Your opinion wanted [ real scientists only please ]
All-seeing-I
the origins of species.
Thanks.
Devils Advocaat
Now do you want a personal or a professional opinion?
The two are not necessarily the same.
chris thompson
And if he wants personal opinions, why limit it to scientists?
Chris
Nomen Publicus
Could you rephrase the question using english?
--
The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike. -- Delos B. McKown
John Stockwell
> In your professional/personal opinion, what else could be possible for
> the origins of species.
Basically the alternative to common descent would be "separate
descent".
In other words, if it were possible to establish that there were more
than one
line of descent existed that could not be traceable to a single common
ancestor
or ancestor population. However, now that scientists are mapping
genomes on a
regular basis, both from the similarities and differences of
functioning and non
functioning parts of the genomes studied, such separate descent seems
highly
unlikely.
Because it is an established fact that through processes of mutation
and genetic
drift, the genomes of populations change with time, the question
becomes one
more of whether or not natural selection is the dominant mechanism for
the origin
of species. it may be that genetic drift is more important.
There are still important questions about the role of hox genes in the
origin of large
structures in organisms, Tracing evolution backward in time,
duplications, insertions,
transpositions, deactivations, and changes which promote changes in
the timing
of developmental processes are apparent through comparative genetics,
yet
the exact pathways of such changes remain to be worked out.
So, whatever new theory of the origin of species will be, it will be
an evolution theory,
because that type of theory, i.e. common decent through genetic
variation,
fits the known facts..
>
> Thanks.
-John
Frank J
If you mean other than the evolutionary changes that *have been
observed in real time* for the origin of some species, it is certainly
possible that some other processes took place for other species. But
in the absence of any evidence - and anti-evolution activists
themselves seem to be fully aware that there is none - the simplest
explanation is that the *same* processes occurred.
Here are 3 conceivable alternatives:
1. Some species could conceivably have originated by a "saltation"
process, i.e. a radical rearrangement of the genome and/or other
cellular chemistry.Some people consider that "still evolution" but
that's just a semantic argument. Whatever you call it, it would be a
different theory.
2. It's conceivable that, as Behe proposed in "Darwin's Black Box,"
that the first cell had all the "information" in the genome and/or
other cellular chemistry for all descendent species, and that
different parts got "lost" in different branches. If we ever find a
human pseudogene for chlorophyll (as critic H. Allen Orr suggested)
that might be evidence fof this option.
3. Some species, e.g "founding species" for Cambrian phyla, could
conceivably have originated from nonliving matter, and that some yet
undiscovered "genomic potential" (Schwabe's idea) allowed the
independent lineages to have some "common design."
What is most amazing to me is how anti-evolution activists, for 150
years, have stradfastly refused to test these ides that would only
help their case. Note: Schwabe and the late Goldschmidt are very rare
exceptions, and don't count as "activists" because they don't insist
on baiting-and-switching between proximate causes and ultimate causes
like all the others.
So what do 99.9% of activists do instead of trying to support their
own alternative - if they even have one in mind - on its own
streangths?
1. They recycle long-refuted arguments, most of which just promote
unreasonable doubt of evolution, and very few that offer vague, easily-
refuted arguments in support of some alternative, one that ususlly
coincides with the mutually contradictory "literal" interpretations of
Genesis that most major religions don't take literally anyway:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
2. They increasingly refuse to even give a rough description of the
"what heppened when" according to their "theory," hoping instead that
a clueless listener will infer the one he prefers, without calling
attention to its fatal weaknesses, and how it may contradict that of
his neighbor.
3. They refuse to even attempt to falsify "macroevolution" (which
would still not necessarily mean that any alternative is supported):
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Rather they play word games ("macroevolution" and "species" are
redefined every time another speciation event is observed), quote
mine, lobby politicians to get taxpayers to pay for their propaganda
that anyone can learn on their own time.
And most pathetically, they increasingly avoid even the long refuted
"weaknesses" of evolution in favor of whining that scientists and
educators who flunk are unfairly "expelled." (the public loves a
conspiracy, true or not), and finally, they have reached (apologies to
Samuel Johnson) the last refuge of a scoundrel, namely Godwin's Law.
Thery can't commit to, much less support, an alternate "theory," they
can't even falsify evolution, so they show their real objection to it
all: They hate this "Darwinism" caricature because, in their pathetic
fantasy, it encourages Nazism.
Devils Advocaat
Exactly :)
Dan Listermann
"Frank J" <fc...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:13ca5358-af43-4cef...@h10g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
>
> 2. They increasingly refuse to even give a rough description of the
> "what heppened when" according to their "theory," hoping instead that
> a clueless listener will infer the one he prefers, without calling
> attention to its fatal weaknesses, and how it may contradict that of
> his neighbor.
>
They run away when asked about this because they are so stupid as to not see
the train wreck of their argument happening if they did attempt to answer.
.
Burkhard
One could add as things that are possible, yet for for which there is
no evidence:
4)
They may have come from outer space, either through contamination of
something like a meteorite, or through ""directed panspermia" by
intelligent aliens.
and then of course all the variations of this:
5) they are all part of the computer programme that simulates reality
for us while we are lying in some tank
Frank J
> "Frank J" <f...@verizon.net> wrote in message
If they were just stupid, one might expect them to answer, even though
it would be safer to evade it. But the clueless ones are likely
trained by the non-clueless ones to evade the question - they do it by
reflex, unaware of why.
But here is where for 10+ years I have been getting increasingly
annoyed at fellow "Darwinists." They squander many opportunities to
ask these questions and force their opponents to squirm (or
disappear), choosing instead to *assume,* often incorrectly, what the
opponent believes, and keep the "debate" on the opponent's terms
("weaknesses" of "Darwinism," whethere there's a designer, who/what
the designer is, etc.)
All-seeing-I
You were making quite an impressive case for evolution being the most
likely course for the origins of species; Then, you got the bottom.
You got to the bottom and began to vomit the same old tired and usual
hatred that I see spewing from so many of the talk origins
evolutionists.
You actually weaken your case by shaking your little activist fist in
the air at average people when they question the ToE. Because right
now the ToE already reads like a freaking science fiction script, so
by defending it with such animosity, you only make evolution appear to
have something to hide.
You couldn't resist, could you? You could not simply lay out the other
possibilities for discussion. But that's OK. Let's pretend you did.
But first, I would like to address two points of yours.
1) "They refuse to even attempt to falsify "macro evolution"
How can anyone falsify something that is not shown with clear evidence
to take place? An inference is not evidence unless you are willing to
allow the same kind of inference to take place when showing a creator
is a possibility. But many of you won't. You want hard evidence for a
creator but are willing to take circumstantial evidence and inferences
for evolution. What do you find so objectionable about the existence
of a creator to have such a double standard?
Next. No one has trouble with understanding gravity or the many other
scientific discoveries. Why is the ToE riddled with red flags that
makes one question and wonder it's validity in the first place? If
only a select few can see that men are apes then what good it it?
2) " they play word games ("macro evolution" and "species")
Be clear with your explanations and there will be no need to play
semantics. There has to be something that distinguishes between macro
and micro evolution. Because both happen.
Now, on to one of your alternatives for evolution:
"undiscovered "genomic potential" (Schwabe's idea) allowed the
independent lineages to have some "common design."
From the internet:
Carl Woese U of I , argues that life on earth is descended �not from
one, but from three distinctly different cell types� (�On the
evolution of cells,� Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
99 (2002):8742- 77; 8746).
Others, including Malcolm Gordon of UCLA and Christian Schwabe of the
Medical University of South Carolina, think there might be a greater
number of separate trees.
If this is true, then the bible and science have a match. It is quite
possible that a creator made one of each (land, air, water) creatures
and then life evolved forward from there through variations "each
after his own kind" with man being a special creation in the garden as
described.
Variation is observed thereby meeting the scientific method.
Speciation is not observed which only matches a good pipe dream.
Michael
<snip>
> But first, I would like to address two points of yours.
>
> 1) "They refuse to even attempt to falsify "macro evolution"
>
> How can anyone falsify something that is not shown with clear evidence
> to take place? An inference is not evidence unless you are willing to
> allow the same kind of inference to take place when showing a creator
> is a possibility. But many of you won't. You want hard evidence for a
> creator but are willing to take circumstantial evidence and inferences
> for evolution.
You must remember, in their mind, "it had to be so"
One thing you must remember, they classify species.
raven1
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>You actually weaken your case by shaking your little activist fist in
>the air at average people when they question the ToE. Because right
>now the ToE already reads like a freaking science fiction script, so
>by defending it with such animosity, you only make evolution appear to
>have something to hide.
*You* weaken *your* case by shaking your grossly uneducated and
ignorant fist in the air at people who actually understand what
they're talking about when they discuss the ToE. If you'd bother to
actually learn anything about science in general, or the ToE in
particular, it would make a lot more sense to you; by attacking it
with such animosity, you only reveal yourself to be an ignorant
buffoon.
John Harshman
> In your professional/personal opinion, what else could be possible for
> the origins of species.
In my professional/personal opinion, that wasn't a sensible enough
question to try to answer. What else than what? When you say "origins of
species" are you talking about speciation? Or some kind of magical poofing?
richardal...@googlemail.com
If you are genuinely interested in an answer, I'll post a list of
accessible books written by experts in the subject of speciation which
will answer your rather confused question.
Do you want to learn, or do you prefer to wallow in ignorance?
Your response, or lack of one, will be informative.
RF
Prof Weird
That 'hatred' comes from listening to gibbering no-nothings like you
that PRESUME your peculiar 'interpretations' of ancient morality tales
are equal or better than validated science.
That 'hatred' was merely stating what the creotards, IDiots and
theoloons always do instead of presenting their own model of what
happened when.
> You actually weaken your case by shaking your little activist fist in
> the air at average people when they question the ToE.
Only if one were feeble-minded enough to 'decide' everything purely on
emotional grounds.
Good thing that evolution is evidence-based.
Initiating pompous projection :
> Because right
> now the ToE already reads like a freaking science fiction script, so
> by defending it with such animosity, you only make evolution appear to
> have something to hide.
The ToE has nothing to hide; its just that creotards refuse to do the
work needed to UNDERSTAND it, instead preferring to wallow in self-
imposed ignorance ('science is hard, so I'll stick with ancient fairy
tale explanations !!')
> You couldn't resist, could you? You could not simply lay out the other
> possibilities for discussion. But that's OK. Let's pretend you did.
>
> But first, I would like to address two points of yours.
>
> 1) "They refuse to even attempt to falsify "macro evolution"
>
> How can anyone falsify something that is not shown with clear evidence
> to take place?
There is evidence it HAS taken place; you just refuse to accept it,
and demand levels of detail no one could provide.
Then REFUSE to provide evidence for your 'alternative' about Magical
Sky Pixies that somehow did stuff sometime in the past for some
reason.
> An inference is not evidence unless you are willing to
> allow the same kind of inference to take place when showing a creator
> is a possibility.
Please DEMONSTRATE that a creator is actually required, or even
actually exists (or existed).
The inferences of the ToE are TESTABLE; blubberings about the actions
of Magical Sky Pixies are not unless something
is KNOWN about how Magical Sky Pixies do their work (ie, a mechanism).
For example, screaming 'ALIENS CAUSE THE TIDES !!11!' is not a
scientific claim unless something is known about aliens (whether they
actually exist, and if they have a way to generate tides on Earth).
Replace 'aliens' with 'Creators' to see why your blitherings are
useless.
> But many of you won't. You want hard evidence for a
> creator but are willing to take circumstantial evidence and inferences
> for evolution. What do you find so objectionable about the existence
> of a creator to have such a double standard?
You are the one with a double standard - you accept 'Magical Sky
Pixies DIDIT !!11!' based on hearsay and your own willful ignorance,
yet demand near infinite detail from science.
Once again, simpleton : the evidence and inferences for evolution have
TESTABLE effects, so the idea can be verified;
'Magical Sky Pixies DIDIT !1!1!' has no testable effects (other than
your screaming out bald assertions), and so can be ignored UNTIL
EVIDENCE that Magical Sky Pixies exist to do things is presented.
Got any ? (besides your incredulity, willful ignorance, and just
general intellectual laziness ?)
> Next. No one has trouble with understanding gravity or the many other
> scientific discoveries. Why is the ToE riddled with red flags that
> makes one question and wonder it's validity in the first place?
Those 'red flags' exist only to those that are ignorant of the methods
of science, or have an emotional need for the ToE to be false.
> If only a select few can see that men are apes then what good it it?
Those 'select few' are actually 'anybody that bothers to LEARN even
the most rudimentary levels of science'.
This, of course, leaves you out in the cold ...
The worth of a scientific theory is how well it explains available
data - the ToE does this quite well; 'Magical Sky Pixie DIDIT !!1!11'
is useless. Where did you get the silly notion that a scientific
theory is only worthwhile if it is easily understood or can be used to
make money ?
> 2) " they play word games ("macro evolution" and "species")
>
> Be clear with your explanations and there will be no need to play
> semantics.
Scientists ARE clear with their explanations; creotards, IDiots and
theoloons like to mix and match definitions on the fly, since they
have no evidence to support their claim that Magical Sky Pixies exist,
and somehow did stuff sometime in the past.
> There has to be something that distinguishes between macro
> and micro evolution. Because both happen.
'Macro' is formation of a new species - HAS BEEN OBSERVED.
What is your 'definition' of 'macro evolution' Null-Thinking-I ?
> Now, on to one of your alternatives for evolution:
>
> "undiscovered "genomic potential" (Schwabe's idea) allowed the
> independent lineages to have some "common design."
>
> From the internet:
> Carl Woese U of I , argues that life on earth is descended �not from
> one, but from three distinctly different cell types� (�On the
> evolution of cells,� Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
> 99 (2002):8742- 77; 8746).
Those three cell types were all aquatic, and existed billions of years
ago and (supposedly) gave rise to (IIRC) fungi, plants and animals
(depending on what cells fused and what parts were lost).
> Others, including Malcolm Gordon of UCLA and Christian Schwabe of the
> Medical University of South Carolina, think there might be a greater
> number of separate trees.
Evidence to support that is what again ?
> If this is true, then the bible and science have a match. It is quite
> possible that a creator made one of each (land, air, water) creatures
> and then life evolved forward from there through variations "each
> after his own kind" with man being a special creation in the garden as
> described.
By 'match', you mean 'pathetic and deranged attempt to make reality
conform to one silly interpretation of ancient morality tales' ?
Those cell types Woese was talking about were NOT land, air and water
creature types, but simple cells.
So, by your deranged 'model', a 'water type' CELL became a
multicellular whale ? And that is merely 'change within a type/
kind' ?!
Whales used to be land creatures, now they're water. And we have the
fossils and genomic data to show it.
Fish are water creatures, but some of their descendants are land and
air 'types'. And we have the fossils and genomic data to show it.
(you may now begin blubbering about 'world views' and how your
uninformed opinions are more relevant than everyone else's, just
because you spend time on your knees groveling before the Ignorance
you call 'God')
> Variation is observed thereby meeting the scientific method.
> Speciation is not observed which only matches a good pipe dream.
And, at some point, the variations become so great that members of the
population cannot (or will not) breed with each other any more, and
speciation has occurred.
Speciation has been observed. Several times. You just shove your
head ever further up your own rectum to evade accepting it.
- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
chris thompson
If he made a good case for evolution, then he made a good case. If he
used ad hominem at the end (and he did not; truth is sometimes
painful, but that does not make it ad hominem) it still does not
invalidate the evidence that was presented.
>
> You couldn't resist, could you? You could not simply lay out the other
> possibilities for discussion. But that's OK. Let's pretend you did.
>
> But first, I would like to address two points of yours.
>
> 1) "They refuse to even attempt to falsify "macro evolution"
>
> How can anyone falsify something that is not shown with clear evidence
> to take place? An inference is not evidence unless you are willing to
> allow the same kind of inference to take place when showing a creator
> is a possibility. But many of you won't. You want hard evidence for a
> creator but are willing to take circumstantial evidence and inferences
> for evolution. What do you find so objectionable about the existence
> of a creator to have such a double standard?
This paragraph is so woefully wrong it is difficult to decide where to
start on it. First, there is clear, unambiguous evidence for
macroevolution. Speciation is observed to occur. It's that simple.
Second, no one claims inferences are evidence. You are still confused
about this, and probably will be forever, but- inferences are based on
evidence. That's how all science works. Third- no one wants evidence
of a creator. If you have faith, you take the existence of a creator
on faith. If you have no faith, it doesn't matter.
Fourth: circumstantial evidence is the "hardest" of all types of
evidence. What do you think convicts most people of murder? Eyewitness
accounts? Hardly- those are the least reliable bits of evidence. No,
things like bloodstains, fingerprints, footprints, tire tracks,
gunpowder residue...all circumstantial evidence, and all more reliable
than eyewitness accounts.
Finally, there is no evidence of any sort for any creator. No
eyewitness accounts, no circumstantial evidence. If there IS anyone
who wants evidence of a creator it seems he or she would settle for
any kind of evidence at all, since the merest scrap would be a
significant increase. Thus, no double standard exists.
>
> Next. No one has trouble with understanding gravity or the many other
> scientific discoveries. Why is the ToE riddled with red flags that
> makes one question and wonder it's validity in the first place? If
> only a select few can see that men are apes then what good it it?
Please explain, in terms the average person can understand, how your
television works.
What? Cannot do it? Oh no- electrons must not exist!
What a stupid attempt at argument.
> 2) " they play word games ("macro evolution" and "species")
>
> Be clear with your explanations and there will be no need to play
> semantics. There has to be something that distinguishes between macro
> and micro evolution. Because both happen.
There is legitimate disagreement on this. Some people (like myself)
include speciation when referring to macroevolution. Other people
(like John Harshman) say speciation is only above the species level.
In any event, it happens.
>
> Now, on to one of your alternatives for evolution:
>
> "undiscovered "genomic potential" (Schwabe's idea) allowed the
> independent lineages to have some "common design."
>
> From the internet:
> Carl Woese U of I , argues that life on earth is descended �not from
> one, but from three distinctly different cell types� (�On the
> evolution of cells,� Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
> 99 (2002):8742- 77; 8746).
>
> Others, including Malcolm Gordon of UCLA and Christian Schwabe of the
> Medical University of South Carolina, think there might be a greater
> number of separate trees.
>
> If this is true, then the bible and science have a match. It is quite
> possible that a creator made one of each (land, air, water) creatures
> and then life evolved forward from there through variations "each
> after his own kind" with man being a special creation in the garden as
> described.
Silliness. There is no match. There is no evidence for "land types",
"water types" and "air types". Which type is a penguin? An otter? Are
sea otters a different type than river otters? What about bats? If
they are air types, are you putting in the same category as penguins?
>
> Variation is observed thereby meeting the scientific method.
> Speciation is not observed which only matches a good pipe dream.
Ah, so you have finished your rebuttal of the Ainouche et al. paper on
speciation in Spartina! Excellent. I am sure Dr. Ainouche will be
devastated to find out that the speciation events she replicated in
her laboratory were pipe dreams. Pray tell, will your paper be in
_Science_ or _Nature_? Perhaps _American Naturalist_? Is Ray a co-
author? That would explain why HIS paper is so late...
BWAHAHAHAHA
Sorry not even I could keep a straight face through all that.
Seriously though, you've been presented with countless examples of
speciation. Why do you bother lying about it after all this time?
Chris
Ernest Major
<jhar...@pacbell.net> writes
If we were to interpret the what else to refer to processes other than
allopatric speciation (which is sort of the default hypothesis), then
Verne Grant's "Plant Speciation" would provide a number of answers.
While I've heard that Coyne and Orr's "Speciation" places too much
weight on allopatric speciation, I presume that it also covers other
mechanisms.
--
alias Ernest Major
John Harshman
> In message <_tqdnauGFr_6...@giganews.com>, John Harshman
> <jhar...@pacbell.net> writes
>> All-seeing-I wrote:
>>> In your professional/personal opinion, what else could be possible for
>>> the origins of species.
>>
>> In my professional/personal opinion, that wasn't a sensible enough
>> question to try to answer. What else than what? When you say "origins
>> of species" are you talking about speciation? Or some kind of magical
>> poofing?
>>
>
> If we were to interpret the what else to refer to processes other than
> allopatric speciation (which is sort of the default hypothesis), then
> Verne Grant's "Plant Speciation" would provide a number of answers.
I prefer not to guess what he means, but to await clarification.
> While I've heard that Coyne and Orr's "Speciation" places too much
> weight on allopatric speciation, I presume that it also covers other
> mechanisms.
It does. And "too much" is in the eye of the beholder. I think they give
speciation mechanisms the space that corresponds to their prevalence in
nature. Grant's book, which I haven't read, looks interesting. I may
have to try it as a companion to Coyne & Orr and Price.
el cid
> the origins of species.
An option favored by certain theistic evolutionists is of course
evolution directed by divine guidance. It seems that some propose
that the variation introduced into germ lines might be guided
by an undetectable presence, perhaps dancing lightly on probabilistic
wave functions to tip off a balancing point with some objective
in mind.
That sort of notion acknowledges that evolution works fine on
the variation it has to work with but questions the ability of
random mutation to access useful sequence variants. This question
is I believe rooted in misconceptions about structural biochemistry
but let's leave that aside for the moment.
Instead, I wonder about the following for such scenarios.
Say two different "kinds" exist that both happen to eat a particular
fruit. Say the plant that grows that fruit evolves a toxin that
tends to limit how much fruit an individual can eat. The advantage
here is that this means it's fruit gets eaten by a broader
distribution of individuals and so is broadcast further afield,
and advantage for its continued existence. Now each of the two
"kinds" that eats this fruit will likely adapt to the toxin
by evolving new liver enzymes to detoxify the fruit. This is
standard biology, nothing to get excited about.
The question is, if there's a good solution to detoxifying
the food toxin, why doesn't the designer use the same solution
in both "kinds" but instead uses different solution in each
separate germ line. If they used the same, we would see
convergent evolution because the power that is directing
mutations could do so. If instead, there's no power directing
mutation, we would see what we actually see which is random
catch-as-catch-can solution and are segregated by hereditary
lines.
Why doesn't the asserted intelligent designer recycle good
designs between divergent germ lines? If they can nudge
mutation in a direction for their choosing, I would expect
to see this happen. We have enough sequence data on hand
today to have this reveal itself but I haven't seen it
show up.
All-seeing-I
You are under the delusion that these books hold absolute evidence
that species can diverge to the point they are unrecognizable from the
ancestor
dali_70
> the origins of species.
Sort of Ironic that you're asking this, seeing how you haven't
listened to one damn thing any scientist has said thus far.
gregwrld
How would you know? He hasn't even put up
the list so you have no idea what they say.
You are such an idiot.
gregwrld
Dan Listermann
"All-seeing-I" <ap...@email.com> wrote in message
news:8f875777-5099-492d...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
that species cannot diverge to the point they are unrecognizable from the
ancestor.
.
richardal...@googlemail.com
I'm under no delusions about the content of those books or the
evidence they describe. That's because I've read them.
If you are not going to learn about evolutionary theory from people
with an expertise in that field, from whom do you think you can
learn?
It's evident from this response that you prefer to wallow in ignorance
rather than learn about a scientific theory you dismiss.
What do you think that tells us about your intellectual standing?
RF
Ernest Major
<d...@listermann.com> writes
unrecognisable from the ancestor, especially if you can use DNA data.
Among animals Wikipedia has of the order of 50 taxa falling into this
category. These are mostly fossils, and relatively old fossils; part of
the problem is incomplete data, as well as divergence.
People are still working out the relationships of unicellular
eukaryotes, but the current program, using ultrastructural and genetic
data, is paying dividends.
--
alias Ernest Major
raven1
Your pointless nihilism is really getting tedious. "We don't know
everything, therefore we don't know anything". Once again, there's no
such thing as "absolute" evidence in science. There is, however,
*overwhelming* evidence, which is what we have for evolution. Why
don't you ask Richard for his reading list and see what the evidence
actually is, rather than doggedly determining to remain ignorant?
Reddfrogg
Where did Frank express any "hatred"?
>
> You actually weaken your case by shaking your little activist fist in
> the air at average people when they question the ToE.
Again, where did he "shake his fist"? And where did an "average
person" question the Theory of Evolution? The opposition to the
theory comes from those who have religious bias, not any real question
of the theory.
> Because right
> now the ToE already reads like a freaking science fiction script, so
> by defending it with such animosity, you only make evolution appear to
> have something to hide
There's nothing about evolution that "reads like" science fiction.
It's all very ordinary processes, acting over time.
>
> You couldn't resist, could you? You could not simply lay out the other
> possibilities for discussion. But that's OK. Let's pretend you did.
>
> But first, I would like to address two points of yours.
>
> 1) "They refuse to even attempt to falsify "macro evolution"
>
> How can anyone falsify something that is not shown with clear evidence
> to take place?
As you've been shown many times, there is a great deal of clear
evidence that macroevolution has taken place. Your refusal to look
at that evidence doesn't mean it isn't there.
> An inference is not evidence unless you are willing to
> allow the same kind of inference to take place when showing a creator
> is a possibility.
All science is inference from the evidence. Of course inference isn't
evidence, but inference is drawn from the evidence. What evidence do
you have that a creator is responsible? When has anyone observed a
supernatural being creating anything?
> But many of you won't. You want hard evidence for a
> creator but are willing to take circumstantial evidence and inferences
> for evolution.
Circumstantial evidence IS hard evidence. Inference is drawn from
that evidence. You have absolutely NO evidence to support your own
claim, and not even any inference. All you have is preconceived
belief.
> What do you find so objectionable about the existence
> of a creator to have such a double standard?
There is no double standard here. Provide physical evidence of a
creator. If you can't, then your belief isn't science.
>
> Next. No one has trouble with understanding gravity or the many other
> scientific discoveries.
Actually, gravity is less well understood than evolution.
> Why is the ToE riddled with red flags that
> makes one question and wonder it's validity in the first place?
what "red flags"? The fact that some people are willfully ignorant,
and refuse to accept the evidence doesn't mean evolution is wrong.
> If
> only a select few can see that men are apes then what good it it?
It's not only a "select few" but anyone who is willing to look at the
evidence.
>
> 2) " they play word games ("macro evolution" and "species
No "word games" involved.
>
> Be clear with your explanations and there will be no need to play
> semantics. There has to be something that distinguishes between macro
> and micro evolution. Because both happen.
The only difference is that macroevolution is on a larger scale.
>
> Now, on to one of your alternatives for evolution:
>
> "undiscovered "genomic potential" (Schwabe's idea) allowed the
> independent lineages to have some "common design."
>
> From the internet:
> Carl Woese U of I , argues that life on earth is descended �not from
> one, but from three distinctly different cell types� (�On the
> evolution of cells,� Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
> 99 (2002):8742- 77; 8746).
>
> Others, including Malcolm Gordon of UCLA and Christian Schwabe of the
> Medical University of South Carolina, think there might be a greater
> number of separate trees.
>
> If this is true, then the bible and science have a match. It is quite
> possible that a creator made one of each (land, air, water) creatures
> and then life evolved forward from there through variations "each
> after his own kind" with man being a special creation in the garden as
> described.
The evidence shows there is only one 'kind' of life. The number of
"trees" only goes to the roots, not to the main trunk.
>
> Variation is observed thereby meeting the scientific method.
> Speciation is not observed which only matches a good pipe dream.
Speciation is observed, as has been shown to you many times.
DJT
Dan Listermann
"Ernest Major" <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:mY69d70L...@meden.invalid...
should default to some old myths.
.
Reddfrogg
Why do they have to have "absolute" evidence? Why isn't very good
evidence, or very well established evidence be sufficient?
You don't have any evidence that populations can't diverge to be
different from their ancestors. You just assert that they can't. and
refuse to look at all the evidence that you are wrong. You also
don't seem to grasp that even when a population is different from it's
ancestors, it still retains some identifiable link to it's
ancestry.
DJT
John Harshman
scientist. Why are you complaining?
Your response is confusing. What do you mean by "absolute evidence"?
Sounds like something no scientist would agree to. And what do you mean
by "unrecognizable from the ancestor"? I have no idea.
John Harshman
Do you really have any idea what Madman means by "unrecognizable from
the ancestor"? If so, could you clue me in?
> Among animals Wikipedia has of the order of 50 taxa falling into this
> category. These are mostly fossils, and relatively old fossils; part of
> the problem is incomplete data, as well as divergence.
What category? Are you talking about problematica?
Christopher Denney
> In your professional/personal opinion, what else could be possible for
> the origins of species.
>
> Thanks.
Possible?
Just about anything, see every creation myth ever written. (for
sufficiently fantastic values of possible)
Probable, significantly reduces the playing field.
Supported by evidence, only the one, evolution.
Christopher Denney
No, you are under the delusion that absolute evidence exists.
Ernest Major
unrecognisable from the ancestor is not the norm; you are taking
M/Adman's strawman at face value. If divergence to the point of
unrecognisability was the norm then we would be much less able to infer
common descent.
You wouldn't have responded in the same way if he had claimed that the
books demonstrated cats giving birth to dogs. But his claim was pretty
much the rhetorical equivalent.
--
alias Ernest Major
Ernest Major
<jhar...@pacbell.net> writes
I am taking his words at face value - that is that he means that you if
you had the ancestor to hand you wouldn't be able to identify it as
related to the species at issue.
>
>> Among animals Wikipedia has of the order of 50 taxa falling into this
>>category. These are mostly fossils, and relatively old fossils; part
>>of the problem is incomplete data, as well as divergence.
>
>What category? Are you talking about problematica?
Yes.
>
>> People are still working out the relationships of unicellular
>>eukaryotes, but the current program, using ultrastructural and genetic
>>data, is paying dividends.
>
--
alias Ernest Major
John Harshman
Presumably you mean, by "related", "more closely related than to some
set of other species", rather than making the implied claim that some
species are unrelated to one another.
Still don't know if your guess was right. Madman probably won't clarify,
and at any rate probably wouldn't know what you meant.
Frank J
(snip)
>
> You were making quite an impressive case for evolution being the most
> likely course for the origins of species;
No, I was not making any case for evolution being the most likely
course for the origins of species. I was proposing *alternatives*.
> Then, you got the bottom.
> You got to the bottom and began to vomit the same old tired and usual
> hatred that I see spewing from so many of the talk origins
> evolutionists.
A reasonable reader can see no hatred, only "tough love." What you
want are bleeding hearts.
>
> You actually weaken your case by shaking your little activist fist in
> the air at average people when they question the ToE.
But they don't really *question* the "ToE" let alone try to support an
alternate theory. To my knowledge not one anti-evolution activist has
ever addressed the 29+ potential falsifiers. Instead they recycle the
same long-refuted misreprsentations.
>Because right
> now the ToE already reads like a freaking science fiction script, so
> by defending it with such animosity, you only make evolution appear to
> have something to hide.
Again, any reasonable reader - even many evolution-deniers - can
plainly see that only in your dreams am *I* making evolution "appear
to have something to hide." My post was *not about evolutuon* - anyone
is free to check the "strengths and weaknesses" elsewhere.
But lets fantasize for the moment that evolution is no better
supported than a typical science fiction script. The *anti-evolution
activists themselves*, by virtue of their antics, make it clear that
any conceivable alternative is also science fiction, and even less
believable than evolution
>
> You couldn't resist, could you? You could not simply lay out the other
> possibilities for discussion. But that's OK. Let's pretend you did.
>
> But first, I would like to address two points of yours.
>
> 1) "They refuse to even attempt to falsify "macro evolution"
>
> How can anyone falsify something that is not shown with clear evidence
> to take place?
Others can read my 2nd link to see how, even if they think it is "not
shown with clear evidence to take place"
> An inference is not evidence unless you are willing to
> allow the same kind of inference to take place when showing a creator
> is a possibility.
That's exactly the bait-and-switch I referred to. Thanks for proving
my point.
> But many of you won't. You want hard evidence for a
> creator but are willing to take circumstantial evidence and inferences
> for evolution. What do you find so objectionable about the existence
> of a creator to have such a double standard?
I believe in a Creator. Now tell me how He created our species if not
by evolution. Be the first in almost 3 years:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/7563bdc1848942b6?hl=en
>
> Next. No one has trouble with understanding gravity or the many other
> scientific discoveries. Why is the ToE riddled with red flags that
> makes one question and wonder it's validity in the first place? If
> only a select few can see that men are apes then what good it it?
Have you asked Michael Behe that question?
>
> 2) " they play word games ("macro evolution" and "species")
>
> Be clear with your explanations and there will be no need to play
> semantics.
Most popularizers of evolution are, though I'll be the first to admit
that many shoot themselves in the foot. Yet anti-evolution activists
still find it necessary to quote mine to make their point:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html
> There has to be something that distinguishes between macro
> and micro evolution. Because both happen.
>
> Now, on to one of your alternatives for evolution:
>
> "undiscovered "genomic potential" (Schwabe's idea) allowed the
> independent lineages to have some "common design."
>
> From the internet:
> Carl Woese U of I , argues that life on earth is descended �not from
> one, but from three distinctly different cell types� (�On the
> evolution of cells,� Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
> 99 (2002):8742- 77; 8746).
For all I know, Woese may be right. "ToE" admits that things were very
different in the early Precambrian - *billions* of years ago. Woese
does not think that humans and other apes, or even the Cambrian phyla,
arose independently. Nor does Behe for that matter.
>
> Others, including Malcolm Gordon of UCLA and Christian Schwabe of the
> Medical University of South Carolina, think there might be a greater
> number of separate trees.
If you actually read my post, I mentioned Schwabe, and have written
about him for years. I don't find his hypothesis convincing, but I
respect him for at least trying to support it even in part on its own
merits. Something you people refuse to do. In fact you inceasingly
refuse to tell us what "it" is, other than some Creator or designer
doing something, somewhere at some time.
>
> If this is true, then the bible and science have a match.
Chez Watt? Who said anything about the Bible? Do you think that Vedic
or Native American origins stories are a "match" too?
> It is quite
> possible that a creator made one of each (land, air, water) creatures
> and then life evolved forward from there through variations "each
> after his own kind" with man being a special creation in the garden as
> described.
Of course it's "possible," if for some yet-unknown reason all the
evidence we have is somewhat mistaken. And you are perfectly free to
show that. Just state testable hypotheses of what the Creator did,
when, and how. And test it on its own strengths, *not* the same old
"weaknesses" of "Darwinism."
If you think some muticellular eukaryotic organisms arose from
nonliving matter in some garden, then why on earth are you not there
looking for evidence? I can't recall you even saying *when* that
blessed event might have occurred. Would you even know in which strata
to look for evidence?
And again, what about Behe? For all his incredulity of "Darwinism," he
seems utterly unconvinced that anything remotely like that occurred.
Since he is an anti-evolution champion, and a practicing scientist,
would he be one of the first you'd want on your side?
>
> Variation is observed thereby meeting the scientific method.
> Speciation is not observed which only matches a good pipe dream.
Once again you prove my point by redefining "speciation" to suit your
argument.
chris thompson
> All-seeing-I wrote:
> > On Jan 7, 11:38 am, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"
> > <richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> On Jan 7, 1:57 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> >>> In your professional/personal opinion, what else could be possible for
> >>> the origins of species.
> >>> Thanks.
> >> If you are genuinely interested in an answer, I'll post a list of
> >> accessible books written by experts in the subject of speciation which
> >> will answer your rather confused question.
>
> >> Do you want to learn, or do you prefer to wallow in ignorance?
>
> >> Your response, or lack of one, will be informative.
>
> >> RF
>
> > You are under the delusion that these books hold absolute evidence
> > that species can diverge to the point they are unrecognizable from the
> > ancestor
>
> Hey, you asked for real scientists to inform you, and Forrest is a real
> scientist. Why are you complaining?
>
> Your response is confusing. What do you mean by "absolute evidence"?
"Absolute evidence" and "absolute truth" are the motive power for his
goal posts.
> Sounds like something no scientist would agree to. And what do you mean
> by "unrecognizable from the ancestor"? I have no idea.
Neither does he, and he likes it that way. If no one knows what it
means (like his know-nothing term, "divergence") then no one can argue
against it.
Chris
Kleuskes & Moos
> In your professional/personal opinion, what else could be possible for
> the origins of species.
>
> Thanks.
Damn... I'm an unreal scientist...
Frank J
> person" question the Theory of Evolution? � �The opposition to the
> theory comes from those who have religious bias, not any real question
> of the theory.
>
> > Because right
> > now the ToE already reads like a freaking science fiction script, so
> > by defending it with such animosity, you only make evolution appear to
> > have something to hide
>
> There's nothing about evolution that "reads like" science fiction.
> It's all very ordinary processes, acting over time.
>
>
>
> > You couldn't resist, could you? You could not simply lay out the other
> > possibilities for discussion. But that's OK. Let's pretend you did.
>
> > But first, I would like to address two points of yours.
>
> > 1) "They refuse to even attempt to falsify "macro evolution"
>
> > How can anyone falsify something that is not shown with clear evidence
> > to take place?
>
> As you've been shown many times, there is a great deal of clear
> at that evidence doesn't mean it isn't there.
Adding to the irony is the fact that it's always "evolutionists" who
look for potential alternate processes that might operate beyond the
species level. There's even some healthy debate among "evolutionists"
about it. They don't try to cover up their differences, even though
they know that anti-evolution activists will quote mine to spin any
disagreement as a "weakness." Its really a no-win situation with any
pseudoscience when the public is both science-challenged and
susceptible to feel-good sound bites and conspiracy "theories." When
"evolutionists" disagree, the "theory" is in trouble, and when they
agree they are conspiring or bullied into protecting the status quo.
Whats sad is that I would not mind it if only the most hopeless ~25%
of the public bought that scam, because they would with or without the
help of anti-evolution activists. But another ~50% that is capable of
knowing better has fallen for some part of the scam, such as "I hear
the jury's still out on evolution" to "it's only fair to teach the
controversy" (even I fell for that one back when). *Thats* the group
we need to be informing. I can only hope that many lurkers on these
boards are in that category. And if trolls like Madman whine that I
want to "brainwash" them, he needs to explain how I'd be doing that
when the 2 links in my first reply are only 2 clicks away from more
anti-evolution sites than most (all?) anti-evolution sites have
themselves.
>
> > An inference is not evidence unless you are willing to
> > allow the same kind of inference to take place when showing a creator
> > is a possibility.
>
> All science is inference from the evidence. �Of course inference isn't
> evidence, but inference is drawn from the evidence. � What evidence do
> you have that a creator is responsible? � �When has anyone observed a
> supernatural being creating anything?
>
> > But many of you won't. You want hard evidence for a
> > creator but are willing to take circumstantial evidence and inferences
> > for evolution.
>
> Circumstantial evidence IS hard evidence. �Inference is drawn from
> that evidence. � You have absolutely NO evidence to support your own
> claim, and not even any inference. �All you have is preconceived
> belief.
>
> > What do you find so objectionable about the existence
> > of a creator to have such a double standard?
>
> There is no double standard here. �Provide physical evidence of a
> creator. �If you can't, then your belief isn't science.
>
>
>
> > Next. No one has trouble with understanding gravity or the many other
> > scientific discoveries.
>
> Actually, gravity is less well understood than evolution.
>
> > Why is the ToE riddled with red flags that
> > makes one question and wonder it's validity in the first place?
>
> what "red flags"? �The fact that some people are willfully ignorant,
> The evidence shows there is only one 'kind' of life. �The number of
> "trees" only goes to the roots, not to the main trunk.
>
>
>
> > Variation is observed thereby meeting the scientific method.
> > Speciation is not observed which only matches a good pipe dream.
>
> Speciation is observed, as has been shown to you many times.
>
> DJT- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Dan Listermann
.
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>On Jan 7, 9:31�am, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> And most pathetically, they increasingly avoid even the long refuted
>> "weaknesses" of evolution in favor of whining that scientists and
>> educators who flunk are unfairly "expelled." (the public loves a
>> conspiracy, true or not), and finally, they have reached (apologies to
>> Samuel Johnson) the last refuge of a scoundrel, namely Godwin's Law.
>> Thery can't commit to, much less support, an alternate "theory," they
>> can't even falsify evolution, so they show their real objection to it
>> all: They hate this "Darwinism" caricature because, in their pathetic
>> fantasy, it encourages Nazism.
>
>You were making quite an impressive case for evolution being the most
>likely course for the origins of species; Then, you got the bottom.
>You got to the bottom and began to vomit the same old tired and usual
>hatred that I see spewing from so many of the talk origins
>evolutionists.
>
>You actually weaken your case by shaking your little activist fist in
>the air at average people when they question the ToE.
i haven't seen anyone but a religious nut question evolution. so, yes,
you guys get shaken at when you piss and moan that 'god did it'
explains anything
Because right
>now the ToE already reads like a freaking science fiction script, so
>by defending it with such animosity, you only make evolution appear to
>have something to hide
you're not a scientist. you have no idea how it works. that's w hy
you're a creationist. so spare us the histrionics about how evolution
aint science
>
>You couldn't resist, could you? You could not simply lay out the other
>possibilities for discussion. But that's OK. Let's pretend you did.
>
>But first, I would like to address two points of yours.
>
>1) "They refuse to even attempt to falsify "macro evolution"
>
>How can anyone falsify something that is not shown with clear evidence
>to take place?
?? you doubting that MRSA and VRSA exist? evolution happens. that's a
fact. it's testable. that's a fact.
no one cares what arbitrary views of science you have. you're screwed
up because of your religion
An inference is not evidence unless you are willing to
>allow the same kind of inference to take place when showing a creator
>is a possibility.
really? god is testable by looking at MRSA??
golly. you creationists come up with something idiotic every day.
But many of you won't. You want hard evidence for a
>creator but are willing to take circumstantial evidence and inferences
>for evolution. What do you find so objectionable about the existence
>of a creator to have such a double standard?
because no one knows what 'evidence' is for a creator. but you guys
havent figured it out in 2000 years AND you have 38,000
denominations...
that alone should indicate you have a problem
>
>Next. No one has trouble with understanding gravity or the many other
>scientific discoveries.
really? OK...what is the pilot wave interpretation of quantum
physics?
Why is the ToE riddled with red flags that
>makes one question and wonder it's validity in the first place? If
>only a select few can see that men are apes then what good it it?
?? only a select few??? like every scientist in the world?
>
>2) " they play word games ("macro evolution" and "species")
>
>Be clear with your explanations and there will be no need to play
>semantics. There has to be something that distinguishes between macro
>and micro evolution. Because both happen.
not really. the mechanism is the same for both. you 're just
scientifically illiterate...because of your religion...so dont
understand science
>
>
>Now, on to one of your alternatives for evolution:
>
>"undiscovered "genomic potential" (Schwabe's idea) allowed the
>independent lineages to have some "common design."
>
>From the internet:
>Carl Woese U of I , argues that life on earth is descended �not from
>one, but from three distinctly different cell types� (�On the
>evolution of cells,� Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
>99 (2002):8742- 77; 8746).
so he says evolution happens....
>
>If this is true, then the bible and science have a match
uh...none of these guys is saying speciation didn't happen. sorry.
humans are still apes
.. It is quite
>possible that a creator made one of each (land, air, water) creatures
>and then life evolved forward from there through variations "each
>after his own kind" with man being a special creation in the garden as
>described.
fine. you go find me a 'creator meter' so i can measure this creator
you say is running around doing stuff, m'kay?
because for 2000 years you guys used it to explain everything. and it
explains nothing
>
>Variation is observed thereby meeting the scientific method.
>Speciation is not observed which only matches a good pipe dream.
speciation is seen in the fossil record. sorry. merely sticking your
fingers in your ears and saying 'nyah nyah' isnt an argument
bpuharic
wrote:
>On Jan 7, 11:33�am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>
><snip>
>
>> But first, I would like to address two points of yours.
>>
>> 1) "They refuse to even attempt to falsify "macro evolution"
>>
>> How can anyone falsify something that is not shown with clear evidence
>> to take place? An inference is not evidence unless you are willing to
>> allow the same kind of inference to take place when showing a creator
>> is a possibility. But many of you won't. You want hard evidence for a
>> creator but are willing to take circumstantial evidence and inferences
>> for evolution.
>
>You must remember, in their mind, "it had to be so"
of course, the evidene helps
as to creationism? 2000 years of failure
bpuharic
the books dont have the evidence
it's what's observed in the fossil record.
and creationism cant explain it
>
Baron Bodissey
> On Jan 7, 9:31�am, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
<snip>
As usual you look foolish because you refuse to learn the most basic
things.
First, an inference *comes* from evidence, it is *not* evidence. It is
not a wildassed guess; it is based on observations (evidenced). When
you produce any verifiable, physical evidence *then* you can make an
inference about the existence of the supernatural.
Secondly, there is no difference between microevolution and
macroevolution except in the minds of creationists. Speciation
(divergence) occurs when a population of a species undergoes enough
microevolution that it can no longer interbreed with other populations
of the same species. Higher categories just diverged earlier in time
so that even more differences accumulated.
Baron Bodissey
Back off, man, I�m a scientist!
� Ghostbusters
John Harshman
> Secondly, there is no difference between microevolution and
> macroevolution except in the minds of creationists.
A fair number of evolutionary biologists would disagree with you on that
point. I think I do, for example. To take something obvious, species
selection is macroevolution, but it isn't microevolution.
Baron Bodissey
Please explain how species selection works.
Baron Bodissey
When science is on the march, nothing stands in its way.
� Amazon Women on the Moon
John Harshman
> On Jan 7, 7:54 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> Baron Bodissey wrote:
>>> Secondly, there is no difference between microevolution and
>>> macroevolution except in the minds of creationists.
>> A fair number of evolutionary biologists would disagree with you on that
>> point. I think I do, for example. To take something obvious, species
>> selection is macroevolution, but it isn't microevolution.
>
> Please explain how species selection works.
It's simply an analogy to natural selection, in which the individuals
are population rather than, um, individuals. Differential speciation
and/or extinction (read: reproduction/survival) based on fixed
differences between species. Now some people require some sort of fancy
"emergent property", but I think that any fixed character can be the
target. Suppose, for example, two species of voles, one of which is
adapted to prairie and another to forest. If climate change makes the
forest disappear in favor of more prairie, the prairie-adapted species
expands its range and the forest-adapted species goes extinct. All this
without any change in allele frequency within populations. So why
doesn't the forest species evolve? Various possible reasons: lack of
relevant variation, lack of sufficient time, or so much competitive
superiority for the prairie species that none of the variation within
the forest species gives any individual a measurable advantage.
Baron Bodissey
I get that, but it seems to me that selection is still operating at
the individual and population level. As I recall (and it's been quite
a while since I've been in school) species selection had its day some
time ago and fell out of favor. If it's making a comeback I take it
that it is still not universally accepted. As long as the jury is out
I'll stick with my statement, which for responding to ASI's inanities
I think was accurate enough.
heekster
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>On Jan 7, 11:38�am, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"
><richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 7, 1:57�pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>> > In your professional/personal opinion, what else could be possible for
>> > the origins of species.
>>
>> > Thanks.
>>
>> If you are genuinely interested in an answer, I'll post a list of
>> accessible books written by experts in the subject of speciation which
>> will answer your rather confused question.
>>
>> Do you want to learn, or do you prefer to wallow in ignorance?
>>
>> Your response, or lack of one, will be informative.
>>
>> RF
>
>You are under the delusion that these books hold absolute evidence
>that species can diverge to the point they are unrecognizable from the
>ancestor
>
He hasn't put the list of books up yet.
How the hell would you know?
Your lack of reading comprehension is manifest once again, as is your
inability to understand causality and time lines.
heekster
"richardal...@googlemail.com"
<richardal...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>On Jan 7, 6:24�pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 7, 11:38 am, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> > On Jan 7, 1:57 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > In your professional/personal opinion, what else could be possible for
>> > > the origins of species.
>>
>> > > Thanks.
>>
>> > If you are genuinely interested in an answer, I'll post a list of
>> > accessible books written by experts in the subject of speciation which
>> > will answer your rather confused question.
>>
>> > Do you want to learn, or do you prefer to wallow in ignorance?
>>
>> > Your response, or lack of one, will be informative.
>>
>> > RF
>>
>> You are under the delusion that these books hold absolute evidence
>> that species can diverge to the point they are unrecognizable from the
>> ancestor
>
>I'm under no delusions about the content of those books or the
>evidence they describe. That's because I've read them.
>
>If you are not going to learn about evolutionary theory from people
>with an expertise in that field, from whom do you think you can
>learn?
>
>It's evident from this response that you prefer to wallow in ignorance
>rather than learn about a scientific theory you dismiss.
>
>What do you think that tells us about your intellectual standing?
>
>RF
<Gryllidae> ;)
Ralph
> In your professional/personal opinion, what else could be possible for
> the origins of species.
>
> Thanks.
Define species.
-ralph
John Harshman
No, in the scenario I presented, there is no selection at the individual
level. No allele frequencies change in the population, and there is no
differential reproduction within each population based on genetic
variation. How can you say, then, that there is individual selection?
> As I recall (and it's been quite
> a while since I've been in school) species selection had its day some
> time ago and fell out of favor. If it's making a comeback I take it
> that it is still not universally accepted. As long as the jury is out
> I'll stick with my statement, which for responding to ASI's inanities
> I think was accurate enough.
Fine. But I will continue to correct you. Whether or not you think that
species selection is important in practice, it's a potential mechanism
that, by definition, isn't microevolution. You are therefore reduced to
arguing that macroevolution is different from microevolution, but that
it turns out that macroevolutionary processes don't influence any outcomes.
Another important point to remember is that creationists did not invent
the distinction, though they distort it.
All-seeing-I
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Gravity became a Law because gravity is absolute.
All-seeing-I
Nominated.
Bob T.
Really? How does gravity work? What makes it a "Law"?
- Bob T.
Mike Dworetsky
I asked you earlier: Is the Perfect Gas Law absolute and inviolate? But
the Kinetic Theory of Gases is "only a theory"?
It is clear that you don't understand what a law or a theory means in
science.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
richardal...@googlemail.com
No, gravity was described as a "Law" because Newton believed that God
had set into place immutable laws which govern the way the universe
works. Since his time, modern science has rejected the concepts of
absolutes, and although relativity theory gives a *better*
approximation of how gravity works than Newton's "laws", it is
referred to as a theory.
We *still* don't know how gravity works - in fact, there anomalies
which no current theory describes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly
But that is the nature of science: it does not deal in absolutes, but
in approximations.
RF
alextangent
Certain classes of religious and conservative types (it appears to me)
have this desperate psychological need for laws. They need moral laws,
religious observance laws, science that obeys laws, laws all round laid
out by their deity, and when he fails to provide them with laws, hell,
they'll legislate and make them up. This builds a comfortable and simple
view of the world; everything operates according to known laws, is
unchanging and ordered, and all is well with the world.
Hence the confusion. Theories and laws mean different things to them
that they do to scientists. Look at the number of creationists that
complain "it's just a theory" and "science keeps changing its mind".
Newton they admire; he propounded "Laws in all their Glory" that were
consistent and the same everywhere. While Einstein gets cold shoulder to
outright hostility for the "Theory of Relativity"; the proposal that
everything is seen differently by different observers just doesn't
square with conservative views.
Living proof of the latter is Conservapedia, where Andy Schafly, editor
in chief of the biggest junkyard on the intertubes, has deliberately
through choice or accidentally through stupidity (hard to tell which)
conflated relativity with moral relativism. The latter, of course, is
*bad; and so in his blitzed mind is the former, by dint of sharing the
root "relative".
Absolutes. Only absolutes will do, otherwise you remove the rock of
certainty from their lives. Hence, laws are better than theories.
Burkhard
Gravity is not a law, gravity is a natural phenomenon (just like
evolution) that we observe. The law of gravity is an inference based
on these limited observation that states an idealised correlation
between a hypothesised force and every particle in the universe, so
that every particle that has a mass attracts every other particle
with a force which is proportional to the product of their masses and
inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.The
theory of gravity is a complex structure of which the law of gravity
is one important part, but which in addition has a teory of
measurement, several auxiliary hypothesis, that form a theoretical
framework that maongst other things explains why, when and how badly
our observations will differ from what that law of gravity predicts.
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>> > You are under the delusion that these books hold absolute evidence
>> > that species can diverge to the point they are unrecognizable from the
>> > ancestor
>>
>> No, you are under the delusion that absolute evidence exists.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Gravity became a Law because gravity is absolute.
>
does that include quantum gravity?
Nick Keighley
> On Jan 7, 11:13�am, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
> > "Frank J" <f...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> >news:13ca5358-af43-4cef...@h10g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
> > > [creationists] increasingly refuse to even give a rough description of the
> > > "what heppened when" according to their "theory," hoping instead that
> > > a clueless listener will infer the one he prefers, without calling
> > > attention to its fatal weaknesses, and how it may contradict that of
> > > his neighbor.
>
> > They run away when asked about this because they are so stupid as to not see
> > the train wreck of their argument happening if they did attempt to answer.
>
> If they were just stupid, one might expect them to answer, even though
> it would be safer to evade it. But the clueless ones are likely
> trained by the non-clueless ones to evade the question - they do it by
> reflex, unaware of why.
>
> But here is where for 10+ years I have been getting increasingly
> annoyed at fellow "Darwinists." They squander many opportunities to
> ask these questions and force their opponents to squirm (or
> disappear), choosing instead to *assume,* often incorrectly, what the
> opponent believes, and keep the "debate" on the opponent's terms
> ("weaknesses" of "Darwinism," whethere there's a designer, who/what
> the designer is, etc)
how should we grasp these oportunities? I sometimes try the "equal
questions" argument. If I have to answer questions about evolution
then the creationist should answer the same sort of questions about
his alternatives. I've discovered that this is some sort of "carpet
bombing" approach. It leaves few survivors. My latest twist is a sort
of Kipling approach "when", "what", "who", "how", "why". The result
seems to be a sort of whiney repetition "but I /still/ can't see how
amoebas turned into people". And (my personnel favourite) "perhaps
[God] just did it for the craic". Sometimes just pinning down if
they're OEC or YEC is hard enough.
--
Nick Keighley
-- There are two rules for success in life:
-- Rule 1: Don't tell people everything you know.
Ye Old One
But. in your example, many micro evolutionary steps led to speciation
and produced the two species. So where is this "macro evolution"?
--
Bob.
Nick Keighley
> On Jan 7, 9:31�am, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > On Jan 7, 8:57�am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> > > In your professional/personal opinion, what else could be possible for
> > > the origins of species.
besides evolution? Shouldn't you be the one answering that?
> > If you mean other than the evolutionary changes that *have been
> > observed in real time* for the origin of some species, it is certainly
> > possible that some other processes took place for other species. But
> > in the absence of any evidence - and anti-evolution activists
> > themselves seem to be fully aware that there is none - the simplest
> > explanation is that the *same* processes occurred.
>
> > Here are 3 conceivable alternatives:
>
> > 1. Some species could conceivably have originated by a "saltation"
> > process, i.e. a radical rearrangement of the genome and/or other
> > cellular chemistry.Some people consider that "still evolution" but
> > that's just a semantic argument. Whatever you call it, it would be a
> > different theory.
>
> > 2. It's conceivable that, as Behe proposed in "Darwin's Black Box,"
> > that the first cell had all the "information" in the genome and/or
> > other cellular chemistry for all descendent species, and that
> > different parts got "lost" in different branches. If we ever find a
> > human pseudogene for chlorophyll (as critic H. Allen Orr suggested)
> > that might be evidence fof this option.
>
> > 3. Some species, e.g "founding species" for Cambrian phyla, could
> > conceivably have originated from nonliving matter, and that some yet
> > undiscovered "genomic potential" (Schwabe's idea) allowed the
> > independent lineages to have some "common design."
>
> > What is most amazing to me is how anti-evolution activists, for 150
> > years, have stradfastly refused to test these ides that would only
> > help their case. Note: Schwabe and the late Goldschmidt are very rare
> > exceptions, and don't count as "activists" because they don't insist
> > on baiting-and-switching between proximate causes and ultimate causes
> > like all the others.
>
> > So what do 99.9% of activists do instead of trying to support their
> > own alternative - if they even have one in mind - on its own
> > streangths?
>
> > 1. They recycle long-refuted arguments, most of which just promote
> > unreasonable doubt of evolution,
<snip>
> > 2. They increasingly refuse to even give a rough description of the
> > "what heppened when" according to their "theory,"
<snip>
> > 3. They refuse to even attempt to falsify "macroevolution" (which
> > would still not necessarily mean that any alternative is supported):
<snip>
> > Rather they play word games ("macroevolution" and "species" are
> > redefined every time another speciation event is observed),
I thought they did it *more* often than that. Even in mid-argument.
<snip>
> > And most pathetically, they increasingly avoid even the long refuted
> > "weaknesses" of evolution in favor of whining that scientists and
> > educators who flunk are unfairly "expelled." (the public loves a
> > conspiracy, true or not), and finally, they have reached (apologies to
> > Samuel Johnson) the last refuge of a scoundrel, namely Godwin's Law.
> > Thery can't commit to, much less support, an alternate "theory," they
> > can't even falsify evolution, so they show their real objection to it
> > all: They hate this "Darwinism" caricature because, in their pathetic
> > fantasy, it encourages Nazism.
>
> You were making quite an impressive case for evolution being the most
> likely course for the origins of species; Then, you got the bottom.
> You got to the bottom and began to vomit the same old tired and usual
> hatred that I see spewing from so many of the talk origins
> evolutionists.
you saying the expelled claims or the nazi claims weren't made?
> You actually weaken your case by shaking your little activist fist in
> the air at average people when they question the ToE. Because right
> now the ToE already reads like a freaking science fiction script,
you need to read more science fiction.
<snip>
> But first, I would like to address two points of yours.
>
> 1) "They refuse to even attempt to falsify "macro evolution"
>
> How can anyone falsify something that is not shown with clear evidence
> to take place?
we share most of our DNA with chimps. We share a lesser amount with
potatoes. All life formas a tree. If that doesn't indicate common
decent what does it indicate?
Look up endogenous retro viruses
> An inference is not evidence
the inference is based on the evidence.
> unless you are willing to
> allow the same kind of inference to take place when showing a creator
> is a possibility.
there is no evidence for a creator. We no longer believe the planets
move by being carried by angels. We have a physical cause. Creationism
isn't trying to sustain the same sort medievalism. Which is probably
an insult to the brighter medieval people.
> But many of you won't. You want hard evidence for a
> creator but are willing to take circumstantial evidence and inferences
> for evolution. What do you find so objectionable about the existence
> of a creator to have such a double standard?
>
> Next. No one has trouble with understanding gravity or the many other
> scientific discoveries.
my mum does.
> Why is the ToE riddled with red flags that
> makes one question and wonder it's validity in the first place?
for example?
> If
> only a select few can see that men are apes then what good it it?
in my country most people accept that men are apes.
> 2) " they play word games ("macro evolution" and "species")
>
> Be clear with your explanations and there will be no need to play
> semantics.
that would involve you listening
> There has to be something that distinguishes between macro
> and micro evolution. Because both happen.
>
> Now, on to one of your alternatives for evolution:
>
> "undiscovered "genomic potential" (Schwabe's idea) allowed the
> independent lineages to have some "common design."
>
> From the internet:
> Carl Woese U of I , argues that life on earth is descended �not from
> one, but from three distinctly different cell types� (�On the
> evolution of cells,� Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
> 99 (2002):8742- 77; 8746).
>
> Others, including Malcolm Gordon of UCLA and Christian Schwabe of the
> Medical University of South Carolina, think there might be a greater
> number of separate trees.
>
> If this is true, then the bible and science have a match.
the trouble is evolution wouldn't be bothered by 4 or 5 separate
origins (though the EVIDENCE is against it). You's still need
evolution to produce the billions of species from the 4 or 5 lines. To
blow a hole in evolution you'd need millions or billions of lines.
Where are they?
> It is quite
> possible that a creator made one of each (land, air, water) creatures
> and then life evolved forward from there through variations "each
> after his own kind" with man being a special creation in the garden as
> described.
>
Frank J
wrote:
That's the point. Evasion is data. When I keep asking them about their
"theory" instead of "taking the bait" and giving them more stuff about
evolution for them to spin as "weakness," they go away (or troll
others who prefer to take the bait). Sometimes I even say "please try
to answer the question *without* adding any irrelevant stuff about
"Darwinism." And they can't.
One curious habit I notice is that when I as the age of *life* they
often give me their opinion of the age of the *Earth* instead. They
have this rehearsed script, and it triggers before they finish reading
the qiestion.
I stopped keeping track, but a fair number (~30% of the ~30% who do
provide answers) admit not only old life but even common descent. But
they also admit that they refuse to challenge *anti-evolutionists* who
have different "theories." To use a memorable American Physical
Society quote, "so much for the pretense that the debate is over the
science."
>
> --
> Nick Keighley
>
> -- There are two rules for success in life:
> -- Rule 1: �Don't tell people everything you know.- Hide quoted text -
John Harshman
differential extinction based on fixed characteristics.
Ron O
> In your professional/personal opinion, what else could be possible for
> the origins of species.
>
At this time there is no other mechanism besides descent with
modification that is viable. Special creation has never been
validated, while speciation has been observed and validated. Even the
guys responsible for the YEC creation museum allow massive amounts of
speciation by descent with modification. Their rate of speciation
events is likely 3 or more orders of magnitude greater than we have
evidence that it usually occurrs at. Not that speciation can't be
rapid, but the average rate of new species needs to be a lot higher
than we observe for the YEC flood model to work. We aren't talking 2
or 3 fold greater, but over 3 orders of magnitude greater.
This doesn't mean that there isn't something working in the background
that we can't detect, but there just isn't any evidence for other
routes for speciation. The creation scientsts should set up sealed
containers and watch for special creation events in them. Beats me
what else they can do. Spontaneous generation has never been
validated. It was even debunked by creationists themselves
(Pasteur). It is just a fact that you are pretty much out of luck for
any other option.
There are multiple means of speciation by descent with modification if
you want to go into those.
Ron Okimoto
Ye Old One
So the evolution has already taken place, leaving two species suited
to different environs. The one envioroment changes and the species
within it cannot adapt and so becomes extinct. Neither species
changed. Where is the evolution?
--
Bob.
Did you know that 1 in 4 people make up a quarter of the world's
population?
Ernest Major
<use...@mcsuk.net> writes
not the other.
--
alias Ernest Major
Dan Listermann
"Ron O" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:41941730-8a17-4c6d...@q4g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> The creation scientsts should set up sealed
> containers and watch for special creation events in them.
Brilliant!
.
Devils Advocaat
> "Ron O" <rokim...@cox.net> wrote in message
validate his own idea that new species emerge by "creation ex materia
(from a clay-like ground)".
He could set up a row of sealed tubs containing various types of clay
to find out which one will produce a new species without any external
intrusions of a physical nature.
Then he would have ample material for his paper that is supposed to
refute the theory of evolution.
> .
Dan Listermann
"Devils Advocaat" <mank...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a03f8389-f835-4f71...@s3g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
I would expect that he would be willing to share his techniques so others
could repeat his findings, right?
.
TomS
<41941730-8a17-4c6d...@q4g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Ron O
stated..."
>
>On Jan 7, 7:57�am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>> In your professional/personal opinion, what else could be possible for
>> the origins of species.
>>
>> Thanks.
>
>At this time there is no other mechanism besides descent with
>modification that is viable. Special creation has never been
>validated, while speciation has been observed and validated.
Special creation has never been *described*, much less has anybody
thought of what might count as validation for it. The closest to a
description of special creation has been omphalism - a thing pops
into existence with all the appearances of having had a history.
And even that is the origins of an individual, not a species.
--
---Tom S.
the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
the currant jelly.
Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
hersheyh
> "Ron O" <rokim...@cox.net> wrote in message
I think Pasteur did something like this using sterilized broth and a
swan-neck flask. As I recall, nothing grew; not even simple
bacteria. Using sterilized clay would be even more problematic given
that some alchemical transmutations would be required in addition to
creating life.
Ye Old One
Yes, that goes without saying. But it is all accumulated steps of
microevolution. As such I agree with the original statement from Baron
Bodissey.
--
Bob.
John Harshman
You might equally well say that mutation had already taken place within
a population, leaving two alleles suited to different environments, and
one allele cannot adapt and so the other becomes fixed. Neither allele
changed. Where is the evolution? In other words, species selection is
perfectly analogous to individual selection, and it seems perverse (to
me, at least) to accept one as evolution and reject the other.
Now if you define evolution strictly as "allele frequency change in a
population", there was in fact no evolution here, and by definition
there is no evolution other than microevolution. But if you want to
understand the distribution of diversity in a biota, macroevolutionary
processes might be useful, and you might want to loosen up your
definition a bit to accomodate them.
Steven L.
news:2fe4d88b-f1c3-4bb7...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com:
> On 7 Jan, 16:26, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > On Jan 7, 11:13�am, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
> > > "Frank J" <f...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> > >news:13ca5358-af43-4cef...@h10g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> > > > [creationists] increasingly refuse to even give a rough description of the
> > > > "what heppened when" according to their "theory," hoping instead that
> > > > a clueless listener will infer the one he prefers, without calling
> > > > attention to its fatal weaknesses, and how it may contradict that of
> > > > his neighbor.
> >
> > > They run away when asked about this because they are so stupid as to not see
> > > the train wreck of their argument happening if they did attempt to answer.
> >
> > If they were just stupid, one might expect them to answer, even though
> > it would be safer to evade it. But the clueless ones are likely
> > trained by the non-clueless ones to evade the question - they do it by
> > reflex, unaware of why.
> >
> > But here is where for 10+ years I have been getting increasingly
> > annoyed at fellow "Darwinists." They squander many opportunities to
> > ask these questions and force their opponents to squirm (or
> > disappear), choosing instead to *assume,* often incorrectly, what the
> > opponent believes, and keep the "debate" on the opponent's terms
> > ("weaknesses" of "Darwinism," whethere there's a designer, who/what
> > the designer is, etc)
>
> how should we grasp these oportunities?
Here's a suggestion from a non-scientist (me):
Point out, as "Frank J" did above, that there is more than one
alternative to Darwinism. Hence even if Darwinism were refuted, we
still wouldn't know what other theory was right. We still have to argue
about those other theories, and let's get started!
It's important to break out of this "Darwin vs. Goddidit" dichotomy. If
that were really the dichotomy, then yes, if you knocked down Darwinism,
then Goddidit. But as soon as you can find an alternative to both
Darwinism and Goddidit, knocking down Darwinism becomes moot.
--
--
Steven L.
sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the "NOSPAM" before sending to this email address.
Mike Lyle
[...]> While Einstein gets cold shoulder
> to outright hostility for the "Theory of Relativity"; the proposal
> that everything is seen differently by different observers just
> doesn't square with conservative views.
>
> Living proof of the latter is Conservapedia, where Andy Schafly,
> editor in chief of the biggest junkyard on the intertubes, has
> deliberately through choice or accidentally through stupidity (hard
> to tell which) conflated relativity with moral relativism. The
> latter, of course, is *bad; and so in his blitzed mind is the former,
> by dint of sharing the root "relative".
>
Intriguing. I had a look under /Theory of Relativity/ in Conservapedia,
and they certainly don't like it. I found this at the end:
<Political aspects of relativity
Some liberal politicians have extrapolated the theory of relativity to
metaphorically justify their own political agendas. For example,
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama helped publish an article
by liberal law professor Laurence Tribe to apply the relativistic
concept of "curvature of space" to promote a broad legal right to
abortion.[44] As of June 2008, over 170 law review articles have cited
this liberal application of the theory of relativity to legal
arguments.[45] Applications of the theory of relativity to change
morality have also been common.[46] Moreover, there is an unmistakable
effort to censor or ostracize criticism of relativity.[47]
Physicist Robert Dicke of Princeton University was a prominent
critic[48] of general relativity, and Dicke's alternative "has enjoyed a
renaissance in connection with theories of higher dimensional
space-time."[49] Despite being one of the most accomplished physicists
in the 20th century, Dicke was repeatedly passed over for a Nobel Prize,
and in at least one case Dicke was insulted by the award being granted
to others for contributions more properly credited to Dicke.
There has been little recognition by the Nobel Prize committee of either
theory of relativity, and particularly scant recognition of the Theory
of General Relativity.
Government Support for Relativistic research
The Theory of Relativity enjoys a disproportionate share of federal
funding of physics research today.[50] In at least one case that
research has been unsuccessful. The $365 million dollar LIGO project has
failed to detect the gravity waves predicted by relativity.>
The author seems to be suggesting that it was the nasty Libruls wot
started it.
--
Mike.
Ye Old One
Before that point.
> In other words, species selection is
>perfectly analogous to individual selection, and it seems perverse (to
>me, at least) to accept one as evolution and reject the other.
But the actual evolution, the changes in the population at a genetic
level, had already taken place.
>
>Now if you define evolution strictly as "allele frequency change in a
>population", there was in fact no evolution here, and by definition
>there is no evolution other than microevolution. But if you want to
>understand the distribution of diversity in a biota, macroevolutionary
>processes might be useful, and you might want to loosen up your
>definition a bit to accomodate them.
Why? I see no need to change the definition. A species evolves due to
microevolution. Once speciation has occurred the evolution continues
down two or more different lines. The fact that one species becomes
extinct, for whatever reason, just shows that particular species was
unable to evolve to a new environment in time.
I still cannot see a reason to invoke anything other than
microevolution and natural selection.
--
Bob.
John Harshman
I don't think you've thought that through. What you are saying, whether
you realize it or not, is that evolution consists of mutation. Period.
>> In other words, species selection is
>> perfectly analogous to individual selection, and it seems perverse (to
>> me, at least) to accept one as evolution and reject the other.
>
> But the actual evolution, the changes in the population at a genetic
> level, had already taken place.
So what you're saying here is that macroevolution is not a true
Scotsman. Can't you see how vacuous that is? Macroevolution isn't
evolution because you define evolution to be microevolution only.
>> Now if you define evolution strictly as "allele frequency change in a
>> population", there was in fact no evolution here, and by definition
>> there is no evolution other than microevolution. But if you want to
>> understand the distribution of diversity in a biota, macroevolutionary
>> processes might be useful, and you might want to loosen up your
>> definition a bit to accomodate them.
>
> Why? I see no need to change the definition. A species evolves due to
> microevolution. Once speciation has occurred the evolution continues
> down two or more different lines. The fact that one species becomes
> extinct, for whatever reason, just shows that particular species was
> unable to evolve to a new environment in time.
>
> I still cannot see a reason to invoke anything other than
> microevolution and natural selection.
Actually, according to what you have said, natural selection isn't
evolution. All the evolution happens during mutation, and the fact that
one allele becomes extinct, for whatever reason, just shows that allele
was unable to mutate to a new environment in time.
el cid
I'm with Stephen J Gould (and Harshman) on this.
Evolution includes those patterns of propagation and extinction
of species and this is macroevolution.
Some argue if these are processes or just descriptions of results.
I counter that natural selection is the description of a result and
not a process.
In the vein of macroevolution, there are some lineages that tend
to produce generalists and some that tend to produce specialists.
These tend to be exclusionary: the same lineage rarely includes
closely related generalists and specialists. This may be an
artifact of umbrella generalists species not fully breaking from
their specialist cousin subspecies. And it may not be but it
probably is mixed. Underneath it all, the landscape of successful
strategies is uneven.
Specialists produce more species which become highly adapted
to small niches. Specialists are also prone to extinction.
Generalists, in simplistic terms, produce "living fossils"
or species that seem to have changed little over long periods.
These are emergent patterns that evolutionary biologists tend
to think of as macroevolution. Meanwhile, some 'evolutionists'
who only seem to worry about evolution as part of their battle
of promoting atheism to creationists will claim that creationists
invented the term macroevolution.
Kermit
> On Jan 7, 9:31�am, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 7, 8:57�am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > > In your professional/personal opinion, what else could be possible for
> > > the origins of species.
>
> > > Thanks.
>
> > refuted arguments in support of some alternative, one that ususlly
> > coincides with the mutually contradictory "literal" interpretations of
> > Genesis that most major religions don't take literally anyway:
>
> >http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
>
> > 2. They increasingly refuse to even give a rough description of the
> > "what heppened when" according to their "theory," hoping instead that
> > a clueless listener will infer the one he prefers, without calling
> > attention to its fatal weaknesses, and how it may contradict that of
> > his neighbor.
>
> > would still not necessarily mean that any alternative is supported):
>
>
> > Rather they play word games ("macroevolution" and "species" are
> > mine, lobby politicians to get taxpayers to pay for their propaganda
> > that anyone can learn on their own time.
>
> > And most pathetically, they increasingly avoid even the long refuted
> > "weaknesses" of evolution in favor of whining that scientists and
> > educators who flunk are unfairly "expelled." (the public loves a
> > conspiracy, true or not), and finally, they have reached (apologies to
> > Samuel Johnson) the last refuge of a scoundrel, namely Godwin's Law.
> > Thery can't commit to, much less support, an alternate "theory," they
> > can't even falsify evolution, so they show their real objection to it
> > all: They hate this "Darwinism" caricature because, in their pathetic
> > fantasy, it encourages Nazism.
>
> You were making quite an impressive case for evolution being the most
> likely course for the origins of species; Then, you got the bottom.
> You got to the bottom and began to vomit the same old tired and usual
> hatred that I see spewing from so many of the talk origins
> evolutionists.
I didn't see any signs of hatred.
>
> You actually weaken your case by shaking your little activist fist
A demonstration that you have the rhetorical form down, but continue
to grasp the importance of *content.
> in
> the air at average people when they question the ToE. Because right
> now the ToE already reads like a freaking science fiction script,
I've noticed that Creationists rarely read science fiction. It can't
be enjoyed - or even understood - by people who cannot reason and
understand the consequences of a "what if" statement. There is a
reason why many scientists once read or still read science fiction.
It's revealing that you use it as an insult.
If you really want to insult a scientist, tell her that her theory
reads like a church bulletin.
> so
> by defending it with such animosity, you only make evolution appear to
> have something to hide.
Frank J, and pretty much everyone else here, has presented you with
evidence on multiple occasions.
>
> You couldn't resist, could you? You could not simply lay out the other
> possibilities for discussion. But that's OK. Let's pretend you did.
There are no other reasonable possibilities at this point which are
testable and fit the data. Feel free to present one.
>
> But first, I would like to address two points of yours.
>
> 1) "They refuse to even attempt to falsify "macro evolution"
>
> How can anyone falsify something that is not shown with clear evidence
> to take place?
If I recognize your*e intent here, it's dishonest. but what you are
actually saying is perfectly reasonable. Creation science, for
example, had no supporting evidence, and it was perfectly falsifiable,
and has been falsified. Unless one presumes the world is an illusion,
then the consequences of a recent creation event is refuted by the
evidence. The model should have had *consequences which turned out to
be contrary to reality.
> An inference is not evidence unless you are willing to
> allow the same kind of inference to take place when showing a creator
> is a possibility.
Inferences aren't evidence. what kind of evidence implies a creator?
> But many of you won't. You want hard evidence for a
> creator
To be science, yes.
> but are willing to take circumstantial evidence and inferences
> for evolution.
Why isn't a fossil hard evidence? Can't get any harder than a rock.
And the nested hierarchy is as real as it comes, but is an example of
evidence that cannot be seen by the fiercely ignorant. None so blind,
and all that.
> What do you find so objectionable about the existence
> of a creator to have such a double standard?
What verifiable evidence do you have for one?
>
> Next. No one has trouble with understanding gravity or the many other
> scientific discoveries. Why is the ToE riddled with red flags that
> makes one question and wonder it's validity in the first place?
It's not. It has plenty of evidence. What it lacks are the emotional
supports needed for people who believe things only if they offer
sufficient reassurance and ego stroking.
> If
> only a select few can see that men are apes then what good it it?
This is *extremely revealing. Reality has nothing to do with "what
good is it". Utility, emotional comfort, tribal identity, our own lack
of imagination or unwillingness to do hard work, *do *not constrain
reality.
More evidential support for my model that describes Creationists'
actions as teh expression of beliefs in reality as a social construct.
Thanks!
>
> 2) " they play word games ("macro evolution" and "species")
What you call word games are us agreeing on the meaning of a word. We
require clarity as one tool for understandign reality. Creationists of
course require obfuscation and conflation for their complete tool belt
for pseudo-discourse, their path to comfort and denial.
>
> Be clear with your explanations and there will be no need to play
> semantics. There has to be something that distinguishes between macro
> and micro evolution. Because both happen.
It is meaningful to say that both happen only after you determine
what the words mean.
>
> Now, on to one of your alternatives for evolution:
>
> "undiscovered "genomic potential" (Schwabe's idea) allowed the
> independent lineages to have some "common design."
>
> From the internet:
> Carl Woese U of I , argues that life on earth is descended �not from
> one, but from three distinctly different cell types� (�On the
> evolution of cells,� Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
> 99 (2002):8742- 77; 8746).
>
> Others, including Malcolm Gordon of UCLA and Christian Schwabe of the
> Medical University of South Carolina, think there might be a greater
> number of separate trees.
>
> If this is true, then the bible and science have a match. It is quite
> possible that a creator made one of each (land, air, water) creatures
> and then life evolved forward from there through variations "each
> after his own kind" with man being a special creation in the garden as
> described.
This will offer little comfort to most Creationists. Are you now
comfortable with the idea that humans are just another animal, a type
of ape? Anyway, these three cell types do no refer to land, air, and
sea life. None of these papers postulate humans being anything other
than fish.
>
> Variation is observed thereby meeting the scientific method.
> Speciation is not observed which only matches a good pipe dream.
None of these papers deny speciation. Few people in the field are
arguing hard for a literal single ancestor; that's simple the way it
looks when we extrapolate backwards. If you think this means you have
scientific support for your belief that humans, and you in particular,
are the center for the universe, you're out of luck.
It ain't about you.
Kermit
Frank J
> "Nick Keighley" <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
In fact all the usual creationist positions are, technically,
alternatives to a bare-bones "Goddidit." The "classic" creationist
positions (YEC, OEC, geocentrism, etc.) are "Goddidit *and* by a
different process than you claim." ID is "some designer did something
at some time." IOW classic creationism is "Goddidit plus" and ID is
"Goddidit minus (the specification of the designer)."
Ironically the only ones I know of who say "God did it, but I have no
problem with what mainstream science says about when, where or how"
are theistic evolutionists. And they (myself included, you too I
think) are *opponents* of the activists who demand that taxpayers pay
to mislead students about evolution.
>
> --
> --
> Steven L.
> sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
> Remove the "NOSPAM" before sending to this email address.- Hide quoted text -
Baron Bodissey
> Baron Bodissey wrote:
> > On Jan 7, 8:19 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> Baron Bodissey wrote:
> >>> On Jan 7, 7:54 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>> Baron Bodissey wrote:
> >>>>> Secondly, there is no difference between microevolution and
> >>>>> macroevolution except in the minds of creationists.
> >>>> A fair number of evolutionary biologists would disagree with you on that
> >>>> point. I think I do, for example. To take something obvious, species
> >>>> selection is macroevolution, but it isn't microevolution.
> >>> Please explain how species selection works.
> >> It's simply an analogy to natural selection, in which the individuals
> >> are population rather than, um, individuals. Differential speciation
> >> and/or extinction (read: reproduction/survival) based on fixed
> >> differences between species. Now some people require some sort of fancy
> >> "emergent property", but I think that any fixed character can be the
> >> target. Suppose, for example, two species of voles, one of which is
> >> adapted to prairie and another to forest. If climate change makes the
> >> forest disappear in favor of more prairie, the prairie-adapted species
> >> expands its range and the forest-adapted species goes extinct. All this
> >> without any change in allele frequency within populations. So why
> >> doesn't the forest species evolve? Various possible reasons: lack of
> >> relevant variation, lack of sufficient time, or so much competitive
> >> superiority for the prairie species that none of the variation within
> >> the forest species gives any individual a measurable advantage.
>
> > the individual and population level.
>
> No, in the scenario I presented, there is no selection at the individual
> level. No allele frequencies change in the population, and there is no
> differential reproduction within each population based on genetic
> variation. How can you say, then, that there is individual selection?
>
> > As I recall (and it's been quite
> > a while since I've been in school) species selection had its day some
> > time ago and fell out of favor. If it's making a comeback I take it
> > that it is still not universally accepted. As long as the jury is out
> > I'll stick with my statement, which for responding to ASI's inanities
> > I think was accurate enough.
>
> Fine. But I will continue to correct you. Whether or not you think that
> species selection is important in practice, it's a potential mechanism
> that, by definition, isn't microevolution. You are therefore reduced to
> arguing that macroevolution is different from microevolution, but that
> it turns out that macroevolutionary processes don't influence any outcomes.
>
> Another important point to remember is that creationists did not invent
> the distinction, though they distort it.
Species become extinct because all of the individuals die. Correct?
Selection acts on each individual and they die individually. In
aggregate the result is species extinction, but the cause is selection
acting on each individual. The effect may be species selection but the
mechanism is individual selection.
Baron Bodissey
When science is on the march, nothing stands in its way.
� Amazon Women on the Moon
Desertphile
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
> In your professional/personal opinion, what else could be possible for
> the origins of species.
It's called "evolution," shit stain.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
John Harshman
No, that isn't individual selection. Individual selection is
differential reproductive success correlated with genotype. It requires
within-population variation and a change in allele frequencies between
generations. None of that in the scenario there. Yes, extinction is a
summation of individual deaths, but death isn't selection.
Baron Bodissey
Look, I'm not trying to be difficult, but how can dying and leaving no
progeny *not* be selection? I understand what species selection is
supposed to be but it seems an unnecessary elaboration of what is
basically a fairly simple concept.
Ernest Major
<835bf717-e2e9-4224...@21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
Baron Bodissey <mct...@yahoo.com> writes
>
Selection is *differential* reproductive success *within a population*
causally connected with genotype. If the dying and leaving no progeny is
independent of genotype then it's not selection.
(Evolution is often defined as a change in the (relative) gene frequency
in a population. Under that definition changes in population size - even
extinction - don't qualify.)
--
alias Ernest Major
Ye Old One
To a large extent, yes.
>
>>> In other words, species selection is
>>> perfectly analogous to individual selection, and it seems perverse (to
>>> me, at least) to accept one as evolution and reject the other.
>>
>> But the actual evolution, the changes in the population at a genetic
>> level, had already taken place.
>
>So what you're saying here is that macroevolution is not a true
>Scotsman. Can't you see how vacuous that is? Macroevolution isn't
>evolution because you define evolution to be microevolution only.
No, I define evolution as being evolution, what I'm saying is that
gradual evolution of a population can lead to speciation. There is no
need for the labels 'macro' and 'micro' because there is only one
process involved.
>
>>> Now if you define evolution strictly as "allele frequency change in a
>>> population", there was in fact no evolution here, and by definition
>>> there is no evolution other than microevolution. But if you want to
>>> understand the distribution of diversity in a biota, macroevolutionary
>>> processes might be useful, and you might want to loosen up your
>>> definition a bit to accomodate them.
>>
>> Why? I see no need to change the definition. A species evolves due to
>> microevolution. Once speciation has occurred the evolution continues
>> down two or more different lines. The fact that one species becomes
>> extinct, for whatever reason, just shows that particular species was
>> unable to evolve to a new environment in time.
>>
>> I still cannot see a reason to invoke anything other than
>> microevolution and natural selection.
>
>Actually, according to what you have said, natural selection isn't
>evolution. All the evolution happens during mutation, and the fact that
>one allele becomes extinct, for whatever reason, just shows that allele
>was unable to mutate to a new environment in time.
Natural selection is the factor that decides whether the species
evolution is good or bad for that species survival.
--
Bob.
Stuart
Suppose somebody gets zapped by lightning before leaving progeny.
Is that selection?
Stuart
Burkhard
I _knew_ it - Zeus is the driving force behind evolution!!
Baron Bodissey
I didn't think we were discussing abiotic factors, but sure, they
should have evolved resistance to lightning.
Baron Bodissey
The most common of all follies is to believe passionately in the
palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind.
� H. L. Mencken
Ron O
You are talking about something different. Pasteur was testing for a
specific kind of spontaneous generation of life. Others had seriously
proposed that if you did provide a broth or the starting materials
such as meat that life would form. Sort of like the stupid
creationist argument about why peanut butter doesn't have lifeforms
popping out of it. It is sad that the creationist argument would be
aided if this did happen and we could not explain how it could happen.
The creationists have another notion in mind. Most would admit that
their designer could poof lifeforms out of nothing. They would set up
sterile containers that contained a vacuum. Another type of biblical
literalist might set up man sized or larger containers with different
forms of clay or dust in them and look for the creation of human
lifeforms. What they put in the containers would depend on how they
interpret their holy texts.
Ron Okimoto
John Harshman
Suppose that we had a lottery for, cay, carp, and killed every carp
whose number came up as 37. Would that be selection? According to you,
yes. According to biologists, no. Mere death is not selection. Selection
requires:
1. populations vary;
2. some of that variation is genetic;
3. some of that genetic variation affects the expected number of
offspring an individual leaves.
None of these features is present in the scenario we're talking about.
Ergo, not selection. Or, to put it another way, if death is going to be
called selection, it has to be particular genotypes within a population
that die, and not others. In the scenario presented, individuals die
without regard to their (within population) genotypic differences. This
seems a simple concept to me too.
Ron O
> "On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 07:15:31 -0800 (PST), in article
This isn't entirely true. We are working on the technology where we
can create a human being using a rib. Think about somatic cell
cloning. The Bible doesn't say how the designer did it. One creation
account has man made out of clay or dust. No particulars are given.
There was a science fiction story that I read where robots were trying
to recreate their human masters and they seemed to be trying to do it
from scratch, which could be from the dust of the earth. They were
working out the cell physiology and stuff. I would assume that the
human genome sequences were still in the database.
Ron Okimoto
John Harshman
OK, you can say that. Every biologist in the world will disagree with
you, but you are free to define any word in any way you like.
Impenetrability.
>>>> In other words, species selection is
>>>> perfectly analogous to individual selection, and it seems perverse (to
>>>> me, at least) to accept one as evolution and reject the other.
>>> But the actual evolution, the changes in the population at a genetic
>>> level, had already taken place.
>> So what you're saying here is that macroevolution is not a true
>> Scotsman. Can't you see how vacuous that is? Macroevolution isn't
>> evolution because you define evolution to be microevolution only.
>
> No, I define evolution as being evolution, what I'm saying is that
> gradual evolution of a population can lead to speciation. There is no
> need for the labels 'macro' and 'micro' because there is only one
> process involved.
You define evolution as being evolution? Do you ever listen to yourself?
Again, you define macroevolution out of existence by fiat.
Macroevolution indeed doesn't lead to speciation, because it's defined
as evolution above the species level.
>>>> Now if you define evolution strictly as "allele frequency change in a
>>>> population", there was in fact no evolution here, and by definition
>>>> there is no evolution other than microevolution. But if you want to
>>>> understand the distribution of diversity in a biota, macroevolutionary
>>>> processes might be useful, and you might want to loosen up your
>>>> definition a bit to accomodate them.
>>> Why? I see no need to change the definition. A species evolves due to
>>> microevolution. Once speciation has occurred the evolution continues
>>> down two or more different lines. The fact that one species becomes
>>> extinct, for whatever reason, just shows that particular species was
>>> unable to evolve to a new environment in time.
>>>
>>> I still cannot see a reason to invoke anything other than
>>> microevolution and natural selection.
>> Actually, according to what you have said, natural selection isn't
>> evolution. All the evolution happens during mutation, and the fact that
>> one allele becomes extinct, for whatever reason, just shows that allele
>> was unable to mutate to a new environment in time.
>
> Natural selection is the factor that decides whether the species
> evolution is good or bad for that species survival.
It most certainly is not. Whether evolution is good or bad for species
survival has nothing to do with natural selection, which pays attention
only to individual advantage. Natural selection doesn't care whether
that advantage causes extinction or population expansion.
You are going to have to unlearn much of what you "know" if you are ever
going to understand evolution. In this way you are oddly similar to Madman.
chris thompson
Isn't your carp example better seen as drift? That is, random changes
in the population's genetic makeup, not connected to individual
genotypes?
Chris
John Harshman
Exactly, except that there conceivably isn't even any drift. That would
depend on whether the individuals that were killed changed the
population allele frequencies, which we don't really know. But the point
I'm making here is that death != selection.
chris thompson
Sure, if the individuals who were killed in the lottery (is this some
sort of fishy Shirley Jackson thing?) were killed in the same
proportion as their alleles appeared in the population. Slim odds, but
possible I guess.
> I'm making here is that death != selection.
Yep.
Chris