Darwin's false dichotomy fallacy.
backspace
Either-Or Fallacy (false dichotomy)
Definition: Presenting only two possible alternatives when others are
justified.
Darwin’s fallacy:
either everything is designed, or nothing is designed. Either God
designed the shape of my nose and planned every raindrop that falls,
or there is no God. In a letter to Lyell, he said: “Will you honestly
tell me (and I should be really much obliged) whether you believe that
the shape of my nose was ordained and ‘guided by an intelligent
cause?’” To J.D. Hooker he wrote, “As for each variation that has
ever occurred having been pre-ordained for a special end, I can no
more believe in it than that the spot on which each drop of rain falls
has been specially ordained.”
Comment: Some things are “either-or” (for example, boys or girls, 0
or 1 bits in computers). Some things are mostly one thing or another,
or one of a few possibilities, with very few exceptions. But you need
to demonstrate or prove this, not assume it.
Circular Reasoning (begging the question, special pleading, petitio
principii, a priori reasoning)
Definition: Assuming what needs to be proved.
Using homology both as explanation of evolution and proof for it: “If
an intelligent being had designed both a fish and Sophia Loren from
scratch, there’s no way, if evolution hadn’t occurred, that her arm
would have had any internal resemblance to a fish’s [sic]. The
similarity in anatomy is clear evidence of evolution; the fish’s
forelimb [sic] and Sophia’s show a common ancestry” (Jared Diamond,
Discover 6/85, p.91 Using the geologic column as descriptive of
evolution and also as evidence for it Assuming long ages for
radioactive half-lives, then using them to prove long ages. Inventing
a term as if it explains something: e.g., convergent evolution used as
both an explanation and an evidence for Darwinian origin of like
characteristics in unlike organisms.
Steven L.
> Using homology both as explanation of evolution and proof for it: “If
> an intelligent being had designed both a fish and Sophia Loren from
> scratch, there’s no way, if evolution hadn’t occurred, that her arm
> would have had any internal resemblance to a fish’s [sic]. The
> similarity in anatomy is clear evidence of evolution; the fish’s
> forelimb [sic] and Sophia’s show a common ancestry” (Jared Diamond,
> Discover 6/85, p.91 Using the geologic column as descriptive of
> evolution and also as evidence for it Assuming long ages for
> radioactive half-lives, then using them to prove long ages. Inventing
> a term as if it explains something: e.g., convergent evolution used as
> both an explanation and an evidence for Darwinian origin of like
> characteristics in unlike organisms.
Evolutionists do NOT use the same homologies as both explanation and
evidence.
The homologies in structure uncovered by Darwin helped him to explain
evolution and propose a theory of evolution to explain those homologies.
But the homologies in molecular genetics uncovered long after Darwin's
death provided new proof of Darwin's theory. Darwin knew nothing about
molecular genetics.
In every field of scientific endeavor, certain experiments and phenomena
lead a scientist to propose a theory to explain those data. But then it
takes other experiments and other phenomena to provide further proof (or
disproof) of that theory.
That's how science works.
Another example: Einstein proposed Special Relativity to explain the
failure of careful experiments to find the aether or find changes in the
speed of light caused by relative motion.
But if anyone doubted Special Relativity, they stopped doubting it after
Hiroshima.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Garamond Lethe
> http://www.creationsafaris.com/crevbd.htm#circular
>
> Either-Or Fallacy (false dichotomy)
> Definition: Presenting only two possible alternatives when others are
> justified.
>
> Darwin’s fallacy:
> either everything is designed, or nothing is designed. Either God
> designed the shape of my nose and planned every raindrop that falls, or
> there is no God. In a letter to Lyell, he said: “Will you honestly tell
> me (and I should be really much obliged) whether you believe that the
> shape of my nose was ordained and ‘guided by an intelligent cause?’” To
> J.D. Hooker he wrote, “As for each variation that has ever occurred
> having been pre-ordained for a special end, I can no more believe in it
> than that the spot on which each drop of rain falls has been specially
> ordained.”
<snip>
Backspace's fallacy:
As logical fallacies go, this is a bit of an arabesque and is usually
only seen in undergraduate philosophy exams (and usenet, of course).
It's most concise expression is due to Douglas Adams: "fundamental
design flaws are completely hidden by their superficial design flaws".
A properly designed backspace fallacy will, at first glance, confront the
student with one huge mother of a fallacy (the type is unimportant but it
must be obvious). Closer inspection by careful students will reveal that
this superficial fallacy masks (though not very well) an entire
interlocking web of fallacies, factual errors, bad writing and muddled
thinking.
At the end of the exam (and two hours may be required for a single well-
crafted backspace fallacy) the competent student will have reached the
conclusion that there is no fallacy: no logical proposition has been
advanced or defended, no claims made, and (properly speaking) no
communication has occurred. This usually leads to creative (if profane)
exam answers. The lesson, though a difficult one, is worth learning:
null strings may have an arbitrary length.
wf3h
> http://www.creationsafaris.com/crevbd.htm#circular
>
> Either-Or Fallacy (false dichotomy)
> Definition: Presenting only two possible alternatives when others are
> justified.
> >
> an intelligent being had designed both a fish and Sophia Loren from
> scratch, there’s no way, if evolution hadn’t occurred, that her arm
> would have had any internal resemblance to a fish’s [sic]. The
> similarity in anatomy is clear evidence of evolution; the fish’s
> forelimb [sic] and Sophia’s show a common ancestry” (Jared Diamond,
> Discover 6/85, p.91 Using the geologic column as descriptive of
> evolution and also as evidence for it Assuming long ages for
> radioactive half-lives, then using them to prove long ages. Inventing
> a term as if it explains something: e.g., convergent evolution used as
> both an explanation and an evidence for Darwinian origin of like
> characteristics in unlike organisms.
boy, talk about circular reasoning!
the creationist, unable to grasp science and its methods, pretends
that independent sciences are, in fact, mutally dependent. thus he
pretends radioactive dating is dependent on evolutionary biology.
of course, this is wrong. radioactive processes were discovered by
physicists, not biologists and have nothing to do with evolution at
all. they are an independent check on physical processes that CAN be
used by biologists to evaluate data.
creationists, of course, having contributed NOTHING to human
understanding of the world in 2000 years, are running from their
failures as their world collapses around them.
and it's hardly a case of circular reasoning to discover a nested
hierachy; such an observation was known BEFORE darwin and was
discovered by creationists. so how can he complain about evolution
when it was creationists who discovered the links between organisms?
backspace has a 3rd century mind trying to understand a 21st century
world. barbara tuchman in her book 'a distant mirror' detailed the
european world of the 14th century. people then, like backspace,
rejected the idea of change. to them, the world was unchanging. it was
the same yesterday and would be the same tornorrow. science was
unknown. literacy did not exist. and god was in his heaven.
in 2000 years creationism gave us nothing. no understanding of the
world. it was, and is, a failure
unrestra...@hotmail.com
Brilliant exegesis!
Kermit
unrestra...@hotmail.com
> http://www.creationsafaris.com/crevbd.htm#circular
>
> Either-Or Fallacy (false dichotomy)
> Definition: Presenting only two possible alternatives when others are
> justified.
>
> Darwin’s fallacy:
> either everything is designed, or nothing is designed. Either God
> designed the shape of my nose and planned every raindrop that falls,
> or there is no God.
When did he ever present this false dichotomy?
> In a letter to Lyell, he said: “Will you honestly
> tell me (and I should be really much obliged) whether you believe that
> the shape of my nose was ordained and ‘guided by an intelligent
> cause?’” To J.D. Hooker he wrote, “As for each variation that has
> ever occurred having been pre-ordained for a special end, I can no
> more believe in it than that the spot on which each drop of rain falls
> has been specially ordained.”
Nope, that's not it.
>
> Comment: Some things are “either-or” (for example, boys or girls,
Or hermaphrodites, or XYY males, or XXX females or non humans or adult
humans or rocks.
>0 or 1 bits in computers). Some things are mostly one thing or another,
> or one of a few possibilities, with very few exceptions. But you need
> to demonstrate or prove this, not assume it.
Correct.
>
> Circular Reasoning (begging the question, special pleading, petitio
> principii, a priori reasoning)
> Definition: Assuming what needs to be proved.
Such as: there's a god!
Proof: look around.
Proof: how else?
Proof: the bible told me.
>
> Using homology both as explanation of evolution and proof for it: “If
> an intelligent being had designed both a fish and Sophia Loren from
> scratch, there’s no way, if evolution hadn’t occurred, that her arm
> would have had any internal resemblance to a fish’s [sic].
Unless there is a god, and he wanted it to look like humans evolved.
What's wrong with the grammar?
> The
> similarity in anatomy is clear evidence of evolution; the fish’s
> forelimb [sic] and Sophia’s show a common ancestry” (Jared Diamond,
> Discover 6/85, p.91
Yes. Why would a god, in a hundred million ways, make it *look as
though life evolved, unless:
1. She lies.
2. He did it that way.
3. There is no god as you imagine it.
> Using the geologic column as descriptive of
> evolution and also as evidence for it
No, the geological column is not a description of evolution. For
example,
1. We could have been the same all this time (which would have refuted
the theory).
2. We various species could have started very complex and wondrous and
sophisticated (even more than now) and degenerated, with NS simply
slowing down the process.
3. The various species could have wandered about, but stayed within
certain morphological boundaries, each species independent and not
giving rise to multiple species.
Etc.
> Assuming long ages for
> radioactive half-lives, then using them to prove long ages.
The half-lives of isotopes are determined by empirical observations,
both direct and indirect.
> Inventing
> a term as if it explains something: e.g., convergent evolution used as
> both an explanation and an evidence for Darwinian origin of like
> characteristics in unlike organisms.
"Adult" and "very tall kid" are both explanations for a moderately
tall human, but they are not the same thing, nor do either simply mean
"moderately tall human.
Similarities in different organisms may be homologous evolution, or
the similarity may not be there at all, when examined closely.
Science is not in trouble because you do not think clearly, and have
trouble with language.
Kermit
Chris
> [A creationist's] fallacy:
> As logical fallacies go, this is a bit of an arabesque and is usually
> only seen in undergraduate philosophy exams (and usenet, of course).
> It's most concise expression is due to Douglas Adams: "fundamental
> design flaws are completely hidden by their superficial design flaws".
>
> A properly designed [creationist] fallacy will, at first glance, confront the
> student with one huge mother of a fallacy (the type is unimportant but it
> must be obvious). Closer inspection by careful students will reveal that
> this superficial fallacy masks (though not very well) an entire
> interlocking web of fallacies, factual errors, bad writing and muddled
> thinking.
>
> At the end of the exam (and two hours may be required for a single well-
> crafted [creationist] fallacy) the competent student will have reached the
Mike Dworetsky
news:e4e8669f-ec01-4422...@r34g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
http://www.creationsafaris.com/crevbd.htm#circular
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MD:
Radioactive half lives are not assumed, they are measured in the laboratory
by physicists. Once you have the measurement from a physics lab, usually
confirmed by several independent studies published in peer-reviewed
journals, you can apply basic calculus to measurements from rocks, of a
mixture of parent and daughter isotopes, and deduce the age at which the
rock solidified. I suppose basic physics and calculus are, however, beyond
the intellectual ken of the creationist. So if you had any actual
scientific knowledge, your statement would be incomprehensible.
Once it is realised that you are an idiot, it becomes wholly understandable.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
The Pooflinger
> http://www.creationsafaris.com/crevbd.htm#circular
>
> Either-Or Fallacy (false dichotomy)
> Definition: Presenting only two possible alternatives when others are
> justified.
>
> Darwin’s fallacy:
> either everything is designed, or nothing is designed. Either God
> designed the shape of my nose and planned every raindrop that falls,
> or there is no God.
If there is a god and he/she/it designed the shape of my nose, then I
can conclude h/s/i is a real prick.
Tim DeLaney
>
> Either-Or Fallacy (false dichotomy)
> Definition: Presenting only two possible alternatives when others are
> justified.
>
> Darwin’s fallacy:
> either everything is designed, or nothing is designed. Either God
> designed the shape of my nose and planned every raindrop that falls,
> or there is no God. In a letter to Lyell, he said: “Will you honestly
> tell me (and I should be really much obliged) whether you believe that
> the shape of my nose was ordained and ‘guided by an intelligent
> cause?’” To J.D. Hooker he wrote, “As for each variation that has
> ever occurred having been pre-ordained for a special end, I can no
> more believe in it than that the spot on which each drop of rain falls
> has been specially ordained.”
>
> Comment: Some things are “either-or” (for example, boys or girls, 0
> or 1 bits in computers). Some things are mostly one thing or another,
> or one of a few possibilities, with very few exceptions. But you need
> to demonstrate or prove this, not assume it.
Darwin's religious beliefs, far from being dichotomous, ranged from
being a true believer in his youth to agnosticism in his later years.
These beliefs underwent a slow transformation as he discovered more
and more about the natural world. That is to say, his beliefs were
based on evidence. As he gathered more evidence, he became less
religious.
It is just ignorant to imply that Darwin concluded that either the
shape of his nose was designed or that God doesn't exist. This is
willful ignorance, given that you could discover what his beliefs were
with a few simple keystrokes. Some would say that making false
statements based on willful ignorance is lying.
Tim
Burkhard
> http://www.creationsafaris.com/crevbd.htm#circular
>
> Either-Or Fallacy (false dichotomy)
> Definition: Presenting only two possible alternatives when others are
> justified.
>
> Darwin’s fallacy:
> either everything is designed, or nothing is designed.
Backspace' Straw man fallacy: This is not Darwin, who was perfectly
aware that e.g. his House was designed
Bob T.
- Bob T.
> > null strings may have an arbitrary length.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
<Steph...@gmail.com>:
>http://www.creationsafaris.com/crevbd.htm#circular
>
>Either-Or Fallacy (false dichotomy)
>Definition: Presenting only two possible alternatives when others are
>justified.
>
>Darwin’s fallacy:
>either everything is designed, or nothing is designed. Either God
>designed the shape of my nose and planned every raindrop that falls,
>or there is no God.
Really? Let's see if your chosen "evidence" supports your
claim...
> In a letter to Lyell, he said: “Will you honestly
>tell me (and I should be really much obliged) whether you believe that
>the shape of my nose was ordained and ‘guided by an intelligent
>cause?’”
OK, this one doesn't, since it mentions nothing about
whether God exists or whether He created anything, merely
whether He micromanages existence.
> To J.D. Hooker he wrote, “As for each variation that has
>ever occurred having been pre-ordained for a special end, I can no
>more believe in it than that the spot on which each drop of rain falls
>has been specially ordained.”
Same for this one; no mention of anything other than
micromanagement.
So your claim is rejected based on your own selected
"evidence". And as an aside, your apparent belief that
rejecting such micromanagement is equivalent to rejecting
both God's existence and initial Creation says that *you*,
not Darwin, are the one who believes that the concepts are
inseparable. And that belief is *your* problem, not
Darwin's.
>Comment: Some things are “either-or” (for example, boys or girls, 0
>or 1 bits in computers). Some things are mostly one thing or another,
>or one of a few possibilities, with very few exceptions. But you need
>to demonstrate or prove this, not assume it.
Exactly, so why do you assume it?
>Circular Reasoning (begging the question, special pleading, petitio
>principii, a priori reasoning)
>Definition: Assuming what needs to be proved.
Such as Special Creation?
>Using homology both as explanation of evolution and proof for it: “If
>an intelligent being had designed both a fish and Sophia Loren from
>scratch, there’s no way, if evolution hadn’t occurred, that her arm
>would have had any internal resemblance to a fish’s [sic]. The
>similarity in anatomy is clear evidence of evolution; the fish’s
>forelimb [sic] and Sophia’s show a common ancestry” (Jared Diamond,
>Discover 6/85, p.91
So you can refute the logic Diamond expressed, and there
*is* a reason for Someone Who created each from scratch to
have made them similar internally when their functions
differ so radically? Well, please do so; assertions aren't
evidence *or* logic.
> Using the geologic column as descriptive of
>evolution and also as evidence for it
Nope. The geologic column was *not* used as evidence for
evolution, but for the *relative* ages of the fossils it
contains. And until science had the tools (see next point)
to generate *actual* numbers for those ages it remained a
controversial subject.
> Assuming long ages for
>radioactive half-lives, then using them to prove long ages.
Nope. The long half-lives (and just as important for dating
purposes, the decay chains) are known from measurement, not
assumed.
> Inventing
>a term as if it explains something: e.g., convergent evolution used as
>both an explanation and an evidence for Darwinian origin of like
>characteristics in unlike organisms.
Nope. Convergent evolution is an explanation for the
observed fact that organisms which do *not* share a recent
common ancestor (known from both genetics and the fossil
record) nevertheless *do* share a common outer form, a form
which is conducive to survival in the local environment.
So once again every claim you make is shown to be false.
When do you expect to grow weary of these public
demonstrations of your scientific illiteracy and logical
incompetence?
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Jackson Pillock
> http://www.creationsafaris.com/crevbd.htm#circular
>
> Either-Or Fallacy (false dichotomy)
> Definition: Presenting only two possible alternatives when others are
> justified.
>
> Darwin’s fallacy:
> either everything is designed, or nothing is designed. Either God
> designed the shape of my nose and planned every raindrop that falls,
> or there is no God. In a letter to Lyell, he said: “Will you honestly
> tell me (and I should be really much obliged) whether you believe that
> the shape of my nose was ordained and ‘guided by an intelligent
> cause?’” To J.D. Hooker he wrote, “As for each variation that has
> ever occurred having been pre-ordained for a special end, I can no
> more believe in it than that the spot on which each drop of rain falls
> has been specially ordained.”
>
> Comment: Some things are “either-or” (for example, boys or girls,
You mean: boys/not boys or girls/not girls. 'Boys or Girls' is not,
strictly speaking a logical dichotomy.
You mischaracterise Darwin's reasoning. It's true that evolution, for
him, destroyed the argument from design for the existence of God. But
he did not characterise his work as having that aim.
Gary Bohn
Something that can explain everything, explains nothing. Both ID and
special creation explains everything, consequently there is no way to
test either.
A logical fallacy cannot prove error, it can only remove the ability for
the structure of the argument to provide support. In other words, if your
argument is nothing but pointing out logical fallacies then you have not
disproved the underlying argument.
David Hare-Scott
You have dressed it up with much verbiage this time but it still comes down
to:
"I can construct words that sound tautologous that sound like they represent
evolution, therefore evolution is wrong."
Let me cut back to one of your original examples where it is much easier to
see what's going on.
"Survival of the fittest" is a tautology, therefore evolution is wrong.
"Survival of the fittest" is in no way a definition of evolution or of
natural selection or a representation of evolutionaty theory or any of the
principles involved. Whether it is a tautology or not doesn't matter.
Whether Darwin or anybody else used the phrase is of no consequence.
Whether it is embedded in the popular psyche or actually says anything at
all is irrelevant. It can be viewed as a definition of "fittness" or just as
a verbal quirk. Humans do have a habit of repeating things to themselves.
What is worse than this example is that the fallacy has been pointed out to
you many times but you keep repeating it as if you had something new. The
barriers that you have erected to protect your misapprehension are
extraordinary.
David
Chris
wrote:
> On 14 May, 18:41, backspace <Stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >http://www.creationsafaris.com/crevbd.htm#circular
>
> > Either-Or Fallacy (false dichotomy)
> > Definition: Presenting only two possible alternatives when others are
> > justified.
>
> > Darwin’s fallacy:
> > either everything is designed, or nothing is designed. Either God
> > designed the shape of my nose and planned every raindrop that falls,
> > or there is no God. In a letter to Lyell, he said: “Will you honestly
> > tell me (and I should be really much obliged) whether you believe that
> > the shape of my nose was ordained and ‘guided by an intelligent
> > cause?’” To J.D. Hooker he wrote, “As for each variation that has
> > ever occurred having been pre-ordained for a special end, I can no
> > more believe in it than that the spot on which each drop of rain falls
> > has been specially ordained.”
>
> > Comment: Some things are “either-or” (for example, boys or girls,
>
> You mean: boys/not boys or girls/not girls. 'Boys or Girls' is not,
> strictly speaking a logical dichotomy.
>
> You mischaracterise Darwin's reasoning. It's true that evolution, for
> him, destroyed the argument from design for the existence of God. But
> he did not characterise his work as having that aim.
Actually, most biographers cite the death of Darwin's daughter Annie
as the pivotal even in Darwin's move to agnosticism. His letters seem
to support this.
Chris
trader100
> "Survival of the fittest" is in no way a definition of evolution or of
> natural selection or a representation of evolutionaty theory or any of the
> principles involved. Whether it is a tautology or not doesn't matter.
You just don't get it do you? How many times must we go through this
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics "you have a green light"
example. It all depends who says SoF and what was the intent. What did
Spencer mean by SoF , because you are referring to him right? Because
there is no language without a motive, no tautologies no nothing
without intent.
> Whether Darwin or anybody else used the phrase is of no consequence.
SoF with what intent?
> Whether it is embedded in the popular psyche or actually says anything at
> all is irrelevant.
Whos concept is embedded? The patrick matthews or DArwin concept or
James hUtton .
> It can be viewed as a definition of "fittness" or just as a verbal quirk.
What is the concept with fitness? And who is the person that has this
concept and when was he awarded his Nobel for solving the problem:
> Welcome back Noss. I see you have gotten a couple new equations. But
> some of us are still waiting for the justification of your assertion
> that in order to know anything about what's happening in a population
> of moths, we have to look at amino acids or DNA base-pair changes.
> Please explain why you think that in this case- the one I described
> earlier- phenotype is not a reliable indicator of genotype. Why is it
> that the predictions we can make using the formulae for natural
> selection are not science, especially given the fact that they are
> quite accurate as long as you have good estimates of the relative
> reproductive success rates of the various phenotypes?
> Thanks.
> Chris
You don't have to do anything, but if you want to do real science,
show me
a transition matrix connecting DNA/pAA sequence and survival
probability.
For any trait. It's a Nobel Prize for the first one ( at least ) so
get to
work.
nss
Jackson Pillock
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I mean, specifically, the argument from design, not overall belief in
God.
Dr. Acula
> On May 15, 2:40 am, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > "Survival of the fittest" is in no way a definition of evolution or of
> > natural selection or a representation of evolutionaty theory or any of the
> > principles involved. Whether it is a tautology or not doesn't matter.
>
> You just don't get it do you? How many times must we go through this
> example. It all depends who says SoF and what was the intent. What did
> Spencer mean by SoF , because you are referring to him right? Because
> there is no language without a motive, no tautologies no nothing
> without intent.
Pragmatics deal with meaning as it is relayed through context. Given
context it doesn't matter who said what. All that matters is that
there is enough context to convey the intended meaning. Everyone else
in the world can do this eaxsily. Perhaps it is you who doesn't get
it.
> > Whether Darwin or anybody else used the phrase is of no consequence.
>
> SoF with what intent?
The context will tell you. Try reading for comprehension. Do you
realize how insane you look?
>
> > Whether it is embedded in the popular psyche or actually says anything at
> > all is irrelevant.
>
> Whos concept is embedded? The patrick matthews or DArwin concept or
> James hUtton .
See above.
> > It can be viewed as a definition of "fittness" or just as a verbal quirk.
>
> What is the concept with fitness? And who is the person that has this
> concept and when was he awarded his Nobel for solving the problem:
Its in the dictionary. Look it up.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/o6oggq
>
> > Welcome back Noss. I see you have gotten a couple new equations. But
> > some of us are still waiting for the justification of your assertion
> > that in order to know anything about what's happening in a population
> > of moths, we have to look at amino acids or DNA base-pair changes.
> > Please explain why you think that in this case- the one I described
> > earlier- phenotype is not a reliable indicator of genotype. Why is it
> > that the predictions we can make using the formulae for natural
> > selection are not science, especially given the fact that they are
> > quite accurate as long as you have good estimates of the relative
> > reproductive success rates of the various phenotypes?
> > Thanks.
> > Chris
>
> You don't have to do anything, but if you want to do real science,
> show me
> a transition matrix connecting DNA/pAA sequence and survival
> probability.
> For any trait. It's a Nobel Prize for the first one ( at least ) so
> get to
> work.
>
> nss
Its not even fun dealing with you anymore. Its like torturing an ant.
wf3h
>
> > "Survival of the fittest" is in no way a definition of evolution or of
> > natural selection or a representation of evolutionaty theory or any of the
> > principles involved. Whether it is a tautology or not doesn't matter.
>
> You just don't get it do you? How many times must we go through this
> example. It all depends who says SoF and what was the intent. What did
> Spencer mean by SoF , because you are referring to him right? Because
> there is no language without a motive, no tautologies no nothing
> without intent.
>
fittest' then its 'pragmatics' (sic) are useless to science and are
irrelevant.
> > Whether Darwin or anybody else used the phrase is of no consequence.
>
> SoF with what intent?
who knows? who cares? it's like asking what is the relevance of banana
splits to science. it's irrelevant.
as i've pointed out several times, you're locked in a language loop
very typical of creationists. you abjure the concept of 'change',
preferring some manufactured view of history based on your theology.
THAT'S why you can't understand modern language. if you have a 3rd
century mindset, people speaking about science are going to blow you
away. and they do. routinely, in fact, it's the primary response you
get.
trader100
> On May 15, 12:34 pm, trader100 <Stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:> On May 15, 2:40 am, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > > "Survival of the fittest" is in no way a definition of evolution or of
> > > natural selection or a representation of evolutionaty theory or any of the
> > > principles involved. Whether it is a tautology or not doesn't matter.
>
> > You just don't get it do you? How many times must we go through this
> > seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics"you have a green light"
> > example. It all depends who says SoF and what was the intent. What did
> > Spencer mean by SoF , because you are referring to him right? Because
> > there is no language without a motive, no tautologies no nothing
> > without intent.
> and if scientific language EXCLUDES a term....like 'survival of the
Mr.Scientific doesn't exclude anything he doesn't exist.
> fittest' then its 'pragmatics' (sic) are useless to science and are
> irrelevant.
Useless to mr.Science? Did you ask mr.Science , when did he tell you
it is useless. YOu can't keep on pulling your abstract authority
mr.Science out of the hat.
> > > Whether Darwin or anybody else used the phrase is of no consequence.
> > SoF with what intent?
> who knows? who cares? it's like asking what is the relevance of banana
> splits to science. it's irrelevant.
Yes, you don't care who said what when and where. Who said that
gravity is 10m/s.s ? IT doesn't really matter because I can test it,
attempt to falsify it with a stopwatch. But when you say monkey
transformed into a human, what am I supposed to disprove, how does one
disprove this. I have no idea and thus you must tell me who says a
monkey turned into a human or who says a monkey didn't turn into a
human.
Dr. Acula
No, you don't need to know who first made said claim. You can easily
look at the accumulated evidence and then try to come up with an
alternative hypothesis that you can test. Example: If humans did not
evolve from monkeys I would expect there to be no transistional forms
in the fossil record to support this.
I could then go and test this. Of course my hypothesis would be
falsified (unless I could come up with a hypothesis that explains the
existence of said forms). Now come up with your own hypothesis.
Garamond Lethe
> On May 15, 2:40 am, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> "Survival of the fittest" is in no way a definition of evolution or of
>> natural selection or a representation of evolutionaty theory or any of
>> the principles involved. Whether it is a tautology or not doesn't
>> matter.
>
> You just don't get it do you? How many times must we go through this see
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics "you have a green light"
> example. It all depends who says SoF and what was the intent.
And yet we don't know who you are or your intent. Thus, it is not
possible to communicate with you.
How would you go about establishing either without the ability to
communicate? (The rest of us manage to get along pretty well without
your goofy linguistics. Had I the ability to communicate with you I
might point out that a linguistic theory that prevented communication
might be seen as suboptimal. But I guess you'll just have to figure that
out for yourself.)
<snip>
trader100
> > Yes, you don't care who said what when and where. Who said that
> > gravity is 10m/s.s ? IT doesn't really matter because I can test it,
> > attempt to falsify it with a stopwatch. But when you say monkey
> > transformed into a human, what am I supposed to disprove, how does one
> > disprove this. I have no idea and thus you must tell me who says a
> > monkey turned into a human or who says a monkey didn't turn into a
> > human.
> If humans did not evolve from monkeys I would expect there to be no transistional forms
> in the fossil record to support this.
Who says so? Who are you interpreting.
Burkhard
You could have started by showing that monkeys have a DNA that has no
shared characteristics with humans. that would most certainly have
falsified at least the current theory of evolution and the idea that
they are related. Or you could go out digging and find evidence for a
static fossil record. Or you do some laboratory work and find a
mechanism that prevents mutations from accumulating.
I have no idea and thus you must tell me who says a
> monkey turned into a human or who says a monkey didn't turn into a
> human.
Does not really follow. Even if a theory is not falsifiable, we do not
need to know who formulated it to understand it. It does not matter
that Cantor was a pioneer in set theory to be able to understand set
theory.
Mitchell Coffey
Ah!, but Sophia Loren's nose...
You see, the Zoroastrian's are right: There is an evil and a good
principle at work, each of equal power!
Mitchell Coffey
Dr. Acula
> On May 15, 7:48 pm, "Dr. Acula" <jerryd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Yes, you don't care who said what when and where. Who said that
> > > gravity is 10m/s.s ? IT doesn't really matter because I can test it,
> > > attempt to falsify it with a stopwatch. But when you say monkey
> > > transformed into a human, what am I supposed to disprove, how does one
> > > disprove this. I have no idea and thus you must tell me who says a
> > > monkey turned into a human or who says a monkey didn't turn into a
> > > human.
> > in the fossil record to support this.
>
> Who says so? Who are you interpreting.
I said it (at least I think I did). Did you notice how I used the word
"I"? I wasn't "interpreting" anyone. I was creating a hypothesis. Try
creating one yourself and testing it.
unrestra...@hotmail.com
> On May 15, 2:40 am, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
<snip>
>
> What is the concept with fitness? And who is the person that has this
> concept and when was he awarded his Nobel for solving the problem:
>
What idiot convinced you that this was necessary?
>
> You don't have to do anything, but if you want to do real science, show me
> a transition matrix connecting DNA/pAA sequence and survival probability.
> For any trait. It's a Nobel Prize for the first one ( at least ) so get to work.
>
> nss
If you want to do real linguistics, you have to be able to
communicate.
In the meanwhile, you might consider responding to the evidence for
common descent thru modification. Torturing innocent language is
simply demented.
Kermit
David Hare-Scott
> On May 15, 2:40 am, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> "Survival of the fittest" is in no way a definition of evolution or
>> of natural selection or a representation of evolutionaty theory or
>> any of the principles involved. Whether it is a tautology or not
>> doesn't matter.
>
> You just don't get it do you? How many times must we go through this
> see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics "you have a green light"
> example. It all depends who says SoF and what was the intent. What did
> Spencer mean by SoF , because you are referring to him right? Because
> there is no language without a motive, no tautologies no nothing
> without intent.
It doesn't matter if Darwin or Spencer intended "Survival of the fittest" to
mean "my icecream just melted", that the phrase exists says nothing about
the modern ToE to anybody except to you.
Please explain how the meaning, or lack of meaning, or confusion of meaning
of this phrase has any consequences for the validity of the modern ToE.
David
John S. Wilkins
So it's not which nose will god pick, but which god will pick the nose?
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Sydney
scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
trader100
> In the meanwhile, you might consider responding to the evidence for
> common descent thru modification.
Who did the modifying?
trader100
> > You just don't get it do you? How many times must we go through this
> > example. It all depends who says SoF and what was the intent. What did
> > Spencer mean by SoF , because you are referring to him right? Because
> > there is no language without a motive, no tautologies no nothing
> > without intent.
> It doesn't matter if Darwin or Spencer intended "Survival of the fittest" to
> mean "my icecream just melted", that the phrase exists says nothing about
> the modern ToE to anybody except to you.
> Please explain how the meaning, or lack of meaning, or confusion of meaning
> of this phrase has any consequences for the validity of the modern ToE.
What is the formally established Theory of Evolution or isn't it
formally established and if not why not?
Garamond Lethe
<snip>
"The probability that a single copy of an allele with selective advantage
s will be fixed in a population of effective size N_e is
2s(N_e/N)/(1-exp(-4N_es)),
where N is the actual number of individuals."
That's not the formal definition of all of evolution, just a small,
simple part. If you can wrap your head around that, the rest is pretty
intuitive.
Michael Siemon
jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> Mitchell Coffey <m.co...@starpower.net> wrote:
...
> > You see, the Zoroastrian's are right: There is an evil and a good
> > principle at work, each of equal power!
> So it's not which nose will god pick, but which god will pick the nose?
All anthropomorphic gods will pick the nose. Chthulu? I don't know...
trader100
> Does not really follow. Even if a theory is not falsifiable, we do not
> need to know who formulated it to understand it. It does not matter
> that Cantor was a pioneer in set theory to be able to understand set
> theory.
Agreed, which is why I wrote that we don't really have to know who
said gravity is 10m.s.s , we can attempt to falsify it with a
stopwatch. But that baboon with long teeth 10mil years ago who gave
birth to a talking monkey, Chomsky says, there is some serious
problems with the view.
trader100
I am talking about Darwin , what are you talking about? Which author
are you interpreting.
Garamond Lethe
Why?
> what are you talking about?
Evolution as is currently taught in graduate biology classes.
> Which author are
> you interpreting.
The formula is independent of the author.
John S. Wilkins
Burkhard
> On May 15, 8:31 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > Does not really follow. Even if a theory is not falsifiable, we do not
> > need to know who formulated it to understand it. It does not matter
> > that Cantor was a pioneer in set theory to be able to understand set
> > theory.
>
> Agreed, which is why I wrote that we don't really have to know who
> said gravity is 10m.s.s , we can attempt to falsify it with a
> stopwatch.
Which is why I gave as an example set theory, which is based on
tautologies (in the technical sense) and cannot be falisfied. EVEN
then the identity of the author does not matter
>But that baboon with long teeth 10mil years ago who gave
> birth to a talking monkey, Chomsky says, there is some serious
> problems with the view.
My guess is you misunderstand/misquote Chomsky. in any case,. this has
nothing to do with a sudden need to identify the author of the theory.
We can understand even a false theory without needing to know who
originally formulated it
Dr. Acula
Darwin is irrelevant to modern science.
Steven L.
> On May 14, 1:41 pm, backspace <Stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> http://www.creationsafaris.com/crevbd.htm#circular
>>
>> Either-Or Fallacy (false dichotomy)
>> Definition: Presenting only two possible alternatives when others are
>> justified.
>>
>> Darwin’s fallacy:
>> either everything is designed, or nothing is designed. Either God
>> designed the shape of my nose and planned every raindrop that falls,
>> tell me (and I should be really much obliged) whether you believe that
>> the shape of my nose was ordained and ‘guided by an intelligent
>> cause?’” To J.D. Hooker he wrote, “As for each variation that has
>> ever occurred having been pre-ordained for a special end, I can no
>> more believe in it than that the spot on which each drop of rain falls
>> has been specially ordained.”
>>
>> or 1 bits in computers). Some things are mostly one thing or another,
>> or one of a few possibilities, with very few exceptions. But you need
>> to demonstrate or prove this, not assume it.
>
> being a true believer in his youth to agnosticism in his later years.
> These beliefs underwent a slow transformation as he discovered more
> and more about the natural world. That is to say, his beliefs were
> based on evidence. As he gathered more evidence, he became less
> religious.
>
> It is just ignorant to imply that Darwin concluded that either the
> shape of his nose was designed or that God doesn't exist. This is
> willful ignorance, given that you could discover what his beliefs were
> with a few simple keystrokes. Some would say that making false
> statements based on willful ignorance is lying.
I wouldn't call it "lying."
I would call it "Don't ask, don't tell."
Which seems to be the only way that the ToE and Christianity can
co-exist, IMO.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Dr. Acula
The mutations, combined with pressures from the environment. Dummy.
Dr. Acula
Define "formally" and "established." Here is a good resource:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
trader100
describing the "primitive" races , he used "Fitness" to mean suitable
and "unfitness" unsuitable. Note specifically how he referred to
blacks.
http://tinyurl.com/okdr8c
http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1336&chapter=54803&layout=html&Itemid=27
"....These Indians were reduced to industrious habits, and to an
orderly life which was thought by many writers admirable; but there
eventually resulted a fatal evil: they became infertile. Not
improbably, the infertility commonly observed in savage races that
have been led into civilized activities, is consequent on taxing the
physique to a degree greater than it is constituted to bear.
Certain moral traits which favour, and others which hinder, the union
of men into large groups, were pointed out when treating of "The
Primitive Man--Emotional." Here I will re-illustrate such of these as
concern the fitness or unfitness of the type for subordination. "The
Abors, as they themselves say, are like tigers, two cannot dwell in
one den;" and "their houses are scattered singly, or in groups of two
and three." Conversely, some of the African races not only yield when
coerced but admire one who coerces them. Instance the Damaras, who, as
Galton says, "court slavery" and "follow a master as spaniels would."
The like is alleged of other South Africans. One of them said to a
gentleman known to me--"You're a pretty fellow to be a master; I've
been with you two years and you've never beaten me once." Obviously on
the dispositions thus strongly contrasted, the impossibility or
possibility of political integration largely depends. There must be
added, as also influential, the presence or the absence of the nomadic
instinct. Varieties of men whose wandering habits have been unchecked
during countless generations of hunting life and pastoral life, show
us that even when forced into agricultural life, their tendency to
move about greatly hinders aggregation. It is thus among the hill-
tribes of India. "The Kookies are naturally a migratory race, never
occupying the same place for more than two or, at the utmost, three
years;" and the like holds of the Mishmees, who "never name their
villages:" the existence of them being too transitory. In some races
this migratory instinct survives and shows its effects, even after the
formation of populous towns. Writing of the Bachassins in 1812,
Burchell says that Litakun, containing 15,000 inhabitants, had been
twice removed during a period of ten years. Clearly, peoples thus
characterized are less easily united into large societies than peoples
who love their early homes.
Concerning the intellectual traits which aid or impede the cohesion of
men into masses, I may supplement what was said when delineating "The
Primitive Man--Intellectual," by two corollaries of much significance.
Social life being cooperative life presupposes not only an emotional
nature fitted for cooperation, but also such intelligence as perceives
the benefits of cooperation, and can so regulate actions as to effect
it. The unreflectiveness, the deficient consciousness of causation,
and the lack of constructive imagination, shown by the uncivilized,
hinder combined action to a degree difficult to believe until proof is
seen. Even the semi-civilized exhibit in quite simple matters an
absence of concert which is astonishing.* Implying, as this does, that
cooperation can at first be effective only where there is obedience to
peremptory command, it follows that there must be not only an
emotional nature which produces subordination, but also an
intellectual nature which produces faith in a commander. That
credulity which leads to awe of the capable man as a possessor of
supernatural power, and which afterwards, causing dread of his ghost,
prompts fulfilment of his remembered injunctions--that credulity which
initiates the religious control of a deified chief, re-inforcing the
political control of his divine descendant, is a credulity which
cannot be dispensed with during early stages of integration.
Scepticism is fatal while the character, moral and intellectual, is
such as to necessitate compulsory cooperation........"
Dr. Acula
> So what did Spencer mean with fitness? From the passages below
> describing the "primitive" races , he used "Fitness" to mean suitable
> and "unfitness" unsuitable. Note specifically how he referred to
> blacks.http://tinyurl.com/okdr8c
>
What exactly are you driving at?
trader100
> What exactly are you driving at?
Note the usage of survival of the fittest and evolution in the
passages by Spencer.
http://tinyurl.com/okdr8c
".......This process, so obvious and familiar, I name because it has a
meaning which needs emphasizing. For we here see that in the struggle
for existence among societies, the survival of the fittest is the
survival of those in which the power of military cooperation is the
greatest; and military cooperation is that primary kind of cooperation
which prepares the way for other kinds. So that this formation of
larger societies by the union of smaller un-united societies by the
united larger ones, is an inevitable process through which the
varieties of men most adapted for social life, supplant the less
adapted varieties......"
".....The behaviour of Arab boatmen on the Nile displays, in a
striking way, this inability to act together. When jointly hauling at
a rope, and beginning to chant, the inference one draws is that they
pull in time with their words. On observing, however, it turns out
that their efforts are not combined at given intervals, but are put
forth without any unity of rhythm. Similarly when using their poles to
push the dahabeiah off a sand-bank, the succession of grunts they
severally make, is so rapid that it is manifestly impossible for them
to give those effectual united pushes which imply appreciable
intervals of preparation. Still more striking is the want of concert
shown by the hundred or more Nubians and Arabs employed to drag the
vessel up the rapids. There are shoutings, gesticulations, divided
actions, utter confusion; so that only by accident does it at length
happen that a sufficient number of efforts are put forth at the same
moment. As was said to me, with some exaggeration, by our Arab
dragoman, a travelled man—“Ten Englishmen or Frenchmen would do the
thing at once.............”
Dr. Acula
Who gives a crap?
Steven L.
When we speak of the Theory of Evolution, we mean it as it exists today,
not in its first stated form by Darwin in the 19th century.
Steven L.
Do you accept that science can deal with *any* processes and events that
took place before humanity existed on Earth???
Science also says that the Solar System accreted out of interstellar gas
and dust, *billions* of years ago, at least some of which came from
supernovae *billions* of years earlier even than that. Now that's an
even more remote process than "primates to Man," in that no Earth life
existed yet at all; yet science routinely deals with it.
How? By making predictions and testing them. If no supernovae were
involved, then you would have to explain how ordinary nuclear fusion in
stars like the Sun can generate heavy elements like uranium.
Honestly, where are you going to draw the line? If you limit yourself
only to events that existed during the time of humanity, then you have
to throw out the first chapter of Genesis where God created Light and
then He the Heaven and the Earth--because by your standard, if no humans
saw it happen, we can't know that it happened.
trader100
http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1336&chapter=54809&layout=html&Itemid=27
"....Again succession by fixed rule was rigorously adhered to; and
again seclusion entailed loss of hold on affairs. “High descent was
the only qualification for office, and unfitness for functions was not
regarded in the choice of officials.” Besides the Shôgu’s four
confidential officers, “no one else could approach him. Whatever might
be the crimes committed at Kama Koura, it was impossible, through the
intrigues of these favourites, to complain of them to the Seogoun.”
The result was that “subsequently this family…gave way to military
commanders, who,” however, often became the instruments of other
chiefs....."
Here "unfitness" means unsuitable and thus fitness by Spencer meant
suitable. The issue is the concept, what concept does John Wilkins
have on his blog with "fitness". Back in 1876 Spencer was a very
successful author, to a reader then the term "survival of the fittest"
when reading Origin of Species was interpreted in terms of the
passages quoted. And one can clearly see the mythologicalness
surrounding all this as pointed out by
http://lostborders.wordpress.com/2009/03/09/the-origin-of-species-as-myth/
The Origin of the Species is “myth,” in the way Mircea Eliade uses the
word myth – a story that tells how “a reality came into existence.”
Eliade wrote: “To tell how things came into existence is to explain
them and at the same time indirectly to answer another question: Why
did they come into existence? Eliade explains: “The why is always
implied in the how — for the simple reason that to tell how a thing
was born is to reveal an irruption of the sacred into the world, and
the sacred is the ultimate cause of all real existence.”
The Origin of the Species is, in this sense, a religious story.
Although Darwin’s intention was to tell a story that did not involve
God, it makes us think of God, not just because it reminds us of
Genesis, but because its genre is myth.
In the story told in The Origin of the Species, the species have
emerged through a long struggle for survival. The struggle theme is
also found in the ancient near eastern myths in which the cosmos
emerged from a struggle between a god and a great sea monster, the god
representing order and the sea monster representing chaos. Through the
course of history, that myth became part of the western mosaic of
myths and became a paradigm that has guided our attitudes and actions,
which is what Eliade said myths do. The Origin of the Species is the
latest retelling of that myth, but in the retelling the paradigm has
changed.
In the new myth, order is not imposed on chaos by a god, but by the
organisms of life themselves. The organisms have fought the battle
themselves. This is the paradigm that guides our attitudes and actions
in modernity.
The ancient myth explained the existence of an agrarian world ruled by
kings and queens and emperors. The myth retold in The Origin of the
Species explains an industrial world ruled by democracies and free
markets. In the retold myth, we do not fight sea monsters, but each
other and the world is not one given to us by a god, but one we have
won or made for ourselves.
Dr. Acula
> On May 16, 7:07 pm, "Dr. Acula" <jerryd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> "....Again succession by fixed rule was rigorously adhered to; and
> again seclusion entailed loss of hold on affairs. “High descent was
> the only qualification for office, and unfitness for functions was not
> regarded in the choice of officials.” Besides the Shôgu’s four
> confidential officers, “no one else could approach him. Whatever might
> be the crimes committed at Kama Koura, it was impossible, through the
> intrigues of these favourites, to complain of them to the Seogoun.”
> The result was that “subsequently this family…gave way to military
> commanders, who,” however, often became the instruments of other
> chiefs....."
>
> Here "unfitness" means unsuitable and thus fitness by Spencer meant
> suitable. The issue is the concept, what concept does John Wilkins
> have on his blog with "fitness". Back in 1876 Spencer was a very
> successful author, to a reader then the term "survival of the fittest"
> when reading Origin of Species was interpreted in terms of the
> passages quoted. And one can clearly see the mythologicalness
> surrounding all this as pointed out by
>
None of this has any bearing on modern scientific study.
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by Garamond Lethe
<cartogr...@gmail.com>:
>On Sat, 16 May 2009 00:48:22 -0700, trader100 wrote:
<snip>
>> what are you talking about?
>Evolution as is currently taught in graduate biology classes.
>> Which author are
>> you interpreting.
>The formula is independent of the author.
That's the part that this moron will never understand, since
to him/her/it the *only* justification for acceptance is a
statement by an authority figure. Evidence is irrelevant.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
>On Thu, 14 May 2009 10:41:46 -0700 (PDT), the following
>appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
><Steph...@gmail.com>:
>
>>http://www.creationsafaris.com/crevbd.htm#circular
>>
>>Either-Or Fallacy (false dichotomy)
>>Definition: Presenting only two possible alternatives when others are
>>justified.
>>
>>Darwin’s fallacy:
>>either everything is designed, or nothing is designed. Either God
>>designed the shape of my nose and planned every raindrop that falls,
>>or there is no God.
>
>Really? Let's see if your chosen "evidence" supports your
>claim...
>
>> In a letter to Lyell, he said: “Will you honestly
>>tell me (and I should be really much obliged) whether you believe that
>>the shape of my nose was ordained and ‘guided by an intelligent
>>cause?’”
>
>OK, this one doesn't, since it mentions nothing about
>whether God exists or whether He created anything, merely
>whether He micromanages existence.
>
>> To J.D. Hooker he wrote, “As for each variation that has
>>ever occurred having been pre-ordained for a special end, I can no
>>more believe in it than that the spot on which each drop of rain falls
>>has been specially ordained.”
>
>Same for this one; no mention of anything other than
>micromanagement.
>
>So your claim is rejected based on your own selected
>"evidence". And as an aside, your apparent belief that
>rejecting such micromanagement is equivalent to rejecting
>both God's existence and initial Creation says that *you*,
>not Darwin, are the one who believes that the concepts are
>inseparable. And that belief is *your* problem, not
>Darwin's.
>
>>Comment: Some things are “either-or” (for example, boys or girls, 0
>>or 1 bits in computers). Some things are mostly one thing or another,
>>or one of a few possibilities, with very few exceptions. But you need
>>to demonstrate or prove this, not assume it.
>
>Exactly, so why do you assume it?
>
>>Circular Reasoning (begging the question, special pleading, petitio
>>principii, a priori reasoning)
>>Definition: Assuming what needs to be proved.
>
>Such as Special Creation?
>
>>Using homology both as explanation of evolution and proof for it: “If
>>an intelligent being had designed both a fish and Sophia Loren from
>>scratch, there’s no way, if evolution hadn’t occurred, that her arm
>>would have had any internal resemblance to a fish’s [sic]. The
>>similarity in anatomy is clear evidence of evolution; the fish’s
>>forelimb [sic] and Sophia’s show a common ancestry” (Jared Diamond,
>>Discover 6/85, p.91
>
>So you can refute the logic Diamond expressed, and there
>*is* a reason for Someone Who created each from scratch to
>have made them similar internally when their functions
>differ so radically? Well, please do so; assertions aren't
>evidence *or* logic.
>
>> Using the geologic column as descriptive of
>>evolution and also as evidence for it
>
>Nope. The geologic column was *not* used as evidence for
>evolution, but for the *relative* ages of the fossils it
>contains. And until science had the tools (see next point)
>to generate *actual* numbers for those ages it remained a
>controversial subject.
>
>> Assuming long ages for
>>radioactive half-lives, then using them to prove long ages.
>
>Nope. The long half-lives (and just as important for dating
>purposes, the decay chains) are known from measurement, not
>assumed.
>
>> Inventing
>>a term as if it explains something: e.g., convergent evolution used as
>>both an explanation and an evidence for Darwinian origin of like
>>characteristics in unlike organisms.
>
>Nope. Convergent evolution is an explanation for the
>observed fact that organisms which do *not* share a recent
>common ancestor (known from both genetics and the fossil
>record) nevertheless *do* share a common outer form, a form
>which is conducive to survival in the local environment.
>
>
>So once again every claim you make is shown to be false.
No response? OK; glad you accept that you were wrong.
>When do you expect to grow weary of these public
>demonstrations of your scientific illiteracy and logical
>incompetence?
I would guess the answer would be "never".
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by trader100
<Steph...@gmail.com>:
Differential reproductive success.
trader100
> None of this has any bearing on modern scientific study.
http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/cd_relig.htm
Darwin:
Everyone who believes, as I do, that all the corporeal and mental
organs (excepting those which are neither advantegous or
disadvantegous to the posessor) of all beings have been developed
through natural selection, or the survival of the fittest, together
with use or habit[4], will admit that these organs have formed so that
their possessors may compete succesfully with other beings, and thus
increase in number.
=== rephrase ===
The organs ............. have been developed through natural
selection, or the survival of the fittest
................. so that their possessors may compete succesfully
with other beings, and thus increase in number.
---------------------------------
New York Times, an article by Henry Fairfield Osborne, 5 March 1922 -
98995000.pdf
Article: Evolution and Religion
Osborne states that Waagen showed in 1869 that evolution wasn't by
chance and that Darwin was mistaken.
Osborne:
"...Waagen's observation that species do not originate by chance or
accident as Darwin had at one time supposed...." But if you actually
read Origin of Species, Darwin said that his usage of the word
"chance" was an "...incorrect expression..." which makes one wonder
why he wrote the book then in the first place and why he didn't tell
us his pragmatics with chance from the beginning instead of sneaking
in a single sentence somewhere in the middle of the book. The mistake
everybody is making is confusing their pragmatics with the word
"chance" with the pragmatics Darwin or others had with it.
Osborne quoting Kingsley:
".. Darwin is conquering everywhere, and rushing in like a flood, by
the mere force of truth and fact. The one or two who hold out against
Darwin are forced to try all sorts of subterfuges as to fact or else
by invoking the tedium theologium.... The state of the scientific
mind; they find that now they have got rid of an interfering God - a
master magician as I call it -- they have to choose between the
absolute empire of accident and a living, immanent, ever-working
God..."
trader100
http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/cd_relig.htm
"....Such suffering is quite compatible with the belief in Natural
Selection, which is not perfect in its action, but tends only to
render each species as successful as possible in the battle for life
with other species, in wonderfully complex and changing
circumstances....."
=== rephrase ===
suffering is compatible with the survival of the most suitable
which ... tends to render each species as successful as possible in
the battle for life with other species, in wonderfully complex and
changing circumstances....."
=== rephrase ===
....Such suffering is compatible with the survival of the most
suitable species in the battle for life with other species.
And thus we are right back at the Origin of Species as Myth theme
from
http://lostborders.wordpress.com/2009/03/09/the-origin-of-species-as-myth/
and
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.talk.creationism/browse_frm/thread/585ce619796dd7b9#
Dr. Acula
Darwin was a very smart man (you bloviated sack of lemur vomit) .
Orders of magnitude smarter than you in fact. Still, I really don't
give a crap about anything he said about anything. It is of no
consequence to what we observe today (you trough of broken haggis
scraps).
>
> Osborne quoting Kingsley:
> ".. Darwin is conquering everywhere, and rushing in like a flood, by
> the mere force of truth and fact. The one or two who hold out against
> Darwin are forced to try all sorts of subterfuges as to fact or else
> by invoking the tedium theologium.... The state of the scientific
> mind; they find that now they have got rid of an interfering God - a
> master magician as I call it -- they have to choose between the
> absolute empire of accident and a living, immanent, ever-working
> God..."
Again I fail to see the relevance this has with modern science (you
scum-sucking pig). Does this mean that mutations don't happen and that
some don't lead to organisms that are better at making babies? No?
Then what exactly is its relevance?
Dr. Acula
> andhttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.talk.creationism/browse_frm/thread...
You stop reading crazy people's websites (you pustulent maggot).
Burkhard
That would be the same Osborne who has been described by
contemporaries as :"a first-rate science administrator and a third-
rate scientist"?
Ray Martinez
> Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Not true.
According to Gould 2002 the Theory of [how] Evolution [happens] is 100
percent Darwinian, having only been modified by modernity. Gould
drives home this point laboriously over the course of 1000+ pages.
Ray
Garamond Lethe
Ummm.... if it has been modified, how is it 100% original?
Let's see if I can quantify this.
In Barton's _Evolution_, Darwin rates 22 index entries (and Darwinism has
zero). That works out to 48 pages in the textbook that mention something
to do with Darwin, and that in turn works out to 35 unique pages.
Of these 14 occur in the first 85 pages (part 1), the historical overview.
The remaining 21 references are spread out through the last 715 pages.
Here's a sample:
"The abundance of heritable variation has long been understood at a
qualitative level. Darwin's strongest evidence for its existence was the
clear similarity between parents and offspring and the striking success
of artificial selection (see pp. 17-19). However, the methods outlined
in this section allow a quantitative survey to be made."
So Ray, let's say that part of your paper focuses on the weakness of
Darwin's qualitative evidence. Careers have already been built pointing
this out, and we now have a much stronger body of quantitative evidence
that was unavailable to Darwin.
If you focus on Darwin, the best you can hope for is a critique that
might have generated some notice in 1859.
> Gould drives
> home this point laboriously over the course of 1000+ pages.
>
Evidently that wasn't enough pages to make his point clear.
> Ray
Steven L.
Unlike a "myth," the Theory of Evolution is an attempt to explain real,
observable data in the present day.
After you've finished dismissing the ToE as a "myth," as a "tautology,"
as "logically meaningless," and so forth--you're still left with
explaining: Homologies in biological structure; homologies in genetics;
the geologic column; the fossil record; the evidence from radioactive
dating; the evidence from geology; and lots of other data.
Those data are not going to go away, no matter how many sophistries you
engage in.
Those data still need explanations.
You don't have any explanations that will stand up to even a fraction of
the rigorous scrutiny that the ToE has withstood.
Do you?
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
David Hare-Scott
> On May 16, 5:04 am, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>> You just don't get it do you? How many times must we go through this
>>> seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics"you have a green light"
>>> example. It all depends who says SoF and what was the intent. What
>>> did Spencer mean by SoF , because you are referring to him right?
>>> Because there is no language without a motive, no tautologies no
>>> nothing without intent.
>
>> It doesn't matter if Darwin or Spencer intended "Survival of the
>> fittest" to mean "my icecream just melted", that the phrase exists
>> says nothing about the modern ToE to anybody except to you.
>
>> Please explain how the meaning, or lack of meaning, or confusion of
>> meaning of this phrase has any consequences for the validity of the
>> modern ToE.
>
> formally established and if not why not?
It doesn't matter if Darwin "formally established" a definition of the ToE
or formally established his shoe size was #8.
Don't side track, answer the question that I asked. If you can show the
consequences then we have something to talk about. Please just get on with
it I am not going to play 20 questions trying to get you to state your case.
David
trader100
> So Ray, let's say that part of your paper focuses on the weakness of
> Darwin's qualitative evidence. Careers have already been built pointing
> this out, and we now have a much stronger body of quantitative evidence
> that was unavailable to Darwin.
> If you focus on Darwin, the best you can hope for is a critique that
> might have generated some notice in 1859.
If your focus isn't Darwin then what is your intent with Natural
Selection ?
trader100
> Unlike a "myth," the Theory of Evolution is an attempt to explain real,
> observable data in the present day.
> After you've finished dismissing the ToE as a "myth," as a "tautology,"
Darwin only used ToE once and Theory of gradual evolution once, he
really had some aversion to using the term because he understood with
it a different concept then what is possibly meant with it today by
various authors:
"......If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families,
have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the
theory of evolution through natural selection........"
Note that he used ToE but he still didn't tell us what exactly is this
ToE.
"...This difficulty, as in the case of unconscious selection by man,
is avoided on the theory of gradual evolution, through the
preservation of a large number of individuals, which varied more or
less in any favourable direction, and of the destruction of a large
number which varied in an opposite manner. hat many species have been
evolved in an extremely gradual manner, there can hardly be a
doubt...."
=== rephrase ===
This difficulty is avoided on the theory of gradual evolution, through
the preservation of a large number of individuals, which varied more
or less in any favourable direction, and of the destruction of a large
number which varied in an opposite manner. Species have been evolved
in an extremely gradually.
=== rephrase ===
The theory of gradual evolution means the following:
The preservation of individuals, which varied in any favorable
direction, and the destruction
of those which werent' favorable. Species have been evolved in an
extremely gradually.
=== rephrase ===
The theory of evolution is:
The preservation of individuals, which were favorable, and the
destruction of those which weren't
favorable.
From this proposition which cannot be disputed Darwin states that
Species have been evolved extremely gradually.
Darwin's Theory of Evolution is thus a banality: Favorable individuals
were preserved and those not favorable weren't preserved. He then
associated this tautology with the term : Theory of Evolution , which
is why there is no Theory of Evolution entry on Wikipedia, only
"evolution". And the word evolution is used in many contexts.
Steven L.
Thank you ever so much for selectively quote-mining my post, taking the
one sentence fragment out of it that you agree with, while omitting my
entire main argument.
That should demonstrate to all just how you operate.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:
>On May 16, 10:13 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
<snip>
>> When we speak of the Theory of Evolution, we mean it as it exists today,
>> not in its first stated form by Darwin in the 19th century.
>Not true.
>
>According to Gould 2002 the Theory of [how] Evolution [happens] is 100
>percent Darwinian, having only been modified by modernity. Gould
>drives home this point laboriously over the course of 1000+ pages.
What part of "as it exists today, not in its first stated
form by Darwin in the 19th century" is giving you trouble,
given that you acknowledge the theory is "modified by
modernity"? Is it possible you know the meaning of neither
of these equivalent terms?
Oh, and where's the Famous Paper?
David Hare-Scott
An extraordinary effort of obfuscation and confusion. This series of posts
is award winning in the number of words used to say nothing.
David
Garamond Lethe
I think the first word should be "Since". "Intent with" isn't an English
idiom with which I am familiar, and "natural selection" is not a proper
noun and should not be capitalized.
If you're asking why I'm interested in natural selection, then I'd reply
that evolution is a very effective computational algorithm, but computer
scientists don't have much of a grasp on the biology and so don't
implement it as effectively as they might. For example, Fogel's group
took a hand-coded chess engine that wasn't anything worth writing home
about and, using a very unsophisticated form of evolution (with natural
selection) modified it to the point where it defeated the #5 chess
program in the world.
No individual moves were evaluated. No individual games were evaluated.
At the end of each round, the instantiations that won the most games were
randomly modified and their descendants played in the next round.
What I find fascinating is that, in biological terms, the chess program
was an asexual haploid. The only nod to any of the techniques found in
nature to increase evolvability was a small nod towards modularity --
three neural networks were used instead of one, each focusing on a
different area of the board.
Bringing more biologically plausible (and sophisticated) evolution to
this problem should make it far more effective (or equally effective
using much less time). It might make for an interesting postdoc.
Darwin, of course, had nothing to say about any of this.
Garamond Lethe
<snip>
> An extraordinary effort of obfuscation and confusion. This series of
> posts is award winning in the number of words used to say nothing.
>
That is the essence of the Backspace Fallacy.
> David
John S. Wilkins
Notice that Osborn (no -e) is writing just as Mendelian genetics swept
all before it and demolished neo-Lamarckian inheritance, which Osborn
supported. Also, 6 years earlier, William Castle had published papers
that reconciled Mendel with Darwin, which resulted in a series of works
that caused the neo-Darwinian Synthesis of the period from 1930-1940.
Fundamentally, Osborn is the last gasp of neo-Lamarckian (but note,
still) evolutionary biology.
Castle, William E. 1916. Studies of inheritance in guineapigs and rats.
Vol. Pub. No. 241. Washington: Carnegie Institution of Washington.
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Sydney
scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
trader100
> supported. Also, 6 years earlier, William Castle had published papers
> that reconciled Mendel with Darwin,
Where was Darwin's tautology that the dinosaurs died because they were
less improved reconciled with genes as a cybernetic abstraction?
> Fundamentally, Osborn is the last gasp of neo-Lamarckian (but note,
> still) evolutionary biology.
He said Darwin was like Newtons law of gravity, labeling doubters
fools. And expounded on how PiltDown man proved common descent.
Download the 1922 article from New York Times.
wf3h
> On May 18, 3:25 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>
> > supported. Also, 6 years earlier, William Castle had published papers
> > that reconciled Mendel with Darwin,
>
> Where was Darwin's tautology that the dinosaurs died because they were
> less improved reconciled with genes as a cybernetic abstraction?
i don't know of anyone who considers darwin's views a 'tautology'.
what are your pragmatics behind this assertion? what is your meaning?
because no scientist agrees with you
creationism has so many useless assertions. it's difficult to keep
track of them all.
wf3h
> On May 17, 2:50 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > Unlike a "myth," the Theory of Evolution is an attempt to explain real,
> > observable data in the present day.
> > After you've finished dismissing the ToE as a "myth," as a "tautology,"
>
> Darwin only used ToE once and Theory of gradual evolution once, he
> really had some aversion to using the term because he understood with
> it a different concept then what is possibly meant with it today by
> various authors:
>
> "......If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families,
> have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the
> theory of evolution through natural selection........"
>
> Note that he used ToE but he still didn't tell us what exactly is this
> ToE.
hmmm...i see the words 'natural selection' there...looks like he
defined it pretty well to me.
of course i'm not stuck in a 3rd century metaphysic like creationists
are. i can understand 'change', 'experiment', 'data', 'evidence', etc.
these concepts are, by definition, alien to creationists
which is why creationism is useless.
>
> Darwin's Theory of Evolution is thus a banality: Favorable individuals
> were preserved and those not favorable weren't preserved. He then
> associated this tautology with the term : Theory of Evolution , which
> is why there is no Theory of Evolution entry on Wikipedia, only
> "evolution". And the word evolution is used in many contexts.
seems 'trader' understands little about modern scientific language.
this has been discussed by people like dan diner of hebrew university,
who's pointed out that contemporary islamist fundamentalists have the
same problem. locked into the 'classical' arabic of the qur'an, they
resist changing language to reflect scientific concepts. 'trader'
provides a classic example of a christian who suffers from the same
problem.
Dr. Acula
> On May 18, 3:25 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>
> > supported. Also, 6 years earlier, William Castle had published papers
> > that reconciled Mendel with Darwin,
>
> Where was Darwin's tautology that the dinosaurs died because they were
> less improved reconciled with genes as a cybernetic abstraction?
Again, not a tautology as no idea, concept etc are being repeated. How
can you be so stupid?
> > Fundamentally, Osborn is the last gasp of neo-Lamarckian (but note,
> > still) evolutionary biology.
>
> He said Darwin was like Newtons law of gravity, labeling doubters
> fools. And expounded on how PiltDown man proved common descent.
> Download the 1922 article from New York Times.
Wow. You really have reading problems don't you? Unless we're reading
different articles that is. Though he did say, "Evolution takes its
place with the gravitation law of Newton." That is the first thing
you've ever been right about.
He did not call doubters "fools." What he said was, "This is my answer
to Mr. Bryan’s very natural solicitude about the
influence of evolution in our schools and colleges -- a solicitude not
inherent in the subject itself,
but in the foolishness and conceit of certain of the teachers who are
privileged to teach of the
processes of life."
Notice the word *conceit* here. You may want to sit back and think
about that word for awhile...
There is only a brief mention of Piltdown man which reads, "Nearer to
us is the Piltdown Man, found not far from seventy-five miles to the
southwest of Ipswich, England..."
Personally, I wouldn't call that expounding.
You've also made several other mistakes since you referenced this. Is
dishonesty your only tactic?
He also said:
"Nothing should be more clearly or more emphatically taught to our
youth than that the Bible is a
story of the spiritual and moral progress of man, in less degree his
intellectual progress -- in
these senses a perpetual source of inspiration, of religious
consolation, and the most
permanent foundation of conduct."
unrestra...@hotmail.com
> On May 15, 11:20 pm, unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > In the meanwhile, you might consider responding to the evidence for
> > common descent thru modification.
>
> Who did the modifying?
Nobody. Do you think that a poor understanding of language determines
the nature of reality?
The various species were modified. If the water in the koi pond was
frozen after a cold spell, who froze it? Passive verbs do not require
intelligent agents. Your sixth grade English teacher wants you to know
that she is very disappointed in you.
The young coyote learned from a nearly fatal encounter with a
porcupine to leave them alone. Who taught the coyote? He learned from
experience. Mr. Experience mocks you and your sophomoric language
games, and your linguistic pretensions.
Kermit
trader100
> On May 15, 11:28 pm, trader100 <Stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 15, 11:20 pm, unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > In the meanwhile, you might consider responding to the evidence for
> > > common descent thru modification.
>
> > Who did the modifying?
> Nobody.
Then state what you mean:
responding to the evidence for common descent thru the process of
whatever happens happens.
Well whatever happens does happen. Something happened back 3bil years
ago .....
Dr. Acula
> On May 18, 4:36 pm, unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > On May 15, 11:28 pm, trader100 <Stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 15, 11:20 pm, unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > In the meanwhile, you might consider responding to the evidence for
> > > > common descent thru modification.
>
> > > Who did the modifying?
> > Nobody.
>
> Then state what you mean:
> responding to the evidence for common descent thru the process of
> whatever happens happens.
You mean random mutation combined with natural selection?
>
> Well whatever happens does happen. Something happened back 3bil years
> ago .....
Why are you engaging in truisms?
trader100
> You mean random mutation combined with natural selection?
Who says random mutations because it wasn't Darwin and since we all
agree Darwin was a fool why are you using his term natural selection.
wf3h
who agrees darwin was a fool? i'm sure you crazed religious fanatics
do, but the rest of the human race considers him a genius.
Dr. Acula
Darwin was no fool, at the same time it doesn't matter what he did or
didn't say. Even though we have independant confirmation of some of
his ideas we still use terms like 'natural selection' due to
convenience.
Mutations are observed to be random. Everyone who matters says so.
Trying to redefine things to suit your warped world view will never
change that. Philistine.
unrestra...@hotmail.com
> On May 18, 7:46 pm, "Dr. Acula" <jerryd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You mean random mutation combined with natural selection?
>
> Who says random mutations because it wasn't Darwin
Science accumulates knowledge. The scientific community learn from
each other, new tools and techniques are developed, theories are
tested over and again, and the world is transformed. Yet some fools
still deny reality because it doesn't indulge their wishful thinking.
>and since we all agree Darwin was a fool
Most folks educated in science consider him a genius. But what does it
matter? The sciences do not depend on the pronouncements of some
prophet; they are living communities, a social process for producing
the most trustworthy information possible about how the world works.
When there are founders of a science (to the degree that this means
anything), they are simply the first to do it. Evolutionary theory
would be about where it is now, had Darwin never lived.
Darwin knew that random selection was acting on a pool of inheritable
variability. The fact that we know much about their nature now does
not make his observations wrong. In the model he developed to explain
evolution he was wrong on some particulars, but we have modified and
added much to his theory, and it fits a vast body of evidence.
>why are you using his term natural selection.
Because we all know what we mean by it. You should; we've explained it
and defined it often enough. Yet you act as though playing a dimwitted
amateur linguist will make all the evidence go away, and the testable
model which explains it.
Kermit
unrestra...@hotmail.com
> On May 17, 2:50 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > Unlike a "myth," the Theory of Evolution is an attempt to explain real,
> > observable data in the present day.
> > After you've finished dismissing the ToE as a "myth," as a "tautology,"
>
> Darwin only used ToE once and Theory of gradual evolution once, he
> really had some aversion to using the term because he understood with
> it a different concept then what is possibly meant with it today by
> various authors:
This sentence doesn't make any sense.
He was not talking about, nor likely thinking about, today's authors.
He was discussing the evidence for the fossil record and the nested
hierarchy of morphology, and offered a testable model to explain it.
>
> "......If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families,
> have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the
> theory of evolution through natural selection........"
This is correct. So far, the accumulating evidence paints a picture
that is farther and farther from this .
>
> Note that he used ToE but he still didn't tell us what exactly is this
> ToE.
Not in this sentence fragment, no. Are you seriously suggesting that
every sentence he wrote should explain it?
He assumed that his readers would be reasonably intelligent; he didn't
write it for your sake. He explained it once in his book, then went on
and discussed various aspects of it at some length.
>
> "...This difficulty, as in the case of unconscious selection by man,
> is avoided on the theory of gradual evolution, through the
> preservation of a large number of individuals, which varied more or
> less in any favourable direction, and of the destruction of a large
> number which varied in an opposite manner. hat many species have been
> evolved in an extremely gradual manner, there can hardly be a
> doubt...."
This is correct.
>
> === rephrase ===
> This difficulty is avoided on the theory of gradual evolution, through
> the preservation of a large number of individuals, which varied more
> or less in any favourable direction, and of the destruction of a large
> number which varied in an opposite manner. Species have been evolved
> in an extremely gradually.
"Species have been evolved in an extremely gradually"?
It is difficult to say that you misrepresent him, when your garbled
sentences do not grammatically parse.
>
> === rephrase ===
> The theory of gradual evolution means the following:
> The preservation of individuals, which varied in any favorable
> direction, and the destruction
> of those which werent' favorable. Species have been evolved in an
> extremely gradually.
>
You repeat that garbled sentence. I had assumed that it was a typo of
some sort, but now I think a garbled mind is not an unreasonable
explanation. The partial paragraph you quote is not intended to be the
definition of the theory of evolution. In a book, one is allowed to
cover a great deal of territory, without repeating a definition over
and again.
> === rephrase ===
> The theory of evolution is:
> The preservation of individuals, which were favorable, and the
> destruction of those which weren't
> favorable.
This is nowhere near complete. Nor does it require complete and utter
destruction of a subset of the genepool; differential reproductive
success is sufficient. But of course you did not quote an entire
description of Darwin's theory; you paraphrase it with neither
comprehension nor honesty, and it wouldn't matter anyway, for the
modern theory has changed since then. We don't need an authoritative
definition; we only need general agreement (on its definition) in the
scientific community.
Just like common words in the society at large.
>
> From this proposition which cannot be disputed Darwin states that
> Species have been evolved extremely gradually
Which proposition?
>
> Darwin's Theory of Evolution is thus a banality: Favorable individuals
> were preserved and those not favorable weren't preserved.
If that were all there were to it it wouldn't be a theory, and you
would be able to understand it.
Natural selection, acting on a pool of inheritable random variation,
produces differential reproductive success. The traits associated with
a higher reproductive rate tend to spread rapidly thru the gene pool.
Thus the alleles change in a species over time. If some aspects of the
environment favor certain traits they may become more pronounced in
time.
> He then associated this tautology
It is not a tautology. He offered a testable model to explain the
observation that species changed over a vast expanse of time, that
many went extinct, but some changed and split into multiple species.
This could have been wrong, and indeed it was in some things (Darwin
thought traits were blended; but they are quantum in nature (but their
interactions may produce expression which look like blending)).
> with the term : Theory of Evolution , which
> is why there is no Theory of Evolution entry on Wikipedia, only
> "evolution". And the word evolution is used in many contexts.
You keep saying that, and as in so many other things, you are wrong:
"Evolution
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Theory of evolution)"
It redirects you to the page called evolution.
Why should someone post two files on the same material?
Oh, look! I entered "Theory of gravity" -
"Gravitation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Theory of gravity)"
Same thing. And "Germ theory" leads to:
"Germ theory of disease
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Germ theory)"
Kermit
Ray Martinez
Again, Gould spends 1000+ pages explaining how ToE remains Darwinian.
And Gould is not alone: book shelves are literally packed with
publications defending the claim/fact. For anyone to say that the ToE
is not Darwinian is woefully ignorant of present day mainstream
scholarship. The foundation and structure of Darwin's theory remains
firm while most of his peripheral ideas have been falsified (as Darwin
himself predicted).
> Let's see if I can quantify this.
>
> In Barton's _Evolution_, Darwin rates 22 index entries (and Darwinism has
> zero). That works out to 48 pages in the textbook that mention something
> to do with Darwin, and that in turn works out to 35 unique pages.
>
> Of these 14 occur in the first 85 pages (part 1), the historical overview.
>
> The remaining 21 references are spread out through the last 715 pages.
>
> Here's a sample:
>
> "The abundance of heritable variation has long been understood at a
> qualitative level. Darwin's strongest evidence for its existence was the
> clear similarity between parents and offspring and the striking success
> of artificial selection (see pp. 17-19). However, the methods outlined
> in this section allow a quantitative survey to be made."
>
> So Ray, let's say that part of your paper focuses on the weakness of
> Darwin's qualitative evidence. Careers have already been built pointing
> this out, and we now have a much stronger body of quantitative evidence
> that was unavailable to Darwin.
>
Again, we were only talking about the main foundation and structure.
That foundation and structure is the Theory of Natural Selection.
Gould's main point is that natural selection, the core Darwinian idea
and concept, remains 100 percent ratified by modern biology, minus a
few modifications, which DO NOT jeopardize the theory from being
recognized as "Darwinian."
Your quantitative argument misses the two main points: (1) foundation
and general structure remain intact; (2) everything else is more or
less falsified.
My paper, Garamond, focuses on said foundation and general structure.
Modern biology is built on this foundation and general structure
(Gould 2002, et. al.) Guess what? When this foundation and general
structure goes everything built on top of it goes with it (= modern
Darwinian biology). This is why Gould named his magnum opus "The
Structure of Evolutionary Theory." That structure was erected by
Charles Darwin, and it was erected on an irreplaceable foundation
(natural selection). The number of books written defending the
scientific veracity of natural selection is staggering.
> If you focus on Darwin, the best you can hope for is a critique that
> might have generated some notice in 1859.
>
> > Gould drives
> > home this point laboriously over the course of 1000+ pages.
>
> Evidently that wasn't enough pages to make his point clear.
>
>
>
> > Ray- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ray
Dr. Acula
So you're going to try and disprove something we observe on a daily
basis? The best of luck to you, sir.
Garamond Lethe
No, I don't think that's the case at all.
Darwin provided a big idea and established the initial foundation. That
foundation has been entirely replaced (and one could make the argument
that it has been replaced twice over: once with genetics and the modern
synthesis, and again with molecular biology).
So, just for sake of argument, let's assume all Darwin's work on
barnacles, finches, pollination --- all if it is suddenly discovered to
be completely wrong. While that is of historical interest, it wouldn't
affect biology at all, and that's because that data is no longer
foundational.
You could (for sake of argument) work your way through the entire
_Origin_ and show each line was either wrong or unjustified. That is
perhaps a valid and even valuable contribution to the history of science,
but you've not touched biology at all.
If you want to go after evolution, you need to go where the math is.
That's the current foundation. Start with nothing later that Motoo
Kimura's "Neutral Theory" and work your way though Tomoko Ohta's "Nearly
Neutral Theory". That's where the foundations currently are for
evolution (to the best of my limited understanding).
(There are many other pieces of the foundation as well; I don't want to
give the impression that Neutral Theory replaces evolution --- it just
happens to explain large swaths of the data we have available. In my
instructor's words, it's a great null hypothesis.)
While the scientific literature is filled with critiques of "Neutral
Theory", there is still room for one more. Critiques of Darwinism will
be relegated to the history shelf, though. That's a respectable place to
be, but it won't change any science.
> (2) everything else is more or less
> falsified.
>
Assume that's true: so what? You haven't even started on the genetics,
much less molecular biology. That's the current foundation.
David Hare-Scott
As you well know the role of mutation in the ToE was added after Darwin,
what does it matter by whom?
Who agrees that Darwin was a fool?
Why would using a term that he used be a problem today?
Once more you fail to address the issue of the relationship between the
words used by Darwin (and his commentaters) in the 19th century and the
validity of the ToE in the 21st.
You are sounding more and more trollish, in case you missed my intent I am
suggesting that your intent may be to generate and continue pointless and
meaningless exchanges for as long as possible without resolution.
David
Ray Martinez
"entirely replaced"
Gould 2002 and a vast majority of mainstream scholars say you are
completely wrong.
> So, just for sake of argument, let's assume all Darwin's work on
> barnacles, finches, pollination --- all if it is suddenly discovered to
> be completely wrong. While that is of historical interest, it wouldn't
> affect biology at all, and that's because that data is no longer
> foundational.
>
> You could (for sake of argument) work your way through the entire
> _Origin_ and show each line was either wrong or unjustified. That is
> perhaps a valid and even valuable contribution to the history of science,
> but you've not touched biology at all.
>
Utter nonsense. "Origin" is a biology theory.
The **foundation** and **general structure** of the "Origin" is
vehemently defended by ALL scholars.
> If you want to go after evolution, you need to go where the math is.
> That's the current foundation.
LOL
> Start with nothing later that Motoo
> Kimura's "Neutral Theory" and work your way though Tomoko Ohta's "Nearly
> Neutral Theory". That's where the foundations currently are for
> evolution (to the best of my limited understanding).
>
> (There are many other pieces of the foundation as well; I don't want to
> give the impression that Neutral Theory replaces evolution --- it just
> happens to explain large swaths of the data we have available. In my
> instructor's words, it's a great null hypothesis.)
>
> While the scientific literature is filled with critiques of "Neutral
> Theory", there is still room for one more. Critiques of Darwinism will
> be relegated to the history shelf, though. That's a respectable place to
> be, but it won't change any science.
>
> > (2) everything else is more or less
> > falsified.
>
> Assume that's true: so what? You haven't even started on the genetics,
> much less molecular biology. That's the current foundation.
>
You have provided zero support for your opinions. And your opinions
exist in direct contradiction to Gould 2002. As if the Harvard
Professor was completely wrong (that is what you are saying). How
could a Harvard Professor be so wrong and out of touch? Again, it is
YOU who is so wrong and out of touch with mainstream scholarship.
Sorry Garamond.
trader100
> Darwin was no fool, at the same time it doesn't matter what he did or
> didn't say. Even though we have independant confirmation of some of
> his ideas we still use terms like 'natural selection' due to
> convenience.
Wouldn't it be strange if we insisted on calling Quantum theory
Phlogiston theory?
> Mutations are observed to be random.
Darwin didn't know about genetic mutations and never used the word
"random". Random mutations only surfaced around 1910 in the journals.
If you are discussing genes then cite the relevent authors not the
tautological thinking from Aristotle, james hutton, patrick matthews ,
William charles wells, Charles darwin. Their banality has resulted in
two world wars and Professor Humphreys thinking that everything he
says is a conjuring trick. "Natural selection" is the piece of
grammatical gargoyle that masks the underlying Aristotelian thinking.
In this thread http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=7428&p=1192388&hilit=exponential
SusuExp and Articulett both atheists differ on what a natural
selection is. Just like Patrick Matthews had a different concept than
Darwin with natural selection as pionted out by the journal paper from
Springer in my patrick matthews thread - http://tinyurl.com/o5rlp2
And just like John Wilkins differs from Harshman on what a natural
selection is.
Rolf
You have a thousand times told us why: Because he is an
'evolutionist'=atheist=liar and everything he says is without merit and
nothing he says can be trusted.
Steven L.
I've got news for you: If Darwin had never been born, other scientists
and thinkers would have eventually devised a similar Theory of Evolution
by natural selection, genetic drift, and mutation. Because that really
is what the evidence suggests.
Maybe then you would be attacking "Huxleyism" today.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Steven L.
No, he has resurrected a very old argument against the ToE--that
linguistic analysis will reveal it to be just a tautology, and therefore
meaningless. That argument fell into disfavor after 1950 or so, which
is why it's unfamiliar to many who were born later.
The fact that the Discovery Institute is trying to find "scientific"
evidence against the ToE is itself a refutation of the notion of the ToE
being a tautology. (Tautologies aren't refuted by experimental evidence.)
I pointed that out to "trader100," but he just ignored it.
Dr. Acula
> On May 18, 8:36 pm, "Dr. Acula" <jerryd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Darwin was no fool, at the same time it doesn't matter what he did or
> > didn't say. Even though we have independant confirmation of some of
> > his ideas we still use terms like 'natural selection' due to
> > convenience.
>
> Wouldn't it be strange if we insisted on calling Quantum theory
> Phlogiston theory?
I guess...but we could If a population of speakers agreed upon it
and understood what we were talking about. Though I would suggest
using something like "NeoPhlogiston theory" to differentiate it from
the historical version.
> > Mutations are observed to be random.
>
> Darwin didn't know about genetic mutations and never used the word
> "random".
Of no relevance whatsoever.
>Random mutations only surfaced around 1910 in the journals.
> If you are discussing genes then cite the relevent authors not the
> tautological thinking from Aristotle, james hutton, patrick matthews ,
> William charles wells, Charles darwin.
1) You've shown time and time again that you have no idea what a
tautology is.
2) You consistently ignore references given to you, so why should we
provide them for you?
Anyway, start by reading the references in this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_mutation#References
>Their banality has resulted in
> two world wars and Professor Humphreys thinking that everything he
> says is a conjuring trick.
You are remarkably ignorant of history.
>"Natural selection" is the piece of
> grammatical gargoyle that masks the underlying Aristotelian thinking.
>
> In this threadhttp://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=7428&p=119238...
Garamond Lethe
<snip>
>> Darwin provided a big idea and established the initial foundation.
That
>> foundation has been entirely replaced (and one could make the argument
>> that it has been replaced twice over: once with genetics and the
>> modern synthesis, and again with molecular biology).
>>
>>
> "entirely replaced"
>
> Gould 2002 and a vast majority of mainstream scholars say you are
> completely wrong.
I just spent a semester learning firsthand what mainstream scholars think
via lectures and textbooks (and some really vicious problem sets). Gould
wrote well and widely, but he'll be remembered more as a popularizer of
evolution than a scientist (and there's nothing wrong with that).
If you want to know what mainstream scholars think, then you're going to
have to read what they write for each other, not for wider audiences.
>
>> So, just for sake of argument, let's assume all Darwin's work on
>> barnacles, finches, pollination --- all if it is suddenly discovered to
>> be completely wrong. While that is of historical interest, it wouldn't
>> affect biology at all, and that's because that data is no longer
>> foundational.
>>
>> You could (for sake of argument) work your way through the entire
>> _Origin_ and show each line was either wrong or unjustified. That is
>> perhaps a valid and even valuable contribution to the history of
>> science, but you've not touched biology at all.
>>
>>
> Utter nonsense. "Origin" is a biology theory.
Yes, and it's no longer taught except as history. If you want to
critique _Origin_, you're doing historical analysis, not scientific
analysis. And that's fine, but don't expect biologists to get too
excited about it.
>
> The **foundation** and **general structure** of the "Origin" is
> vehemently defended by ALL scholars.
>
Not in graduate biology classes. Not in graduate biology textbooks.
Have you had any college biology classes, Ray?
>> If you want to go after evolution, you need to go where the math is.
>> That's the current foundation.
>
> LOL
>
>> Start with nothing later that Motoo
>> Kimura's "Neutral Theory" and work your way though Tomoko Ohta's
>> "Nearly Neutral Theory". That's where the foundations currently are
>> for evolution (to the best of my limited understanding).
>>
>> (There are many other pieces of the foundation as well; I don't want to
>> give the impression that Neutral Theory replaces evolution --- it just
>> happens to explain large swaths of the data we have available. In my
>> instructor's words, it's a great null hypothesis.)
>>
>> While the scientific literature is filled with critiques of "Neutral
>> Theory", there is still room for one more. Critiques of Darwinism will
>> be relegated to the history shelf, though. That's a respectable place
>> to be, but it won't change any science.
>>
>> > (2) everything else is more or less
>> > falsified.
>>
>> Assume that's true: so what? You haven't even started on the
>> genetics, much less molecular biology. That's the current foundation.
>>
>>
> You have provided zero support for your opinions.
No, I think I provided a specific citation to my opinions as well as some
quantitative data.
> And your opinions
> exist in direct contradiction to Gould 2002.
It might be more accurate to say that my opinions contradict your reading
of Gould. Your opinion contradicts Barton's _Evolution_. Since the
latter is a biology textbook, I think I'll stick with that.
> As if the Harvard Professor
> was completely wrong (that is what you are saying). How could a Harvard
> Professor be so wrong and out of touch?
?
> Again, it is YOU who is so wrong
> and out of touch with mainstream scholarship.
Ray, I still have claw marks from mainstream scholarship that haven't
healed yet (the semester just ended last week).
Take a class, Ray. It'll do you good.
>
> Sorry Garamond.
Don't be sorry for me --- when I'm curious about something, I take a
class. My papers get published. After seven years I'm within two
semesters of graduating and will spend the rest of my life teaching and
doing research.
Earlier you had mentioned that you thought the bibliography of your paper
should come last. That's not correct --- that's the first thing you
should write. It gives you a sanity check on where your ideas fit in
with what has already been published.
Usually when I'm reading a paper, the bibliography is the first thing I
check after the abstract. I'm looking for work I'm familiar with (both
good and bad) and a mix of dates that's biased towards more recent work.
If I don't see many citations, I'm less inclined to take the author
seriously. Ditto if all of the citations are from the last couple years,
or if there's nothing within the past five years.
Granted, the bibliography will be revised as you write (along with
everything else), but if you don't have a draft version when you begin,
you're not yet ready to write.
I'd be interested in seeing your bibliography. Please consider posting
it here.
<snip>
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
>On Sat, 16 May 2009 16:59:36 -0700 (PDT), the following
>appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
><pyram...@yahoo.com>:
>
>>On May 16, 10:13 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>> When we speak of the Theory of Evolution, we mean it as it exists today,
>>> not in its first stated form by Darwin in the 19th century.
>
>>Not true.
>>
>>According to Gould 2002 the Theory of [how] Evolution [happens] is 100
>>percent Darwinian, having only been modified by modernity. Gould
>>drives home this point laboriously over the course of 1000+ pages.
>
>What part of "as it exists today, not in its first stated
>form by Darwin in the 19th century" is giving you trouble,
>given that you acknowledge the theory is "modified by
>modernity"? Is it possible you know the meaning of neither
>of these equivalent terms?
[crickets...]
>Oh, and where's the Famous Paper?
[crickets...]
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
David Hare-Scott
I understand the argument, if not its antecedents, it was the manner of
defence that was annoying. He refuses to deal with key issue and just spouts
more irrelevancies. He may be genuine but externally indistinguishable from
the non-genuine.
David
Burkhard
I don't think there is a massive contradiction between Garamond and
Gould, they are simply talking about two different things (which you
however tend to conflate). One is a historical account of the theory
of evolution, part 1 of Gould's book. For this, it is a fact of
interest for historians of science just how much of Darwin's original
ideas have survived. The other is the systematic question of what the
theory of evolution is today. For this you don't need Darwin, you need
a good contemporary entry level textbook into evolutionary biology.
Or put differently: It is perfectly _possible_ (though, from a general
knowledge point regrettable) to be a perfectly good evolutionary
biologist without ever having heard of Darwin, let alone having read
Origins. It is _impossible_ to be an a adequate evolutionary biologist
without having grounding in and an understanding of genetics and the
mathematical apparatus that comes with it. These obviously are post-
Darwin.
Gould agrees with this perception. Here a quote:
"substantial changes, introduced during the last half of the 20th
century, have built a structure so expanded beyond the original
Darwinian core, and so enlarged by new principles of macroevolutionary
explanation, that the full exposition, while remaining within the
domain of Darwinian logic, must be construed as basically different
from the canonical theory of natural selection, rather than simply
extended."
Ray Martinez
> On Mon, 18 May 2009 17:29:16 -0700, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> >> Darwin provided a big idea and established the initial foundation.
> That
> >> foundation has been entirely replaced (and one could make the argument
> >> that it has been replaced twice over: once with genetics and the
> >> modern synthesis, and again with molecular biology).
>
> > "entirely replaced"
>
> > Gould 2002 and a vast majority of mainstream scholars say you are
> > completely wrong.
>
> I just spent a semester learning firsthand what mainstream scholars think
> via lectures and textbooks (and some really vicious problem sets). Gould
> wrote well and widely, but he'll be remembered more as a popularizer of
> evolution than a scientist (and there's nothing wrong with that).
>
> If you want to know what mainstream scholars think, then you're going to
> have to read what they write for each other, not for wider audiences.
>
This comment says Gould was not a mainstream scholar. Of course your
belief is ridiculous. It seems you define "mainstream scholar" to be
those of whom you agree with.
Your comment also says that which is written for the public or wider
audience is somehow less accurate. Of course this belief is also
ridiculous. You have implied that evolutionists lie to the public.
If scholarship cannot be explained to the public it is illegitimate.
Convincing other scholars and no one else is meaningless, private
knowledge.
>
>
> >> So, just for sake of argument, let's assume all Darwin's work on
> >> barnacles, finches, pollination --- all if it is suddenly discovered to
> >> be completely wrong. While that is of historical interest, it wouldn't
> >> affect biology at all, and that's because that data is no longer
> >> foundational.
>
> >> You could (for sake of argument) work your way through the entire
> >> _Origin_ and show each line was either wrong or unjustified. That is
> >> perhaps a valid and even valuable contribution to the history of
> >> science, but you've not touched biology at all.
>
> > Utter nonsense. "Origin" is a biology theory.
>
> Yes, and it's no longer taught except as history.
Completely false.
The main foundation and structure of Darwin 1859 remains ratified by
modern evolutionism. This is a round earth fact.
In addition to Gould, off the top of my head:
Ken Miller
Richard Dawkins
Janet Browne
Ernst Mayr
Michael Ghislein
Tim Berra
David Quammen
John van Wyhe
Jerry Coyne
Daniel Dennett
....have all written books establishing the round earth fact.
Modern evolution is built on Darwin 1859.
It started with "The Genetical Theory Of Natural Selection" (1930) by
Professor of Eugenics, Ronald Fisher.
You really have no idea as to what you are talking about.
> If you want to
> critique _Origin_, you're doing historical analysis, not scientific
> analysis. And that's fine, but don't expect biologists to get too
> excited about it.
>
Their biology is based on Darwin 1859. You seem to think that modern
evolution has no beginning point. And I agree that very many modern
evolutionists are completely ignorant, plagiarizers. These persons are
not scholars. They have passed classes like a mindless robot.
>
>
> > The **foundation** and **general structure** of the "Origin" is
> > vehemently defended by ALL scholars.
>
> Not in graduate biology classes. Not in graduate biology textbooks.
>
> Have you had any college biology classes, Ray?
>
Those classes and textbooks are based on Darwin 1859.
Your comments reveal yourself to be a yuppie.
I suggest that you peruse a modern bookstore and see the number of
books written defending Darwin 1859.
Contradiction.
> <snip>- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Look, don't worry about my bibliography.
Fact: modern evolution is based on Darwin 1859.
I am going after Charles Darwin. That is, his foundation and general
structure, that is, that which modern evolution is built and based
upon. When I topple that structure everything built on top goes with
it----EVERYTHING.
Besides, evolution is an explanation of evidence. The explanation is
not eligible for falsification. Neither is how evolution occurs. It is
only eligible to be modified (not falsified). I am only obligated to
explain why persons accept these explanations. I am also obligated to
produce scientific evidence showing the explanations false and I am
obligated to produce scientific evidence showing Creationism-ID true.
I can do both in spectacular fashion.
Ray
Dana Tweedy
> On May 19, 9:39 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 May 2009 17:29:16 -0700, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Darwin provided a big idea and established the initial foundation.
>>>> That foundation has been entirely replaced (and one could make the
>>>> argument that it has been replaced twice over: once with genetics
>>>> and the modern synthesis, and again with molecular biology).
>>
>>> "entirely replaced"
>>
>>> Gould 2002 and a vast majority of mainstream scholars say you are
>>> completely wrong.
>>
>> I just spent a semester learning firsthand what mainstream scholars
>> think via lectures and textbooks (and some really vicious problem
>> sets). Gould wrote well and widely, but he'll be remembered more as
>> a popularizer of evolution than a scientist (and there's nothing
>> wrong with that).
>>
>> If you want to know what mainstream scholars think, then you're
>> going to have to read what they write for each other, not for wider
>> audiences.
>>
>
> This comment says Gould was not a mainstream scholar.
Actually, what it says is that Gould's public writings are not what
mainstream scientists say to each other. Gould is a famous scientist,
because of his popular work, but that doesn't mean that Gould spoke for all
scientists, or whatever he said was immediately, and uncontroversially
accepted by all other scientists.
> Of course your
> belief is ridiculous. It seems you define "mainstream scholar" to be
> those of whom you agree with.
The irony of this is that Gould entirely disagrees with Ray's claims.
Ray's knowledge of Gould comes entirely from misquotes of Gould in
creationist literature.
>
> Your comment also says that which is written for the public or wider
> audience is somehow less accurate.
It is less accurate, as it's "dumbed down".
> Of course this belief is also
> ridiculous. You have implied that evolutionists lie to the public.
No, he's pointed out that technical language used between scientists is
different from the general language used.
> If scholarship cannot be explained to the public it is illegitimate.
That is an absurd claim. The public normally doesn't have the technical
training to grasp the more complicated issues. It's like saying if a
surgeon can't explain how to do brain surgery to a layman, brain surgery is
invalid.
> Convincing other scholars and no one else is meaningless, private
> knowledge.
Ray, science is conducted by scientists, and they tend to communicate with
each other in technical laungage. That doesn't mean the knowledege is
either "private" or "meaningless".
>
>>
>>
>>>> So, just for sake of argument, let's assume all Darwin's work on
>>>> barnacles, finches, pollination --- all if it is suddenly
>>>> discovered to be completely wrong. While that is of historical
>>>> interest, it wouldn't affect biology at all, and that's because
>>>> that data is no longer foundational.
>>
>>>> You could (for sake of argument) work your way through the entire
>>>> _Origin_ and show each line was either wrong or unjustified. That
>>>> is perhaps a valid and even valuable contribution to the history of
>>>> science, but you've not touched biology at all.
>>
>>> Utter nonsense. "Origin" is a biology theory.
>>
>> Yes, and it's no longer taught except as history.
>
> Completely false.
Then why can't you support your claim?
>
> The main foundation and structure of Darwin 1859 remains ratified by
> modern evolutionism. This is a round earth fact.
Like so many of your claims of "round earth fact" you are wrong. Origin
of Species is an antique. Modern science has moved far beyond Darwin's
work.
>
> In addition to Gould, off the top of my head:
>
> Ken Miller
> Richard Dawkins
> Janet Browne
> Ernst Mayr
> Michael Ghislein
> Tim Berra
> David Quammen
> John van Wyhe
> Jerry Coyne
> Daniel Dennett
>
> ....have all written books establishing the round earth fact.
None of the scientists mentioned above claim that Darwin's "Origin of
Species" is a "biology theory". It's a book that outlines Darwin's
theory, but book itself is largely superceded by new information.
>
> Modern evolution is built on Darwin 1859.
Darwin's work was the starting point, not the foundation of the science.
>
> It started with "The Genetical Theory Of Natural Selection" (1930) by
> Professor of Eugenics, Ronald Fisher.
Fisher's book incorporated genetics and statistics into the theory. It
wasn't the "start".
>
> You really have no idea as to what you are talking about.
And you think you do?
>
>> If you want to
>> critique _Origin_, you're doing historical analysis, not scientific
>> analysis. And that's fine, but don't expect biologists to get too
>> excited about it.
>>
>
> Their biology is based on Darwin 1859.
Their biology is based on science, Ray. Darwin's theory is part of
biology.
> You seem to think that modern
> evolution has no beginning point. And I agree that very many modern
> evolutionists are completely ignorant, plagiarizers.
But you don't have any reason to make that claim. You are just spiteful of
their success.
> These persons are
> not scholars. They have passed classes like a mindless robot.
You show your jealousy again, for not being able to pass even the most basic
classes.
>
>
>>
>>
>>> The **foundation** and **general structure** of the "Origin" is
>>> vehemently defended by ALL scholars.
>>
>> Not in graduate biology classes. Not in graduate biology textbooks.
>>
>> Have you had any college biology classes, Ray?
>>
>
> Those classes and textbooks are based on Darwin 1859.
Which means you haven't studied any biology.
>
> Your comments reveal yourself to be a yuppie.
How does this make him a "Young Urban Professional"?
>
> I suggest that you peruse a modern bookstore and see the number of
> books written defending Darwin 1859.
Darwin's theory doesn't need any such defense, Ray. Those books try to
explain the theory to the public. In science, the theory has no
significant rivals.
snip
>>> And your opinions
>>> exist in direct contradiction to Gould 2002.
>>
>> It might be more accurate to say that my opinions contradict your
>> reading of Gould.
>
> Contradiction.
How is that a contradiction, Ray? Do you imagine that you can't be
mistaken about Gould?
snip
>>
>> I'd be interested in seeing your bibliography. Please consider
>> posting it here.
>>
>> <snip>- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Look, don't worry about my bibliography.
No one is "worried about it". It's likely that your bibliography will
only show your own ignorance.
>
> Fact: modern evolution is based on Darwin 1859.
Modern evolution is based on the observations that Darwin, and Wallace, and
many others have made. Darwin was the first to put the theory into
writing, but the theory goes far beyond Darwin himself.
>
> I am going after Charles Darwin.
Which is a waste of time and effort. Smearing Darwin isn't going to change
the facts of evolution.
>That is, his foundation and general
> structure, that is, that which modern evolution is built and based
> upon. When I topple that structure everything built on top goes with
> it----EVERYTHING.
Which is one reason you are doomed to failure. Darwin's theory is based
on how science works. If you want to topple it, you are going to have to
topple science itself, something you are not capable of doing.
>
> Besides, evolution is an explanation of evidence.
Correction, a scientific explanation of the evidence.
> The explanation is
> not eligible for falsification.
Wrong, Ray. Any theory is eligible for falsification, including
evolution.
> Neither is how evolution occurs.
Again, you make a false assertion. How evolution occurs can be falsified,
should there be observations that contradict it.
> It is
> only eligible to be modified (not falsified).
If evidence were found that contradicted evolution, it would be falsified.
It's highly unlikely that evidence that contradicts evolutionary theory will
be found, but it remains a possibility.
> I am only obligated to
> explain why persons accept these explanations.
But you won't consider the actual explanation, and come up with silly, self
serving and unfounded "explanations" that bubble up out of your own mistaken
beliefs.
> I am also obligated to
> produce scientific evidence showing the explanations false and I am
> obligated to produce scientific evidence showing Creationism-ID true.
Two things you are entirely unable to do.
> I can do both in spectacular fashion.
Then why have you utterly failed so far? You've never produded a single
morsel of evidence that suggests either.
DJT