On 3/5/14, 8:54 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 6:59:27 PM UTC-8, Dana Tweedy wrote:
>> On 3/5/14, 6:33 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 4:44:16 PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:
>>
>>>> As advertised in the title, I'm starting a new thread on Stephen Meyer's
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> book by reposting old material, the incomplete review I wrote when the
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> book was new. Just in case anyone still wants to discuss Meyer's ideas.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> First, a take on the whole book that I don't recall seeing in other reviews:
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> I've finished reading the book, and to my surprise it turns out not to
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> be about the Cambrian explosion at all. Sure, the first few chapters
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> are, but they and the explosion they discuss are irrelevant to the main
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> point, which is that any significant amount of evolution is impossible.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> [Second reply; first was deleted due to error----R.M.]
>>
>>
>>
>> Your first post is still there, Ray. Deleting it on Google Groups
>>
>> doesn't make it disappear.
>>
>
> According to Google Groups, it was deleted.
Google Groups is not USENET. It's still visible on any proper
newsreader.
> You can confirm by logging on to Google Groups Talk.Origins. When one views this topic a separate line in the form of a long rectangle appears where the message once was, in the center it says "This message has been deleted." Above and below this long rectangular box are other messages.
>
> I won't be derailing this thread with anymore comments about this matter.
In other words, you won't admit your error.
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> So you understand Meyer as accepting the concept of evolution, defined as species and environment producing new species,
>>>
>>
>>
>> Ray, that is not how evolution is defined. What you are referring to is
>>
>> common descent. Evolution is defined as change in allele frequencies in
>>
>> populations over generations. This has been observed repeatedly, and
>>
>> cannot be denied without looking extremely foolish.
>>
>
> Your reply indicates that you don't understand what "concept of evolution" means.
On the contrary, I do understand what the "concept of evolution"
actually is.
> It was defined as "species and environment producing new species."
That definition is flawed on many levels. "Species and environment
producing new species" does not accurately describe evolution, and how
it works. It's merely an indication of your own ignorance on the matter.
> Said definition doesn't say anything about allele change definition
Which is why it's wrong.
> ----that's why a definition was provided.
That's the definition scientists actually use. That's why I mentioned
it. See:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Scientific+theory+of+evolution
3. Biology
a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive
generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic
variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new
species.
http://ncse.com/rncse/21/1-2/defining-evolution
"The "allele-frequency" definition of evolution has survived to become
the "standard" definition in textbooks and discussions about the nature
of evolution."
More from the above link:
Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations
of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The
ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual
organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered
evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material
from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or
substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the
proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those
determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the
earliest proto-organism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions
(Futuyma 1986: 7).
[E]volution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency
of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next (Curtis
and Barnes 1989: 974).
The fundamental evolutionary event is a change in the frequency of
genes and chromosome configurations in a population (Wilson 1992: 75).
On the simplest perspective of all, biological evolution is
analyzed initially as changes in allelic frequencies at a single locus.
More complicated phenomena must be explained by means of combinations of
these minimal units (Hull 1992: 185).
Natural selection deals with frequency changes brought about by
differences in ecology among heritable phenotypes; evolution includes
this as well as random effects and the origin of these variants (Endler
1992: 221).
Since evolution may be defined as cumulative change in the genetic
makeup of a population resulting in increased adaptation to the
environment, the fundamental process in evolution is change in allele
frequency (Hartl 1988: 69).
Organic ... evolution, or biological evolution, is a change over
time of the proportions of individual organisms differing genetically in
one or more traits; such changes transpire by the origin and subsequent
alteration of the frequencies of alleles or genotypes from generation to
generation within populations, by the alterations of the proportions of
genetically differentiated populations of a species, or by changes in
the numbers of species with different characteristics, thereby altering
the frequency of one or more traits within a higher taxon (Futuyma 1986:
551).
Would you like to provide a single citation for your definition?
> Your assumption that what I said has anything to do with allele change definition is groundless.
I did not assume any such thing. What you said was mistaken, and I was
correcting your mistake.
The real definition of evolution is allele change in populations over
generations, whether you like it, or not. What you said was wrong, and
I was providing a correction.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> existing in nature?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> As pointed out many times already, concepts only exist within minds.
>>
>> The fact of common descent has been repeatedly observed in nature.
>>
>
> Your understanding of "concepts" is completely faulty.
Wrong again, Ray. A concept is an abstract idea, not something that
exists in nature, or anywhere else.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/concept
con·cept
[kon-sept] Show IPA
noun
1.
a general notion or idea; conception.
2.
an idea of something formed by mentally combining all its
characteristics or particulars; a construct.
3.
a directly conceived or intuited object of thought.
> Scientifically, the concept of "conceptual" conveys the widest application of a non-fictitious noun.
No, the "concept" of "concept" is that it's an idea, an abstraction.
Fictitious, or not is irrelevant. Concepts may apply to real, or
unreal things, but the concept itself is always abstract.
Please provide a single reference to any scientist who uses the word the
way you claim.
> It presupposes existence----wide or varied existence.
Wrong again, Ray. Concepts often apply to unreal, or imagined things.
See the definition above. Nothing there about "wide or varied
existence".
>
> For example; the concept of table: flat surface supported by legs.
And the "concept" of a table also applies to King Arthur's Round Table,
to a Table of Contents, or a Water Table. A mountain with a flat top
is called a "mesa", Spanish for Table.
>
> The surface and legs can be found in many different shapes and sizes.
and some things called tables don't have legs, or any kind of surface.
So, the "concept" of table goes beyond the real, and into abstractions.
The material thing, in whatever shape or size, existed first, then the
noun, which represents the concept, came into use to describe the thing
known as "a table."
and as I've pointed out above, a table may, or may not be a physical
thing. Are multiplication tables a surface with legs? Are "Round
Table Talks" a surface with legs?
another example is a LASER. (Light Amplifcation by Stimulated Emission
of Radiation) The concept of the laser existed long before one was
actually built.
Face it, Ray, you don't really understand what the word "concept"
conveys.
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> But extent is limited, broken, or continually interrupted?
>>
>>>
>>
>>> If the questions above can be answered in the affirmative, then the real issue with Meyer's view of evolution, contrasted against the accepted view of evolution, is his rejection of the logic of cumulative selection, and common descent?
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Ray
>>
>>
>>
>> Myer's view of evolution is to deny it, except for when it's too obvious
>>
>> to deny without looking foolish. His position is the same as yours,
>>
>> except you deny evolution when it is too obvious to deny without looking
>>
>> foolish.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> DJT
>
> Your comment isn't helpful at all.
It's not meant to be "helpful" to you. (It could be helpful, if you'd
actually bother to learn) It's meant to point out your errors, and
hopefully lead others to avoid your mistakes.
Myer denies evolution for religious reasons, just as you do. He's
slightly more honest about it, as he recognizes that some amount of
evolution is far too strongly supported to deny.
DJT