Can any evolutionist produce the "overwhelming" evidence of evolutionary transformism?

[T Pagano]

Can any evolutionist produce the "overwhelming" evidence of
evolutionary transformism necessary to explain biological diversity?

I will respond to all claimants once, so make your first post the
best. Typically 95 percent of the replies are childish. The demand
is for physical evidence, NOT story telling.

Regards,
T Pagano

[Ernest Major]

In message <apagano-0ksb87pkab0o0...@4ax.com>, T
Pagano <not....@address.net> writes

>Can any evolutionist produce the "overwhelming" evidence of
>evolutionary transformism necessary to explain biological diversity?

You don't appear to have defined "evolutionary transformism". If you are
interested in the overwhelming evidence for common descent with
modification through the agency of natural selection and other
processes, you are unreasonably optimistic in expected to receive it in
this thread - you're asking people to give you an undergraduate course
in a single post. (I was tempted to ask if you had you got a spare
decade to receive the overwhelming evidence)?

To start the evidence, there's about 300 billion base pairs of DNA data
in GenBank, and more elsewhere. To which you could add the whole
scientific literature on comparative morphological studies, and the
fossil record, and more besides.

>
>I will respond to all claimants once, so make your first post the
>best. Typically 95 percent of the replies are childish. The demand
>is for physical evidence, NOT story telling.
>
>Regards,
>T Pagano
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 12:57:38 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <not....@address.net>:

<snip the usual Tony straw challenge, complete with
undefined terms he can use to weasel out of any serious
response>

Now that that's out of the way you can address the questions
you keep trying to avoid...

1) Where did I claim to be an atheist, or post information
showing that I'm an atheist, as you contend I am?
2) Did the Noachian Flood occur *as described in the Bible*?
3) How do multiple geostationary satellites each hang over a
different single point above a non-rotating Earth?

Run away! Run away!
--

Bob C.

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

[Robert Camp]

(The following is not offered in an attempt to beget a reply from you.
I am not interested in provoking your juvenile narcissism. It is
simply an answer to the question in your header. If you cannot
restrain instincts to jabber mindlessly about conspiracy or atheism or
inductive insufficiencies then please do us and yourself a favor by
not responding at all.)

Go here - http://tolweb.org/tree/

- "The Tree of Life Web Project is an online database that compiles
information about biodiversity and the evolutionary relationships of
all organisms. Content for the project is compiled collaboratively by
hundreds of biologists and amateur contributors from all over the
world. The project is non-profit, funded by the U. S. National Science
Foundation and the University of Arizona. All of our services are free
and open to the public."

Such a thing would not be possible were it not for the extraordinary
quantity and consilience of evidence available for common descent
(http://tolweb.org/tree/home.pages/growth.html). There are broad
patterns of relatedness found throughout the catalog of life on earth
that cannot be better explained than by evolutionary theory.

RLC

[John Harshman]

Instead of starting new challenges, why not finish your old challenges
first? There are many awaiting your reply. The problem with responding
once is that your single response usually is no relevant response at
all, but by the time people point that out, you're gone already. This is
why you're known as Brave Sir Tony. Doesn't that well-deserved
reputation bother you just a little?

[Mark Isaak]

If you are looking for one single item that someone can plop on your
desk, let you look over, and render your verdict, you are misguided.
The evidence for evolution comes from many diverse observations and
experiments -- hundreds of thousands of them at least -- from all over
the world. It is the fact that all of these bits of evidence point at
the same thing that makes the evidence as a whole overwhelming. Here
are just a handful of types of evidence:

1. Life forms show, outwardly, a nested hierarchy pattern. For example,
all ladybugs are beetles, all beetles are insect, all insects are
arthropods, etc. You can verify this yourself by taking a close look at
a thousand or more different species in some moderately sized group (I
have done it with flies) and seeing how they arrange.

This pattern comes from common descent (or deliberate mimicry of it),
and from no other known cause. It does not say anything about the
mechanism, but it does indicate evolutionary change.

2. The same nested hierarchy pattern exists in species' genetic code.
You can verify this yourself (as I have done) by looking at gene
sequences from www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov and writing software (or using
existing software packages) to compare them.

3. There are many, many, many transitional fossils, showing changes over
time in fish/tetrapods, hominids, dinosaur/birds, wasps/ants, sirenians,
snakes, titanotheres, ostracods, and more. Even you have to admit that
the evidence is unimpeachable that life has changed -- and changed
radically -- over time. The fossils show that the change follows a
pattern fitting evolutionary change. (Except for casts of hominid
fossils, I have not looked at this primary evidence myself, but all
these are described in detail in journals available in university
libraries and often online.)

4. There has been much basic research showing that mutation and natural
selection are ubiquitous parts of nature. Engineers using evolutionary
algorithms show that when these two combine, evolution is inevitable.
Optimizing changes are the norm, despite complexity.

That is just a sampler. There are also direct observations of evolution
and speciation, reconstruction and replication of evolutionary events
based on genetic analysis, biogeography, coevolutionary evidence, and
more that I don't know much about myself. Still there are two other
types of evidence that are worth considering:

5. There is no better explanation. Most objection to evolution is based
on a belief in some sort of reading of the Bible. Yet we know that the
Bible is not literally true, because the evidence against the literal
Deluge story is overwhelming. (I need not go into detail here because,
judging from your lack of response whenever this is brought up, you
already agree. Besides, I have gone into detail already online in the
Talk.Origins archive.) Now that the religious objection to evolution is
removed, what is left?

Some people also bring up design, but the evidence they bring up for
design (especially complexity and inability to comprehend the mechanism
of change) are far more characteristic of evolution than of design.

6. Evolution has been under sustained, organized, and well-funded attack
for 150 years. There is no way it would still be standing if it were
not supported by overwhelming evidence.


You said you would respond, but I have to wonder why. Evidence is not
something you should pick up or put down on a momentary whim. It takes
time to look it over, check where it came from, see how it fits other
evidence. I spent about five years looking over those flies, for
example, and if you are going to respond to the evidence of fly
morphology, I expect you to put in a substantial amount of time looking
over hundreds of species of flies yourself. Same for all the other
evidence. What, then, are you going to respond to? Are you going to
tacitly admit that you don't care about the evidence, or are you going
to take five years or more to examine the evidence before you address it?

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

[Steven L.]

"T Pagano" <not....@address.net> wrote in message
news:apagano-0ksb87pkab0o0...@4ax.com:

You can get a good overall look from the OMIM (Online Mendelian
Inheritance in Man) database at

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/omim

Just type in a condition or trait you're interested in, and check the
gene map locus for the genes that it's been linked to. Then you can
click on each gene and browse its DNA sequence. You will also notice
that many sequences are *conserved*, being common to Homo Sapiens and
other species. You can select which other species you want to compare
to.

For example, when I saw your post, I immediately thought of this
condition:

http://omim.org/entry/181500




-- Steven L.

[Boikat]

On Sep 30, 11:57 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> Can any evolutionist produce the "overwhelming" evidence of
> evolutionary transformism necessary to explain biological diversity?

What is your metric for "overwheling"?

>
> I will respond to all claimants once, so make your first post the
> best.  Typically 95 percent of the replies are childish.

Like your demand for "overwhelming" evidence? What would you consider
"overwhelming"? Besides, in "Tony World" there is no such thing as
"overwhelming evidence" that Tony will accept, since all he has to do
is "run away" and cry "Is not!".

> The demand
> is for physical evidence, NOT story telling.

Yet, story telling is all you need for accepting creationism. How
typically hypocritical.

Boikat

[Frank J]

On Sep 30, 12:57 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> Can any evolutionist produce the "overwhelming" evidence of
> evolutionary transformism necessary to explain biological diversity?

Not to *your* satisfaction, as you have been asserting for well over a
decade.

But you have learned to say as little as possible about your alternate
"explanation," let alone provide any evidence on it's own merits,
independent of what you find lacking in "evolutionary transformism,"
whatever you mean by that.

Some of us get the game. "Don't ask, don't tell" is the only
"explanation" that is totally free of "gaps."

[Frank J]

On Sep 30, 1:48 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 12:57:38 -0400, the following appeared

> in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <not.va...@address.net>:

>
> <snip the usual Tony straw challenge, complete with
> undefined terms he can use to weasel out of any serious
> response>
>
> Now that that's out of the way you can address the questions
> you keep trying to avoid...
>
> 1) Where did I claim to be an atheist, or post information
> showing that I'm an atheist, as you contend I am?

(just having fun)

If *you* claim you're an atheist you're probably lying, because
atheists don't think there's a God to punish them for lying, so, since
theists "have more fun", an atheist would have to be crazy to admit
it. And a theist would have to be crazy to take a self-proclaimed
"atheist" at his word about being an atheist.

If Tony *seriously* wants to claim that you're an atheist, he needs to
show that *Ray Martinez*, not you, claimed that you're an atheist.

> 2) Did the Noachian Flood occur *as described in the Bible*?

Yes. Both on a then-~2000 year old earth and on a then-4.5 billion
year old earth. To paraphrase Dembski, ya gotta believe, even though
there ain't no evidence.

> 3) How do multiple geostationary satellites each hang over a
> different single point above a non-rotating Earth?

Don't ask, don't tell.

>
> Run away! Run away!

Hey, I do the "running away" around here. Tony said so himself. ;-)

[Nathan Levesque]

On Sep 30, 11:57 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:

Define transform-ism, and what would constitute as the evidence you
are looking for. Basically the same request people have given to you
about a thousand times in the dozens of new threads you keep opening
on a semi-regular basis.

[Chris Thompson]

T Pagano <not....@address.net> wrote in news:apagano-
0ksb87pkab0o0mnmq...@4ax.com:

As Ernest Major has pointed out, the evidence is all out there for Tony to
see and analyze.

Therefore, I shift the burden of proof to Tony.

Tony:

Please present your statistical analyses of the data presented in the
scientific literature that disprove the ToE.

No answer without the p-values will be accepted.

Ball's in your court.

Chris

[Rolf]

If you really want to know (we know you don't, you just want to confirm your
claim that evolution is impossible)
the only realible method is, as always, to go to the source.

To get a gist of what science is doing, contrasted against what ID is doing
(that is, repeating their mantra "it can't be true")
go to

http://preview.tinyurl.com/6bxftkm

or

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2011/09/joe-thornton-be.html

Take it from there, catching up on only the last 10 years of science should
keep you occupied for a while. I will be gone before you are finished so I
better say goodbye now. Have fun.

> Regards,
> T Pagano

[Frank J]

On Sep 30, 11:01 pm, Chris Thompson <chris.linthomp...@google.com>
wrote:
> T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote in news:apagano-
> 0ksb87pkab0o0mnmq68gk0tbs7qms1o...@4ax.com:

Not according to Lenny Flank. ;-)

>
> Chris

[Eric Root]

On Sep 30, 12:57 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:

I don't understand the requirement for "overwhelming." Other
explanations don't have any evidence at all.

Eric Root

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 14:00:32 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Frank J
<fc...@verizon.net>:

>On Sep 30, 1:48 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 12:57:38 -0400, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <not.va...@address.net>:
>>
>> <snip the usual Tony straw challenge, complete with
>> undefined terms he can use to weasel out of any serious
>> response>
>>
>> Now that that's out of the way you can address the questions
>> you keep trying to avoid...
>>
>> 1) Where did I claim to be an atheist, or post information
>> showing that I'm an atheist, as you contend I am?
>
>(just having fun)
>
>If *you* claim you're an atheist you're probably lying, because
>atheists don't think there's a God to punish them for lying, so, since
>theists "have more fun", an atheist would have to be crazy to admit
>it. And a theist would have to be crazy to take a self-proclaimed
>"atheist" at his word about being an atheist.

My head hurts...

>If Tony *seriously* wants to claim that you're an atheist, he needs to
>show that *Ray Martinez*, not you, claimed that you're an atheist.
>
>> 2) Did the Noachian Flood occur *as described in the Bible*?
>
>Yes. Both on a then-~2000 year old earth and on a then-4.5 billion
>year old earth. To paraphrase Dembski, ya gotta believe, even though
>there ain't no evidence.

Well, faith *is* about belief unsupported by evidence; the
problem for those who have no real faith but who loudly
proclaim their religious beliefs (such as Tony and Ray) is
that to overcome their lack of faith they try to provide
"evidence" which always reduces to arguments from
incredulity or ignorance (a la ID/IC) or quotes from
selected religious texts.

>> 3) How do multiple geostationary satellites each hang over a
>> different single point above a non-rotating Earth?
>
>Don't ask, don't tell.

I keep asking, but Tony never tells. Frustrating... ;-)

>> Run away! Run away!
>
>Hey, I do the "running away" around here. Tony said so himself. ;-)

He made the same claim about me, but for some strange reason
he never seems to be around to address my responses to that
bogus claim or to answer those pesky questions...

[RAM]

On Sep 30, 11:57 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:

Then you should toss out the Bible for you evidence of science
issues. Such as a young earth, a global flood and special creation of
humans.

Your child like beliefs in the Bible as evidence of anything
scientific are 95 percent incorrect.

Lastly scientific inductive evidence is something you don't
understand. Remedial science education is your friend.

>
> Regards,
> T Pagano

Regards
RAM

[Boikat]

On Oct 1, 3:29 pm, RAM <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 30, 11:57 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
> > Can any evolutionist produce the "overwhelming" evidence of
> > evolutionary transformism necessary to explain biological diversity?
>
> > I will respond to all claimants once, so make your first post the
> > best. Typically 95 percent of the replies are childish. The demand
> > is for physical evidence, NOT story telling.
>
> Then you should toss out the Bible for you evidence of science
> issues.  Such as a young earth, a global flood and special creation of
> humans.

Not to mention a non-rotating Earth or a geocentric Universe.

>
> Your child like beliefs in the Bible as evidence of anything
> scientific are 95 percent incorrect.
>
> Lastly scientific inductive evidence is something you don't
> understand.  Remedial science education is your friend.

In Pagano's case, remedial science would be more like water on a
gremlin.

Boikat

[Kermit]

On Sep 30, 10:48 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 12:57:38 -0400, the following appeared

> in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <not.va...@address.net>:

>
> <snip the usual Tony straw challenge, complete with
> undefined terms he can use to weasel out of any serious
> response>
>
> Now that that's out of the way you can address the questions
> you keep trying to avoid...

Perhaps I can help.

>
> 1) Where did I claim to be an atheist, or post information
> showing that I'm an atheist, as you contend I am?

Is this the best you can do?

> 2) Did the Noachian Flood occur *as described in the Bible*?

Yes, if you understand "occur" properly, have the correct
translation of the bible, have an inspired grasp of biblical
description,
and read it with an open mind unsullied by an atheistic materialistic
need for physical evidence.

> 3) How do multiple geostationary satellites each hang over a
> different single point above a non-rotating Earth?

The spinning universe creates a sucking vortex that holds aloft
anything properly aligned with the Earth below. Duh. You need
to study more science.

>
> Run away! Run away!
> --
>
> Bob C.
>
> "Evidence confirming an observation is
> evidence that the observation is wrong."
>                           - McNameless

Kermit

[Walter Bushell]

In article
<5f32b7d9-a2b0-4b08...@f6g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,

But does the spinning Universe weigh more than a duck?

--
Ignorance is no protection against reality. -- Paul J Gans

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 02 Oct 2011 08:47:14 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>:

>In article
><5f32b7d9-a2b0-4b08...@f6g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
> Kermit <unrestra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sep 30, 10:48 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> > On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 12:57:38 -0400, the following appeared
>> > in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <not.va...@address.net>:
>> >
>> > <snip the usual Tony straw challenge, complete with
>> > undefined terms he can use to weasel out of any serious
>> > response>
>> >
>> > Now that that's out of the way you can address the questions
>> > you keep trying to avoid...
>>
>> Perhaps I can help.
>>
>> >
>> > 1) Where did I claim to be an atheist, or post information
>> > showing that I'm an atheist, as you contend I am?
>>
>> Is this the best you can do?

Perfect Tonyism...

By Jove; I think you've got it!

>> > 2) Did the Noachian Flood occur *as described in the Bible*?
>>
>> Yes, if you understand "occur" properly, have the correct
>> translation of the bible, have an inspired grasp of biblical
>> description,
>> and read it with an open mind unsullied by an atheistic materialistic
>> need for physical evidence.
>>
>> > 3) How do multiple geostationary satellites each hang over a
>> > different single point above a non-rotating Earth?
>>
>> The spinning universe creates a sucking vortex that holds aloft
>> anything properly aligned with the Earth below. Duh. You need
>> to study more science.

Dammit, don't give Tony hints!

>> > Run away! Run away!

>But does the spinning Universe weigh more than a duck?

And can you get down from it?

[Garamond Lethe]

Sure. Durrett's _Probability Models for DNA Sequence Evolution_ (2nd.
Ed) and the 500-ish papers it cites.

I had dipped into a preprint of this book at UArizona but just got my own
copy yesterday afternoon. From the preface:

"Lying back on the sofa proofreading and revising the text while the cats
sleep by the fire, it seems to me that the academic life, despite its
many frustrations, sure beats working for a living."

[chris thompson]

On Sep 30, 12:57 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:

Hey Tony

I see you've wandered off into other threads. What about your
obligation to respond to all claimants in this thread? You know, the
one YOU started?

Chris

[T Pagano]

Must not be any evidence. There's one evolutionist down.

Regards,
T Pagano

[chris thompson]

Instead of responding to this post, Tony, why didn't you respond to
the posts containing actual evidence?

Oh right, I forgot. Brave Sir Tony. Silly of me, eh?

Chris

[T Pagano]

On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 18:46:22 +0100, Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <apagano-0ksb87pkab0o0...@4ax.com>, T
>Pagano <not....@address.net> writes
>>Can any evolutionist produce the "overwhelming" evidence of
>>evolutionary transformism necessary to explain biological diversity?
>
>You don't appear to have defined "evolutionary transformism". If you are
>interested in the overwhelming evidence for common descent with
>modification through the agency of natural selection and other
>processes, you are unreasonably optimistic in expected to receive it in
>this thread - you're asking people to give you an undergraduate course
>in a single post. (I was tempted to ask if you had you got a spare
>decade to receive the overwhelming evidence)?

No evidence so far.

>To start the evidence, there's about 300 billion base pairs of DNA data
>in GenBank, and more elsewhere. To which you could add the whole
>scientific literature on comparative morphological studies, and the
>fossil record, and more besides.

The Short Story:
Similarities are necessary but NOT SUFFICIENT to prove
transformational change. This is indisputable. Darwin was aware of
this fact 160 years ago but atheists today are not. Pity.

The Long Story:
The raw data mentioned here isn't proof of much; certainly doesn't
prove that a dino forearm transformed into an avian wing. The genetic
data certainly shows great similarities between species groupings, but
those similarities are separated by even greater unbridged genetic
chasms.

Darwin was aware of the great similarities identified by the
taxonomists of his time. He was also aware that graphical depictions
of the taxonomic data also showed that known species groupings were
also isolated from each other. Darwin hoped that these isolated
groupings were actually connected by a naturalistic mechanism. He
offered a mechanism which was testable with the fossil record. The
fossil record disconfirmed gradualistic transformism.

>>
>>I will respond to all claimants once, so make your first post the
>>best. Typically 95 percent of the replies are childish. The demand
>>is for physical evidence, NOT story telling.
>>
>>Regards,
>>T Pagano
>>

It is painfully apparent that evolutionary biology is little more than
a branch of systematics and taxonomy. Unfortunately those disciplines
are not up to the task.


Regards,
T Pagano

Another one bites the dust.

The clown master (aka Harshman) has wisely decided to sit this one out
because he knows there is no evidence of coherent, progressive,
transformational change in either the living world or the fossil. Wise
beyond his years.

[John Stockwell]

On Sep 30, 10:57 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> Can any evolutionist produce the "overwhelming" evidence of
> evolutionary transformism necessary to explain biological diversity?
>

> I will respond to all claimants once, so make your first post the
> best.  Typically 95 percent of the replies are childish.  The demand
> is for physical evidence, NOT story telling.

That would be all of biology both living and extinct.


>
> Regards,
> T Pagano

-John

[T Pagano]

On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 17:49:51 -0400, T Pagano <not....@address.net>
wrote:

Will Burkhard Come to Ernest's Rescue?

[John Harshman]

T Pagano wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 18:46:22 +0100, Ernest Major
> <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In message <apagano-0ksb87pkab0o0...@4ax.com>, T
>> Pagano <not....@address.net> writes
>>> Can any evolutionist produce the "overwhelming" evidence of
>>> evolutionary transformism necessary to explain biological diversity?
>> You don't appear to have defined "evolutionary transformism". If you are
>> interested in the overwhelming evidence for common descent with
>> modification through the agency of natural selection and other
>> processes, you are unreasonably optimistic in expected to receive it in
>> this thread - you're asking people to give you an undergraduate course
>> in a single post. (I was tempted to ask if you had you got a spare
>> decade to receive the overwhelming evidence)?
>
> No evidence so far.
>
>> To start the evidence, there's about 300 billion base pairs of DNA data
>> in GenBank, and more elsewhere. To which you could add the whole
>> scientific literature on comparative morphological studies, and the
>> fossil record, and more besides.
>
> The Short Story:
> Similarities are necessary but NOT SUFFICIENT to prove
> transformational change. This is indisputable. Darwin was aware of
> this fact 160 years ago but atheists today are not. Pity.

Please present evidence that Darwin was "aware of this fact". Please
provide an argument for why this claim is true.

> The Long Story:
> The raw data mentioned here isn't proof of much; certainly doesn't
> prove that a dino forearm transformed into an avian wing. The genetic
> data certainly shows great similarities between species groupings, but
> those similarities are separated by even greater unbridged genetic
> chasms.

Is this not exactly what we expect from common descent?

[Prof Weird]

On Oct 3, 5:49 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 18:46:22 +0100, Ernest Major
>

> <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >In message <apagano-0ksb87pkab0o0mnmq68gk0tbs7qms1o...@4ax.com>, T
> >Pagano <not.va...@address.net> writes

> >>Can any evolutionist produce the "overwhelming" evidence of
> >>evolutionary transformism necessary to explain biological diversity?
>
> >You don't appear to have defined "evolutionary transformism". If you are
> >interested in the overwhelming evidence for common descent with
> >modification through the agency of natural selection and other
> >processes, you are unreasonably optimistic in expected to receive it in
> >this thread - you're asking people to give you an undergraduate course
> >in a single post. (I was tempted to ask if you had you got a spare
> >decade to receive the overwhelming evidence)?
>
> No evidence so far.

Translation : "I, Lord Tony, Avatar of Willful Ignorance, refuse to
consider your evidence. Since ** I ** did not look at it, it does not
exist !! Me win again !!"

> >To start the evidence, there's about 300 billion base pairs of DNA data
> >in GenBank, and more elsewhere. To which you could add the whole
> >scientific literature on comparative morphological studies, and the
> >fossil record, and more besides.
>
> The Short Story:
> Similarities are necessary but NOT SUFFICIENT to prove
> transformational change.  This is indisputable.   Darwin was aware of
> this fact 160 years ago but atheists today are not.  Pity.

And just what, pray tell, WOULD be sufficient to prove
transformational change to you ?
Have researchers go back in time, grab a Tiktaalik, modify a few of
its genes in vivo and see if they can create something closer to an
amphibian ?

It seems you gibbering IDio-creotards like to only go halfway - you
see a pattern of similarities, then do nothing.
Evolution EXPLAINS the patterns of similarities observed in nature;
your 'explanation' is what ?

Oh, right : "A Magical Sky Pixie willed it thus !! Now sit down, shut
up and stop thinking !!"

And STILL with this silly delusion/crimson whale that theistic outlook
is of any relevance to anything in science ?

> The Long Story:
> The raw data mentioned here isn't proof of much; certainly doesn't
> prove that a dino forearm transformed into an avian wing.

But that is what the available EVIDENCE shows happened. So sane and
rational folk with go with that explanation UNTIL SOMETHING
DEMONSTRATED TO BE BETTER IS PRESENTED.

Got something besides "An unknowable Magical Sky Pixie somehow did
stuff sometime in the past for some reason !! Now sit down, shut up,
and stop asking questions !!" ?

>  The genetic
> data certainly shows great similarities between species groupings, but
> those similarities are separated by even greater unbridged genetic
> chasms.

Care to give an EXAMPLE of one of these hallucinatory 'unbridged
genetic chasms' ? And show how you DETERMINED that the chasm actually
is unbridgeable ?
Or is your howling willful ignorance meant to be the be-all and end-
all 'argument' against evolution ?

The ToE actually EXPLAINS those patterns of similarity between
organisms in a testable way; your 'explanation' is what again ?

Oh, right "The One True Magical Sky Pixie DIDIT !!1!!1! Now stop
investigating nature and just accept - without thought or question -
** MY ** infallible interpretations of an ancient collection of
morality tales !!"

Evolution explains why humans have genes for yolk proteins and why
birds still have the genetic machinery to produce teeth - your
'explanation' is what again ?

Oh, right : "The One True Magical Sky Pixie just felt like doing
things that way !! Sit down, shut up and stop thinking !!"

> Darwin was aware of the great similarities identified by the
> taxonomists of his time.  He was also aware that graphical depictions
> of the taxonomic data also showed that known species groupings were
> also isolated from each other.  Darwin hoped that these isolated
> groupings were actually connected by a naturalistic mechanism.  He
> offered a mechanism which was testable with the fossil record.  The
> fossil record disconfirmed gradualistic transformism.

Only in your fetid imagination.

And just what do you mean by 'gradualistic transformism' ? Do you
seriously expect a fossil from each and every animal that ever lived ?

The fossil record is just a BONUS; the evidence for evolution from
molecular biology (and other fields) is strong enough to convince
anyone that DOESN'T have a copy of the bible shoved between their ears
that evolution is valid.

Unless, of course, you have EVIDENCE that your Magical Sky God
exists. And actually DID what you assert he did.

> >>I will respond to all claimants once, so make your first post the
> >>best.  Typically 95 percent of the replies are childish.  The demand
> >>is for physical evidence, NOT story telling.

Well, THAT certainly makes running away while screaming about your
victory that much easier ... !

And the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that a Magical Sky Pixie 'POOFED !!11!' all
living things into existence a few thousand years ago is what again ?

Oh, right : the FALLACY of the false dichotomy (if evolution cannot
explain X to the Prancing Lord Tony's satisfaction, then the only
'explanation' is 'direct creation by the One True Magical Sky Pixie !!!
11!1!!)

> It is painfully apparent that evolutionary biology is little more than
> a branch of systematics and taxonomy.  Unfortunately those disciplines
> are not up to the task.  

You 'determined' that how ?

Oh, right : reality does not conform to your delusions, so it is
reality that must be adjusted to fit.

More empty, vainglorious posturing :

> Another one bites the dust.  
>
> The clown master (aka Harshman) has wisely decided to sit this one out
> because he knows there is no evidence of coherent, progressive,
> transformational change in either the living world or the fossil. Wise
> beyond his years.

There is evidence (if you would bother to define what you mean by
'coherent', 'progressive' and 'transformational'), but you just keep
pulling additional requirements out of your nether regions to evade.

[Ernest Major]

In message <W72dnZdtgLn...@giganews.com>, John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net> writes

I expect that Tony's claim about Darwin is correct. It is also
irrelevant. As you know, common descent is inferred, inter alia, from
the pattern of similarities, not the mere fact of similarities. The
existence of a pattern of similarities necessitates the existence of
similarities, but the latter in itself is not sufficient to infer common
descent.

It is rather disappointing that after so many years participating here
Tony is unable to publicly display an understanding of the nature of the
evidence on which common descent is inferred.

>
>> The Long Story:
>> The raw data mentioned here isn't proof of much; certainly doesn't
>> prove that a dino forearm transformed into an avian wing. The genetic
>> data certainly shows great similarities between species groupings, but
>> those similarities are separated by even greater unbridged genetic
>> chasms.
>
>Is this not exactly what we expect from common descent?
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[Frank J]

Then you're job is done. So you can forget about evolution now and
concentrate on your own "theory." Describe it in detail and support it
*without* any reference to the problems you have with evolution -
which we have all heard countless times over the years.

If you must contrast your "theory" with one that you think failed,
pick one from those old-earth heliocentrists at the Discovery
Institute.

>
> Regards,
> T Pagano- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[John Harshman]

I was willing to assume that Tony knew this, having been told that often
enough, and was merely using "similarities" as shorthand for the entire
nested hierarchy thing.

> It is rather disappointing that after so many years participating here
> Tony is unable to publicly display an understanding of the nature of the
> evidence on which common descent is inferred.

It's a depressingly common feature of creationists that they are
incapable of learning the least little thing.

[Garamond Lethe]

On Sun, 02 Oct 2011 19:44:17 +0000, Garamond Lethe wrote:

> On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 12:57:38 -0400, T Pagano wrote:
>
>> Can any evolutionist produce the "overwhelming" evidence of
>> evolutionary transformism necessary to explain biological diversity?
>>
>> I will respond to all claimants once, so make your first post the best.
>> Typically 95 percent of the replies are childish. The demand is for
>> physical evidence, NOT story telling.
>>
>> Regards,
>> T Pagano
>
> Sure. Durrett's _Probability Models for DNA Sequence Evolution_ (2nd.
> Ed) and the 500-ish papers it cites.

This might have been a little too overwhelming.

[Bill]

On Oct 4, 3:38 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Oct 2011 11:39:52 -0700 (PDT), chris thompson
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Sep 30, 12:57 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> >> Can any evolutionist produce the "overwhelming" evidence of
> >> evolutionary transformism necessary to explain biological diversity?
>
> >> I will respond to all claimants once, so make your first post the
> >> best.  Typically 95 percent of the replies are childish.  The demand
> >> is for physical evidence, NOT story telling.
>
> >> Regards,
> >> T Pagano
>
> >Hey Tony
>
> >I see you've wandered off into other threads. What about your
> >obligation to respond to all claimants in this thread? You know, the
> >one YOU started?
>
> >Chris

.

>
> Must not be any evidence.  There's one evolutionist down.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano

You're right Tony. Over the years you've utterly crushed any possible,
suggested evidence. The only reasonable conclusion is that there
simply is no evidence of the progressive, gradualistic,
transformational change of nascent, non-static structures that you
want to see. Perhaps it was all washed away by calm, global-like
flooding over the past few years; or perhaps it was sucked away by
whatever that force it is that holds geostationary satellites in orbit
above the non-rotating earth. In any case you've won. Your opponents
are crushed. Your work is done here. Sarge agrees that it's too easy.
Nothing left to see. No need for more if time permits. The atheists
are disparate or desparate or dasperite or however it is......

[Burkhard]

On Oct 3, 11:31 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 17:49:51 -0400, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net>

> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 18:46:22 +0100, Ernest Major

> ><{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >>In message <apagano-0ksb87pkab0o0mnmq68gk0tbs7qms1o...@4ax.com>, T

> >>Pagano <not.va...@address.net> writes

Burkhard has long given up trying to teach you the basic concepts of
theory of science, let alone the data in support of the theory of
evolution. You are a bot that failed the turing test.

[Rolf]

Can you point at an example of a fossil that is not transitional?

OLne thing that TP and Ray M have in common: Utter diregrad for science and
facts, and an inflated faith in own superior knowlesge and understanding.
Hubris is another word for that. There's one thing that stands out with a
character like Adolf Hitler: He did not listen to the people who knew
better! If he had left warfare to the professionals, his field marshals and
generals, USA would be under Nazi regime today. (Maybe not much worse off
than they are today.)

[Rolf]

I remember the German propaganda during the occupation:

They imitated the V-sign with the caption "Victorious on all fronts", while
the Soviet and allied forces drove them back from Stalingrad and Normandie
all the way to Berlin.

[Rolf]

but he is not interested, doesn't wnat to knwo, doesn't want to believe. You
can't load knowledge and understanding into
believers like you can do with a computer.

In order to understand, a certain state of mind is a prerequisite. I call it
the Holy Spirit of Truth. I have been under it's influence all my life and
it has made me what I am.

[Rolf]

Interesting as it might be, I am afraid I will have to pass it by...

But there is so much to be learned and so little time left, I have to be
selective.
What's occupying my mind most these days are the subject of evolution from
the LCA primate to the bipedal ape-man.
Neoteny is one of the factors mentioned as a possible cause, but I want
nothing less than understanding how it all happened, and why.

Wher can I begin?

[Rolf]

That's what I have been observing for a long time now. TP and Ray are very
similar: Facts and evidence is irrelevant. Faith wins every time.

> Regards,
> T Pagano

[Rolf]

I would like to know: If Tony shoult trace his ancestry back in time, back
from his parents, grandparents and so on back in time, wher would he end,
where or what would the beginning be like?

Please Tony, you know, have a theory, don't you?

[Ilas]

T Pagano <not....@address.net> wrote in
news:apagano-asdk87pd8d4mv...@4ax.com:

> Will Burkhard Come to Ernest's Rescue?

You do know people are laughing at you, right?

[T Pagano]

On Tue, 4 Oct 2011 00:00:28 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

You mean like a year ago when instead of saving Ernest you buried the
both of you using an example which proved my point.

The atheists (and Harshman in particular) are incessantly claiming
that the really good evidence and good proofs are always somewhere
else but never here and now. Another instance where the mountain of
evidence is little more than an urban legend or myth.

> You are a bot that failed the turing test.

.. . .but a bot who nonetheless demonstrated that Burkhard was unable
to produce one shred of evidence of coherent, progressive,
transformational change.


Regards,
T Pagano

I suggest that Ernest seek another savior. Burkhard simply isn't up
to the against even against a bot that failed the Turing Test.


Next victim. . .

[Burkhard]

On Oct 4, 7:43 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Oct 2011 00:00:28 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk>

Just capable of learning from experience - you know the whole
induction issue that you keep getting wrong. Every time I or everyone
else for that matter shows just how ludicrous and ill-informed your
ideas are, from science to philosophy to religion, you ran away, and
then post the same blather a few month later. n reason to believe it
will be different this time round

[Ernest Major]

In message <apagano-oekm87dt6vpbb...@4ax.com>, T
Pagano <not....@address.net> writes

I already pointed you at some of the evidence for common descent with
modification by the agency of natural selection and other processes;
there's no pressing need for him to repeat it. 300 billion base pairs of
DNA sequence is far than a shred, even before you add everything else.

As for evidence of "coherent, progressive, transformational change" -
you didn't ask for that at the start of the thread. And is not clearly
anything that we should expect to exist - you haven't defined your terms
adequately, but it appears that you are asking us to offer evidence for
Paganist evolution, which seems to be something like orthogenesis, a
position that has been dead for decades.

>
>
>Regards,
>T Pagano
>
>I suggest that Ernest seek another savior. Burkhard simply isn't up
>to the against even against a bot that failed the Turing Test.
>
>
>Next victim. . .
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[T Pagano]

On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 10:48:04 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 12:57:38 -0400, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <not....@address.net>:
>
><snip the usual Tony straw challenge, complete with
>undefined terms he can use to weasel out of any serious
>response>

As usual the cowardly runner runs yet again. Apparently there is no
"mountain of evidence." The Cowardly Runner is unable to produce any
evidence whatsoever of coherent, progressive, transformational change.
Just like in April 2011 the Coward got up on his hind legs about
Transitional Forms but cringed before me in front of his compatriots.
Boikat was so disgusted at the Coward's display that he stepped in and
took the sword thrust himself. Boikat went down hard, but went down
with courage of conviction.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------


>Now that that's out of the way you can address the questions
>you keep trying to avoid...
>
>1) Where did I claim to be an atheist, or post information
>showing that I'm an atheist, as you contend I am?

Asked and answered by Ray and I---repeatedly Your written word
betrays you to be a practical atheist.

>2) Did the Noachian Flood occur *as described in the Bible*?

Asked and answered in this forum repeatedly since 1998 and recently.
The Flood as described in Scripture is an historical event.


>3) How do multiple geostationary satellites each hang over a
>different single point above a non-rotating Earth?

This has been asked and answered. Is the cowardly runner implying
that they should fall back to Earth? If so, then the question is born
of ignorance of the neoTychonian model. And it is not my job to teach
the coward.


>
>Run away! Run away!

Casanova will forever be known as the Cowardly Runner. Your atheist
buddies watched you run from me for seven days. The Cowardly Runner
is all washed up.



Regards,
T Pagano

[Ray Martinez]

On Oct 3, 3:51 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> T Pagano wrote:
> > On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 18:46:22 +0100, Ernest Major

> > <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> In message <apagano-0ksb87pkab0o0mnmq68gk0tbs7qms1o...@4ax.com>, T

> >> Pagano <not.va...@address.net> writes

> >>> Can any evolutionist produce the "overwhelming" evidence of
> >>> evolutionary transformism necessary to explain biological diversity?
> >> You don't appear to have defined "evolutionary transformism". If you are
> >> interested in the overwhelming evidence for common descent with
> >> modification through the agency of natural selection and other
> >> processes, you are unreasonably optimistic in expected to receive it in
> >> this thread - you're asking people to give you an undergraduate course
> >> in a single post. (I was tempted to ask if you had you got a spare
> >> decade to receive the overwhelming evidence)?
>
> > No evidence so far.
>
> >> To start the evidence, there's about 300 billion base pairs of DNA data
> >> in GenBank, and more elsewhere. To which you could add the whole
> >> scientific literature on comparative morphological studies, and the
> >> fossil record, and more besides.
>
> > The Short Story:
> > Similarities are necessary but NOT SUFFICIENT to prove
> > transformational change.  This is indisputable.   Darwin was aware of
> > this fact 160 years ago but atheists today are not.  Pity.
>
> Please present evidence that Darwin was "aware of this fact". Please
> provide an argument for why this claim is true.
>

Harshman's approach to evolution is seen in his request. He assumes
similarity, what Darwin called "affinity," once it is shown and/or
discovered, to mean that evolution is supported and has occurred (past
tense). This approach by JH is seen in all of his posts. But JH is not
alone. Victorian era science held the same approach/assumption----
except Charles Darwin. The founder of the modern theory never, at any
time, accepted the approach/assumption. When he arrived back in
England from the 5 year voyage of the Beagle, he quickly saw the data
he had collected to support an evolutionary hypothesis. All of this
occurred between October of 1836 and June of 1837:

"In October 1838, that is, fifteen months after I had begun my
systematic enquiry [June of 1837], I happened to read for amusement
Malthus on Population, and being well prepared to appreciate the
struggle for existence which everywhere goes on from long-continued
observation of the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me
that under these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be
preserved, and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The result of this
would be the formation of new species. Here, then, I had at last got a
theory by which to work" (Autobio: 120).

There was no theory until natural selection (causation) was
discovered.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

> occurred between October of 1836 and June of 1837 [see correction post]:

>
> "In October 1838, that is, fifteen months after I had begun my

> systematic enquiry [June of 1837; see correction post], I happened to read for amusement

> Malthus on Population, and being well prepared to appreciate the
> struggle for existence which everywhere goes on from long-continued
> observation of the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me
> that under these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be
> preserved, and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The result of this
> would be the formation of new species. Here, then, I had at last got a
> theory by which to work" (Autobio: 120).
>
> There was no theory until natural selection (causation) was
> discovered.
>
> Ray
>

CORRECTION: should have typed August of 1837 (and not June of 1837):

August of 1837 to October of 1838 = 15 months.

Month of August = 1 month.

Month of September = 2nd month.

Month of October = 3rd month + 12 months (preceding year) = 15 total
months.

Despite the fact that Darwin had concluded for evolution based on
discovery of similarity/affinity in August of 1837, there was no
theory "by which to work" until causation ascertained 15 months later.

Ray

[John Harshman]

T Pagano wrote:

> The atheists (and Harshman in particular) are incessantly claiming
> that the really good evidence and good proofs are always somewhere
> else but never here and now.

I don't recall saying any such thing. Perhaps you could back this up
with a quote? Not that I doubt your honesty, but...wait, I do doubt your
honesty. And your ability to read. If it's any consolation, I don't
doubt your ability to run away, and to trumpet your unearned victories.

[John Harshman]

Not similarity, exactly. Nested hierarchy. For some reason both you and
Tony (and almost all creationists) have difficulty with that concept.

> This approach by JH is seen in all of his posts. But JH is not
> alone. Victorian era science held the same approach/assumption----

I thought Victorian era science was creationist until Darwin. How could
that be if they thought mere observed similarities were sufficient? You
are very confused.

> except Charles Darwin. The founder of the modern theory never, at any
> time, accepted the approach/assumption.

Nonsense. His work on barnacles alone is enough to show that he
determined genealogical relationships based on similarities.

> When he arrived back in
> England from the 5 year voyage of the Beagle, he quickly saw the data
> he had collected to support an evolutionary hypothesis. All of this
> occurred between October of 1836 and June of 1837:
>
> "In October 1838, that is, fifteen months after I had begun my
> systematic enquiry [June of 1837], I happened to read for amusement
> Malthus on Population, and being well prepared to appreciate the
> struggle for existence which everywhere goes on from long-continued
> observation of the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me
> that under these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be
> preserved, and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The result of this
> would be the formation of new species. Here, then, I had at last got a
> theory by which to work" (Autobio: 120).
>
> There was no theory until natural selection (causation) was
> discovered.

None of that has anything to do with my request to Tony.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 3 Oct 2011 14:42:04 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by chris thompson
<chris.li...@gmail.com>:

>On Oct 3, 4:38 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:

>> On Mon, 3 Oct 2011 11:39:52 -0700 (PDT), chris thompson

>> <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> >On Sep 30, 12:57 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:

>> >> Can any evolutionist produce the "overwhelming" evidence of
>> >> evolutionary transformism necessary to explain biological diversity?

>> >> I will respond to all claimants once, so make your first post the
>> >> best. Typically 95 percent of the replies are childish. The demand
>> >> is for physical evidence, NOT story telling.

>> >Hey Tony
>>
>> >I see you've wandered off into other threads. What about your
>> >obligation to respond to all claimants in this thread? You know, the
>> >one YOU started?

>> Must not be any evidence.  There's one evolutionist down.

>Instead of responding to this post, Tony, why didn't you respond to
>the posts containing actual evidence?

Tony "doesn't see" any posts which refute his claims, or any
which pose questions which make him uncomfortable.

>Oh right, I forgot. Brave Sir Tony. Silly of me, eh?

Not at all; hope springs eternal. Always dashed by Tony's
inherent dishonesty, of course...
--

Bob C.

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

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 17:49:51 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <not....@address.net>:

>On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 18:46:22 +0100, Ernest Major

><{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <apagano-0ksb87pkab0o0...@4ax.com>, T
>>Pagano <not....@address.net> writes

>>>Can any evolutionist produce the "overwhelming" evidence of
>>>evolutionary transformism necessary to explain biological diversity?

>>You don't appear to have defined "evolutionary transformism". If you are
>>interested in the overwhelming evidence for common descent with
>>modification through the agency of natural selection and other
>>processes, you are unreasonably optimistic in expected to receive it in
>>this thread - you're asking people to give you an undergraduate course
>>in a single post. (I was tempted to ask if you had you got a spare
>>decade to receive the overwhelming evidence)?

>No evidence so far.

As Ernest noted, the nail of evidence seems insufficient to
firmly affix your jello of "evolutionary transformism" to
the wall.

<snip Toniocy>

[RAM]

On Oct 4, 2:11 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:

(snip of his lies and distortions)

.... and provides no scientific evidence for a global flood. Why?
Because he knows that it is all creation science crap.

Let see if he plagiarizes Gish for a distorted answer!

[Dana Tweedy]

On Tuesday, October 4, 2011 1:21:49 PM UTC-6, Ray Martinez wrote:

> On Oct 3, 3:51�pm, John Harshman <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > T Pagano wrote:
> > > On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 18:46:22 +0100, Ernest Major

> > > <{$t....@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > >> In message <apagano-0ksb87pkab0o0...@4ax.com>, T

> > >> Pagano <not....@address.net> writes

> > >>> Can any evolutionist produce the "overwhelming" evidence of
> > >>> evolutionary transformism necessary to explain biological diversity?
> > >> You don't appear to have defined "evolutionary transformism". If you are
> > >> interested in the overwhelming evidence for common descent with
> > >> modification through the agency of natural selection and other
> > >> processes, you are unreasonably optimistic in expected to receive it in
> > >> this thread - you're asking people to give you an undergraduate course
> > >> in a single post. (I was tempted to ask if you had you got a spare
> > >> decade to receive the overwhelming evidence)?
> >
> > > No evidence so far.
> >
> > >> To start the evidence, there's about 300 billion base pairs of DNA data
> > >> in GenBank, and more elsewhere. To which you could add the whole
> > >> scientific literature on comparative morphological studies, and the
> > >> fossil record, and more besides.
> >
> > > The Short Story:
> > > Similarities are necessary but NOT SUFFICIENT to prove
> > > transformational change. �This is indisputable. � Darwin was aware of
> > > this fact 160 years ago but atheists today are not. �Pity.
> >
> > Please present evidence that Darwin was "aware of this fact". Please
> > provide an argument for why this claim is true.
> >
>
> Harshman's approach to evolution is seen in his request. He assumes
> similarity, what Darwin called "affinity," once it is shown and/or
> discovered, to mean that evolution is supported and has occurred (past
> tense).

Of course, similarity among closely related groups is a prediction of common descent, so finding similarity does support evolution. That evolution has happened and is still happening are both trivally true statements.

> This approach by JH is seen in all of his posts.

Of course, Ray doesn't understand John, or the points he makes. John has repeatedly pointed out it's not mere similarity that's such good evidence for evolution, but the pattern of similarities seen which demonstrates evolution. There's no logical reason an "intelligent designer" would make a sea dwelling creature that is most genetically and anatomcially similar to hoofed mammals on land.

> But JH is not
> alone. Victorian era science held the same approach/assumption----
> except Charles Darwin. The founder of the modern theory never, at any
> time, accepted the approach/assumption.

Also, Ray doesn't understand how science works, now and in the Victorian era. Again, John doesn't merely assume that similarity equals evolution.

> When he arrived back in
> England from the 5 year voyage of the Beagle, he quickly saw the data
> he had collected to support an evolutionary hypothesis. All of this
> occurred between October of 1836 and June of 1837:
>
> "In October 1838, that is, fifteen months after I had begun my
> systematic enquiry [June of 1837], I happened to read for amusement
> Malthus on Population, and being well prepared to appreciate the
> struggle for existence which everywhere goes on from long-continued
> observation of the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me
> that under these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be
> preserved, and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The result of this
> would be the formation of new species. Here, then, I had at last got a
> theory by which to work" (Autobio: 120).
>
> There was no theory until natural selection (causation) was
> discovered.

Of course, Ray gets it wrong again. Natural selection is an explanation for the fact of common descent. Common descent can be recognized and identified before the "causation" is known. Ray keeps ignoring that the "causation" is well known, and his own belief offers no "causation" at all, merely an assumption of a supernatural being.

DJT

[Boikat]

On Oct 4, 2:11 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 10:48:04 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 12:57:38 -0400, the following appeared

> >in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <not.va...@address.net>:

>
> ><snip the usual Tony straw challenge, complete with
> >undefined terms he can use to weasel out of any serious
> >response>
>
> As usual the cowardly runner runs yet again.

Irony, thyy name is Pagano.

Tiktaalcik, tiktaalik, tiktaalik....

> Apparently there is no
> "mountain of evidence."  The Cowardly Runner is unable to produce any
> evidence whatsoever of coherent, progressive, transformational change.
> Just like in April 2011 the Coward got up on his hind legs about
> Transitional Forms but cringed before me in front of his compatriots.
> Boikat was so disgusted at the Coward's display that he stepped in and
> took the sword thrust himself.  Boikat went down hard, but went down
> with courage of conviction.

And I'm still here. So is Tiktaalik. Why have you utterly failed to
explian why Tiktaalik rosea does not represent an example of a
transitional form?

>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >Now that that's out of the way you can address the questions
> >you keep trying to avoid...
>
> >1) Where did I claim to be an atheist, or post information
> >showing that I'm an atheist, as you contend I am?
>
> Asked and answered by Ray and I---repeatedly  Your written word
> betrays you to be a practical atheist.  
>
> >2) Did the Noachian Flood occur *as described in the Bible*?
>
> Asked and answered in this forum repeatedly since 1998 and recently.
> The Flood as described in Scripture is an historical event.
>
> >3) How do multiple geostationary satellites each hang over a
> >different single point above a non-rotating Earth?
>
> This has been asked and answered.  Is the cowardly runner implying
> that they should fall back to Earth?  If so, then the question is born
> of ignorance of the neoTychonian model.  And it is not my job to teach
> the coward.  
>
>
>
> >Run away! Run away!

Yes, whe know that is you "Battle cry of victory" since that is what
you do, then poke your head out of your burrow a few days later and
claim "victory".

>
> Casanova will forever be known as the Cowardly Runner.

Projection.

> Your atheist
> buddies watched you run from me for seven days.

Everyone has lost count of the number of days you've been running from
the "Fish-o-pod".

> The Cowardly Runner
> is all washed up.
>

More projection. As stated before, the whole problem is that it is
all too easy for you to stuff your fingers in your ears, squeeze your
eyes shut, and pretend that any evidence presented to support a
rotating earth orbiting the sun, or an example of a transitional form,
does not exist. It doesn't take intelligence for someone to say "is
not!" when someone tells them the sky is blue. But it does say
something about that person.

Now, can you please explain why Tiktaalik does not represent a
transitional form between fish and tetrapod? And please, don't
confuse "transitional form" with "direct ancestor", and demand
something stupid, like a generation by generation representation in
the fossil record of the transition. Just answer the question, does
Tiktaalik have characteristics of both fish *and* tetrapods. Use a
Ven Diagram if you have to show where there is no overlap.

Boikat

[Eric Root]

On Oct 3, 4:38 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Oct 2011 11:39:52 -0700 (PDT), chris thompson
>
>
>
> <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >On Sep 30, 12:57 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> >> Can any evolutionist produce the "overwhelming" evidence of
> >> evolutionary transformism necessary to explain biological diversity?
>

> >> I will respond to all claimants once, so make your first post the
> >> best.  Typically 95 percent of the replies are childish.  The demand
> >> is for physical evidence, NOT story telling.
>

> >> Regards,
> >> T Pagano

>
> >Hey Tony
>
> >I see you've wandered off into other threads. What about your
> >obligation to respond to all claimants in this thread? You know, the
> >one YOU started?
>

> >Chris

>
> Must not be any evidence.  There's one evolutionist down.
>

> Regards,
> T Pagano

Who is it?

Eric Root

[Dana Tweedy]

I disagree. Neither Ray, or Tony seem to have much faith, they want assurance that their own particular and pecular ideas are correct. That's why they ignore the evidence, because it doesn't tell them what they want to hear.

If they had any faith in God, and his existence, they wouldn't need this assurance.


DJT



>
> > Regards,
> > T Pagano

[UC]

On Sep 30, 12:57 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> Can any evolutionist produce the "overwhelming" evidence of
> evolutionary transformism necessary to explain biological diversity?
>
> I will respond to all claimants once, so make your first post the
> best.  Typically 95 percent of the replies are childish.  The demand
> is for physical evidence, NOT story telling.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano

What do you think about tadpoles becoming frogs from eggs? What about
caterpillars into butterflies?

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 15:11:31 -0400, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <not....@address.net>:

>On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 10:48:04 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 12:57:38 -0400, the following appeared
>>in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <not....@address.net>:
>>
>><snip the usual Tony straw challenge, complete with
>>undefined terms he can use to weasel out of any serious
>>response>
>
>As usual the cowardly runner runs yet again. Apparently there is no
>"mountain of evidence." The Cowardly Runner is unable to produce any
>evidence whatsoever of coherent, progressive, transformational change.
>Just like in April 2011 the Coward got up on his hind legs about
>Transitional Forms but cringed before me in front of his compatriots.
>Boikat was so disgusted at the Coward's display that he stepped in and
>took the sword thrust himself. Boikat went down hard, but went down
>with courage of conviction.

Yeah, yeah; we've all heard about your "bravery" too many
times to count. Now how about defining what we're supposed
to be looking for, starting with "coherent, progressive,
transformational change" and "Transitional Forms" (and why
the caps?). As Ray himself noted, the horse sequence
provides a full set of transitionals. Of course, Ray claimed
that, since it was only one example, there were no examples
(however he came to that asinine conclusion that 1=0).

>>Now that that's out of the way you can address the questions
>>you keep trying to avoid...
>>
>>1) Where did I claim to be an atheist, or post information
>>showing that I'm an atheist, as you contend I am?

>Asked and answered by Ray and I---repeatedly Your written word
>betrays you to be a practical atheist.

Not good enough, Tony. Ray claims I'm an atheist (pardon me;
"Atheist") because I accept the evidence for evolution. Is
that what you believe, that atheism has nothing to do with
belief in any deity? Do you also believe (as Ray has stated
he does) that Hindus are atheists? Clarification of these
points would be quite helpful in determining whether you're
just attempting to ride on Ray's coattails, or whether
you're a loon in your own right. It's up to you to show how
acceptance of scientific data equals atheism. Ray's candid
about his particular idiocy on this subject (he thinks the
Pope is an atheist, along with a large number of Christian
clergy); how about you?

>>2) Did the Noachian Flood occur *as described in the Bible*?
>
>Asked and answered in this forum repeatedly since 1998 and recently.
>The Flood as described in Scripture is an historical event.

No, it wasn't answered "repeatedly". You previously stated
that the Bible contained historical information; you did
*not* specifically answer the question above. Since the
answer is "yes", how do you account for the fact that
there's absolutely no evidence of a global flood, one which
covered the entire Earth with water above the highest peaks
of the highest mountains? Or is that irrelevant? If so (and
if you'll remember where this started a few years back) does
that mean that you consider the Bible to be a science text,
one which is to be considered correct even when the
scientific evidence contradicts it, as it does in this case?

>>3) How do multiple geostationary satellites each hang over a
>>different single point above a non-rotating Earth?
>
>This has been asked and answered. Is the cowardly runner implying
>that they should fall back to Earth? If so, then the question is born
>of ignorance of the neoTychonian model. And it is not my job to teach
>the coward.

Nice waffle, Tony. Now answer the question, or provide a
link to the information. Bobbing and weaving won't help.
Yes, an object stationary over a stationary Earth would
indeed fall to the ground. Geostationary satellites don't
fall because their orbital periods are the same as the
Earth's rotation period; they aren't "stationary" except
with respect to the surface of the rotating Earth. Before
posting something (else) stupid, remember that I asked about
*multiple* satellites, each over a different point, and all
stationary with respect to the surface under them.

I've posted why they'll fall down; it's your turn to explain
why they won't. Have fun!

>>Run away! Run away!
>
>Casanova will forever be known as the Cowardly Runner.

....but only by Brave Sir Tony.

> Your atheist
>buddies watched you run from me for seven days. The Cowardly Runner
>is all washed up.

Thankfully, my IronyMeter is protected. You've been running
from these exact questions for several months, and you've
still only answered one of them satisfactorily regardless of
your lying claims to the contrary. How many months will it
take for you to provide answers to the other two, O Brave
Sir Tony?

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 12:47:29 GMT, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Ilas <nob...@this.address.com>:

I hope not; that can lead to extreme violence in cases like
Tony's, and I'd hate for him to do himself a mischief (since
his first tendency would be to run away and hide, leaving no
one else to absorb his rage).

[Glenn]

"UC" <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:uranium-9a3eee61-2e92-...@i30g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...

I think it is ok, although I wouldn't eat a tadpole or a butterfly unless I
was real hungry.

[Ray Martinez]

Quibbling.

> > This approach by JH is seen in all of his posts. But JH is not
> > alone. Victorian era science held the same approach/assumption----
>
> I thought Victorian era science was creationist until Darwin. How could
> that be if they thought mere observed similarities were sufficient? You
> are very confused.
>

Your ignorance in the history of evolutionary thought is the problem
here.

Evolution, as an idea, didn't emerge suddenly in 1859, John. It had
always been **discussed** between scientific men. These discussions,
spanning decades, ASSUMED discovery of similarity meant transmutation
had occurred. Darwin rejected the assumption. If he accepted then he
would not have embarked upon a 15 month search for a mechanism.

> > except Charles Darwin. The founder of the modern theory never, at any
> > time, accepted the approach/assumption.
>
> Nonsense. His work on barnacles alone is enough to show that he
> determined genealogical relationships based on similarities.
>

Darwin did not publish one word in favor of evolution until 1858-59.
And, as we see below, you ignore the main evidence that falsifies your
preconceived notions.

>
>
>
>
> > When he arrived back in
> > England from the 5 year voyage of the Beagle, he quickly saw the data
> > he had collected to support an evolutionary hypothesis. All of this

> > occurred between October of 1836 and August of 1837:

>
> > "In October 1838, that is, fifteen months after I had begun my

> > systematic enquiry [August of 1837], I happened to read for amusement

> > Malthus on Population, and being well prepared to appreciate the
> > struggle for existence which everywhere goes on from long-continued
> > observation of the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me
> > that under these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be
> > preserved, and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The result of this
> > would be the formation of new species. Here, then, I had at last got a
> > theory by which to work" (Autobio: 120).
>
> > There was no theory until natural selection (causation) was
> > discovered.
>
> None of that has anything to do with my request to Tony.

Shameless evasion.

The fact is rudimentary: Darwin rejected close similarity as evidence
that species evolved UNTIL he had a mechanism. See the quote...."Here,
then, I had at last got a theory by which to work." The reason Darwin
refused to base evolution on similarity/affinity/or patterns (like
you), is because science, at the time, already accepted "each
species" (Darwin 1859:6) to be immutable, independent creations
(Darwin 1859:6).

Since JH has already spoken up against the rudimentary fact, we can
expect more of the same, sadly.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Where did the average evolutionist, in this case UC, obtain the idea
that metamorphosis is evolution?

Metamorphosis is spectacular evidence supporting ID.

UC: evolution takes at least two generations to occur. It is tethered
to breeding.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Oct 4, 3:50 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 15:11:31 -0400, the following appeared

> in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <not.va...@address.net>:

>
>
>
>
>
> >On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 10:48:04 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
> >wrote:
>
> >>On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 12:57:38 -0400, the following appeared

> >>in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <not.va...@address.net>:

>
> >><snip the usual Tony straw challenge, complete with
> >>undefined terms he can use to weasel out of any serious
> >>response>
>
> >As usual the cowardly runner runs yet again.  Apparently there is no
> >"mountain of evidence."  The Cowardly Runner is unable to produce any
> >evidence whatsoever of coherent, progressive, transformational change.
> >Just like in April 2011 the Coward got up on his hind legs about
> >Transitional Forms but cringed before me in front of his compatriots.
> >Boikat was so disgusted at the Coward's display that he stepped in and
> >took the sword thrust himself.  Boikat went down hard, but went down
> >with courage of conviction.
>
> Yeah, yeah; we've all heard about your "bravery" too many
> times to count. Now how about defining what we're supposed
> to be looking for, starting with "coherent, progressive,
> transformational change" and "Transitional Forms" (and why
> the caps?). As Ray himself noted, the horse sequence
> provides a full set of transitionals. Of course, Ray claimed
> that, since it was only one example, there were no examples
> (however he came to that asinine conclusion that 1=0).
>

Ridiculous, Bob.

Everyone knows I am a species immutabilist. The concept of
"transition" does not exist in nature.

What I said to Peter Nyikos was that the equine sequence is touted
because it is literally the only one you guys have. Out of millions of
alleged lineages, tens of millions of species, you got one, meaning
you got nothing: 1 = 0 when the potential is at least hundreds or
single digit thousands OUT OF MILLIONS. If evolution were true you
would have at least hundreds out of millions, Bob. You got "one." How
hard-up and pathetic to tout one freaking lineage as ample evidence in
favor of speciation, macroevolution and common descent! Of course my
ultimate context is immutability. Each species in the sequence has no
evolutionary relationship to a specimen above or below. We see design.
This tells us that each specimen was the product of Special Creation
(immaterial agency). The paleontological fossil record confirms:
species emerge suddenly/abruptly, endure in a state of changelessness,
then disappear suddenly/abruptly. Gould calls this the "literal
signal" (Gould 2002).

> >>Now that that's out of the way you can address the questions
> >>you keep trying to avoid...
>
> >>1) Where did I claim to be an atheist, or post information
> >>showing that I'm an atheist, as you contend I am?
> >Asked and answered by Ray and I---repeatedly  Your written word
> >betrays you to be a practical atheist.  
>
> Not good enough, Tony. Ray claims I'm an atheist (pardon me;
> "Atheist") because I accept the evidence for evolution. Is
> that what you believe, that atheism has nothing to do with
> belief in any deity? Do you also believe (as Ray has stated
> he does) that Hindus are atheists? Clarification of these
> points would be quite helpful in determining whether you're
> just attempting to ride on Ray's coattails, or whether
> you're a loon in your own right. It's up to you to show how
> acceptance of scientific data equals atheism. Ray's candid
> about his particular idiocy on this subject (he thinks the
> Pope is an atheist, along with a large number of Christian
> clergy); how about you?
>

Bob is a strong de facto Atheist because he believes nature is a
closed system: the immaterial/supernatural do not have any role in the
production or operation of reality. The Bible, from cover to cover,
says the exact opposite.

And here is what I really said: Any Christian who accepts material
assumptions concerning biological production (= Materialism), is not a
real Christian, but a deluded Atheist. Real Christians accept
immaterial assumptions concerning biological production (Biblical
Theism/Supernaturalism/Creationism/IDism). Evolution, since Darwin, is
fully materialist; Bob accepts evolution; therefore Bob is an Atheist.

Why are you attempting to seek relief in Tony, Bob? How pathetic! As
if Tony is going to feel sorry for you? You got yourself in this mess
by denying a religious bias. Thousands of posts under your name
archived and you have the audacity to say that bias is not seen in any
of them! In this context I have asked you to paste the link to ONE
post that shows a bias toward Theism? You have refused. Bob: where did
we obtain the idea that you're an Atheist? We wouldn't know you if we
bumped into one another on the street. We obtained the idea from your
thought which is seen in your posts. But forget all of this. We know
you are an Atheist based on one simple fact: you accept material
assumptions in biology. You believe matter "created" minds then Mind
(Materialism). Theists believe the reverse: Mind created matter then
minds (Immaterialism) .

Ray

[....]

[T Pagano]

On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 13:27:03 -0700, John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:

>T Pagano wrote:
>
>> The atheists (and Harshman in particular) are incessantly claiming
>> that the really good evidence and good proofs are always somewhere
>> else but never here and now.
>
>I don't recall saying any such thing.

Recall that I have a standing agreement to respond to any post of
yours which you identify in a new thread as refutory of any of my
positions. I offered to do this specifically because of all the
instances where you claimed that I ignored your "decisive" responses.

>Perhaps you could back this up
>with a quote? Not that I doubt your honesty, but...wait, I do doubt your
>honesty. And your ability to read. If it's any consolation,



>I don't doubt your ability to run away,

Yet Harshman cannot make this claim since I have offered to respond to
any post he has written in reply to one of mine. This standing call
was made by me to Harshman beginning at least two years ago and
repeated periodically since then. Harshman has NEVER called it
in---NEVER. But why not? Possibly because it requires Harshman to
begin a new thread asserting unequivocally that he has refuted me.

I have agreed to respond or concede. That doesn't sound like running
away. Harshman may call it whatever he likes but a rose by any other
name. . .

>and to trumpet your unearned victories.

*Elsberry vanished after his Transitional Challenge was crushed.
*Forrest vanished after being embarrassed over a citation that proved
nothing..
*wf3h vanished for various reasons..
*Dr Lenny Flank vanished after being outed as an atheist.
*Casanova was too terrified to respond in April 2011 over transitional
forms claims forcing Boikat to fall on his sword out of disgust over
Casanova's cowardice.
*Carlip vanished after his exaggerated claim about the anistropic
dipole of the CMBR didn't eliminate the neoTychonian model
*Dworetsky's principle defense (actually his only defense) of the
heliocentric model was that NASA launches east to save gas but can't
produce the data.
*Harshman too terrified to resurrect Elsberry's Famous Transitional
Challenge.
*Harshman, out of desparation, claimed that the Archeopteryx wing,
capable of powered flight, was nascent.
*Frequently having to give Harshman basic philosophy of logic lessons.
*Demonstrated that the atheists in the forum (including Harshman) were
impotent to show that Ray, I or the rest of us were anti science.
*Demonstrated that the atheists in the forum were impotent to show
that any creationist in the forum had, in fact, ever used the Bible as
a Science text.


This is just a very small sampling of the victories. Looks an awful
lot like victory to me.


Regards,
T Pagano

.. . .and unless someone finds some evidence of transformational change
the results of this challenge will be yet another victory. No victory
yet; many direct responses to my challenge to go including Harshman
and Lethe's.

[Ray Martinez]

Comments presuppose "faith" to mean "not based on evidence." The claim
of every claim and worldview is "based on evidence." One could turn to
any chapter in the Bible and see that Scripture defines faith as based
on the truth of God's word. Christians tout that Word to be supported
in reality by the evidence. Of course Dana Tweedy is a rabid
"Christian" Evolutionist, Atheist ass-kisser. He has every reason to
misrepresent his enemy. He loves the praise of Harshman, Wilkins and
Dawkins.

Ray

[T Pagano]

On Mon, 3 Oct 2011 14:42:04 -0700 (PDT), chris thompson
<chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Oct 3, 4:38 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 3 Oct 2011 11:39:52 -0700 (PDT), chris thompson
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

>> <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> >On Sep 30, 12:57 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>> >> Can any evolutionist produce the "overwhelming" evidence of
>> >> evolutionary transformism necessary to explain biological diversity?
>>
>> >> I will respond to all claimants once, so make your first post the
>> >> best. Typically 95 percent of the replies are childish. The demand
>> >> is for physical evidence, NOT story telling.
>>
>> >> Regards,
>> >> T Pagano
>>
>> >Hey Tony
>>
>> >I see you've wandered off into other threads. What about your
>> >obligation to respond to all claimants in this thread? You know, the
>> >one YOU started?
>>
>> >Chris
>>
>> Must not be any evidence.  There's one evolutionist down.
>>

>> Regards,
>> T Pagano

>
>Instead of responding to this post, Tony, why didn't you respond to
>the posts containing actual evidence?
>

I promised to respond to all direct replies. That it was easier for
Chris to criticize me for tardiness rather than produce evidence of
neoDarwinian Transformational Change isn't my fault.

>Oh right, I forgot. Brave Sir Tony. Silly of me, eh?
>

>Chris

Considering that Ray and I (and only a few others) have stood against
the secular tide all these years makes the moniker Harshman has
sarcastically bestowed upon me particularly ironic. Wouldn't Chris
agree?

Regards,
T Pagano

[RAM]

On Oct 4, 8:18 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:

>
> Considering that Ray and I (and only a few others) have stood against
> the secular tide all these years makes the moniker Harshman has
> sarcastically bestowed upon me particularly ironic.  Wouldn't Chris
> agree?

Well I wouldn't; considering that you are a liar, distorter and
plagiarizer.

You standing against the secular tide is like Jimmy Swaggart standing
against the sin.

Niether of you have any moral credibility and both of you are a joke.

Regards
RAM
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano

[RAM]

On Oct 4, 9:38 pm, RAM <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 4, 8:18 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Considering that Ray and I (and only a few others) have stood against
> > the secular tide all these years makes the moniker Harshman has
> > sarcastically bestowed upon me particularly ironic. Wouldn't Chris
> > agree?
>
> Well I wouldn't; considering that you are a liar, distorter and
> plagiarizer.
>
> You standing against the secular tide is like Jimmy Swaggart standing
> against the sin.

s/sin/sinner/

[John Harshman]

T Pagano wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 13:27:03 -0700, John Harshman
> <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> T Pagano wrote:
>>
>>> The atheists (and Harshman in particular) are incessantly claiming
>>> that the really good evidence and good proofs are always somewhere
>>> else but never here and now.
>> I don't recall saying any such thing.
>
> Recall that I have a standing agreement to respond to any post of
> yours which you identify in a new thread as refutory of any of my
> positions. I offered to do this specifically because of all the
> instances where you claimed that I ignored your "decisive" responses.

You ignore most of my responses. And when you do post at all, you post
irrelevancies, sometimes plagiarized, and invalid arguments. Like right
here. I asked for where I had said the good evidence is somewhere else.
That's true only in the sense that when I post the evidence, you ignore
it. Do you remember Archaeopteryx? Still pending, Tony.

>> Perhaps you could back this up
>> with a quote? Not that I doubt your honesty, but...wait, I do doubt your
>> honesty. And your ability to read. If it's any consolation,
>
>> I don't doubt your ability to run away,
>
> Yet Harshman cannot make this claim since I have offered to respond to
> any post he has written in reply to one of mine.

Better than offering to respond would be actually responding. It's
really simple. You post, I answer, you post again in reply. But you
don't do that. Don't make it my responsibility. Take charge yourself.

> This standing call
> was made by me to Harshman beginning at least two years ago and
> repeated periodically since then. Harshman has NEVER called it
> in---NEVER. But why not? Possibly because it requires Harshman to
> begin a new thread asserting unequivocally that he has refuted me.
>
> I have agreed to respond or concede. That doesn't sound like running
> away. Harshman may call it whatever he likes but a rose by any other
> name. . .

It's an empty promise.

>> and to trumpet your unearned victories.

....as you do below.

> *Elsberry vanished after his Transitional Challenge was crushed.
> *Forrest vanished after being embarrassed over a citation that proved
> nothing..
> *wf3h vanished for various reasons..
> *Dr Lenny Flank vanished after being outed as an atheist.
> *Casanova was too terrified to respond in April 2011 over transitional
> forms claims forcing Boikat to fall on his sword out of disgust over
> Casanova's cowardice.
> *Carlip vanished after his exaggerated claim about the anistropic
> dipole of the CMBR didn't eliminate the neoTychonian model
> *Dworetsky's principle defense (actually his only defense) of the
> heliocentric model was that NASA launches east to save gas but can't
> produce the data.
> *Harshman too terrified to resurrect Elsberry's Famous Transitional
> Challenge.
> *Harshman, out of desparation, claimed that the Archeopteryx wing,
> capable of powered flight, was nascent.

Please explain why it isn't. But this time, no plagiarism. Write your
own response. I'm still waiting for that in several threads.

> *Frequently having to give Harshman basic philosophy of logic lessons.

!

[snip a little more weaseling]

> .. . .and unless someone finds some evidence of transformational change
> the results of this challenge will be yet another victory. No victory
> yet; many direct responses to my challenge to go including Harshman
> and Lethe's.

I maintain that the nested hierarchy of life is clear evidence of
transformation change. But you wont' even bother to understand that
"nested hierarchy" means something other than just "similarity". So much
for your challenge. So now try answering some of the many unanswered
posts that litter your history here.

[John Harshman]

Crucial. But you seem unable to understand what a nested hierarchy is.

>>> This approach by JH is seen in all of his posts. But JH is not
>>> alone. Victorian era science held the same approach/assumption----
>> I thought Victorian era science was creationist until Darwin. How could
>> that be if they thought mere observed similarities were sufficient? You
>> are very confused.
>
> Your ignorance in the history of evolutionary thought is the problem
> here.
>
> Evolution, as an idea, didn't emerge suddenly in 1859, John. It had
> always been **discussed** between scientific men. These discussions,
> spanning decades, ASSUMED discovery of similarity meant transmutation
> had occurred. Darwin rejected the assumption. If he accepted then he
> would not have embarked upon a 15 month search for a mechanism.

Not true at all. Darwin accepted transformism long before he had a
mehanism to account for it. And your notion that Victorians apparently
accepted similarity as evidence of transformation without accepting
transformation itself is bizarre.

>>> except Charles Darwin. The founder of the modern theory never, at any
>>> time, accepted the approach/assumption.
>> Nonsense. His work on barnacles alone is enough to show that he
>> determined genealogical relationships based on similarities.
>
> Darwin did not publish one word in favor of evolution until 1858-59.
> And, as we see below, you ignore the main evidence that falsifies your
> preconceived notions.

Publish, no. But his notebooks, his sketch, and many letters long
precede even his paper with Wallace.

>>> When he arrived back in
>>> England from the 5 year voyage of the Beagle, he quickly saw the data
>>> he had collected to support an evolutionary hypothesis. All of this
>>> occurred between October of 1836 and August of 1837:
>>> "In October 1838, that is, fifteen months after I had begun my
>>> systematic enquiry [August of 1837], I happened to read for amusement
>>> Malthus on Population, and being well prepared to appreciate the
>>> struggle for existence which everywhere goes on from long-continued
>>> observation of the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me
>>> that under these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be
>>> preserved, and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The result of this
>>> would be the formation of new species. Here, then, I had at last got a
>>> theory by which to work" (Autobio: 120).
>>> There was no theory until natural selection (causation) was
>>> discovered.
>> None of that has anything to do with my request to Tony.
>
> Shameless evasion.
>
> The fact is rudimentary: Darwin rejected close similarity as evidence
> that species evolved UNTIL he had a mechanism. See the quote...."Here,
> then, I had at last got a theory by which to work."

Doesn't mean what you think it does. As usual. He was looking for a
mechanism, having already accepted the result.

> The reason Darwin
> refused to base evolution on similarity/affinity/or patterns (like
> you), is because science, at the time, already accepted "each
> species" (Darwin 1859:6) to be immutable, independent creations
> (Darwin 1859:6).

If that were true, why did these other Victorians you don't name
allegedly consider similarity to be evidence of evolution? And of course
Darwin didn't accept species immutability, did he?

> Since JH has already spoken up against the rudimentary fact, we can
> expect more of the same, sadly.

I'm not sad. I'm just appalled.

[Burkhard]

Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do
NOT SEE
(Hebrews 1:11)

[Rolf]

Darwin did NOT reject evolution; if your reference says what you say he was
looking for evidence for - EVOLUTION.

Is that too hard to understand?

BTW, it doesn't matter what Darwin did, thought or believed. What matters is
what we do, think and believe today, togeteher with all the evidence that
has been unearthed or brought to the fore in the 150 years since Darwin.
When are you going to update yourself on science?


Your hypothetical book mos certainly will be a flop unless you address some
science in it; By now you ought to be aware that your insane preoccupation
with what people thought, did, said, or wrote 150 years or more ago is
irrelevant for all of science in the 21st century. Your pathetic
preoccupation with the 19th century is all the evidence we need to know that
you'll never get anywhere.

[Rolf]

Where did you get the notion that the whole Earth should be covered with
fossils?



We are lucky to find the ones that we do find! Just consider how little we
find covering the past 10 thousand years! Gone, lost, disappeared forever,
in just a few thousand years! And you asking for mountains of fossils over
hundred million years!



What we know for certain though - something even you can't deny: All our
fossils had ancestors! A 100 million years old fossil is evidence that it
had ancestors too! And when we find fossils that show a relationship, isn't
the most parsimonious explanation that that one had ancestors too, and that
those ancestors descended from the much earlier sample that we have?



Or did a designer work overtime throughout all the centuries to modify all
the existing species? Beetles, butterflies, lizards, carnivores,
herbivores, trees, plants, all of the planet's biodiversity? All the
planet's coal and oil deposits are the fossilized remains of life, processed
over many millions of years.



Ray, your ignorance is self-inflicted, willed. Because you've gone astray,
are lost, and I know you'll never find the way back. Sad but true.



Why don't you pick up a book on palaeontology to learn what challenges a
palaeontologist is faced with?

You got "one." How
> hard-up and pathetic to tout one freaking lineage as ample evidence in

> favour of speciation, macroevolution and common descent! Of course my

[Rolf]

Pathetic sophistry.

The so-called "Truth of God's word" is NOT evidence. It is something you
decide to have faith in.

The Bible is not, is NOT the "Word of God". We know that it isn't. There
may be writings in the Bible that speaks of or about God, but the 'words of
god' are put in his mouth by the authors.

We know much about when, how and by whom the Jewish scriptures were written,
like how much of the law of Moses stems from the muchg earlier ruler
Hammurabi. The story about Potifar's wife is an old Egyptian fairytale.
Noah's flood is the much older epic of Gilgamesj that, incidentally, now has
been confimed as the memory of what happened when what now is the strait of
Bospurous overflowed because of a volcanic eruption and a tsunami allowing
rising see levels at the end of the last ice age to break through and create
the black sea.

Now have your faith in Noah's flood against all the evidence that there was
not a global flood, no Ark with all the animals and so on. You can't feel
very secure in your faith since you waste so much time posting nonsense
here, besides writing books and papers for the waste basket?

Got no life?

[Burkhard]

On Oct 5, 12:24 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 4, 3:01 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 30, 12:57 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
> > > Can any evolutionist produce the "overwhelming" evidence of
> > > evolutionary transformism necessary to explain biological diversity?
>
> > > I will respond to all claimants once, so make your first post the
> > > best. Typically 95 percent of the replies are childish. The demand
> > > is for physical evidence, NOT story telling.
>
> > > Regards,
> > > T Pagano
>
> > What do you think about tadpoles becoming frogs from eggs? What about
> > caterpillars into butterflies?
>
> Where did the average evolutionist, in this case UC, obtain the idea
> that metamorphosis is evolution?

I don't think he is arguing that metamorphosis is evolution. He is
arguing that it is a purely materialistic process. God isn't the
midwife to each and every butterfly
So any standard textbook account of metamorphosis would be atheistic
by your standards. It is with other words and attempt at a reduction
at absurdum. I take it however that in your case, his argument fails,
as you would indeed claim that each individual case of metamorphosis
is directly caused by god?

[DanaTweedy]

Which is how the word "faith" is defined.

> The claim
> of every claim and worldview is "based on evidence."

Except for the religious one, which is based on faith.

> One could turn to
> any chapter in the Bible and see that Scripture defines faith as based
> on the truth of God's word.

Except when it doesn't. Example:
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things
not seen" (Hebrews 11:1, KJV).

> Christians tout that Word to be supported
> in reality by the evidence.

Maybe in Rayland. In the real world, Christians define faith as belief
without evidence.

> Of course Dana Tweedy is a rabid
> "Christian" Evolutionist,

I'm a Christian, who also accepts evolution. That doesn't make me
"rabid" and I have had my shots.



> Atheist ass-kisser.

I don't "kiss ass" for anyone. I accept evolution on the facts. I
believe in God by faith.

> He has every reason to
> misrepresent his enemy.

Who does Ray imagine is my enemy? I don't misrepresent anyone, and I
don't consider misguided persons like Ray to be my enemy.

> He loves the praise of Harshman, Wilkins and
> Dawkins.

This seems to be an interesting bit of projection from Ray. He's the
one who craves "praise" from others, not me. I haven't received
praise from either John Harshman, or John Wilkins, and I doubt that
Richard Dawkins knows I exist. I say what I do to please myself, and
no one else.


Of course, it's well known that whenever Ray is unable to come up with a
rational response, he resorts to name calling. The above is no exception.


DJT

[DanaTweedy]

On 10/4/11 5:24 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Oct 4, 3:01 pm, UC<uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 30, 12:57 pm, T Pagano<not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Can any evolutionist produce the "overwhelming" evidence of
>>> evolutionary transformism necessary to explain biological diversity?
>>
>>> I will respond to all claimants once, so make your first post the
>>> best. Typically 95 percent of the replies are childish. The demand
>>> is for physical evidence, NOT story telling.
>>
>>> Regards,
>>> T Pagano
>>
>> What do you think about tadpoles becoming frogs from eggs? What about
>> caterpillars into butterflies?
>
> Where did the average evolutionist, in this case UC, obtain the idea
> that metamorphosis is evolution?

He didn't say that it was evolution. He's pointing out that
metamorphosis is " "transformitive" change.

>
> Metamorphosis is spectacular evidence supporting ID.

How, exactly? Metamorphosis doesn't seem to indicate "intelligent
design", nor does it support that assumption.

>
> UC: evolution takes at least two generations to occur.

Evolutionary changes happen over generations, true, but metamorphosis is
"transformational" change in an organism.

> It is tethered
> to breeding.

Well, to be correct, it's "tethered" to reproduction, and within
populations. Individuals don't evolve, populations do, and it occurs
over generations. Evolution is defined as allele frequency change in
populations over generations. Metamorphosis is an individual
undergoing biochemical changes over a lifetime. It's closer to what
creationists seem to imagine evolution to be, than the real thing.


DJT

[Ray Martinez]

> I'm not sad. I'm just appalled.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Typical Harshman: once he says something he must defend it,
regardless----even via shameless misrepresentation, as one can see in
each of his "answers" above.

Darwin never, at anytime, propagated evolution based on similarity,
affinity or patterns. Hence the frank admission in Autobio: 120 about
having no theory until cause ascertained; and the title of his book:
"On The Origin Of Species By Means Of Natural Selection."

Yet, on a routine basis, Harshman advocates the alleged effect of
evolution to stand on its own, unlike Darwin. JH does not understand
that without cause the alleged effect does not exist, unlike Darwin.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Oct 4, 7:55 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Ray Martinez wrote:

[2nd Reply]

> [....] But you seem unable to understand what a nested hierarchy is.
>

Because the concept makes no sense and does not exist in nature.

Of course he did (Darwin 1859:6).

Ray

> > Since JH has already spoken up against the rudimentary fact, we can
> > expect more of the same, sadly.
>

[Greg Guarino]

On 10/5/2011 1:42 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> JH does not understand
> that without cause the alleged effect does not exist, unlike Darwin.
>

I guess rain did not exist until fairly recently in human history then.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 4 Oct 2011 17:22:40 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:

No, Ray, we wouldn't. In fact, that we have one complete
sequence is solely a matter of luck, given the rarity of
fossilization at all and the further rarity of discovery of
those fossils which *are* formed. So your "1=0" idiocy is
just that; you might as well claim that a particular hand of
cards doesn't exist because there are so many possible hands
and you only have one of them.

<snip further idiotic irrelevantia>

Still no word from Tony...

[Greg Guarino]

On 10/4/2011 9:18 PM, T Pagano wrote:
>> Oh right, I forgot. Brave Sir Tony. Silly of me, eh?
>> >
>> >Chris
> Considering that Ray and I (and only a few others) have stood against
> the secular tide all these years makes the moniker Harshman has
> sarcastically bestowed upon me particularly ironic.

There's irony, to be sure, even in the metaphor you have chosen:
"standing against the tide". The tide comes in and goes out whether or
not you "stand against it", or even acknowledge it.

And the tides provide twice-daily confirmation that the Earth is not in
a location of no net gravitational force. Newton says that if a net
force acts on an object, it must undergo acceleration.

[Ray Martinez]

On Oct 5, 11:46 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Oct 2011 17:22:40 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez

> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:

>                           - McNameless- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Your response is nothing less than a goldmine. Ardent Evolutionist Bob
Casanova admits plainly that ONE lineage out of millions equates to a
claim supported (common descent).

Intelligent people who are not suffering the "evolusion delusion" know
that one "lineage" out of millions means the claim has no support
whatsoever.

Bob: Darwin refused to believe evolution HAD OCCURRED even when he had
a London expert tell him that two almost identical animals were in
fact separate species. The equine linegage hardly shows any given
species identical with another.

Ray

[Burkhard]

Concepts never do. They are abstractions. What you mean is that
nothing in nature can be classified as nested hierarchies. Which,
apart from being silly, has nothing to do with John's point. Things
need not have a physical existence to be intelligible - people may
or may not understand the concept of "Sherlock Holmes" e.g. As for
nested hierarchies, the concept is perfectly sensible and forms a core
of many disciplines totally unrelated to biology. Or do you say that
the idea that squares are a subset of quadrilaterals which are a
subset of polygons with are a subset of shapes does not make sense? Or
the idea that Baptists are a subgroup of Protestants which are a
subgroup of Christians which are a subgroup of theists which are a
subgroup of religions?

[Ray Martinez]

That's the point: even the mimimal or basic level of "nested hierarchy
abstraction" does not exist in nature.

> What you mean is that
> nothing in nature can be classified as nested hierarchies.

No, I meant any terminology that presupposes the existence of
evolution and divergence (branching descent) does not exist in nature.
In this case the terminology is "nested hierarchy."

> Which,
> apart from being silly, has nothing to do with John's point.  Things
> need not have a physical existence to be intelligible - people may
> or may not understand the concept of "Sherlock Holmes" e.g.  As for
> nested hierarchies, the concept is perfectly sensible and forms a core
> of many disciplines totally unrelated to biology. Or do you say that
> the idea that squares are a subset of quadrilaterals which are a
> subset of polygons with are a subset of shapes does not make sense? Or
> the idea that Baptists are a subgroup of Protestants which are a
> subgroup of Christians which are a subgroup of theists which are a

> subgroup of religions?- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Darwinists understand design and its existence in every context except
nature.

Ray

[DanaTweedy]

On 10/5/11 11:42 AM, Ray Martinez wrote:
snip

>> I'm not sad. I'm just appalled.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Typical Harshman: once he says something he must defend it,
> regardless----even via shameless misrepresentation, as one can see in
> each of his "answers" above.

Typical Ray: If he can't understand, or provide a reasonable reply, he
resorts to name calling.

Where was there any misrepresentation, Ray? Because you aren't able to
address John's statements, you assert "misrepresentation".

>
> Darwin never, at anytime, propagated evolution based on similarity,
> affinity or patterns.

Ray, it's clear that you are ignorant of what Darwin "propagated". You
are confusing the fact of common descent with the idea of evolution by
natural selection. Evolution explains the fact of common descent.

> Hence the frank admission in Autobio: 120 about
> having no theory until cause ascertained; and the title of his book:
> "On The Origin Of Species By Means Of Natural Selection."

Again, Ray, the theory that Darwin was talking about was the explanation
for the observation of common descent, which is what produces the
similarity. Darwin knew that the patterns of similarity were due to
common ancestry. His theory explained both the similarities, and the
differences.

>
> Yet, on a routine basis, Harshman advocates the alleged effect of
> evolution to stand on its own, unlike Darwin.

The 'effect' ie, common descent does stand on it's own. Even if Darwin
never lived, the nested hierarchy of life still exists.

> JH does not understand
> that without cause the alleged effect does not exist, unlike Darwin.

Both John, and Darwin, not to mention any other sane person, understands
that "effects" may be known long before the cause is ascertained. The
idea that without a known "cause" an effect doesn't exist is absurd.


DJT

[DanaTweedy]

Except that his studies showed that "species immutability" was wrong.
Many other scientists came to the same conclusion, even before Darwin
was born.

DJT

[John Harshman]

> Typical Harshman: once he says something he must defend it,
> regardless----even via shameless misrepresentation, as one can see in
> each of his "answers" above.
>
> Darwin never, at anytime, propagated evolution based on similarity,
> affinity or patterns. Hence the frank admission in Autobio: 120 about
> having no theory until cause ascertained; and the title of his book:
> "On The Origin Of Species By Means Of Natural Selection."
>
> Yet, on a routine basis, Harshman advocates the alleged effect of
> evolution to stand on its own, unlike Darwin. JH does not understand
> that without cause the alleged effect does not exist, unlike Darwin.

You are seriously misunderstanding Darwin in this as in most other
things. And you also should quote rather than just listing page numbers,
as those might vary. My copy of the Origin, for example, has no page 6
at all. Darwin makes his position clear enough in the introduction to
the 6th edition: "In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite
conceivable that a naturalist, reflecting on the mutual affinities of
organic beings, on their embryological relations, their geographical
distribution, geological succession, and other such facts, might come to
the conclusion that species had not been independently created, but had
descended, like varieties, from other species. Nevertheless, such a
conclusion, even if well founded, would be unsatisfactory, until it
could be shown how the innumerable species inhabiting this world have
been modified, so as to acquire that perfection of structure and
coadaptation which justly excites our admiration." It seems obvious to
me what this means: though we may come to well founded conclusions about
the history of life, Darwin finds the mere conclusion unsatisfying
unless he knows the mechanism. That doesn't mean it isn't true, or even
that he doesn't think it's true. It most certainly doesn't mean that we
can't know what happened without knowing the cause.

And Darwin's history confirms this. He first became convinced of species
transformation in 1837, and also put down his famous evolutionary tree
diagram (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Darwin_tree.png) the same
year. He didn't hit on natural selection as a mechanism until over a
year later. As for the Origin itself, chapters XI-XIV are not about
natural selection at all, but about other evidence for common descent.
Chapter XIV is explicitly about homologies as evidence.

You have a lot of trouble with the word "exist". While it's true that
there is no effect without a cause (except in the quantum world), it's
also true that the effect exists whether or not we know the cause. That
much should be obvious to any rational person.

[Rolf]

The nested hierarchy of biology is observable, is observed whehther you like
it or accept it ot not.
It stands by itselfs, stays by itself and is going to stay until the most
unlikely event that some real smart guy finds an even better alternative,
and you certainly are not that smart guy! You are quite the oppsite.

So better get cracking, dear Ray, what's your explanation for the fact of
nested hierarchies in biology? Your designer just having fun playing jokes
on us?

[Rolf]

Just explain that the lineage doesn't exist dear Ray! Show us it's
non-existence!

Explanation is required, not handwaving!

Idiot!

[Burkhard]

NO abstraction exists in nature, that's why they are called
abstractions.

>
> > What you mean is that
> > nothing in nature can be classified as nested hierarchies.
>
> No, I meant any terminology that presupposes the existence of
> evolution and divergence (branching descent) does not exist in nature.

"terminology" exists in nature to the extend that language is a
natural phenomenon.
You keep confusing concepts with the objects that fall under a
concept, words with their referents

> In this case the terminology is "nested hierarchy."
>
> > Which,
> > apart from being silly, has nothing to do with John's point. Things
> > need not have a physical existence to be intelligible - people may
> > or may not understand the concept of "Sherlock Holmes" e.g. As for
> > nested hierarchies, the concept is perfectly sensible and forms a core
> > of many disciplines totally unrelated to biology. Or do you say that
> > the idea that squares are a subset of quadrilaterals which are a
> > subset of polygons with are a subset of shapes does not make sense? Or
> > the idea that Baptists are a subgroup of Protestants which are a
> > subgroup of Christians which are a subgroup of theists which are a
> > subgroup of religions?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Darwinists understand design and its existence in every context except
> nature.
>

evasion noted. Do you agree that both the examples I gave are nested
hierarchies? If not why not?

[Robert Camp]

You're aware that Paley disagrees with you on this, Ray? He even seems
to consider it evidence of God's purpose,

"But, moreover, the division of organized substances into animals and
vegetables, and the distribution and sub-distribution of each into
genera and species, which distribution is not an arbitrary act of the
mind, but is founded in the order which prevails in external nature,
appear to me to contradict the supposition of the present world being
the remains of an indefinite variety of existences; of a variety which
rejects all plan." - William Paley, Natural Theology, 1803, ch. 5, pp.
48

Now, of course Paley saw this as evidence against evolution because it
was not demonstrative of an infinite variety, rather of discrete
kinds. But however mistaken Paley was in this perspective it doesn't
change the fact that he observed and accepted the existence of
hierarchical organization in nature.

Oh, and how about Linnaeus?

RLC

[Ray Martinez]

"Abstraction" (like any other English word) is a claim concerning
existence of the concept, like a style of painting (= existence in the
stated realm). If nested hierarchy doesn't have abstract existence (=
minimal) it's not even false (in the realm of existence called
nature). Get it?

>
>
> > > What you mean is that
> > > nothing in nature can be classified as nested hierarchies.
>
> > No, I meant any terminology that presupposes the existence of
> > evolution and divergence (branching descent) does not exist in nature.
>
> "terminology" exists in nature to the extend that language is a
> natural phenomenon.
> You keep confusing concepts with the objects that fall under a
> concept, words with their referents
>

I do it intentionally because objects are grouped conceptually. Once
the concept is pictured all that is left to do is identify things that
correspond. If a referent or correspondent cannot be identified the
concept/claim is false.

Thus the concept of "nested hierarchy" is false because it does not
correspond to ANY object or objects inhabiting reality, past or
present. The reason the concept has no referent is because evolution
is false. The patterns Darwinists claim to see only exist in their
minds----that's the extent of "existence." Neither I nor any anti-
evolutionist see these things in nature. This is why we are anti-
evolutionists; and this is why John Harshman rightly observes that I
do not understand nested hierarchies. It is because they do not
exist.

>
>
>
>
> > In this case the terminology is "nested hierarchy."
>
> > > Which,
> > > apart from being silly, has nothing to do with John's point. Things
> > > need not have a physical existence to be intelligible - people may
> > > or may not understand the concept of "Sherlock Holmes" e.g. As for
> > > nested hierarchies, the concept is perfectly sensible and forms a core
> > > of many disciplines totally unrelated to biology. Or do you say that
> > > the idea that squares are a subset of quadrilaterals which are a
> > > subset of polygons with are a subset of shapes does not make sense? Or
> > > the idea that Baptists are a subgroup of Protestants which are a
> > > subgroup of Christians which are a subgroup of theists which are a
> > > subgroup of religions?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Darwinists understand design and its existence in every context except
> > nature.
>
> evasion noted. Do you agree that both the examples I gave are nested

> hierarchies? If not why not?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Yes, if that's how you define NHs. How come the **concept** of nested
hierarchies or common descent never occurred to Linnaeus?

And how is it that you can see design everywhere except in nature
(your question in reverse)?

Ray

[Ernest Major]

In message
<a8379178-0f14-4ee8...@h14g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>, Ray
Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes

>Thus the concept of "nested hierarchy" is false because it does not
>correspond to ANY object or objects inhabiting reality, past or
>present. The reason the concept has no referent is because evolution is
>false. The patterns Darwinists claim to see only exist in their
>minds----that's the extent of "existence." Neither I nor any anti-
>evolutionist see these things in nature. This is why we are anti-
>evolutionists; and this is why John Harshman rightly observes that I do
>not understand nested hierarchies. It is because they do not exist.

Do you deny that humanity forms an identifiable group?
Do you also deny that chimpanzees, gorillas, orang utans, gibbons,
baboons, squirrel monkeys, tarsiers, lemurs, bushbabies etc form
identifiable groups?

Do you deny that primates form an identifiable group?
Do you also deny that odd and even-toed ungulates, carnivores (in the
taxonomic sense), elephants, hyraxes, sirenians, rodents, lagomorphs,
bats, etc form identifiable groups.

Do you deny that placental mammals form an identifiable group?
Do you also deny that monotremes and marsupials form identifiable
groups?

Do you deny that mammals form an identifiable group?
Do you also deny that birds, crocodylians, lizards, chelonians (turtles,
tortoises and terrapins) and lissamphibians (frogs, toads, salamanders,
newts and caecilians) form identifiable groups?

Do you deny that tetrapods (terrestrial vertebrates) form an
identifiable group?
Do you also deny that bony fish, sharks (and rays), hagfish and lampreys
form identifiable groups?

Do you deny that vertebrates form an identifiable group?
Do you also deny that insects, molluscs, annelids, nematodes,
coelenterates, etc form identifiable groups.

Do you deny that animals form an identifiable group?
Do you also deny that plants and fungi form identifiable groups?

If not, why are you claiming that nested hierarchies do not exist?
--
alias Ernest Major

[John Harshman]

So you think there is no such group as, say Mammalia or Primates, and
that all taxa are arbitrary assemblages of randomly chosen species? I
find that hard to believe, even from you. Please confirm.

>> evasion noted. Do you agree that both the examples I gave are nested
>> hierarchies? If not why not?

> Yes, if that's how you define NHs. How come the **concept** of nested
> hierarchies or common descent never occurred to Linnaeus?

The concept of nested hierarchies did occur to Linnaeus. That's why he
classified organisms into groups within groups. He even toyed with a bit
of common descent. But the nested hierarchy precedes the idea of common
descent. Descent explains the clear pattern.

By the way, any idiot can take any homologous genetic sequence from a
bunch of apes (including H. sapiens), analyze it in his favorite
phylogenetic analyze program, and get the same tree. No preconceptions
involved. So why does that work, Ray? Even if you deny common descent,
it seems perverse to deny nested hierarchy, when that can be tested any
time by anyone with access to a computer.

> And how is it that you can see design everywhere except in nature
> (your question in reverse)?

What does "everywhere except in nature" even mean?

[Ray Martinez]

> RLC- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

At no time did Paley or Linnaeus accept a non-teleological explanation
of said organization. In fact the thought never even entered their
minds. This is a day v. night fact.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

> What does "everywhere except in nature" even mean?- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Your message above contains one fundamental error throughout. Once I
identify the error your points, which appear deadly, will disappear.
You also have posted another rebuttal upthread that I intend to
answer. Unfortunately I do not have the time to create these messages
today.

Ray

[Ernest Major]

In message
<b48bcdd5-25f2-4a57...@dm9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, Ray
Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes

>On Oct 5, 1:56 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 5, 12:56 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Oct 5, 12:30 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Oct 5, 6:58 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Oct 4, 7:55 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>> > > > [2nd Reply]
>>
>> > > > > > On Oct 4, 1:31 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> > > > > >> Ray Martinez wrote:
>> > > > > >>> On Oct 3, 3:51 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> > > > > >>>> T Pagano wrote:
>> > > > > >>>>> On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 18:46:22 +0100, Ernest Major
>> > > > > >>>>> <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> > > > > >>>>>> In message
>> > > > > >>>>>><apagano-0ksb87pkab0o0mnmq68gk0tbs7qms1o...@4ax.com>, T
>> > > > > >>>>>> Pagano <not.va...@address.net> writes
>> > > > > >>>>>>> Can any evolutionist produce the "overwhelming" evidence of
>> > > > > >>>>>>> evolutionary transformism necessary to explain
>> > > > > >>>>>>>biological diversity?
>> > > > > >>>>>> You don't appear to have defined "evolutionary
>> > > > > >>>>>>transformism". If you are
>> > > > > >>>>>> interested in the overwhelming evidence for common
>> > > > > >>>>>>

>> > > > > >>>>>> modification through the agency of natural selection and other
>> > > > > >>>>>> processes, you are unreasonably optimistic in expected
>> > > > > >>>>>>

>> > > > > >>>>>> this thread - you're asking people to give you an
>> > > > > >>>>>>undergraduate course
>> > > > > >>>>>> in a single post. (I was tempted to ask if you had you
>> > > > > >>>>>>got a spare
>> > > > > >>>>>> decade to receive the overwhelming evidence)?
>> > > > > >>>>> No evidence so far.
>> > > > > >>>>>> To start the evidence, there's about 300 billion base
>> > > > > >>>>>>pairs of DNA data
>> > > > > >>>>>> in GenBank, and more elsewhere. To which you could add
>> > > > > >>>>>>

>> > > > > >>>>>> scientific literature on comparative morphological
>> > > > > >>>>>>

>> > > > > >>>>>> fossil record, and more besides.
>> > > > > >>>>> The Short Story:
>> > > > > >>>>> Similarities are necessary but NOT SUFFICIENT to prove
>> > > > > >>>>> transformational change. This is indisputable. Darwin
>> > > > > >>>>>

>> > > > > >>>>> this fact 160 years ago but atheists today are not. Pity.
>> > > > > >>>> Please present evidence that Darwin was "aware of this
>> > > > > >>>>

>> > > > > >>>> provide an argument for why this claim is true.
>> > > > > >>> Harshman's approach to evolution is seen in his request.
>> > > > > >>>

>> > > > > >>> similarity, what Darwin called "affinity," once it is

>> > > > > >>>and/or
>> > > > > >>> discovered, to mean that evolution is supported and has
>> > > > > >>>occurred (past
>> > > > > >>> tense).
>> > > > > >> Not similarity, exactly. Nested hierarchy. For some reason
>> > > > > >>both you and
>> > > > > >> Tony (and almost all creationists) have difficulty with

Even if it was true, that is irrelevant to the statement that they
recognised nested hierarchies to exist in nature. (You have recently
claimed that evasion betokens an inability to refute; should we
therefore conclude that you are unable to refute the statement that
Paley and Linnaeus recognised nested hierarchies to occur in nature.)
>
>Ray
>

--
alias Ernest Major