "Do keep it up",
>>> but the essence is there.
>>At least Ernest has admitted his problem; unlike you, Bob.
>...I'm baffled as to what thought processes within
>your skull produced that statement.
You're assuming something without clear evidence.
Ray Martinez
Wesley R. Elsberry wrote:
> Ray Martinez wrote:
> > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html
> >
> > "There are few components of modern evolutionary theory which seem so
> > prone to misinterpretation as Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould's
> > theory of punctuated equilibria (PE for short). In this matter, the
> > person attempting to come to a better understanding of punctuated
> > equilibria will find that he or she may be hampered by the popular
> > writings of those same authors rather than helped."
>
> Completing the quote:
>
> As in most cases, the primary literature remains the best source of
> information.
>
I have already pointed out to another person in this thread, the
completed quote portion omitted by myself is reinforcement of the
previous thought. The innuendo of quote mine fails and is an attempt to
undermine and deflect away from valid criticism.
> > The first thing ordinary evos did with PE is to assert Eldredge and
> > Gould are incapable of communicating their own PE theory. In other
> > words, we have a recognition that what Eldredge and Gould write is seen
> > as not helping the starting assumptions and needs of Evolutionary
> > theory's lack of transitional evidence in geological strata.
>
> > For nameless nobody's like Elsberry to completely dismiss big name
> > scholars as incapable to defend Evolution/PE shows how the evo machine
> > works: Nobody's will now defend Elsberry = subjective nonsense
> > attempting to obscure the damaging evidence that PE is well known to
> > have substantiated against gradualism/Darwin's theory.
>
> I'll make a short response here based upon my recollection. I do think
> that this issue deserves a longer treatment in the FAQ, since someone
> apparently did get confused. The wording may change when I review the
> sources directly again, but the following is the gist of what I will
> say.
>
A dispassionate academician would never attempt to shift the blame and
guilt of his own honest mistake onto the person who points it out,
unless the person is a Creationist. There is no confusion on my part or
you Wesley, you made an error and have compounded it with weasel
"...someone apparently did get confused" words.
> What is annoying about Ray's post is
> that he apparently got no further in reading the FAQ in question than a
> portion of the first paragraph, and leaped to entirely erroneous
> conclusions from that small selection.
Negative.
I pointed out that you discouraged the reading of popular writing by
Eldredge and Gould.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html
"In this matter, the person attempting to come to a better
understanding of punctuated equilibria will find that he or she may be
hampered by the popular writings of those same authors rather than
helped."
I also offered the irrefutable reason why. We know the reason is
because E/G plainly admit and confirm Darwin's prediction of
intermediacy in abundance failed. We know well funded expeditions have
frantically searched the world over to no avail. Eldredge and Gould
admit the obvious, then offer excuses why = PE theory.
Eldredge's latest book about Darwin's transmutation notebooks (which I
have read) voluminously admits the fossil record shows no signs of the
evidence that gradualism necessitates: transitional. The key word is
"voluminously" - there can be no misunderstanding but I am sure
Darwinists and their weasel words will prevail. My forth-coming paper
will explain why you guys prevail in spite of the fact ***reason for
being**** evidence (transitional) is entirely missing (links).
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393059669/102-3892725-8052960?v=glance&n=283155
Ray
Ray Martinez
Wesley R. Elsberry wrote:
> Ray Martinez wrote:
> > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html
> >
> > "There are few components of modern evolutionary theory which seem so
> > prone to misinterpretation as Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould's
> > theory of punctuated equilibria (PE for short). In this matter, the
> > person attempting to come to a better understanding of punctuated
> > equilibria will find that he or she may be hampered by the popular
> > writings of those same authors rather than helped."
>
> Completing the quote:
>
> As in most cases, the primary literature remains the best source of
> information.
>
I have already pointed out to another person in this thread, the
completed quote portion omitted by myself is reinforcement of the
previous thought. The innuendo of quote mine fails and is an attempt to
undermine and deflect away from valid criticism.
> > The first thing ordinary evos did with PE is to assert Eldredge and
> > Gould are incapable of communicating their own PE theory. In other
> > words, we have a recognition that what Eldredge and Gould write is seen
> > as not helping the starting assumptions and needs of Evolutionary
> > theory's lack of transitional evidence in geological strata.
>
> > For nameless nobody's like Elsberry to completely dismiss big name
> > scholars as incapable to defend Evolution/PE shows how the evo machine
> > works: Nobody's will now defend Elsberry = subjective nonsense
> > attempting to obscure the damaging evidence that PE is well known to
> > have substantiated against gradualism/Darwin's theory.
>
> I'll make a short response here based upon my recollection. I do think
> that this issue deserves a longer treatment in the FAQ, since someone
> apparently did get confused. The wording may change when I review the
> sources directly again, but the following is the gist of what I will
> say.
>
A dispassionate academician would never attempt to shift the blame and
guilt of his own honest mistake onto the person who points it out,
unless the person is a Creationist. There is no confusion on my part or
you Wesley, you made an error and have compounded it with weasel
"...someone apparently did get confused" words.
> What is annoying about Ray's post is
> that he apparently got no further in reading the FAQ in question than a
> portion of the first paragraph, and leaped to entirely erroneous
> conclusions from that small selection.
Negative.
I pointed out that you discouraged the reading of popular writing by
Eldredge and Gould.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html
"In this matter, the person attempting to come to a better
understanding of punctuated equilibria will find that he or she may be
hampered by the popular writings of those same authors rather than
helped."
I also offered the irrefutable reason why. We know the reason is
Augray
wrote:
snip]
>Eldredge's latest book about Darwin's transmutation notebooks (which I
>have read) voluminously admits the fossil record shows no signs of the
>evidence that gradualism necessitates: transitional.
Ray, as I have pointed out before, Archaeopteryx is an excellent
example of a transitional form. I'd challenge you to debate that, but
we both know that you'd run.
>The key word is
>"voluminously" - there can be no misunderstanding but I am sure
>Darwinists and their weasel words will prevail. My forth-coming paper
>will explain why you guys prevail in spite of the fact ***reason for
>being**** evidence (transitional) is entirely missing (links).
Either back up your claim, or don't make it.
>http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393059669/102-3892725-8052960?v=glance&n=283155
>
>Ray
Dana Tweedy
>
> Wesley R. Elsberry wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>> > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html
>> >
>> > "There are few components of modern evolutionary theory which seem so
>> > prone to misinterpretation as Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould's
>> > theory of punctuated equilibria (PE for short). In this matter, the
>> > person attempting to come to a better understanding of punctuated
>> > equilibria will find that he or she may be hampered by the popular
>> > writings of those same authors rather than helped."
>>
>> Completing the quote:
>>
>> As in most cases, the primary literature remains the best source of
>> information.
>>
>
> I have already pointed out to another person in this thread, the
> completed quote portion omitted by myself is reinforcement of the
> previous thought. The innuendo of quote mine fails and is an attempt to
> undermine and deflect away from valid criticism.
As has been pointed out to you, in this thread, the completed quote portion
does not "reinforce" what you claimed, rather it refutes it. You have been
claiming that Wesley said not to read Eldredge and Gould, whereas it's clear
he was saying that it's better to read them in the primary literature. At
no point does Wesley say that Gould and Eldredge should not be read.
snipping
>> I'll make a short response here based upon my recollection. I do think
>> that this issue deserves a longer treatment in the FAQ, since someone
>> apparently did get confused. The wording may change when I review the
>> sources directly again, but the following is the gist of what I will
>> say.
>>
>
> A dispassionate academician would never attempt to shift the blame and
> guilt of his own honest mistake onto the person who points it out,
Wesley did not make a mistake, Ray, you did. You misrepresented what he
said. Wesley is quite within his rights to point out your
misunderstanding.
> unless the person is a Creationist. There is no confusion on my part or
> you Wesley, you made an error and have compounded it with weasel
> "...someone apparently did get confused" words.
Ray, you did become confused, or otherwise you deliberately misinterpeted
Wesley's point. Either way you aren't looking too good.
>
>> What is annoying about Ray's post is
>> that he apparently got no further in reading the FAQ in question than a
>> portion of the first paragraph, and leaped to entirely erroneous
>> conclusions from that small selection.
>
> Negative.
Odd, why do you get to tell Dr. Elsberry what he said? Isn't Wesley a
better judge of what he wrote?
>
> I pointed out that you discouraged the reading of popular writing by
> Eldredge and Gould.
That's not what he said.
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html
>
> "In this matter, the person attempting to come to a better
> understanding of punctuated equilibria will find that he or she may be
> hampered by the popular writings of those same authors rather than
> helped."
>
> I also offered the irrefutable reason why.
Except that your "irrefutable" reason was promptly refuted.
> We know the reason is
> because E/G plainly admit and confirm Darwin's prediction of
> intermediacy in abundance failed.
Darwin's prediction was that the fossil record would provide more evidence
of intermediate forms. This prediction was fullfilled.
> We know well funded expeditions have
> frantically searched the world over to no avail.
Considering the fact that you deny the existance of intermediate forms, even
after they are shoved right under your nose, it's not surprising you would
not acknowlege the many discoveries of transitional fossils over the last
150 years. Again, I call your attention to the fossil KNM WT 15000. This
is a classic example of a transitional fossil. Do you continue to deny
this?
> Eldredge and Gould
> admit the obvious, then offer excuses why = PE theory.
PE is not an 'excuse'. It's an explanation for why the particular pattern
of fossils is found.
>
> Eldredge's latest book about Darwin's transmutation notebooks (which I
> have read)
And apparently have misunderstood.... (if you actually did read the book,
not just the dustcover)
> voluminously admits the fossil record shows no signs of the
> evidence that gradualism necessitates: transitional.
That's a gross misstatement of what Eldredge claims. Eldredge acknowleges
transitional forms do exist, and they are relatively common, at higher
taxinomic levels.
> The key word is
> "voluminously" - there can be no misunderstanding
Yet you seem to have managed it.... Where exactly does Eldredge use the
term "voluminously"?
> but I am sure
> Darwinists and their weasel words will prevail. My forth-coming paper
> will explain why you guys prevail in spite of the fact ***reason for
> being**** evidence (transitional) is entirely missing (links).
Transitional evidence is not entirely missing. KNM WT 15000 is one of
those transitional fossils you claim don't exist.
In another matter, Ray, it's becoming obvious that your much delayed "paper"
is merely a re-hash of the same old tired claims you have been tossing
around for years. Have you considered this rather large contradiction in
your claims:
You have asserted that doubting the Genesis creation stories, even for a
moment, results in a "blinding penalty" that makes you unable to see the
evidence you claim is "overwhelming" to everyone else. You have also
claimed that faith derives from the seeing the evidence of God, and that
blind faith is irrational, and not worthy of having. However, if you base
your faith on evidence, you must have questioned your belief, if only for a
moment, which, according to you triggers the "blinding penalty". This
"penalty" is supposedly God's everlasting wrath for not granting him
"creator credit", and you claim applies to people who do grant God creator
credit, but don't see the Genesis creation stories as being scientifically
accurate. How then do you maintain that you are basing your faith on
the evidence, if expecting to see evidence would trigger the "blinding
penalty"? Then you claim that those who believe in God, and don't depend
on physical evidence, are 'blinded', and unable to see the evidence.
Don't you see the contradiction here?
DJT
Ray Martinez
Augray wrote:
> On 14 Mar 2006 16:22:18 -0800, "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> snip]
>
> >Eldredge's latest book about Darwin's transmutation notebooks (which I
> >have read) voluminously admits the fossil record shows no signs of the
> >evidence that gradualism necessitates: transitional.
>
> Ray, as I have pointed out before, Archaeopteryx is an excellent
> example of a transitional form. I'd challenge you to debate that, but
> we both know that you'd run.
>
One specimen touted as decisive proof that macroevolution is true. Yet
untold millions of species have existed = delusional needs of atheism.
If macro were true the crust of the Earth would plainly reflect and
excuse theories like PE would be uneeded.
By the way: we both know there is no evidence of bat evolution because
creatures with sonar were Designed.
Ray
Josh Hayes
Goalposts: Ho!
-JAH
Steven J.
Ray Martinez wrote:
> Augray wrote:
> > On 14 Mar 2006 16:22:18 -0800, "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > snip]
> >
> > >Eldredge's latest book about Darwin's transmutation notebooks (which I
> > >have read) voluminously admits the fossil record shows no signs of the
> > >evidence that gradualism necessitates: transitional.
> >
> > Ray, as I have pointed out before, Archaeopteryx is an excellent
> > example of a transitional form. I'd challenge you to debate that, but
> > we both know that you'd run.
> >
>
> One specimen touted as decisive proof that macroevolution is true. Yet
> untold millions of species have existed = delusional needs of atheism.
> If macro were true the crust of the Earth would plainly reflect and
> excuse theories like PE would be uneeded.
>
anything. The principle evidence for evolution is the consistent
nested hierarchy of homologies, but there are plenty of fossils showing
transitions between "kinds" (quite a few straddle the boundaries
creationists want to draw between humans and other apes). Augray
brought up _Archaeopteryx_ as one example that is well-studied and
which he is prepared to discuss with you.
Note that 30 years ago, hardly any of the spectacular whale
transitionals like _Ambulocetus_ and _Pakicetus_ were unknown. I trust
you will not say that these species had never existed before their
discovery. Every year new fossil species come to light, and if there
are fossil species for which hundreds of specimens exist, there are
others known from a single fragmentary specimen.
Even if we assume that every species must leave fossils (and we know
that the overwhelming majority of individuals don't become fossils),
there is no reason to suppose that every species that has been
fossilized has been dug up and described. Were you under the
impression that an exhaustive inventory of the Earth's crust has been
completed, or that a ten-thousandth part of such an inventory had been
completed?
>
> By the way: we both know there is no evidence of bat evolution because
> creatures with sonar were Designed.
>
Is your contention that whales were not designed (since there is
considerable evidence for their evolution, from fossil whales with
hooves to shared pseudogenes and endogenous retroviruses between whales
and artiodactyls), or that whales do not have sonar?
>
> Ray
-- Steven J.
Wakboth
Ray Martinez kirjoitti:
> For nameless nobody's like Elsberry to completely dismiss big name
> scholars as incapable to defend Evolution/PE shows how the evo machine
> works: [snip]
Apart from all the myriad flaws and misunderstandings in Ray's
argument, isn't that just how the creationist machine works: nameless
nobodies like Ray completely dismiss "big name" scholars as incapable
of defending Theory of Evolution?
I wonder who is the greatest hypocrit here?
-- Wakboth
Tiny Bulcher
I met a man just like Ray once. Fined him 50 quid for causing a public
nuisance.
Tiny
VoiceOfReason
Wakboth wrote:
> Ray Martinez kirjoitti:
>
> > For nameless nobody's like Elsberry to completely dismiss big name
> > scholars as incapable to defend Evolution/PE shows how the evo machine
> > works: [snip]
>
> Apart from all the myriad flaws and misunderstandings in Ray's
> argument, isn't that just how the creationist machine works: nameless
> nobodies like Ray completely dismiss "big name" scholars as incapable
> of defending Theory of Evolution?
Excellent observation. I suppose it's a form of projection.
> I wonder who is the greatest hypocrit here?
In this newsgroup that's a difficult question. There are several on
the Creto side who are competing for that dubious honor.
Augray
wrote:
>
>Augray wrote:
>> On 14 Mar 2006 16:22:18 -0800, "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> snip]
>>
>> >Eldredge's latest book about Darwin's transmutation notebooks (which I
>> >have read) voluminously admits the fossil record shows no signs of the
>> >evidence that gradualism necessitates: transitional.
>>
>> Ray, as I have pointed out before, Archaeopteryx is an excellent
>> example of a transitional form. I'd challenge you to debate that, but
>> we both know that you'd run.
>>
>
>One specimen touted as decisive proof that macroevolution is true.
Actually, there are nine specimens of Archaeopteryx (not counting the
single feather). And I'd be quite happy to discuss Aberratiodontus,
Ambiortus, Apsaravis, Archaeornithoides, Bambiraptor, Boluochia,
Cathayornis, Caudipteryx, Chaoyangia, Coelophysis, Compsognathus,
Concornis, Confuciusornis, Cryptovolans, Dilong, Enantiornis,
Eoalulavis, Eocathayornis, Eoenantiornis, Eoraptor, Epidendrosaurus,
Euparkeria, Gansus, Gobipteryx, Guildavis, Gurilynia, Halimornis,
Herrerasaurus, Hesperornis, Hongshanornis, Iberomesornis, Ichthyornis,
Jeholornis, Jibeinia, Jixiangornis, Lagerpeton, Lagosuchus, Lectavis,
Liaoningornis, Liaoxiornis, Longipteryx, Longirostravis, Microraptor,
Nanantius, Neuquenornis, Noguerornis, Ornitholestes, Otogornis,
Patagopteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Protopteryx, Rahonavis, Sapeornis,
Scansoriopteryx, Scleromochlus, Shenzhouraptor, Shuuvuia, Sinornis,
Sinornithosaurus, Sinosauropteryx, Sinovenator, Songlingornis,
Troodon, Unenlagia, Velociraptor, Vescornis, Vorona, Yanornis,
Yixianornis, or Yungavolucris with you as well.
>Yet
>untold millions of species have existed = delusional needs of atheism.
Of course, no one claims that the fossil record will capture very
nuance of evolutionary history either, and birds are notoriously
scarce in the fossil record because of the environments they inhabit
while alive, and the fragility of their skeletons. Even so, we know a
good deal about their evolutionary history, and I'd be happy to debate
you on that.
I've very confident in my position. Can you say the same about yours?
>If macro were true the crust of the Earth would plainly reflect and
>excuse theories like PE would be uneeded.
What makes you think the Punctuated Equilibria is an "excuse theory"?
>By the way: we both know there is no evidence of bat evolution because
>creatures with sonar were Designed.
What about the bats that *don't* have sonar? Did they evolve?
>Ray
Desertphile
> On 14 Mar 2006 20:53:32 -0800, "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
(Large trim here)
> >By the way: we both know there is no evidence of bat evolution because
> >creatures with sonar were Designed [sic].
Ray, no bats have sonar. Except perhaps in the cartoon world you live
in.
> What about the bats that *don't* have sonar? Did they evolve?
Maybe they just could not afford the cost of upgrading.
Augray
wrote:
>Augray wrote:
>
>> On 14 Mar 2006 20:53:32 -0800, "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>
>(Large trim here)
>
>> >By the way: we both know there is no evidence of bat evolution because
>> >creatures with sonar were Designed [sic].
>
>Ray, no bats have sonar. Except perhaps in the cartoon world you live
>in.
Hmm. When I originally posted I assumed that bats *did* have sonar. I
mean, the principles are the same. But I see that it's more
technically correct to use the term "echolocation".
>> What about the bats that *don't* have sonar? Did they evolve?
>
>Maybe they just could not afford the cost of upgrading.
And then there are the bats that don't echolocate.
Nick Roberts
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Wesley R. Elsberry wrote:
> > Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html
> > >
> > > "There are few components of modern evolutionary theory which
> > > seem so prone to misinterpretation as Niles Eldredge and Stephen
> > > Jay Gould's theory of punctuated equilibria (PE for short). In
> > > this matter, the person attempting to come to a better
> > > understanding of punctuated equilibria will find that he or she
> > > may be hampered by the popular writings of those same authors
> > > rather than helped."
> >
> > Completing the quote:
> >
> > As in most cases, the primary literature remains the best source of
> > information.
> >
>
> I have already pointed out to another person in this thread, the
> completed quote portion omitted by myself is reinforcement of the
> previous thought. The innuendo of quote mine fails and is an attempt
> to undermine and deflect away from valid criticism.
And in other news, Ray proceeds to prove that black is white and is
killed on the next pedestrian crossing.
[SNIP]
> Eldredge's latest book about Darwin's transmutation notebooks (which
> I have read) voluminously admits the fossil record shows no signs of
> the evidence that gradualism necessitates: transitional. The key word
> is "voluminously" - there can be no misunderstanding but I am sure
> Darwinists and their weasel words will prevail.
Except of course, he states (voluminously) that he is talking about
transitionals at the level of _species_, and that transitionals are
abundant for larger groups.
But of course, these are just weasel words, in that they describe
a portion of reality, rather than the world that Ray inhabits.
> My forth-coming paper will explain why you guys prevail in spite of
> the fact ***reason for being**** evidence (transitional) is entirely
> missing (links).
Except, of course, that there are plenty of transitionals. Does this
mean that you are going to have to start your upcoming paper again, or
just carry on with the same old lies?
--
Nick Roberts tigger @ orpheusinternet.co.uk
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which
can be adequately explained by stupidity.
Ray Martinez
Steven J. wrote:
> Ray Martinez wrote:
> > Augray wrote:
> > > On 14 Mar 2006 16:22:18 -0800, "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > snip]
> > >
> > > >Eldredge's latest book about Darwin's transmutation notebooks (which I
> > > >have read) voluminously admits the fossil record shows no signs of the
> > > >evidence that gradualism necessitates: transitional.
> > >
> > > Ray, as I have pointed out before, Archaeopteryx is an excellent
> > > example of a transitional form. I'd challenge you to debate that, but
> > > we both know that you'd run.
> > >
> >
> > One specimen touted as decisive proof that macroevolution is true. Yet
> > untold millions of species have existed = delusional needs of atheism.
> > If macro were true the crust of the Earth would plainly reflect and
> > excuse theories like PE would be uneeded.
> >
> Augray did not state that any single fossil was "decisive proof" of
> anything.
When Archaeopteryx is invoked it is because it is the singular specimen
that aberrationally shows Darwinian transitionality. There is also the
horse sequence. You guys have two and only two out of millions = macro
refuted in geological strata/physical observational evidence. We also
know the horse sequence is highly exaggerated in that the actual amount
of mounted skeletons is embarrassingly low and the foundational problem
still exists: linkage is assumed. If macro WERE true both sets of data
would not be instantly mentioned as decisive evidence, rather, other
data would be invoked with equal frequency. Since there is only two =
the reason why they are always mentioned. Two sets of data postulated
as proof of macro = falsified concept.
> The principle evidence for evolution is the consistent
> nested hierarchy of homologies
Glued together by the ASSUMPTION of speciation/macroevolution, while
ignoring the monkey wrench of genetic homeostasis (one of many).
Assumptions are not evidence, and in this case are driven by atheist
needs.
> but there are plenty of fossils showing
> transitions between "kinds" (quite a few straddle the boundaries
> creationists want to draw between humans and other apes).
We know there are none in the undisturbed fossil record. The
transitionals you cite are arranged by Darwinian hands according to the
needs of the anti-Genesis worldview.
> Augray
> brought up _Archaeopteryx_ as one example that is well-studied and
> which he is prepared to discuss with you.
>
I don't have the time right now. But lets say, for the sake of argument
that what we see at face value = Darwinian transition. It is one and
only one out of how many milllions of assumed like-so events. Where are
ten more ? We have ONE.
ONE means freak-show/aberration - hardly an amount of evidence for any
objective person to even consider macro true from physical evidence.
> Note that 30 years ago, hardly any of the spectacular whale
> transitionals like _Ambulocetus_ and _Pakicetus_ were unknown. I trust
> you will not say that these species had never existed before their
> discovery. Every year new fossil species come to light, and if there
> are fossil species for which hundreds of specimens exist, there are
> others known from a single fragmentary specimen.
>
> Even if we assume that every species must leave fossils (and we know
> that the overwhelming majority of individuals don't become fossils),
> there is no reason to suppose that every species that has been
> fossilized has been dug up and described. Were you under the
> impression that an exhaustive inventory of the Earth's crust has been
> completed, or that a ten-thousandth part of such an inventory had been
> completed?
No such impression. It is a fact that the world has been frantically
searched to confirm Darwin's (failed) prediction via well funded
expeditions. Based on this big picture evaluation the primary physical
observational evidence of the Earth's crust falsifies Darwinian
gradualism theory IN ITS TRACKS. Science bases its conclusions on
available evidence (as you know). Presently, and since the 19th
century, geological strata does not even remotely support what
Darwinian theory necessitates: intermediacy. My forth-coming work
evidences and explains why Scientism special pleads the preceding facts
and acts like nothing is wrong contrary to the damning geological
evidence of no transitioning going on.
Show me Darwin's prediction in the undisturbed fossil record and I will
throw my Bible in the trash can. In the meantime your theory is in the
trash can while its "success" (contrary to the evidence) can only be
explained by the Biblical penalty of mind-darkening for denying God
Creator credit.
> >
> > By the way: we both know there is no evidence of bat evolution because
> > creatures with sonar were Designed.
> >
> Is your contention that whales were not designed (since there is
> considerable evidence for their evolution, from fossil whales with
> hooves to shared pseudogenes and endogenous retroviruses between whales
> and artiodactyls), or that whales do not have sonar?
> >
> > Ray
>
> -- Steven J.
Your last comment escapes my understanding - sorry.
Ray
Windy
Ray Martinez wrote:
> We also know the horse sequence is highly exaggerated in that
> the actual amount of mounted skeletons is embarrassingly low
True: mounted skeletons on fossil horses are practically nonexistent in
the fossil record, although they would be _awesome_.
-- w
Glend
Yes, what intelligent statement doesn't escape your understanding? Why
don't you learn about these matters, instead of restating the same
idiotic lies again and again?
>
> Ray
What is your point, that there is no transition possible between your
stupidity and ignorance and actual knowledge? For you, I rather
suspect that is the case.
Can you read English, stupid fuck-up? Eldgredge does not say that
there are a few aberrant intermediates. As a number have written, he
states that they're well-known. Since your a nobody cretin, you don't
undestand this. The bigger problem is that you are stupid and a liar,
so you state falsehoods yet again.
Besides which, there is clear continuity in the genomes of all life, so
that even where we lack intermediate fossils we have abundant genetic
evidence for evolution. Of course this is not something understood by
IDiots/cretinists (actually, a few IDists might know, yet won't
acknowledge, this fact), but I have yet to see a subject in which Ray
is knowledgeable.
I sometimes wonder what we're doing here, just laughing and being
amazed at the inability of cretinists to read, to think, to learn? I
mean, it does get old after a while. Sometimes I think I come back to
be reminded of how really mendacious and uncomprehending cretinists
are. I mean, mostly I can get along with IDists and creationists, who
might otherwise be fairly sensible folk, but then I am reminded of what
morons you really become through lack of education and lack of
curiosity. It reminds me that IDists/creationists are a considerable
threat to learning when allowed to affect the schools, and that their
mendacity is only matched by their ignorance.
So it's useful to see gibbering idiot Ray gawping at the mention of
actual evidence of the evolution of whales. Such gross stupidity is an
affront to the potential of all human brains, and if there is a God,
surely it is an affront to Him.
Respect for the mind, the brain, is what it's all about, and I have yet
to see an IDist or creationist who did respect intellect.
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm
Matt
Ray Martinez
> Yes, what intelligent statement doesn't escape your understanding? Why
> don't you learn about these matters, instead of restating the same
> idiotic lies again and again?
> >
> What is your point, that there is no transition possible between your
> stupidity and ignorance and actual knowledge? For you, I rather
> suspect that is the case.
>
> Can you read English, stupid fuck-up? Eldgredge does not say that
> there are a few aberrant intermediates. As a number have written, he
> states that they're well-known. Since your a nobody cretin, you don't
> undestand this. The bigger problem is that you are stupid and a liar,
> so you state falsehoods yet again.
> I sometimes wonder what we're doing here, just laughing and being
> amazed at the inability of cretinists to read, to think, to learn? I
> mean, it does get old after a while. Sometimes I think I come back to
> be reminded of how really mendacious and uncomprehending cretinists
> are. I mean, mostly I can get along with IDists and creationists, who
> might otherwise be fairly sensible folk, but then I am reminded of what
> morons you really become through lack of education and lack of
> curiosity. It reminds me that IDists/creationists are a considerable
> threat to learning when allowed to affect the schools, and that their
> mendacity is only matched by their ignorance.
>
> So it's useful to see gibbering idiot Ray gawping at the mention of
> actual evidence of the evolution of whales. Such gross stupidity is an
> affront to the potential of all human brains, and if there is a God,
> surely it is an affront to Him.
>
> Respect for the mind, the brain, is what it's all about, and I have yet
> to see an IDist or creationist who did respect intellect.
>
> Glen Davidson
> http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm
Atheist rant wholly dependant upon insult of "stupid, liar, moron,
ignorance, etc.etc."
Because you are a Darwinist, that is a person who believes in the
fairytale of common ancestry/apes morphing into men and other assorted
nonsense your insults are a compliment since your approval would
support how wrong I really am.
Ray
Bobby D. Bryant
They aren't found because back in the Fossil Age cavemen rode pterodactyls
instead of horses.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
DJT
Ray Martinez wrote:
snipping
> > Augray did not state that any single fossil was "decisive proof" of
> > anything.
>
> When Archaeopteryx is invoked it is because it is the singular specimen
> that aberrationally shows Darwinian transitionality.
What about the many other specimens that show "transitionality"?
Surely you aren't as misinformed as to think that Archeopteryx is the
only transitional fossil in the fossil record?
>There is also the
> horse sequence.
And the reptile to mammal sequence, the elephant sequence, giraffe
sequence, whale sequence, fish to amphibian sequnce, hominid sequence,
etc, etc...
> You guys have two and only two out of millions
No, there are many other examples of evolution in the fossil record.
The horse sequence and Archeopteryx are usually given as they are the
most spectacular examples. There are far more fossil sequences showing
macroevolution.
> = macro
> refuted in geological strata/physical observational evidence.
Even one sequence of evolutionary change refutes the claim there is
none.
> We also
> know the horse sequence is highly exaggerated in that the actual amount
> of mounted skeletons is embarrassingly low and the foundational problem
> still exists:
Here, "we also know" is asked to stand in for the more truthful
statement "I wish that". The truth is that the horse sequence is not
exaggerated, and the number of speciemens is quite adequate to show the
evolution of the horses.
>linkage is assumed.
No, linkage is demonstrated by the fossils, and by the genetic
similarities.
> If macro WERE true both sets of data
> would not be instantly mentioned as decisive evidence, rather, other
> data would be invoked with equal frequency.
Other data is 'invoked'. You seem to have ignored the mountain of
evidence that has been presented to you.
> Since there is only two
There are a great deal more than two sets of fossil evidence for
evolution.
=
> the reason why they are always mentioned.
As I've already mentioned, they are usually mentioned because they are
such good examples of evolution, that it's difficult to deny.
> Two sets of data postulated
> as proof of macro = falsified concept.
That's absurd. Even if it were true there were only two sets of data,
those two sets still are evidence for the concpet. The fact there is a
great deal more evidence than that is just gravy.
>
>
> > The principle evidence for evolution is the consistent
> > nested hierarchy of homologies
>
> Glued together by the ASSUMPTION of speciation/macroevolution,
Speciation has been observed, so it's not an assumption.
> while
> ignoring the monkey wrench of genetic homeostasis (one of many).
As has been pointed out to you many times now, genetic homeostasis is
not a barrier to speciation.
> Assumptions are not evidence,
Nor are your false assertions counter evidence.
>and in this case are driven by atheist
> needs.
So you claim, but many people who are not atheist accept the evidence
without a problem.
>
>
> > but there are plenty of fossils showing
> > transitions between "kinds" (quite a few straddle the boundaries
> > creationists want to draw between humans and other apes).
>
> We know there are none in the undisturbed fossil record.
again, Ray subsitutes "We know" for the reality of "I wish". Also,
Ray, what do you mean by "undisturbed fossil record"? Who has
"disturbed" this record, and how? One of the "none" that Ray keeps
avoiding is KNM WT-15000, aka "Turkana Boy", a fossil that neatly
straddles the line between "man" and "ape". Ray, for some reason,
won't discuss this fossil.
>The
> transitionals you cite are arranged by Darwinian hands according to the
> needs of the anti-Genesis worldview.
Do you have any evidence of this assertion? How have these fossils
been "arranged by Darwinian hands"? Paleoentologists are very careful
about establishing proper context for the fossils they find, as their
entire careers depend of correct dating of the fossils. You are making
some pretty serious charges, based on nothing but your own
misunderstanding of how science works.
>
>
>
> > Augray
> > brought up _Archaeopteryx_ as one example that is well-studied and
> > which he is prepared to discuss with you.
> >
>
> I don't have the time right now.
You seem to have the time to make false accusations about scientists.
If Arche were so poor evidence, it shouldn't take very long.....
> But lets say, for the sake of argument
> that what we see at face value = Darwinian transition. It is one and
> only one out of how many milllions of assumed like-so events. Where are
> ten more ? We have ONE.
You ask for "10 more"? As you wish:
Pakicetus (early whale, had four legs and lived on land)
Homo erectus ( transitional hominid, KNM WT 15000 is a member of the
species)
Ambulocetus natans (Early whale, had four legs, lived semi-aquatic
life)
Confuciornis ( bird/theropod transitional)
Austrailopithecus afarensis ( Early hominid)
Icthystega (Early amphibian, had many fish like features)
Protoarcheopteryx (early bird/theropod transitional)
Homo habilils ( hominid transitional)
Cynodictis ( possible common ancestor of dogs and bears)
Phlaocyon ( early raccoon ancestor)
And two more to make an even dozen..
Hipparon ( transitional horse species)
Pithanotaria ( early sea lion).
These, and many more can be found at:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2a.html#bat
>
> ONE means freak-show/aberration -
If there were only one, however there are thousands of more
transitional fossils, and 9 known specimens of just Archeopteryx.
For a small, fragile creature like Archae, that's a huge sample.
> hardly an amount of evidence for any
> objective person to even consider macro true from physical evidence.
Then what about all the other evidence? You keep ignoring the great
deal of genetic, anatomical, biostrategraphical, molecular, etc. etc...
evidence for evolution.
>
> > Note that 30 years ago, hardly any of the spectacular whale
> > transitionals like _Ambulocetus_ and _Pakicetus_ were unknown. I trust
> > you will not say that these species had never existed before their
> > discovery. Every year new fossil species come to light, and if there
> > are fossil species for which hundreds of specimens exist, there are
> > others known from a single fragmentary specimen.
> >
> > Even if we assume that every species must leave fossils (and we know
> > that the overwhelming majority of individuals don't become fossils),
> > there is no reason to suppose that every species that has been
> > fossilized has been dug up and described. Were you under the
> > impression that an exhaustive inventory of the Earth's crust has been
> > completed, or that a ten-thousandth part of such an inventory had been
> > completed?
>
> No such impression. It is a fact that the world has been frantically
> searched to confirm Darwin's (failed) prediction via well funded
> expeditions.
Actually, Darwin's prediction that intermediates would be found has
been fulfilled, and quite spectacularlly.
> Based on this big picture evaluation the primary physical
> observational evidence of the Earth's crust falsifies Darwinian
> gradualism theory IN ITS TRACKS.
except that the "observational evidence" of the Earth's crust confirms
Darwin's work. Even if Archae were the only transitional fossil
found, the genetic evidence alone is strong enough to support
evolution. That we have an abundance of fossil evidence is a bonus.
> Science bases its conclusions on
> available evidence (as you know).
Since the available evidence supports evolution, it's no wonder that
science has concluded that evolution is a fact.
> Presently, and since the 19th
> century, geological strata does not even remotely support what
> Darwinian theory necessitates: intermediacy.
Sorry, your assertion fails, due to lack of connection with reality.
> My forth-coming work
> evidences and explains why Scientism special pleads the preceding facts
> and acts like nothing is wrong contrary to the damning geological
> evidence of no transitioning going on.
You mean your "forthcoming work" with the enormous logical holes?
How can one base one's religious beliefs on evidence, if, as you claim,
seeking evidence triggers a "penalty" for doubting God?
>
> Show me Darwin's prediction in the undisturbed fossil record and I will
> throw my Bible in the trash can.
If you had faith in God, that would hardly be necessary. What do you
mean by 'undisturbed' fossil record. What evidence do you have of it
being "disturbed"?
> In the meantime your theory is in the
> trash can while its "success" (contrary to the evidence) can only be
> explained by the Biblical penalty of mind-darkening for denying God
> Creator credit.
Or, more likely it can be explained by the fact that you are either
unaware of the wealth of evidence that supports the theory, or are
deliberately turing a blind eye away from that evidence. Since many
scientists are Christians, and who unhesitatingly do give God credit
for creating by use of evolutionary means, any claims of a "mind
darkening penalty" are falsified. Furthermore, you yourself claim to
believe due to the evidence, whereas seeking evidence would, in your
cliams, trigger that exact penalty you claim others suffer from.
Care to deal with that contradiction?
> > > By the way: we both know there is no evidence of bat evolution because
> > > creatures with sonar were Designed.
> > >
> > Is your contention that whales were not designed (since there is
> > considerable evidence for their evolution, from fossil whales with
> > hooves to shared pseudogenes and endogenous retroviruses between whales
> > and artiodactyls), or that whales do not have sonar?
> > >
> > > Ray
> >
> > -- Steven J.
>
> Your last comment escapes my understanding - sorry.
At last, Ray speaks truthfully. All of Steven's comments escape Ray's
understanding.
DJT
unrestra...@hotmail.com
Ray Martinez wrote:
<snip Glen laying it on the line>
> > So it's useful to see gibbering idiot Ray gawping at the mention of
> > actual evidence of the evolution of whales. Such gross stupidity is an
> > affront to the potential of all human brains, and if there is a God,
> > surely it is an affront to Him.
> >
> > Respect for the mind, the brain, is what it's all about, and I have yet
> > to see an IDist or creationist who did respect intellect.
> >
> > Glen Davidson
> > http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm
>
> Atheist rant wholly dependant upon insult of "stupid, liar, moron,
> ignorance, etc.etc."
Most of us don't don't, most of the time, but some people can be
exceedingly tiresome. I sympathize with Glen; I lose it sometimes, too.
I am baffled and appalled by people who refuse to learn anything. When
they combine it with hostility and insults, dismissing those who spend
decades doing real learning or teaching, it is difficult to be patient.
I suppose you *do hear your fair share of this.
>
> Because you are a Darwinist, that is a person who believes in the
> fairytale of common ancestry/apes morphing into men
See, this is where you're confused. Species change over time; no
*organism morphs.
> and other assorted
> nonsense your insults are a compliment since your approval would
> support how wrong I really am.
I guess that for some people, insisting that one is proven correct if
everybody else tells him otherwise, is reassuring.
But you have never explained what one is supposed to say when they meet
somebody who is obviously, provably, and embarrassingly wrong.
What explanation do you have for the human plantaris tendon?
>
> Ray
Bobby D. Bryant
> We know there are none in the undisturbed fossil record. The
> transitionals you cite are arranged by Darwinian hands according to
> the needs of the anti-Genesis worldview.
IOW, the mere fact of discovering evidence rules it inadmissable. The
only evidence Ray will accept is evidence you don't have.
> Your last comment escapes my understanding
What's your excuse for all his other statements?
DJT
Ray Martinez wrote:
snipping
> > Respect for the mind, the brain, is what it's all about, and I have yet
> > to see an IDist or creationist who did respect intellect.
> >
> > Glen Davidson
> > http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm
>
> Atheist rant wholly dependant upon insult of "stupid, liar, moron,
> ignorance, etc.etc."
What evidence do you have that Glen is an atheist? Even if he is, why
aren't his comments valid?
>
> Because you are a Darwinist, that is a person who believes in the
> fairytale of common ancestry/apes morphing into men
Ray, humans are still apes, they haven't "morphed" into anything else.
>and other assorted
> nonsense
Ray, in all this time, you have loudly asserted that evolution is
"nonsense", but you haven't presented any reason to suspect the theory
is nonsensical. Evolution has been observed happening in real time,
by careful observers. There is a mountian of physical evidence to
support the theory. Research programs which use evolutionary
algorhythms have reaped huge monetary benefits for many different
industries.
How can you say an acceptance of evolution is 'nonsense', when it's
such a clearly successful theory?
>your insults are a compliment since your approval would
> support how wrong I really am.
Why doesn't your mistakes, and inability to see your own errors support
how really wrong you are? Making up some twisted reasoning to escape
criticizism doesn't help you face your disconnect with reality.
DJT
Elmer
> (snip)
> When Archaeopteryx is invoked it is because it is the singular specimen
> that aberrationally shows Darwinian transitionality.
So, you obviously have no acquaintence with fossils. Try the "Treatise
on Invertebrate Paleontology" for more information:
Augray
wrote:
>Steven J. wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>> > Augray wrote:
>> > > On 14 Mar 2006 16:22:18 -0800, "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > snip]
>> > >
>> > > >Eldredge's latest book about Darwin's transmutation notebooks (which I
>> > > >have read) voluminously admits the fossil record shows no signs of the
>> > > >evidence that gradualism necessitates: transitional.
>> > >
>> > > Ray, as I have pointed out before, Archaeopteryx is an excellent
>> > > example of a transitional form. I'd challenge you to debate that, but
>> > > we both know that you'd run.
>> > >
>> >
>> > One specimen touted as decisive proof that macroevolution is true. Yet
>> > untold millions of species have existed = delusional needs of atheism.
>> > If macro were true the crust of the Earth would plainly reflect and
>> > excuse theories like PE would be uneeded.
>> >
>> Augray did not state that any single fossil was "decisive proof" of
>> anything.
>
>When Archaeopteryx is invoked it is because it is the singular specimen
>that aberrationally shows Darwinian transitionality.
Gee Ray, what about the list I gave in
news:tq3g125rtrot6o8hf...@4ax.com ? There were 70
examples there.
>There is also the
>horse sequence. You guys have two and only two out of millions = macro
>refuted in geological strata/physical observational evidence. We also
>know the horse sequence is highly exaggerated in that the actual amount
>of mounted skeletons is embarrassingly low
You don't have to mount skeletons to study them.
>and the foundational problem
>still exists: linkage is assumed.
No more than gravity is assumed to steer the planets.
>If macro WERE true both sets of data
>would not be instantly mentioned as decisive evidence, rather, other
>data would be invoked with equal frequency.
There's genetic, embryological, and geographical distribution data
too. *I* only mention Archaeopteryx because I assume you're familiar
with it. I don't want to drown you with evidence.
>Since there is only two =
>the reason why they are always mentioned. Two sets of data postulated
>as proof of macro = falsified concept.
These two seem to be the most popular ones. I'd ask you what
particular sequence you're interested in, but we both know that you're
not interested.
>> The principle evidence for evolution is the consistent
>> nested hierarchy of homologies
>
>Glued together by the ASSUMPTION of speciation/macroevolution, while
>ignoring the monkey wrench of genetic homeostasis (one of many).
>Assumptions are not evidence, and in this case are driven by atheist
>needs.
"Speciation/macroevolution" isn't an assumption, but a conclusion.
>> but there are plenty of fossils showing
>> transitions between "kinds" (quite a few straddle the boundaries
>> creationists want to draw between humans and other apes).
>
>We know there are none in the undisturbed fossil record. The
>transitionals you cite are arranged by Darwinian hands according to the
>needs of the anti-Genesis worldview.
If this is true, you should have no problem demonstrating it.
>> Augray
>> brought up _Archaeopteryx_ as one example that is well-studied and
>> which he is prepared to discuss with you.
>>
>
>I don't have the time right now.
Does that mean you will in the future?
>But lets say, for the sake of argument
>that what we see at face value = Darwinian transition. It is one and
>only one out of how many milllions of assumed like-so events. Where are
>ten more ? We have ONE.
I listed 70 in news:tq3g125rtrot6o8hf...@4ax.com
>ONE means freak-show/aberration - hardly an amount of evidence for any
>objective person to even consider macro true from physical evidence.
>
>> Note that 30 years ago, hardly any of the spectacular whale
>> transitionals like _Ambulocetus_ and _Pakicetus_ were unknown. I trust
>> you will not say that these species had never existed before their
>> discovery. Every year new fossil species come to light, and if there
>> are fossil species for which hundreds of specimens exist, there are
>> others known from a single fragmentary specimen.
>>
>> Even if we assume that every species must leave fossils (and we know
>> that the overwhelming majority of individuals don't become fossils),
>> there is no reason to suppose that every species that has been
>> fossilized has been dug up and described. Were you under the
>> impression that an exhaustive inventory of the Earth's crust has been
>> completed, or that a ten-thousandth part of such an inventory had been
>> completed?
>
>No such impression. It is a fact that the world has been frantically
>searched to confirm Darwin's (failed) prediction via well funded
>expeditions. Based on this big picture evaluation the primary physical
>observational evidence of the Earth's crust falsifies Darwinian
>gradualism theory IN ITS TRACKS.
Have you read that paper on bat evolution yet?
>Science bases its conclusions on
>available evidence (as you know). Presently, and since the 19th
>century, geological strata does not even remotely support what
>Darwinian theory necessitates: intermediacy.
Why doesn't the reptile-bird sequence support intermediacy?
>My forth-coming work
>evidences and explains why Scientism special pleads the preceding facts
>and acts like nothing is wrong contrary to the damning geological
>evidence of no transitioning going on.
>
>Show me Darwin's prediction in the undisturbed fossil record and I will
>throw my Bible in the trash can.
I'd rather you trash your personal interpretation of the Bible.
>In the meantime your theory is in the
>trash can while its "success" (contrary to the evidence) can only be
>explained by the Biblical penalty of mind-darkening for denying God
>Creator credit.
A penalty you've made up.
Desertphile
> Ray Martinez wrote:
> > We also know the horse sequence is highly exaggerated in that
> > the actual amount of mounted skeletons is embarrassingly low
Anyone caught mounting a skeleton should probably be put on the Sex
Offenders List.
> True: mounted skeletons on fossil horses are practically nonexistent in
> the fossil record, although they would be _awesome_.
Complete with fossil spurs and fossil cowboy hat. Yeeeehaw!
> -- w
Desertphile
> When Archaeopteryx is invoked it is because it is the singular specimen
> that aberrationally shows Darwinian transitionality. There is also the
> horse sequence. You guys have two and only two out of millions = macro
> refuted in geological strata/physical observational evidence. We also
> know the horse sequence is highly exaggerated in that the actual amount
> of mounted skeletons is embarrassingly low and the foundational problem
Ray just keeps getting weirder and weirder. I would send over a
deprogrammer or two to help him regain what is left of his sanity but I
fear it is too late.
As for the "embarrassingly low" number of fossils (which is pure 100%
unallowed BULLSHIT), I dig up dinosaur fossils damn near every time I
plant a fence post here in northern New Mexico; there are not enough
university volunteers, nor enough money, to dig them up and haul them
away into some museum basement to be forgotten for the next 100 years.
Perhaps Ray "Psycho" Martinez would like to donate the money to pay for
more fossils to be dug out of the ground, cleaned, classified, and
displayed in some museum. Perhaps he will put his wallet where his anus
is (from which he speaks) and fork over the dough since he's bitching
and complaining.
Desertphile
> Because you are a Darwinist, that is a person who believes in the
What the fuck is a "Darwinist?"
Steven J.
Ray Martinez wrote:
> Steven J. wrote:
> > Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > Augray wrote:
> > > > On 14 Mar 2006 16:22:18 -0800, "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > snip]
> > > >
> > > > >Eldredge's latest book about Darwin's transmutation notebooks (which I
> > > > >have read) voluminously admits the fossil record shows no signs of the
> > > > >evidence that gradualism necessitates: transitional.
> > > >
> > > > Ray, as I have pointed out before, Archaeopteryx is an excellent
> > > > example of a transitional form. I'd challenge you to debate that, but
> > > > we both know that you'd run.
> > > >
> > >
> > > One specimen touted as decisive proof that macroevolution is true. Yet
> > > untold millions of species have existed = delusional needs of atheism.
> > > If macro were true the crust of the Earth would plainly reflect and
> > > excuse theories like PE would be uneeded.
> > >
> > Augray did not state that any single fossil was "decisive proof" of
> > anything.
>
> When Archaeopteryx is invoked it is because it is the singular specimen
> that aberrationally shows Darwinian transitionality. There is also the
> horse sequence. You guys have two and only two out of millions = macro
> refuted in geological strata/physical observational evidence.
>
_Ichthyornis_, _Microraptor_, _Caudipteryx_, and a few others. That's
just for the dino-bird transitions, of course. Then there are
_Pakicetus_, _Ambulocetus_, _Dorudon_, and several others for the
artiodactyl-whale transition. Then there are all the other fossils and
sequences of fossils catalogued in the talk.origins transitional fossil
archive:
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html>
>
> We also
> know the horse sequence is highly exaggerated in that the actual amount
> of mounted skeletons is embarrassingly low and the foundational problem
> still exists: linkage is assumed.
>
Johnson's argument: evolutionists illegitimately assume that evidence
actually means something. That is, you argue both that there is no
evidence, and even if there is, that is no reason to believe the
proposition it's evidence for.
>
> If macro WERE true both sets of data
> would not be instantly mentioned as decisive evidence, rather, other
> data would be invoked with equal frequency. Since there is only two =
> the reason why they are always mentioned. Two sets of data postulated
> as proof of macro = falsified concept.
>
paleontologists. The evidence that is best known, or most spectacular,
gets mentioned most often because you are dealing with laymen, not
specialists, so you get the facts they can recall off the top of their
head or find readily at hand.
>
> > The principle evidence for evolution is the consistent
> > nested hierarchy of homologies
>
> Glued together by the ASSUMPTION of speciation/macroevolution, while
> ignoring the monkey wrench of genetic homeostasis (one of many).
> Assumptions are not evidence, and in this case are driven by atheist
> needs.
>
have been told, but understanding is not your strong suit) is a barrier
to any sort of evolutionary change, including microevolution, but since
microevolution and even speciation routinely occur, obviously it isn't
an insurmountable barrier. And if it can't work as a barrier to micro
evolution, only magic could make it work as a barrier to
macro-evolution.
We routinely use shared homologies as evidence of common descent: it is
the basis of paternity tests, and it is the basis of those cases of
common descent (e.g. the "horse kind," or the "cat kind," or, indeed,
the "human kind") accepted by creationists. The evidence for common
descent within these vaguely-defined "kinds," however, also indicates
that the "kinds" themselves are related to one another by common
descent.
By the way, genetic homeostasis is not a monkeywrench; it is not any
sort of hardware at all. You have committed a metaphor, even though
you are a creationist. Shame on you, you scoundrel!
>
> > but there are plenty of fossils showing
> > transitions between "kinds" (quite a few straddle the boundaries
> > creationists want to draw between humans and other apes).
>
> We know there are none in the undisturbed fossil record. The
> transitionals you cite are arranged by Darwinian hands according to the
> needs of the anti-Genesis worldview.
>
I believe you are accusing fossil preparators of fraud (or of really
gross incompetence, at least). This accusation would constitute libel,
if anyone took you seriously.
>
> > Augray
> > brought up _Archaeopteryx_ as one example that is well-studied and
> > which he is prepared to discuss with you.
> >
>
> I don't have the time right now. But lets say, for the sake of argument
> that what we see at face value = Darwinian transition. It is one and
> only one out of how many milllions of assumed like-so events. Where are
> ten more ? We have ONE.
>
This, from the man who, asked to defend the historical accuracy of the
Bible, can cite nothing except the Great Pyramid (of which there is
only one, and which no competent archaeologist interprets the way you
do)? If you state that there are no transitions between "kinds," the
existence of even one is a falsification of your views.
>
> ONE means freak-show/aberration - hardly an amount of evidence for any
> objective person to even consider macro true from physical evidence.
>
You're repeating yourself. Aside from the many other transitional
fossils, there is a great deal of evidence for common descent that does
not depend on fossils: take, for another oft-quoted (but hardly unique)
example, the shared GULO pseudogenes in humans and other primates.
>
> > Note that 30 years ago, hardly any of the spectacular whale
> > transitionals like _Ambulocetus_ and _Pakicetus_ were unknown. I trust
> > you will not say that these species had never existed before their
> > discovery. Every year new fossil species come to light, and if there
> > are fossil species for which hundreds of specimens exist, there are
> > others known from a single fragmentary specimen.
> >
> > Even if we assume that every species must leave fossils (and we know
> > that the overwhelming majority of individuals don't become fossils),
> > there is no reason to suppose that every species that has been
> > fossilized has been dug up and described. Were you under the
> > impression that an exhaustive inventory of the Earth's crust has been
> > completed, or that a ten-thousandth part of such an inventory had been
> > completed?
>
> No such impression. It is a fact that the world has been frantically
> searched to confirm Darwin's (failed) prediction via well funded
> expeditions. Based on this big picture evaluation the primary physical
> observational evidence of the Earth's crust falsifies Darwinian
> gradualism theory IN ITS TRACKS. Science bases its conclusions on
> available evidence (as you know). Presently, and since the 19th
> century, geological strata does not even remotely support what
> Darwinian theory necessitates: intermediacy. My forth-coming work
> evidences and explains why Scientism special pleads the preceding facts
> and acts like nothing is wrong contrary to the damning geological
> evidence of no transitioning going on.
>
As near as I can figure out, you are shutting your eyes, sticking your
fingers in your ears, and chanting "Nyah, nyah, nyah, I can't hear
you!" And perhaps you cannot, but your deafness does not make the
evidence go away, or give greater weight to your ignorant assertions.
>
> Show me Darwin's prediction in the undisturbed fossil record and I will
> throw my Bible in the trash can. In the meantime your theory is in the
> trash can while its "success" (contrary to the evidence) can only be
> explained by the Biblical penalty of mind-darkening for denying God
> Creator credit.
>
First of all, it is rather difficult to study or display fossils
without disturbing them. I mean, there are uncounted millions of
fossils out in the badlands of the American West, but they're mostly
buried underground where it's hard to show them to anyone.
Second, Theodosius Dobzhansky accepted evolution, and did not throw his
Bible in the trash can. The same holds for a host of more recent
evolutionists. On the other hand, as I've pointed out to Grendel,
Gerardus Bouw holds that evidence that the Earth really orbits the sun
would be sufficient grounds for you to throw your Bible in the trash
can. So your position seems arbitrary and untenable to me.
>
> > >
> > > By the way: we both know there is no evidence of bat evolution because
> > > creatures with sonar were Designed.
> > >
> > Is your contention that whales were not designed (since there is
> > considerable evidence for their evolution, from fossil whales with
> > hooves to shared pseudogenes and endogenous retroviruses between whales
> > and artiodactyls), or that whales do not have sonar?
> > >
> > > Ray
> >
> > -- Steven J.
>
> Your last comment escapes my understanding - sorry.
>
There are transitional fossils showing whale evolution from land
mammals.
There is non-fossil (DNA) evidence showing that whales share common
ancestors with hippos and other artiodactyls.
Some whales have sonar.
You said that there is no evidence for bat evolution, because creatures
with sonar were designed.
These statements, taken together, imply either that in fact no whales
have sonar, or that whales (because there is evidence for their
evolution) must not have been designed.
>
> Ray
-- Steven J.
SeppoP
Letter to a taxidermist:
"
I received your letter where you asked if I want my two hunting dogs that I accidentally shot, mounted.
No, just put them side by side, as they were just good friends.
"
--
Seppo P.
What's wrong with Theocracy? (a Finnish Taliban, Oct 1, 2005)
VoiceOfReason
DJT wrote:
> Ray Martinez wrote:
> snipping
>
> > > Respect for the mind, the brain, is what it's all about, and I have yet
> > > to see an IDist or creationist who did respect intellect.
> > >
> > > Glen Davidson
> > > http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm
> >
> > Atheist rant wholly dependant upon insult of "stupid, liar, moron,
> > ignorance, etc.etc."
>
> What evidence do you have that Glen is an atheist? Even if he is, why
> aren't his comments valid?
I notice that Ray, JistGren and a couple other do this fairly
regularly. In their world, to call someone an atheist is the greatest
insult of all time. They don't realize that to the rest of the world,
it's the equivalent of calling someone a poopiehead.
Glend
Pig-ignorant dumbass. If I could discuss things with you, I would.
But people have explained things to you, and you say the same moronic,
dumbfuck bullshit every time. You never learn, you're a complete waste
of food, air, and light.
>
> Because you are a Darwinist, that is a person who believes in the
> fairytale of common ancestry/apes morphing into men and other assorted
> nonsense your insults are a compliment since your approval would
> support how wrong I really am.
Why can't you ever come up with the slightest amount of evidence for
your lies? You're an affront to God.
>
> Ray
Richard Clayton
Actually, I provided several examples of transitional fossils in our
little debate. You know, the one you ran away from?
[snip]
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"During wars laws are silent." -- Cicero
Earle Jones
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Wesley R. Elsberry wrote:
> > Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html
> > >
> > > "There are few components of modern evolutionary theory which seem so
> > > prone to misinterpretation as Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould's
> > > theory of punctuated equilibria (PE for short). In this matter, the
> > > person attempting to come to a better understanding of punctuated
> > > equilibria will find that he or she may be hampered by the popular
> > > writings of those same authors rather than helped."
> >
> > Completing the quote:
> >
> > As in most cases, the primary literature remains the best source of
> > information.
> >
>
> I have already pointed out to another person in this thread, the
> completed quote portion omitted by myself is reinforcement of the
> previous thought. The innuendo of quote mine fails and is an attempt to
> undermine and deflect away from valid criticism....
*
That's a blatant lie. You consciously removed the bottom line to
attempt to reinforce your ignorant beliefs.
And when is your famous paper going to be published?
earle
*
Earle Jones
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Augray wrote:
> > On 14 Mar 2006 16:22:18 -0800, "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > snip]
> >
> > >Eldredge's latest book about Darwin's transmutation notebooks (which I
> > >have read) voluminously admits the fossil record shows no signs of the
> > >evidence that gradualism necessitates: transitional.
> >
> > Ray, as I have pointed out before, Archaeopteryx is an excellent
> > example of a transitional form. I'd challenge you to debate that, but
> > we both know that you'd run.
> >
>
> One specimen touted as decisive proof that macroevolution is true. Yet
> untold millions of species have existed = delusional needs of atheism.
> If macro were true the crust of the Earth would plainly reflect and
> excuse theories like PE would be uneeded.
>
> By the way: we both know there is no evidence of bat evolution because
> creatures with sonar were Designed.
>
> Ray
*
And Designed with a capital 'D'.
Of course, by Him, with a capital 'H'.
earle
*
Earle Jones
Nick Roberts <tig...@orpheusinternet.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <1142382138.7...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
> "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Wesley R. Elsberry wrote:
> > > Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html
> > > >
> > > > "There are few components of modern evolutionary theory which
> > > > seem so prone to misinterpretation as Niles Eldredge and Stephen
> > > > Jay Gould's theory of punctuated equilibria (PE for short). In
> > > > this matter, the person attempting to come to a better
> > > > understanding of punctuated equilibria will find that he or she
> > > > may be hampered by the popular writings of those same authors
> > > > rather than helped."
> > >
> > > Completing the quote:
> > >
> > > As in most cases, the primary literature remains the best source of
> > > information.
> > >
> >
> > I have already pointed out to another person in this thread, the
> > completed quote portion omitted by myself is reinforcement of the
> > previous thought. The innuendo of quote mine fails and is an attempt
> > to undermine and deflect away from valid criticism.
>
> And in other news, Ray proceeds to prove that black is white and is
> killed on the next pedestrian crossing.
*
I suspect that Ray is a Jesuit and is following the dictates of his
leader, the founder of the Society of Jesus, Saint Ignatius Loyola:
"We should always be disposed to believe that that which appears
to us to be white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so
decides."
--St. Ignatius Loyola
earle
*
Earle Jones
Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> On 14 Mar 2006 20:53:32 -0800, "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Augray wrote:
> >> On 14 Mar 2006 16:22:18 -0800, "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> snip]
> >>
> >> >Eldredge's latest book about Darwin's transmutation notebooks (which I
> >> >have read) voluminously admits the fossil record shows no signs of the
> >> >evidence that gradualism necessitates: transitional.
> >>
> >> Ray, as I have pointed out before, Archaeopteryx is an excellent
> >> example of a transitional form. I'd challenge you to debate that, but
> >> we both know that you'd run.
> >>
> >
> >One specimen touted as decisive proof that macroevolution is true.
>
> Actually, there are nine specimens of Archaeopteryx (not counting the
> single feather). And I'd be quite happy to discuss Aberratiodontus,
> Ambiortus, Apsaravis, Archaeornithoides, Bambiraptor, Boluochia,
> Cathayornis, Caudipteryx, Chaoyangia, Coelophysis, Compsognathus,
> Concornis, Confuciusornis, Cryptovolans, Dilong, Enantiornis,
> Eoalulavis, Eocathayornis, Eoenantiornis, Eoraptor, Epidendrosaurus,
> Euparkeria, Gansus, Gobipteryx, Guildavis, Gurilynia, Halimornis,
> Herrerasaurus, Hesperornis, Hongshanornis, Iberomesornis, Ichthyornis,
> Jeholornis, Jibeinia, Jixiangornis, Lagerpeton, Lagosuchus, Lectavis,
> Liaoningornis, Liaoxiornis, Longipteryx, Longirostravis, Microraptor,
> Nanantius, Neuquenornis, Noguerornis, Ornitholestes, Otogornis,
> Patagopteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Protopteryx, Rahonavis, Sapeornis,
> Scansoriopteryx, Scleromochlus, Shenzhouraptor, Shuuvuia, Sinornis,
> Sinornithosaurus, Sinosauropteryx, Sinovenator, Songlingornis,
> Troodon, Unenlagia, Velociraptor, Vescornis, Vorona, Yanornis,
> Yixianornis, or Yungavolucris with you as well.
>
>
> >Yet
> >untold millions of species have existed = delusional needs of atheism.
>
> Of course, no one claims that the fossil record will capture very
> nuance of evolutionary history either, and birds are notoriously
> scarce in the fossil record because of the environments they inhabit
> while alive, and the fragility of their skeletons. Even so, we know a
> good deal about their evolutionary history, and I'd be happy to debate
> you on that.
>
> I've very confident in my position. Can you say the same about yours?
*
You are very confident in your position.
Ray is 'certain' in his.
That's the difference.
earle
*
"Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd."
--Francois Marie Arouet "Voltaire"(1694-1778)
"For those who need the amniotic warmth of certainty,
dogma is the proper womb."
--Ray Ginger, Six Days or Forever, 1958
(the story of the Scopes trial)
"The strength of science is that it can be wrong;
The weakness of religion is that it cannot be wrong."
--Earle D. Jones
Augray
<earle...@comcast.net> wrote:
>In article <tq3g125rtrot6o8hf...@4ax.com>,
> Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
[snip]
>> I've very confident in my position. Can you say the same about yours?
>
>*
>You are very confident in your position.
>
>Ray is 'certain' in his.
>
>That's the difference.
It's a strange certainty that doesn't breed confidence.