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

100 views
Skip to first unread message

T Pagano

unread,
Sep 30, 2011, 12:57:38 PM9/30/11
to
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

unread,
Sep 30, 2011, 1:46:22 PM9/30/11
to
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

unread,
Sep 30, 2011, 1:48:04 PM9/30/11
to
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

unread,
Sep 30, 2011, 2:04:11 PM9/30/11
to

(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

unread,
Sep 30, 2011, 3:37:49 PM9/30/11
to
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

unread,
Sep 30, 2011, 4:21:58 PM9/30/11
to
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.

unread,
Sep 30, 2011, 4:42:38 PM9/30/11
to


"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

unread,
Sep 30, 2011, 4:47:08 PM9/30/11
to
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

unread,
Sep 30, 2011, 4:50:57 PM9/30/11
to
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

unread,
Sep 30, 2011, 5:00:32 PM9/30/11
to
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

unread,
Sep 30, 2011, 5:03:17 PM9/30/11
to
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

unread,
Sep 30, 2011, 11:01:05 PM9/30/11
to
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

unread,
Oct 1, 2011, 3:51:42 AM10/1/11
to
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

unread,
Oct 1, 2011, 6:18:24 AM10/1/11
to
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

unread,
Oct 1, 2011, 11:17:07 AM10/1/11
to
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

unread,
Oct 1, 2011, 1:10:55 PM10/1/11
to
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

unread,
Oct 1, 2011, 4:29:32 PM10/1/11
to
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

unread,
Oct 1, 2011, 6:58:13 PM10/1/11
to
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

unread,
Oct 2, 2011, 3:06:08 AM10/2/11
to
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

unread,
Oct 2, 2011, 8:47:14 AM10/2/11
to
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

unread,
Oct 2, 2011, 2:20:51 PM10/2/11
to
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

unread,
Oct 2, 2011, 3:44:17 PM10/2/11
to
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

unread,
Oct 3, 2011, 2:39:52 PM10/3/11
to
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

unread,
Oct 3, 2011, 4:38:12 PM10/3/11
to
Must not be any evidence. There's one evolutionist down.

Regards,
T Pagano

chris thompson

unread,
Oct 3, 2011, 5:42:04 PM10/3/11
to
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

unread,
Oct 3, 2011, 5:49:51 PM10/3/11
to
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

unread,
Oct 3, 2011, 5:53:59 PM10/3/11
to
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

unread,
Oct 3, 2011, 6:31:59 PM10/3/11
to
On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 17:49:51 -0400, T Pagano <not....@address.net>
wrote:
Will Burkhard Come to Ernest's Rescue?

John Harshman

unread,
Oct 3, 2011, 6:51:38 PM10/3/11
to
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

unread,
Oct 3, 2011, 7:14:23 PM10/3/11
to
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

unread,
Oct 3, 2011, 7:17:03 PM10/3/11
to
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

unread,
Oct 3, 2011, 5:46:14 PM10/3/11
to
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

unread,
Oct 3, 2011, 8:19:01 PM10/3/11
to
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

unread,
Oct 4, 2011, 1:26:29 AM10/4/11
to
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

unread,
Oct 4, 2011, 2:11:02 AM10/4/11
to
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

unread,
Oct 4, 2011, 3:00:28 AM10/4/11
to
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
> >>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

unread,
Oct 4, 2011, 4:18:28 AM10/4/11
to
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

unread,
Oct 4, 2011, 4:22:42 AM10/4/11
to
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

unread,
Oct 4, 2011, 4:26:59 AM10/4/11
to
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

unread,
Oct 4, 2011, 4:35:39 AM10/4/11
to
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

unread,
Oct 4, 2011, 4:37:45 AM10/4/11
to
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

unread,
Oct 4, 2011, 4:40:39 AM10/4/11
to
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

unread,
Oct 4, 2011, 8:47:29 AM10/4/11
to
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

unread,
Oct 4, 2011, 2:43:56 PM10/4/11
to
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

unread,
Oct 4, 2011, 3:14:12 PM10/4/11
to
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

unread,
Oct 4, 2011, 3:13:23 PM10/4/11
to
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

unread,
Oct 4, 2011, 3:11:31 PM10/4/11
to
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

unread,
Oct 4, 2011, 3:21:49 PM10/4/11
to
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
> >> 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

unread,
Oct 4, 2011, 3:59:32 PM10/4/11
to
> 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

unread,
Oct 4, 2011, 4:27:03 PM10/4/11
to
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

unread,
Oct 4, 2011, 4:31:18 PM10/4/11
to
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

unread,
Oct 4, 2011, 4:32:56 PM10/4/11
to
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

unread,
Oct 4, 2011, 4:38:03 PM10/4/11
to
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

unread,
Oct 4, 2011, 4:52:39 PM10/4/11
to
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

unread,
Oct 4, 2011, 5:02:05 PM10/4/11
to
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

unread,
Oct 4, 2011, 3:43:37 PM10/4/11
to
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

unread,
Oct 4, 2011, 5:10:33 PM10/4/11
to
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

unread,
Oct 4, 2011, 5:06:49 PM10/4/11
to
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

unread,
Oct 4, 2011, 6:01:05 PM10/4/11