For Howard: Natural Selection & Causation
Ray Martinez
selection, natural causation and underlying premises.
I remember wanting to pursue these points:
1. Difference between Naturalism and Methodological Naturalism.
2. Purpose of artificial selection elucidation in opening of "Origin
Of Species."
As to #2: Darwin sought to show how human breeders practice their
trade. It was meant to show how material nature does the same minus
the intelligent agent.
As to #1: You have stated no appreciable difference.
Ray
Robert Camp
> I lost track of the previous topic where we were discussing natural
> selection, natural causation and underlying premises.
>
> I remember wanting to pursue these points:
>
> 1. Difference between Naturalism and Methodological Naturalism.e
>
> 2. Purpose of artificial selection elucidation in opening of "Origin
> Of Species."
>
> As to #2: Darwin sought to show how human breeders practice their
> trade. It was meant to show how material nature does the same minus
> the intelligent agent.
>
> As to #1: You have stated no appreciable difference.
Do you agree that automobile mechanics operate without inference to or
regard for anything other than natural cause? Do you also agree that it
is entirely possible for auto mechanics to be religious while pursuing
their (methodologically naturalistic) trade?
If so, doesn't this suggest that there can be an operational
application of naturalism that does not require philosophically
far-reaching assumptions?
RLC
Garamond Lethe
> I lost track of the previous topic where we were discussing natural
> selection, natural causation and underlying premises.
>
> I remember wanting to pursue these points:
>
> 1. Difference between Naturalism and Methodological Naturalism.
The two are constrasted here:
"As indicated by the above characterization of the mid-twentieth-century
American movement, naturalism can intuitively be separated into an ontological
and a methodological component. The ontological component is concerned with the
contents of reality, asserting that reality has no place for ‘supernatural’ or
other ‘spooky’ kinds of entity. By contrast, the methodological component is
concerned with the ways of investigating reality, and claims some kind of
general authority for the scientific method. Correspondingly, this entry will
have two main sections, the first devoted to ontological naturalism, the second
to methodological naturalism."
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism/
and here
"[Methodological naturalism] is an epistemological view that is specifically
concerned with practical methods for acquiring knowledge, irrespective of one's
metaphysical or religious views."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_%28philosophy%29
and here
"Methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism are distinguished by
the fact that methodological naturalism is an epistemology as well as a procedural
protocol, while philosophical naturalism is a metaphysical position."
Forrest, B. "Methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism: Clarifying
the connection". Philo, 2000.
http://www2.selu.edu/Academics/Faculty/bforrest/ForrestPhilo.pdf
hersheyh
wrote:
>
>
>
> > 2. Purpose of artificial selection elucidation in opening of "Origin
> > Of Species."
>
> > As to #2: Darwin sought to show how human breeders practice their
> > trade. It was meant to show how material nature does the same minus
> > the intelligent agent.
>
> > As to #1: You have stated no appreciable difference.
>
> > Ray
As a simple-minded description of the difference (about all that I am
probably capable of; I will leave it to philosophers to be more
explicit), methodological naturalism is a *constraint* on the types of
evidence and explanation that can be used in the natural sciences.
The natural sciences are constrained to the use of natural
(empirically verifiable) evidence and natural causation mechanisms
(with natural, in this context, including things like artificial
selection because humans and their abilities are empirically
verifiable entities).
Studies in the natural sciences are so constrained for the same reason
that, as a previous poster mentioned, auto mechanics are likewise
*constrained* to methodological naturalism in the repair of cars
whether they believe in some version of God (or the gods or fairies or
demons) or not: Introducing claims of the supernatural and claims
supernatural causation are inherently untestable wrt understanding how
the material world appears to work in a material way. That is,
prayers or cursing do little or nothing wrt repairing cars or
increasing one's ability to repair them or understand how they work
compared to constraining oneself to empirical evidence, natural
causation, and a deep understanding of how material cars actually work
(or don't) in the material world.
Philosophical naturalism is the unsupported and unsupportable (by
reference to empirical evidence) *belief* that the natural world is
*all* there is. The *belief* that there *is* a supernatural and
supernatural causation is equally unsupported and unsupportable (by
reference to empirical evidence).
But, to make no bones about it, in practical terms it makes little or
no difference when one is *doing* science (or car repair). Both
atheists and religious believers must *act* as if they were not
theistic while they are engaged in science (or car repair) if they
hope to gain any understanding. That is, both natural science and
auto repair are a-theistic (non-theistic, not anti-theistic)
practices, and are so because that constraint leads to progress (in
understanding how material nature works or how cars can be repaired).
Appeals to supernatural causes tends to stop progress in understanding
how the material world works; after saying "God did it. But we will
never know how or why.", what else is there to learn about a process?
hersheyh
> I lost track of the previous topic where we were discussing natural
> selection, natural causation and underlying premises.
>
> I remember wanting to pursue these points:
>
> 1. Difference between Naturalism and Methodological Naturalism.
>
> 2. Purpose of artificial selection elucidation in opening of "Origin
> Of Species."
>
> As to #2: Darwin sought to show how human breeders practice their
> trade. It was meant to show how material nature does the same minus
> the intelligent agent.
Yes. As I said, the "natural" in the phrase "natural selection" was
used to distinguish it from "artificial selection", which is the same
process "selection" guided by humans rather than the dumb,
unintelligent environments that wild animals find themselves in. It
was not meant to mean "natural" as opposed to "supernatural", as
neither Darwin nor I consider humans to be "supernatural".
>
> As to #1: You have stated no appreciable difference.
As pointed out in another post, it is the difference between a
philosophical belief and a methodological constraint on a field of
knowledge that is accepted (and openly acknowledged) because it is
useful and makes the field useful to others.
>
> Ray
Ray Martinez
Ad hoc construct.
Since the meaning of Naturalism is not in doubt in the minds of even
mildly educated persons, the construct seen above is built on
deception and intelligence insulting rhetoric. Since a lot of
"Christians" accept evolutionary theory, and since evolution
presupposes Naturalism true, construct motive is transparent.
(Aside issue): Robert, you recently told me that I must cease
insulting natural selection and deal with the science involved. Unlike
Darwin, Evolutionists have never ceased insulting special creation,
having never dealt with the science.
Ray
Ray Martinez
wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > 2. Purpose of artificial selection elucidation in opening of "Origin
> > Of Species."
>
> > As to #2: Darwin sought to show how human breeders practice their
> > trade. It was meant to show how material nature does the same minus
> > the intelligent agent.
>
> > As to #1: You have stated no appreciable difference.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
And the so called "scientific method" of MN does not allow
supernatural-Intelligent explanations or conclusions. Therefore, like
I said, no appreciable difference exists.
Ray
Ray Martinez
> On Nov 14, 7:50 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I lost track of the previous topic where we were discussing natural
> > selection, natural causation and underlying premises.
>
> > I remember wanting to pursue these points:
>
> > 1. Difference between Naturalism and Methodological Naturalism.
>
> > 2. Purpose of artificial selection elucidation in opening of "Origin
> > Of Species."
>
> > As to #2: Darwin sought to show how human breeders practice their
> > trade. It was meant to show how material nature does the same minus
> > the intelligent agent.
>
> Yes. As I said, the "natural" in the phrase "natural selection" was
> used to distinguish it from "artificial selection", which is the same
> process "selection" guided by humans rather than the dumb,
> unintelligent environments that wild animals find themselves in. It
> was not meant to mean "natural" as opposed to "supernatural", as
> neither Darwin nor I consider humans to be "supernatural".
>
Since no one has ever said or advocated the wild to have been produced
by human intelligence, your argument is patently ridiculous. "Minus
the intelligent agent" meant and means "supernatural" or God. This is
confirmed by the word "natural." Said adjective has no other purpose
but to say that supernatural Creator-Intelligence is absent.
Evolutionary theory has a clear position concerning God: Creationism
is false.
General audience: If the evolutionist would attempt to lie and deny
the basic and uncomplicated, as seen above (pro-Atheism position of
evolution), then how much more would they lie about complicated
scientific evidence?
This is one reason why most adults in the U.S. are Creationists,
IDists, and anti-evolutionists: Darwinists are liars.
Ray
SNIP....
Burkhard
> On Nov 14, 5:04 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2009-11-14 16:50:51 -0800, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> said:
>>
>>> I lost track of the previous topic where we were discussing natural
>>> selection, natural causation and underlying premises.
>>> I remember wanting to pursue these points:
>>> 1. Difference between Naturalism and Methodological Naturalism.e
>>> 2. Purpose of artificial selection elucidation in opening of "Origin
>>> Of Species."
>>> As to #2: Darwin sought to show how human breeders practice their
>>> trade. It was meant to show how material nature does the same minus
>>> the intelligent agent.
>>> As to #1: You have stated no appreciable difference.
>> Do you agree that automobile mechanics operate without inference to or
>> regard for anything other than natural cause? Do you also agree that it
>> is entirely possible for auto mechanics to be religious while pursuing
>> their (methodologically naturalistic) trade?
>>
>> If so, doesn't this suggest that there can be an operational
>> application of naturalism that does not require philosophically
>> far-reaching assumptions?
>>
>> RLC
>
> Ad hoc construct.
It was an analogy to explain the difference you asked for. Nothing ad
hoc about it.
Here are two more, each dealing with a different aspect of the distinction:
a) A physicist uses the theory of classical mechanics to describe the
action on a billiard table. He makes this choice because for his
purposes, it gives an adequate explanation. The theory of classical
mechanics doesn't have the vocabulary to talk about quanta for instance.
But the physicist, when using classical mechanics for his task, does of
course not deny that quanta or the other entities and properties typical
for quantum mechanics exists, he just chooses a theory that does not
make any statements about them - it is a methodological, not an
ontological choice.
possibly even closer to our example:
b) Two physicists advice an architect how to build a new concert hall.
One of them is a great music lover and has studies aesthetics in detail,
the other is tone deaf, has no sense of music whatsoever and thinks it
is indiscriminate noise. Despite this difference in world view, on how
they see their activity, they will both use the theory of acoustics to
advice him how to give optimal effect to the music that will be played.
Moreover, they will give identical advice. The theory of acoustics does
not have a term for "beauty" or "music" and does not need one. On
methodological grounds, they both exclude these terms from their work,
yet one of them believes music exists, and the other doesn't. The theory
of acoustics does not have "music" in its vocabulary, but even if you
belief that music exists and that acoustics is important to fully
understand it, you make the methodological choice to use acoustics when
designing a concert hall
Similarly, a religious and a non-religious person will come to the same
results when applying a scientific theory. The theory is as neutral
about the existence of gods as acoustics is about the existence (let
alone beauty) of music. For some, it might be an important personal
interpretative framework that helps them to make sense of their activity
(in the same way as the musical physicists will describe what he is
doing and why he is doing it, differently from his colleague)
What would be wrong is to confuse this methodological choice with a
claim that "music does not exists", or the claim that "the theory of
acoustics denies the existence of music/beauty. In both cases, a
methodological choice would be misunderstood as a ontological or
philosophical claim.
Reddfrogg
why "so called"? While the scientific method does not allow appeal to
the supernatural (because it's untestable), it doesn't forbid
intelligence, as long as the intelligent being is known to exist.
>Therefore, like
> I said, no appreciable difference exists.
That is why you are wrong. Methodological naturalism isn't a
statement, or a belief that nothing supernatural exists. It's merely
a condition agreed to for the purposes of science. Someone who
accepts methodological naturalism for the purposes of science need not
believe that the supernatural does not exist.
There is simply no way to test claims that a supernatural being did,
or did not do something. Therefore, for the purposes of science,
appeal to such a being is not allowed.
DJT
Reddfrogg
> On Nov 15, 8:11 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 14, 7:50 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > I lost track of the previous topic where we were discussing natural
> > > selection, natural causation and underlying premises.
>
> > > I remember wanting to pursue these points:
>
> > > 1. Difference between Naturalism and Methodological Naturalism.
>
> > > 2. Purpose of artificial selection elucidation in opening of "Origin
> > > Of Species."
>
> > > As to #2: Darwin sought to show how human breeders practice their
> > > trade. It was meant to show how material nature does the same minus
> > > the intelligent agent.
>
> > Yes. As I said, the "natural" in the phrase "natural selection" was
> > used to distinguish it from "artificial selection", which is the same
> > process "selection" guided by humans rather than the dumb,
> > unintelligent environments that wild animals find themselves in. It
> > was not meant to mean "natural" as opposed to "supernatural", as
> > neither Darwin nor I consider humans to be "supernatural".
>
> Since no one has ever said or advocated the wild to have been produced
> by human intelligence, your argument is patently ridiculous.
Darwin, however was contrasting natural selection, with human
controlled artificial selection. The "wild" had nothing to do with
it.
>"Minus
> the intelligent agent" meant and means "supernatural" or God.
No, that's just your own folly. There are more intelligent agents
than God, Ray. For that matter, there are more supernatural agents
believed to exist than God as well.
>This is
> confirmed by the word "natural." Said adjective has no other purpose
> but to say that supernatural Creator-Intelligence is absent.
But, as has been pointed out many times, that is incorrect.
"Natural" in Darwin's term is contrasted with man made, or
artificial. Darwin made no statement that a "supernatural" being was
absent. There's no way any scientist can say that any particular
supernatural being is absent. From God to invisible pink unicorns,
if they can't be detected, there's no way to discount them.
>
> Evolutionary theory has a clear position concerning God: Creationism
> is false.
Creationism is indeed false, but that not "evolution's position".
Science doesn't try to claim that any particular religious belief is
false. Scientific theories only explain the phenomena in a testable
way.
Science doesn't go around saying that the Norse creation myths are
wrong, or that the Vedic creation stories are false, or the American
Indian creation tales are false. All of them are considered to be
non scientific, just like creationism.
>
> General audience: If the evolutionist would attempt to lie and deny
> the basic and uncomplicated, as seen above (pro-Atheism position of
> evolution), then how much more would they lie about complicated
> scientific evidence?
Like so many of Ray's appeals to the "general audience" he makes a
glaring mistake. He mistakes his own misconceptions for "truth" and
when he's disabused of such, he accuses others of lying. There is
no "pro atheism" position of evolution.
>
> This is one reason why most adults in the U.S. are Creationists,
> IDists, and anti-evolutionists: Darwinists are liars.
>
If the 'Darwiists' are the liars, Ray, why is it you find yourself
resorting to lies to support your own beliefs? You can't gain
support from the masses, by citing their religious bias against
evolution, and then claim they are "evolutionists" when they don't
endorse your own bizarre and unsupported beliefs.
DJT
> Ray
>
> SNIP....
Reddfrogg
> On Nov 14, 5:04 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 2009-11-14 16:50:51 -0800, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> said:
>
> > > I lost track of the previous topic where we were discussing natural
> > > selection, natural causation and underlying premises.
>
> > > I remember wanting to pursue these points:
>
> > > 1. Difference between Naturalism and Methodological Naturalism.e
>
> > > 2. Purpose of artificial selection elucidation in opening of "Origin
> > > Of Species."
>
> > > As to #2: Darwin sought to show how human breeders practice their
> > > trade. It was meant to show how material nature does the same minus
> > > the intelligent agent.
>
> > > As to #1: You have stated no appreciable difference.
>
> > Do you agree that automobile mechanics operate without inference to or
> > regard for anything other than natural cause? Do you also agree that it
> > is entirely possible for auto mechanics to be religious while pursuing
> > their (methodologically naturalistic) trade?
>
> > If so, doesn't this suggest that there can be an operational
> > application of naturalism that does not require philosophically
> > far-reaching assumptions?
>
> > RLC
>
> Ad hoc construct.
More words Ray doesn't understand, and uses inappropriately.
>
> Since the meaning of Naturalism is not in doubt in the minds of even
> mildly educated persons,
Since Ray is not even a 'mildly educated person', his speaking for
them is absurd.
>the construct seen above is built on
> deception and intelligence insulting rhetoric.
Again, Ray claims to have intelligence to insult, something not in
evidence. There is no attempt to deceive, Ray, just someone trying
the impossible, ie, to teach you some basic facts.
> Since a lot of
> "Christians" accept evolutionary theory, and since evolution
> presupposes Naturalism true, construct motive is transparent.
Or, maybe, Ray, you are utterly wrong about this. Christians accept
evolution because it's the best explanation for the evidence.
Evolution does not 'presuppose' naturalism, (ie the strong philosophic
type) but makes use of the methodological type, as used in all
science. There's no reason why any Christian must deny the facts in
order to retain his or her faith in God.
>
> (Aside issue): Robert, you recently told me that I must cease
> insulting natural selection and deal with the science involved.
Something that Ray is entirely incapable of doing.
>Unlike
> Darwin, Evolutionists have never ceased insulting special creation,
Special creation is not a scientific idea. It's a religious belief.
How do you insult something by pointing out what it is?
> having never dealt with the science.
There is no science behind special creation. It's an entirely
religious belief.
Ray, if you think that special creation is scientific, please present
a single observed example of special creation. You claim that
special creation is the way new species occur. If so, there should be
many observed examples of species appearing without any known
relatives.
Can you cite a single example of this happening?
DJT
>
> Ray
Bill
The theory of evolution does not deny God, it just ignores Him. To
some theists that is really, really irritating. Others aren't
bothered.
>
> General audience: If the evolutionist would attempt to lie and deny
> the basic and uncomplicated, as seen above (pro-Atheism position of
> evolution), then how much more would they lie about complicated
> scientific evidence?
>
> This is one reason why most adults in the U.S. are Creationists,
> IDists, and anti-evolutionists: Darwinists are liars.
>
> Ray
>
> SNIP....- Sembunyikan teks kutipan -
>
> - Perlihatkan teks kutipan -
Ray Martinez
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Defense of an ad hoc argument.
Ray
Baron Bodissey
> On Nov 14, 5:04 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Evolutionists have never ceased insulting special creation,
> having never dealt with the science.
>
> Ray
Perhap because there is no science in special creation.
Okay, Ray, put your money where your mouth is: List the scientific
evidence FOR special creation WITHOUT referring to the Bible (not
evidence) or the Theory of Evolution (complaining about the TOE is not
evidence for special creation).
Baron Bodissey
The trouble with the world is not that people know too little, but
that they know so many things that ain't so.
– Mark Twain
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Entire post is evidence that the author (Dana Tweedy) is a deluded
victim of the campaign to deny the *basic* pro-Atheism claims and
position of Darwinism (ID is not seen in nature). Dana actually thinks
the theory that all Atheists defend fanatically to not support the
Atheism worldview (= gross illogic).
Since Atheists have no supernatural powers, the campaign and its
success is evidence supporting the existence of Satan. This explains
the effectiveness of the delusion, that is, inability to see *basic*
facts and understand *basic* logic.
Ray (Protestant Creatorist)
Ray Martinez
How could any person in command of basic logic think there be any
difference between "deny" and "ignore"?
And the Theists who aint bothered is evidence that they aint real
Theists.
Ray
Tom McDonald
Entire post is definitive evidence that the author (Ray Martinez)
cannot refute = gross incompetence.
Since Ray has no capacity to refute without making up bogus
definitions that a high schooler could show to be as such, he
lashes out with irrational rage and hatred = impotence.
--
Tom
When Tyrants tremble, sick with fear,
And hear their death-knell ringing;
When friends rejoice, both far and near,
How can I keep from singing.
Reddfrogg
Again, Ray is afraid to address specific points, so he just goes for
an ad hominem attack. There are no "pro atheism" claims of science
in general, or evolution in particular. Not all atheists do
"defend fanatically" the theory of evolution. Evolution is
supported because it's good science, not because of any fantasy you
have about "worldviews".
>
> Since Atheists have no supernatural powers, the campaign and its
> success is evidence supporting the existence of Satan.
Or, Ray, you are just wrong about this "campaign". Have you
considered that you might be wrong?
>This explains
> the effectiveness of the delusion, that is, inability to see *basic*
> facts and understand *basic* logic.
Ray, it's clear to anyone that you neither understand even the most
rudimentary logic, or have the ability to separate your own delusions
from facts.
Claiming there is some satanic conspiracy just makes you look even
more loony than usual.
Why not grow a pair, and actually discuss the evidence?
>
> Ray (Protestant Creatorist)
and coward
DJT
Reddfrogg
Because those with not only a command of logic, and English, know they
are different things. Ray, it's deeply amusing to see you flailing
away, and then pretend you understand anything about logic.
Denying something means you refuse to acknowledge it exists.
Ignoring means you are not giving any attention to the thing, whether
you think it exists or not.
>
> And the Theists who aint bothered is evidence that they aint real
> Theists.
Or, evidence they have enough faith so that it doesn't matter to
them.
Why is your faith so weak, Ray?
DJT
>
> Ray
Ray Martinez
You misunderstood.
We are not obligated to address any science in natural selection based
on the fact that neo-Darwinists, unlike Darwin who did, refuse to
address the science in special creation.
Natural selection is perverted logic. A short list of truisms cobbled
together do not become a mechanism. What NS shows is the degree of
hatred Darwinists have for invisible Creator. Atheists have no choice
but to act like NS exists.
Darwinism is idol worship; they speak for dumb nature and its
inhabitants just like ancient men worshipped the images of animals and
spoke for them. You guys are Satan's puppets in suits and ties,
without any awareness of how deluded you are.
Ray
Free Lunch
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>On Nov 15, 4:46�pm, Baron Bodissey <mct5...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 15, 6:08�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Nov 14, 5:04�pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> <snip>
>> > Evolutionists have never ceased insulting special creation,
>> > having never dealt with the science.
>>
>> > Ray
>>
>> Perhap because there is no science in special creation.
>>
>> Okay, Ray, put your money where your mouth is: List the scientific
>> evidence FOR special creation WITHOUT referring to the Bible (not
>> evidence) or the Theory of Evolution (complaining about the TOE is not
>> evidence for special creation).
>>
>> Baron Bodissey
>> The trouble with the world is not that people know too little, but
>> that they know so many things that ain't so.
>> � � � � � Mark Twain
>
>You misunderstood.
>
>We are not obligated to address any science in natural selection based
>on the fact that neo-Darwinists, unlike Darwin who did, refuse to
>address the science in special creation.
Since you haven't offered any science in support of special creation,
your statement is meaningless.
Ray Martinez
Super evidence supporting the claim that Dana is deluded:
He thinks all Atheists are not evolutionists (what else could they be?
(question is rhetorical)); and he thinks that evolution is not pro-
Atheism (if evolution supported the Bible Atheists would not be what
they are: evolutionists).
We have always said reality supports the existence of Satan clearly.
But I am not really after poor Dana Tweedy here. He represents all
"Christian" evolutionists. Again, the evidence for the existence of
Satan is massive. How could any Christian not understand why all
Atheists are rabid evolutionists (quote marks around the word
Christian justified)?
Answer: existence of the Deceiver.
Ray (Protestant Creatorist)
Ray Martinez
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 17:43:44 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Nov 15, 4:46 pm, Baron Bodissey <mct5...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Nov 15, 6:08 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Nov 14, 5:04 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> <snip>
> >> > Evolutionists have never ceased insulting special creation,
> >> > having never dealt with the science.
>
> >> > Ray
>
> >> Perhap because there is no science in special creation.
>
> >> Okay, Ray, put your money where your mouth is: List the scientific
> >> evidence FOR special creation WITHOUT referring to the Bible (not
> >> evidence) or the Theory of Evolution (complaining about the TOE is not
> >> evidence for special creation).
>
> >> Baron Bodissey
> >> The trouble with the world is not that people know too little, but
> >> that they know so many things that ain't so.
> >> – Mark Twain
>
> >You misunderstood.
>
> >We are not obligated to address any science in natural selection based
> >on the fact that neo-Darwinists, unlike Darwin who did, refuse to
> >address the science in special creation.
>
> Since you haven't offered any science in support of special creation,
> your statement is meaningless.
>
Abrupt appearance of species in the fossil record, enduring in a state
of stasis, followed by abrupt disappearance.
I can support each individual fact using Darwinian or Creationist
sources.
Ray
Free Lunch
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in talk.origins:
Do you have any comprehension what 'abrupt' means to a geologist?
>I can support each individual fact using Darwinian or Creationist
>sources.
Please do so. Tell us what your hypothesis says first.
Robert Camp
> On Nov 14, 5:04 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2009-11-14 16:50:51 -0800, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> said:
>>
>>> I lost track of the previous topic where we were discussing natural
>>> selection, natural causation and underlying premises.
>>
>>> I remember wanting to pursue these points:
>>
>>> 1. Difference between Naturalism and Methodological Naturalism.e
>>
>>> 2. Purpose of artificial selection elucidation in opening of "Origin
>>> Of Species."
>>
>>> As to #2: Darwin sought to show how human breeders practice their
>>> trade. It was meant to show how material nature does the same minus
>>> the intelligent agent.
>>
>>> As to #1: You have stated no appreciable difference.
>>
>> Do you agree that automobile mechanics operate without inference to or
>> regard for anything other than natural cause? Do you also agree that it
>> is entirely possible for auto mechanics to be religious while pursuing
>> their (methodologically naturalistic) trade?
>>
>> If so, doesn't this suggest that there can be an operational
>> application of naturalism that does not require philosophically
>> far-reaching assumptions?
>>
>> RLC
>
> Ad hoc construct.
Not at all. But judging by your response to Burkhard it's clear you
don't understand even after more thorough explanation. Please reread
his post, this time leaving aside your typical haste to dismiss
anything that you think you might disagree with.
> Since the meaning of Naturalism is not in doubt in the minds of even
> mildly educated persons, the construct seen above is built on
> deception and intelligence insulting rhetoric. Since a lot of
> "Christians" accept evolutionary theory, and since evolution
> presupposes Naturalism true, construct motive is transparent.
My motive was merely to help you make sense of that which prompted your
opening remarks. If understanding this issue is not a possibility
within the context of your worldview then why act as if you are willing
to discuss it in the first place?
> (Aside issue): Robert, you recently told me that I must cease
> insulting natural selection and deal with the science involved. Unlike
> Darwin, Evolutionists have never ceased insulting special creation,
> having never dealt with the science.
Frankly, I don't recall saying this to you, but I endorse the sentiment
nevertheless.
The problem with your rejoinder here is that due to your, shall we say,
somewhat "unique" perspective on science and religion, what you
consider an insult to special creation is not necessarily what someone
of a more conventional (rational) take on these issues might think. The
thoughtful individual recognizes that Genesis is not science (nor is it
meant to be). The educated individual realizes that special creation,
in its fundamental disavowal of naturalistic methodology, is not
scientific at all.
I'm guessing these facts would be considered by you to be insulting.
But they are not, Ray. They are observations of reality, which, in the
end, is not obliged to comport with your rather special perspective.
RLC
Reddfrogg
snip
> > >We are not obligated to address any science in natural selection based
> > >on the fact that neo-Darwinists, unlike Darwin who did, refuse to
> > >address the science in special creation.
>
> > Since you haven't offered any science in support of special creation,
> > your statement is meaningless.
>
> Abrupt appearance of species in the fossil record,
This 'abrupt" appearance is always preceded by another closely related
species. There is never been any observation of a species suddenly
appearing without any predecessors.
<enduring in a state
> of stasis,
Except when there are evolutionary changes seen in that species....l
>followed by abrupt disappearance.
Extinction is observed, but you don't account for the many
transitional fossils
>
> I can support each individual fact using Darwinian or Creationist
> sources.
But you can't show any examples of special creation actually occuring
anywhere. The pattern seen in the fossil record matches evolution.
It doesn't match "special creation" without ignoring a great deal of
evidence.
DJT
Reddfrogg
How are your delusions "evidence" that I'm deluded??
>
> He thinks all Atheists are not evolutionists (what else could they be?
> (question is rhetorical))
Not all atheists are "evolutionists", as you already know. There are
plenty of other ideas that an atheist could believe. What's more
telling is that not all that support evolution are atheists.
Again, we see that Ray is deficient in logic.
; and he thinks that evolution is not pro-
> Atheism (if evolution supported the Bible Atheists would not be what
> they are: evolutionists).
Evolution is not "pro atheism". That's just a fact. No one claimed
that evolution supported the Bible. The Bible is irrelevant to
science. Atheists accept evolution because it's good science, the
same reason those who aren't atheists support it as well.
>
> We have always said reality supports the existence of Satan clearly.
Who is the "we" Ray? Making absurd claims about satanic conspiracy
just shows how looney you are.
> But I am not really after poor Dana Tweedy here. He represents all
> "Christian" evolutionists.
Which means you are wrong. That's why you are so irrationally hateful
about those Christians who accept evolution.
> Again, the evidence for the existence of
> Satan is massive
Again, you are showing how loony you have become. You'd rather
assert some conspiracy before you could admit you might be wrong.
>. How could any Christian not understand why all
> Atheists are rabid evolutionists (quote marks around the word
> Christian justified)?
>
Not all atheists are 'rabid" evolutionists, and those who do support
evolution do so because it's good science. You've never been able to
address that fact.
> Answer: existence of the Deceiver.
Then why are you the one deceived?
Reddfrogg
> On Nov 15, 4:46 pm, Baron Bodissey <mct5...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 15, 6:08 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 14, 5:04 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > Evolutionists have never ceased insulting special creation,
> > > having never dealt with the science.
>
> > > Ray
>
> > Perhap because there is no science in special creation.
>
> > Okay, Ray, put your money where your mouth is: List the scientific
> > evidence FOR special creation WITHOUT referring to the Bible (not
> > evidence) or the Theory of Evolution (complaining about the TOE is not
> > evidence for special creation).
>
> > Baron Bodissey
> > The trouble with the world is not that people know too little, but
> > that they know so many things that ain't so.
> > – Mark Twain
>
> You misunderstood.
No, he got it right. You are wrong.
>
> We are not obligated to address any science in natural selection based
> on the fact that neo-Darwinists, unlike Darwin who did, refuse to
> address the science in special creation.
There is no science in special creation. It's a religious belief.
>
> Natural selection is perverted logic.
Natural selection is an observed phenomena.
>A short list of truisms cobbled
> together do not become a mechanism.
yet natural selection is part of the mechanism of evolution. Calling
it names doesn't make it go away.
>What NS shows is the degree of
> hatred Darwinists have for invisible Creator.
Scientists don't, in general, have any hatred of an "invisible
creator". Many of them believe in a creator. those that don't, don't
hate what they don't believe in.
> Atheists have no choice
> but to act like NS exists.
Atheism has nothing to do with it. Natural selection is an observed
fact. It does exist, otherwise it woudln't be a "trusim".
>
> Darwinism is idol worship; they speak for dumb nature and its
> inhabitants just like ancient men worshipped the images of animals and
> spoke for them.
More delusion on Ray's part. Science does not worship anything.
"Dumb nature" is not an object of worship for scientists, and
scientists don't "speak" for it.
>You guys are Satan's puppets in suits and ties,
> without any awareness of how deluded you are.
the very same can be said about you, with much greater
justification. Your own ignorance, arrogance, and hate makes you an
easy mark.
DJT
Bill
Well, you have a point to the extent that to ignore something is to
deny that it's important, at least for present purposes. However, to
ignore something is not equivalent to denying it exists.
I do not deny that there is a soccer stadium in Mexico City, but I do
ignore the fact.
>
> And the Theists who aint bothered is evidence that they aint real
> Theists.
>
> Ray- Sembunyikan teks kutipan -
hersheyh
> On Nov 15, 8:11 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 14, 7:50 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > I lost track of the previous topic where we were discussing natural
> > > selection, natural causation and underlying premises.
>
> > > I remember wanting to pursue these points:
>
> > > 1. Difference between Naturalism and Methodological Naturalism.
>
> > > 2. Purpose of artificial selection elucidation in opening of "Origin
> > > Of Species."
>
> > > As to #2: Darwin sought to show how human breeders practice their
> > > trade. It was meant to show how material nature does the same minus
> > > the intelligent agent.
>
> > Yes. As I said, the "natural" in the phrase "natural selection" was
> > used to distinguish it from "artificial selection", which is the same
> > process "selection" guided by humans rather than the dumb,
> > unintelligent environments that wild animals find themselves in. It
> > was not meant to mean "natural" as opposed to "supernatural", as
> > neither Darwin nor I consider humans to be "supernatural".
>
> Since no one has ever said or advocated the wild to have been produced
> by human intelligence, your argument is patently ridiculous.
The fact remains that the meaning of the "natural" of "natural
selection" always was meant to be in counter-distinction from the
"artificial" of "artificial selection." It never was intended to be
in counter-distinction to "supernatural" anything. Darwin, and
everybody since, considered humans to be "natural" rather than
"supernatural". At no point in the discussion above did I ever claim
that "the wild" was produced by human intelligence. Nor did Darwin.
In fact, *because* Darwin was saying that the 'opposite' of the
"natural" in "natural selection" is "man-made" or "artificial"
selection, he is *specifically* pointing out that "the wild" is NOT
man-made. In fact, no claim at all is made about who, what, or if any
entity was responsible for "the wild" (or nature, if you wish). No
claim is made that nature was produced by supernatural agency or just
is. It is, however, accepted as existing, whatever its source.
> "Minus
> the intelligent agent" meant and means "supernatural" or God.
No. It simply means selection that occurs without human guidance by
the reality we call nature that exists outside human agency.
> This is
> confirmed by the word "natural." Said adjective has no other purpose
> but to say that supernatural Creator-Intelligence is absent.
You keep repeating that lie. Darwin used the term "natural" in
natural selection to describe that selection that occurs in the
absence of *humans*, not in the absence (or presence, for that matter)
of supernatural agency. Supernatural agency, *by definition*, is not
detectable by the rules of science and would be undetectable even if
it did exist.
>
> Evolutionary theory has a clear position concerning God: Creationism
> is false.
The only clear position is that the empirical evidence does not
support the literalistic Biblical story. At worst evolutionary theory
would tell us *how* God creates. That some people don't like what
nature tells is how God works and prefer another answer is not
science's problem. It is the problem of those people who arrogate to
themselves the claim that they know how God works from their simple-
minded reading of a book, and it is different from what reality tells
us.
> General audience: If the evolutionist would attempt to lie and deny
> the basic and uncomplicated, as seen above (pro-Atheism position of
> evolution), then how much more would they lie about complicated
> scientific evidence?
I am not lying. The "natural" in "natural selection" is
*specifically* in counter-distinction to the "artificial" (man-made)
of "artificial selection". It is not, and never was used as the
opposite of "supernatural" unless you think men are supernatural.
>
> This is one reason why most adults in the U.S. are Creationists,
> IDists, and anti-evolutionists: Darwinists are liars.
In this case, it is you who is adding your own false meaning to the
term *as it was used by Darwin*. Darwin *clearly* used the term as I
described it. You cannot find a single place where he used in the
sense you ascribe to it.
>
> Ray
>
> SNIP....
hersheyh
hersheyh
> On Nov 15, 7:06 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> snip
>
> > > >We are not obligated to address any science in natural selection based
> > > >on the fact that neo-Darwinists, unlike Darwin who did, refuse to
> > > >address the science in special creation.
>
> > > Since you haven't offered any science in support of special creation,
> > > your statement is meaningless.
>
> > Abrupt appearance of species in the fossil record,
>
> This 'abrupt" appearance is always preceded by another closely related
> species. There is never been any observation of a species suddenly
> appearing without any predecessors.
Well, that is only true for those species (like the hominids) for
which there is significant fossil evidence. For all we know from the
fossil record, many currently living parasitic worms could have been
magically poofed into existence because of God's love for us. But
absence of fossil evidence doesn't help anyone develop a theory based
on fossil evidence alone. Fortunately, there are other forms of
predicted evidence that can help, such as sequence evidence.
Earle Jones
<8d23380c-05f3-4f38...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
Bill <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
*
"Evolution does not require the nonexistence of God, it merely
allows for it. That alone is enough to evoke condemnation from
those who fear the nonexistence of God more than they fear God
Himself."
--Keith Doyle
earle
*
Burkhard
I ignore people who are irritating, I don't deny they exist.
hersheyh
> On Nov 15, 4:46 pm, Baron Bodissey <mct5...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 15, 6:08 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 14, 5:04 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > Evolutionists have never ceased insulting special creation,
> > > having never dealt with the science.
>
> > > Ray
>
> > Perhap because there is no science in special creation.
>
> > Okay, Ray, put your money where your mouth is: List the scientific
> > evidence FOR special creation WITHOUT referring to the Bible (not
> > evidence) or the Theory of Evolution (complaining about the TOE is not
> > evidence for special creation).
>
> > Baron Bodissey
> > The trouble with the world is not that people know too little, but
> > that they know so many things that ain't so.
> > – Mark Twain
>
> You misunderstood.
>
> We are not obligated to address any science in natural selection based
> on the fact that neo-Darwinists, unlike Darwin who did, refuse to
> address the science in special creation.
Special creation by an agent beyond "natural" understanding, aka a
"supernatural" agent, is, by definition, beyond the scope of the
natural sciences. It is a religious belief.
> Natural selection is perverted logic.
Then you should be able to show how it is perverted logic.
> A short list of truisms cobbled
> together do not become a mechanism.
What you call a "short list of truisms" is really a list of the
underlying assumptions, all of which must exist, in order to call a
process or mechanism NS. I even pointed out cases that we *know* of
where change in a population's genomic composition is due to a
*different* mechanism, namely mutation followed by random drift. That
you ignore that list tells me that you cannot falsify the existence of
NS. Truisms, of course, are necessarily TRUE rather than FALSE, so
calling NS "true" is hardly a problem for me. It is more of a problem
for you.
Of course I am aware of the obvious fact that you do not distinguish
between NS (a real observable mechanism that has been and can be
observed to produce change in the genomic composition of a population,
whether from generation birth to reproduction to maintain a dynamic
stasis -- stabilizing selection -- or directional to adapt to new
opportunities or changed conditions) and the process of speciation.
Speciation is NOT natural selection.
> What NS shows is the degree of
> hatred Darwinists have for invisible Creator. Atheists have no choice
> but to act like NS exists.
Anyone who studies how organisms interact with their environment has
no choice but to accept that NS exists. Even you admit it is a truism
and therefore TRUE.
>
> Darwinism is idol worship; they speak for dumb nature and its
> inhabitants just like ancient men worshipped the images of animals and
> spoke for them. You guys are Satan's puppets in suits and ties,
> without any awareness of how deluded you are.
Ranting and raving about something you claim is both non-existent and
a truism is not the way to win over converts by the power of your
logic. Especially when what you really object to is speciation and
not NS.
>
> Ray
hersheyh
Just in case you have some problem remembering what NS *really* is and
what the short list of "truisms" that make up the process entails, I
am reposting the following. Feel free to tell us what, in this list
makes NS non-existent or perverted logic, Ray?
******repost with new comments in []****
> I, for one, say that natural selection occurs and is a valid mechanism
> that exists in the real world that everyone but you lives in.
> Which of the requisite assumptions of natural selection do you think
> is untrue?
> 1) Natural selection requires variation. If there were no mechanism
> for generating new variation, random processes in the absence of
> selection would eventually lead to the loss of all variation. So if
> you can prove that mutation, which generates variation is impossible,
> then you could disprove natural selection.
[Notice that I am not claiming *here* that mutation is *random* wrt
need. That is a separate claim. NS does requires only that there be
a source of variation. That said, there is plenty of independent
evidence that variation or mutation is random wrt need. Any biology
lab can demonstrae this over a weekend.]
> 2) Natural selection could not occur if there were no such thing as
> *genetic* variation. So, do you think that living populations are
> genetically invariant or do you think they vary? If you could
> demonstrate that all species lack genetic variation, then natural
> selection could not occur.
[One could justly -- and I do -- claim that NS also occurs when the
phenotypic variation is entirely environmental or accidental. After
all, the dumb, unintelligent environment cannot tell whether a legless
deer is legless because of a genetic variation, exposure to
thalidomide during development, or a run-in with a train. Legless
deer are at a selective disadvantage (less likely to be reproductively
successful) regardless of the cause of leglessness. Of course the
only cause of variation that matters to the *genetic* future of the
population is the variation that has some genetic component.]
> 3) Natural selection could not occur even if there were genetic
> variation if these genetic variations did not affect an organism's
> phenotype. So if you could demonstrate that genes have no effect, not
> even a partial effect, on what an organism looks like or acts, you
> could disprove natural selection.
[To point out the obvious: There *are* genetic differences that have
no phenotypic consequence. This type of variation undergoes random
drift and random fixation or loss. These "selectively neutral"
differences show that NS is distinguishable from the absence of NS.
That is, NS is not a "theory of everything" that can explain
everything. But for NS to "not exist", you would have to demonstrate
that *all* genetic changes have no effect on phenotype. IOW, you
would have to disprove all genetics that claims to link genetic
variation to phenotypic variation. ]
> 4) Assuming that there is genetic variation that affected phenotypes,
> natural selection could not occur if local environments did not impact
> on the reproductive success of organisms with different phenotypes
> *differentially*. So, if you could prove that no matter what an
> organism's phenotype, it has an equal chance of producing offspring
> relative to any other organism, then there would be no natural
> selection. Instead, there would be neutral drift. Selection, by
> definition, requires that the change in frequency each generation be
> significantly larger than that expected for chance alone.
[Again pointing out that the opposite of NS is neutral drift and
random fixation or loss (and that is a real existing alternative).
But to claim that NS does not exist, you would have to show that *no*
local environment has *any* effect on the reproductive success of
*any* genetic variant. That *all* genetic variants are reproductively
equally successful. I doubt that you can do that.]
>5) Even with all that, if it were magically the case that the
> *differential* reproduction caused by the interaction of local
> environments on genetically and phenotypically distinguishable
> organisms did not result in a *differential* transfer of different
> alleles into the next generation, there would be no natural selection.
> So tell me which of the above statements allows you to claim evidence
> for the falsity of the mechanism or process we call "natural
> selection"?
> [In fact, there *are* cases where genetic difference has no phenotypic
> effect and some where phenotypic difference makes no difference in
> reproductive success. Those cases are where we have neutral drift.
> But for there to be no natural selection, that has to be true in *all*
> cases.]
******end repost****
I now want to mention some things that I did NOT claim, because they
are NOT the same concept or process as NS. I strongly suspect that
you somehow are conflating these with NS in your disturbed mind, just
as confuse the meaning of the adjective "natural" in NS to be in
opposition to "supernatural" rather than in oppostiion to
"artificial", meaning human-assisted selection.
1) NS does not *necessarily* imply directional change in a
population's genomic composition. It only means a change beyond that
which would occur by chance alone. NS is *most often* conservative or
stabilizing in nature rather than directional, certainly so in the
time-frame of human lifespans. That is because *most* (but
importantly not all) new variation each generation makes an organism
less fit to its local environment (the environment it has long been
adapted to). But local environments differ, so what is 'stabilizing'
in the northern part of a species' range is not always identical to
what is stabilizing in the southern part. So we often see genetic
differences between the northern and southern populations, either as a
distinct subspecies or as a cline of frequencies.
You can, if you choose, argue that *all* (instead of most) NS is
stabilizing, which would prevent speciation. But that would be
difficult, since directional selection is the same process or
mechanism as stabilizing selection. Unfortunately for your claim of
species genetic immutability, either the absence of selection or
directional selection will produce genetic change over time. Only
stabilizing selection produces the appearance of immutability, but
that involves a generation by generation removal of 'new' variation
from the reproductive stage of the life cycle. That is, you do not
have *real* immutability, you have a dynamic stasis where new
variation is generated and later removed each generation.
2) NS is not identical to *speciation* and does not necessarily lead
to speciation. Speciation is also a process, but a different one with
different assumptions. NS can lead to speciation by providing
selective pressures favoring divergence and reproductive isolation.
But it need not do so. If your complaint is against speciation, then
that is what you should be arguing against, not NS. But apparently
you are against "natural selection" only because you, rather
ignorantly, assume that the word "natural" means anti-God whenever it
is used. For you, if something can be explained by the natural
sciences, it is, perforce, anti-God. If the motion of the planets can
be explained by natural mechanisms like gravity, it is anti-God. Like
the all-seeing one, you don't want none of that there "book learnin'"
and "science mumbo-jumbo".
Burkhard
What exactly about the argument is ad hoc? An "ad hoc" argument makes
a distinction from a generally accepted rule without good reasons.
Both Robert's and my posts did exactly the opposite: they showed how
pervasive and normal the distinction between methodological choice and
ontological commitment is.
With other words the only person at present making an "ad hoc" claim
is you: you argue that the distinction between MN and PN in the field
of theory of evolution is different from the same distinction in many
other fields of life, without giving any reasons why we should treat
this issue any different from the scenarios Robert and I described.
Which is a classical example of arguing for an ad hoc exception from a
general rule.
bpuharic
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>
>How could any person in command of basic logic think there be any
>difference between "deny" and "ignore"?
>
acids and bases form salts. god is ignored in this chemistry
is ray saying god is needed for salt to form?
heekster
I like that.
I've never been able to subscribe to mindless fear.
John Wilkins
<heek...@ifiwxtc.net> wrote:
Me either. Every time I try, the subscription is returned "addressee
unknown", and my cheque has mysteriously vanished, to be cashed by a
Swiss bank account.
Dick C.
> How could any person in command of basic logic think there be any
> difference between "deny" and "ignore"?
You are going to have to cut Ray a little slack here. He no longer has
a bank and does not know what to do. You see, he always did his banking
at one bank. By his logic he is ignoring all other banks, which is the
same as denying their existance. When his bank collapsed he did not know
what to do, since he had denied the existance of all other banks. Now
he does not know how to cash his welfare checks.
>
> And the Theists who aint bothered is evidence that they aint real
> Theists.
>
> Ray
>
--
Dick #1349
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~Benjamin Franklin
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: dic...@gmail.com
Burkhard
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> argument" means.
>
See for my usage e.g. Greg Bamford: What is the Problem of Ad Hoc
Hypotheses? Science & Education
Volume 8, Number 4 / July, 1999
In epistemology Ad hoc hypothesis are on the spot exceptions to a
general theory/rule introduced for the sole purpose to protect the
theory from refuation
> An ad hoc argument is something made up on the spot for a special
> purpose.
To an extend. It also requires that it is _only_ for this special
purpose and you would otherwise use a general rule, just as I said.
Because if it is simply "something made for a special purpose", then
there would be nothing wrong with it, would it? If I find a
universally valid proof for the continuum hypothesis, then I develop
this proof for a a special purpose, but as long as it is a generally
applicable result, but far from being ad hoc, would make me famous.
"Ad hoc" arguments are suspicious (though not necessarily fallacious)
precisely because they advocate badly justified exceptions of
otherwise accepted patterns and rules.
Your contribution was a defense of Robert Camp's original ad
> hoc argument.
Which wasn't an ad hoc argument. It was a generally valid analogy with
many applications, the opposite of ad hoc.
So in your world, any new argument in a discussion is "ad hoc"? You
are only ever allowed to recycle old arguments?
>
> By the way: the phrase "methodological naturalism" is ad hoc. It never
> existed in Darwin's day.
>
And why would it make this ad hoc? Lots of terms did not exist in
Darwin's time, "yet engine" for instance, or from philosophy
"incommernsurability". We make up new terns to solve new problems, so
what?
> Ray
>
> Ray
Ray Martinez
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 18:06:11 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
[I changed the subject line to get John's attention. Now I am talking
to Harshman and not Free Lunch.]
John: see what Free Lunch wrote? Gould interpreted stasis to actually
represent speciation in geologic time. This is supported by FL's
implication that "abrupt" does not mean abrupt to the Darwinian
geologist.
General audience: This is an excellent lesson in how Darwinists
interpret evidence. What is observed actually means something else.
They make it up as they go per the requirements of their starting
assumptions.
Ray
SNIP....
Dana Tweedy
>>> Abrupt appearance of species in the fossil record, enduring in a
>>> state of stasis, followed by abrupt disappearance.
>>
>> Do you have any comprehension what 'abrupt' means to a geologist?
>>
>
> [I changed the subject line to get John's attention. Now I am talking
> to Harshman and not Free Lunch.]
It doesn't matter who you think you are "talking to". You are posting to a
public newsgroup. Anything you post is open for others to reply. If you
want to have a private conversation, take it to e-mail
>
> John: see what Free Lunch wrote? Gould interpreted stasis to actually
> represent speciation in geologic time.
No, that's not what Gould meant. Gould argued that morphological "stasis"
was the normal condition for species, (that doesn't mean that no evolution
was going on, but that morphology didn't change a great deal) Instances of
speciation, Gould claimed, happened more quickly than would be expected to
show up in the fossil record. That's why new species appear "abruptly" in
the fossil record, because the speciation took place 'off stage' so to
speak. Gould did not claim that evolution did not take place in "static"
species, or that there are no intermediate species in the fossil record.
> This is supported by FL's
> implication that "abrupt" does not mean abrupt to the Darwinian
> geologist.
Wrong again, Ray. What Free Lunch was trying to get you to understand was
that to a geologist ("Darwinian geologist" doesn't make sense, as Darwin's
theory relates to biology, not geology) "abrupt" means over many thousands,
and even millions of years. You seem to be thinking "abrupt" in human
terms, which would mean a instantly.
>
> General audience: This is an excellent lesson in how Darwinists
> interpret evidence.
Actually, this shows how Ray can't comprehend how science works.
> What is observed actually means something else.
Again, Ray shows he doesn't understand what observations have been made.
> They make it up as they go per the requirements of their starting
> assumptions.
The "starting assumptions" of science are that evidence means something, and
science shouldn't be impeded by preconceived notions.
DT
bpuharic
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>John: see what Free Lunch wrote? Gould interpreted stasis to actually
>represent speciation in geologic time. This is supported by FL's
>implication that "abrupt" does not mean abrupt to the Darwinian
>geologist.
>
>General audience: This is an excellent lesson in how Darwinists
>interpret evidence. What is observed actually means something else.
>They make it up as they go per the requirements of their starting
>assumptions.
>
>Ray
>
>SNIP....
>
>
in islamist theology, there was a recent 'theologian' by the name of
abu ala mawdudi. he was so humiliated by the superiority of western
science he decided to ignore it completely and say that islam was true
no matter what the evidence showed
ray is the christianist version of mawdudi. and it's one reason
islamism, like its creationist counterpart, leads nowhere
John Harshman
Did you have a question for me? I'm not sure what you're trying to say
here, or why you think this would be interesting to me.
However, I'll say a few things that might conceivably be relevant. The
fossil record, in general, has fairly poor time resolution. The average
stratum is a near snapshot of time, say a few hundred years worth of
fossils, separated by some thousands of years from its next neighbor.
Add to this the problems of bioturbation and reworking, and it's usually
very hard to tell 100,000 years from 1 year. So "abrupt" could mean
"within a year" or it could mean "within 100,000 years", and the
geological record usually won't be able to distinguish them. The first
thing a paleontologist studying evolution has to contend with is the
limitation of his material. You, however, apparently think the fossil
record is perfect and continuous. You are wrong.
> General audience: This is an excellent lesson in how Darwinists
> interpret evidence. What is observed actually means something else.
> They make it up as they go per the requirements of their starting
> assumptions.
This is a lesson in how Ray knows nothing about the subjects on which he
pontificates.
Free Lunch
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in talk.origins:
Thank you, Ray, for lying about what I said. I cannot tell you how proud
I am that you found a way to lie about what I said to support the lies
that you tell.
You are not a believer, Ray. You mock the god you claim to believe in.
You worship your own foolishness and ignorance.
hersheyh
Note to Ray: The maintenance of morphological form (aka morphological
stasis) *requires* natural selection (specifically stabilizing
selection). Stabilizing selection is the only known mechanism that
can produce the appearance of stasis. Since you claim that natural
selection does not exist, you have no mechanism to generate stasis and
you should, therefore, be arguing that stasis does not exist.
Ray Martinez
So you are saying that Paley was right or has a point?
And I can see that you do not understand immutability. EACH and every
species is immutable because EACH and every species owes its existence
in nature to a direct act of creation, whether individually or by
event. Evolution is self-evidently impossible. Your view of
immutability is hampered by a false assumption that creation was a
single one-off event.
Ray
PS: I do plan on replying to your other much longer posts; the same
with Robert Camp.
bpuharic
>And I can see that you do not understand immutability. EACH and every
>species is immutable because EACH and every species owes its existence
>in nature to a direct act of creation, whether individually or by
>event. Evolution is self-evidently impossible. Your view of
>immutability is hampered by a false assumption that creation was a
wonder if ray realizes he's a pantheist, not a christian?
having god be a force of nature...a property of nature itself...is
pantheism
ray ignores the fact that the reason xtianity was instrumental in
inventing science was that it realized the world was not god.
creationists necessarily see god not only 'in' nature but as nature.
that's' not christianity; it's paganism
John Harshman
No. How can you possibly get that from what he said?
> And I can see that you do not understand immutability. EACH and every
> species is immutable because EACH and every species owes its existence
> in nature to a direct act of creation, whether individually or by
> event.
I don't see how immutability necessarily follows from creation. Can you
explain?
> Evolution is self-evidently impossible.
For something that's self-evident, you sure have a hard time making a case.
> Your view of
> immutability is hampered by a false assumption that creation was a
> single one-off event.
Why is that relevant? Explain.
Walter Bushell
<c227808e-e12d-4766...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
Reddfrogg <redd...@bresnan.net> wrote:
> There is simply no way to test claims that a supernatural being did,
> or did not do something. Therefore, for the purposes of science,
> appeal to such a being is not allowed.
Just as in a court case, the defense that an alleged deity like God or
Satan did the dead is not allowed. Hmm, we do allow "acts of God", but
IIUC that is a figure of speech.
--
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
hersheyh
Paley was a scientist of his time. He was right about some things and
wrong about others.
> And I can see that you do not understand immutability. EACH and every
> species is immutable because EACH and every species owes its existence
> in nature to a direct act of creation, whether individually or by
> event.
A species can only be *immutable* if it cannot change after its
creation. That implies a maximum of four possible alternate alleles
at any gene locus. That is, after creation, there can be no DNA
mutation. None.
> Evolution is self-evidently impossible.
Only if you can show that DNA does not mutate. That species cannot
change morphology to adapt to new conditions. That reproductive
isolation is impossible.
> Your view of
> immutability is hampered by a false assumption that creation was a
> single one-off event.
So you are positing the *non-Biblical* argument of a God or gods who
magically poof new species into existence at different geological time-
frames in a pattern that mimics that expected for descent with
modification?
Bill
You didn't really think I meant that evolution ignores God, but optics
takes God into account, did you?
>
>
>
>
>
> > > General audience: If the evolutionist would attempt to lie and deny
> > > the basic and uncomplicated, as seen above (pro-Atheism position of
> > > evolution), then how much more would they lie about complicated
> > > scientific evidence?
>
> > > This is one reason why most adults in the U.S. are Creationists,
> > > IDists, and anti-evolutionists: Darwinists are liars.
>
> > > Ray
>
> > > SNIP....- Sembunyikan teks kutipan -
>
> > > - Perlihatkan teks kutipan -- Sembunyikan teks kutipan -
>
> - Perlihatkan teks kutipan -- Sembunyikan teks kutipan -
Mitchell Coffey
> In article <ecs3g55b15uc9mmpaubqq33b302oh9n...@4ax.com>, heekster> > <earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > >In article
> > ><8d23380c-05f3-4f38-9169-b0c37d496...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
But surely you can guess the account number.
Mitchell
Ray Martinez
Atheism ideology.
19th century Creationism was Science before 1859. After 1859 Darwinism
became the religion of Atheism. This is why all Atheists are
Darwinists. Its deity: the deluded ideas of Darwin that sought to
replace the Biblical Creator.
> > Natural selection is perverted logic.
>
> Then you should be able to show how it is perverted logic.
>
> > A short list of truisms cobbled
> > together do not become a mechanism.
>
> What you call a "short list of truisms" is really a list of the
> underlying assumptions, all of which must exist, in order to call a
> process or mechanism NS. I even pointed out cases that we *know* of
> where change in a population's genomic composition is due to a
> *different* mechanism, namely mutation followed by random drift. That
> you ignore that list tells me that you cannot falsify the existence of
> NS. Truisms, of course, are necessarily TRUE rather than FALSE, so
> calling NS "true" is hardly a problem for me. It is more of a problem
> for you.
>
> Of course I am aware of the obvious fact that you do not distinguish
> between NS (a real observable mechanism that has been and can be
> observed to produce change in the genomic composition of a population,
> whether from generation birth to reproduction to maintain a dynamic
> stasis -- stabilizing selection -- or directional to adapt to new
> opportunities or changed conditions) and the process of speciation.
> Speciation is NOT natural selection.
>
"When does a population stop evolving and begin to speciate?"
You see, no matter what I say, you will contradict while providing
grains of truth in support. Entirely absent from just about all
explications of ToE is an explanation satisfying the "question" posed
above. Darwinists do not know the answer with any specificity. This is
why evolution by selection and speciation are handled separately.
Yet the *concept* of speciation conveys one species changing into
another----which is what the concept of evolution by natural selection
conveys.
> > What NS shows is the degree of
> > hatred Darwinists have for invisible Creator. Atheists have no choice
> > but to act like NS exists.
>
> Anyone who studies how organisms interact with their environment has
> no choice but to accept that NS exists. Even you admit it is a truism
> and therefore TRUE.
>
>
>
> > Darwinism is idol worship; they speak for dumb nature and its
> > inhabitants just like ancient men worshipped the images of animals and
> > spoke for them. You guys are Satan's puppets in suits and ties,
> > without any awareness of how deluded you are.
>
> Ranting and raving about something you claim is both non-existent and
> a truism is not the way to win over converts by the power of your
> logic. Especially when what you really object to is speciation and
> not NS.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ray- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I accept the short list of truisms to exist; but I reject the main
claim made in behalf of these truisms because it does not make any
sense and because we don't see it in nature. We see design.
Darwin said: destruction of these results in the formation of new
species (= PERVERTED LOGIC). How does elimination (death) generate
(life)?
Of course my question is rhetorical. Evolution is impossible.
Ray
Dana Tweedy
>>> We are not obligated to address any science in natural selection
>>> based on the fact that neo-Darwinists, unlike Darwin who did,
>>> refuse to address the science in special creation.
>>
>> Special creation by an agent beyond "natural" understanding, aka a
>> "supernatural" agent, is, by definition, beyond the scope of the
>> natural sciences. It is a religious belief.
>>
>
> Atheism ideology.
No, Ray. Atheism ideology would be saying that God must be visible, in
order to exist.
>
> 19th century Creationism was Science before 1859.
No, creationism was always a religious belief, before and after 1859.
> After 1859 Darwinism
> became the religion of Atheism.
"Religion of atheism" is an oxymoron, Ray. Evolution is not now, or ever
has been a religion, nor a support of atheism.
> This is why all Atheists are
> Darwinists.
Not all atheists are "Darwinists", as you already know. Why do you keep
repeating something you know to be false?
> Its deity: the deluded ideas of Darwin that sought to
> replace the Biblical Creator.
Since Darwin never sought to replace "the Biblical Creator" and Darwin's
ideas were not deluded, you are both wrong, and missing a "deity".
>
>>> Natural selection is perverted logic.
>>
>> Then you should be able to show how it is perverted logic.
Note that Ray completely fails to do so.
snip
>> Of course I am aware of the obvious fact that you do not distinguish
>> between NS (a real observable mechanism that has been and can be
>> observed to produce change in the genomic composition of a
>> population, whether from generation birth to reproduction to
>> maintain a dynamic stasis -- stabilizing selection -- or directional
>> to adapt to new opportunities or changed conditions) and the process
>> of speciation. Speciation is NOT natural selection.
>>
>
> "When does a population stop evolving and begin to speciate?"
Who are you quoting this from, Ray? Populations don't stop evolving,
unless they become extinct. Apparently you are confusing evolution with
natural selection, one of the mechanisms of evolution. Populations continue
to evolve, and eventually to speciate, unless the poplation dies out.
>
> You see, no matter what I say, you will contradict while providing
> grains of truth in support.
Where did Howard contradict anything?
> Entirely absent from just about all
> explications of ToE is an explanation satisfying the "question" posed
> above. Darwinists do not know the answer with any specificity. This is
> why evolution by selection and speciation are handled separately.
Your question above doesn't make sense, Ray. Populations don't stop
evolving to speciate.
>
> Yet the *concept* of speciation conveys one species changing into
> another----which is what the concept of evolution by natural selection
> conveys.
Speciation is simply passing a "point of no return" in the process of
evolution. Speciation is when one population of a larger species becomes
so genetically isolated from it's parent population, that it does not
normally interbreed with the older population. Natural selection is part
of the mechanism, and the one that produces adaptive change out of the mass
of variations in the population. Natural selection itself doesn't
necessarily lead to speciation.
>
>>> What NS shows is the degree of
>>> hatred Darwinists have for invisible Creator. Atheists have no
>>> choice but to act like NS exists.
>>
>> Anyone who studies how organisms interact with their environment has
>> no choice but to accept that NS exists. Even you admit it is a truism
>> and therefore TRUE.
No response, Ray? Why are you being so cowardly?
>>
>>
>>
>>> Darwinism is idol worship; they speak for dumb nature and its
>>> inhabitants just like ancient men worshipped the images of animals
>>> and spoke for them. You guys are Satan's puppets in suits and ties,
>>> without any awareness of how deluded you are.
>>
>> Ranting and raving about something you claim is both non-existent and
>> a truism is not the way to win over converts by the power of your
>> logic. Especially when what you really object to is speciation and
>> not NS.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Ray- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> I accept the short list of truisms to exist; but I reject the main
> claim made in behalf of these truisms because it does not make any
> sense and because we don't see it in nature. We see design.
Ray, you don't even know what "design" would look like. How do you know
you see "design", instead of the product of variation and selection?
More to the point, what about natural selection do you claim doesn't make
sense? Are you still clining to the fallacy that a non-intelligent process
cannot produce order?
>
> Darwin said: destruction of these results in the formation of new
> species (= PERVERTED LOGIC).
Ray, once again, you fail even the most basic logic. Darwin did not say
that "destruction" causes new species. What he said was that selection
provides a direction to variations in the population.
> How does elimination (death) generate
> (life)?
First of all, evolution does not explain how life originated, but how it
diversified. Second, what generates the new species is the variations,
ultimately produced by mutations. Selection ("death") determines which of
those variations leave their descendants in the next generation. Again,
it's not death that causes the variations, it only prevents those variations
unsuited to the environment to from reproducing.
>
> Of course my question is rhetorical. Evolution is impossible.
You seem to have used your own inability to apply logic to come to this
conclusion. Evolution is not only possible, it's *inevetiable* in any
population of imperfectly reproducing things. You have selected for
yourself a foolish position, and made yourself a little bunker out of your
own illogic, bias, and invulernable ignorance. No wonder you are so out of
touch with reality.
DJT
hersheyh
Pre-Darwin, science had no explanation for the *observation* that life
on this planet had changed over geological time frames. Before Darwin
(and necessary for his ideas) came the discoveries of the long age of
the earth that contradicted Biblical ideas about a young earth and a
world-wide Noachian Flood. Before that scientists had no ideas about
the age of the earth. Not surprisingly, in both cases, absent any
natural explanation of natural science, many scientists essentially
accepted the mythology that their religion taught them. That doesn't
and didn't make those mythological explanations natural science.
*Before* Darwin, people like Cuvier and Agassiz and Owen
('creationists' all) were already rejecting literalistic Biblical
mythology as explanations for the *observation* that life changed over
time and that there was a Biblical Flood and that the Bible was not
myth but science. Not a serious scientist in any field accepted
Biblical literalism as an accurate description of pre-history. Even
Lord Kelvin did not accept the Bible as being a source of scientific
truth that was not to be questioned.
> After 1859 Darwinism
> became the religion of Atheism. This is why all Atheists are
> Darwinists. Its deity: the deluded ideas of Darwin that sought to
> replace the Biblical Creator.
>
The Biblical Creator as described in the Bible was not just rejected
by Darwin and atheists. Not a single one of the major *creationist*
scientists of that time thought that the earth and life was created as
described in the Bible.
> > > Natural selection is perverted logic.
>
> > Then you should be able to show how it is perverted logic.
>
> > > A short list of truisms cobbled
> > > together do not become a mechanism.
>
> > What you call a "short list of truisms" is really a list of the
> > underlying assumptions, all of which must exist, in order to call a
> > process or mechanism NS. I even pointed out cases that we *know* of
> > where change in a population's genomic composition is due to a
> > *different* mechanism, namely mutation followed by random drift. That
> > you ignore that list tells me that you cannot falsify the existence of
> > NS. Truisms, of course, are necessarily TRUE rather than FALSE, so
> > calling NS "true" is hardly a problem for me. It is more of a problem
> > for you.
>
> > Of course I am aware of the obvious fact that you do not distinguish
> > between NS (a real observable mechanism that has been and can be
> > observed to produce change in the genomic composition of a population,
> > whether from generation birth to reproduction to maintain a dynamic
> > stasis -- stabilizing selection -- or directional to adapt to new
> > opportunities or changed conditions) and the process of speciation.
> > Speciation is NOT natural selection.
>
> "When does a population stop evolving and begin to speciate?"
Speciation (the reproductive isolation of a population) is a process,
an evolutionary process, and not an event. Evolution does not stop
when speciation occurs. When does a river stop being a river and
start being the sea?
> You see, no matter what I say, you will contradict while providing
> grains of truth in support.
When and if you start telling us things that are true, I will agree
with you. I am not providing "grains of truth" when I describe what
NS is and how it works. I am clearly defining what it is and not
automatically deciding it is a lot of things it isn't because I am
supposed to reject NS because Darwin used the term. The fact is that
Darwin was not describing NS to an audience of dimwits. They, unlike
you, already knew about NS in its capacity as a stabilizing force and,
when guided by humans, its capacity as a directional force. Darwin
merely looked at that last capacity in the context of geological time
and understood that the logic of the mechanism could produce the
observed change in organisms over geological time that was already
*observed*.
> Entirely absent from just about all
> explications of ToE is an explanation satisfying the "question" posed
> above. Darwinists do not know the answer with any specificity. This is
> why evolution by selection and speciation are handled separately.
Evolution does not stop in order to speciate. Species formation is a
process where changes accumulate that lead to reproductive isolation.
That is a subset of the possible range of changes that natural
selection can lead to. Specifically, when two populations produce
less fit hybrids, there is selective pressure that favors reproductive
isolation. But speciation can also occur by chance alone, simply
because two populations are reproductively isolated by geography or
some other environmental feature for a variable amount of time.
>
> Yet the *concept* of speciation conveys one species changing into
> another----which is what the concept of evolution by natural selection
> conveys.
>
Yes. Species formation does indeed convey the idea of one species
changing into another. That was a brilliant bit of analysis, Ray.
Whether that is due to selective pressure favoring reproductive
isolation or due to chance changes that occur during reproductive
isolation for other, non-genetic, reasons is more of an open question
wrt the relative frequency.
>
> > > What NS shows is the degree of
> > > hatred Darwinists have for invisible Creator. Atheists have no choice
> > > but to act like NS exists.
>
> > Anyone who studies how organisms interact with their environment has
> > no choice but to accept that NS exists. Even you admit it is a truism
> > and therefore TRUE.
>
> > > Darwinism is idol worship; they speak for dumb nature and its
> > > inhabitants just like ancient men worshipped the images of animals and
> > > spoke for them. You guys are Satan's puppets in suits and ties,
> > > without any awareness of how deluded you are.
>
> > Ranting and raving about something you claim is both non-existent and
> > a truism is not the way to win over converts by the power of your
> > logic. Especially when what you really object to is speciation and
> > not NS.
>
> > > Ray- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I accept the short list of truisms to exist;
The process described by those "truisms" is called "natural
selection", Ray. If you accept the "truisms" you accept NS as a real
process that occurs in nature. You probably will not be struck by
lightning by using the words NS to describe those "truisms". But I
would not go around with a 20 ft aluminum pole in a thunderstorm if I
were you.
> but I reject the main
> claim made in behalf of these truisms because it does not make any
> sense and because we don't see it in nature.
What doesn't make any sense? We certainly see both directional and
stabilizing natural selection in nature. But if you will agree with
that, then we can go on to talk about your *real* problem with Darwin,
the idea of species change and new species formation. But stupidly
repeating nonsense like claims that Darwin used the word "natural" as
a code word for "atheist" (when it was really used in contrast to man-
directed selection called "artificial selection" that all the farmers
and gentlemen scientists would have been quite aware of) only makes
you look blind, ignorant, and a tad bit dense.
> We see design
I see adaptation by change of old structures and forms to adapt them
to new conditions. I guess I am neither you nor your tapeworm. Isn't
it interesting that all the design in life looks like that.
> Darwin said: destruction of these results in the formation of new
> species (= PERVERTED LOGIC). How does elimination (death) generate
> (life)?
It doesn't. But *selective* death changes the morphology and allele
frequencies of the remaining living. That is, it leads to change
between birth and death. Either stabilizing selective death (actually
relatively less reproductive success -- 'death' is so much more
dramatic a term than simply less success at fucking) or directional
selective death.
>
> Of course my question is rhetorical. Evolution is impossible.
Only if change is impossible. Or only if reproductive isolation is
impossible. You have yet to make a good case. Simply asserting that
"evolution is impossible" doesn't make it so.
>
> Ray
Ray Martinez
Howard and I have already agreed (in this thread) that Paley explained
Malthusian "selection" concept as prohibiting evolution. So, when
Howard advocates selection as promoting stabilization, he is
acknowledging Paley's interpretation, however. I believe Howard did
not realize this, that is, his comments supporting Paley. Moreover,
when I subsequently asked him "Does Paley have a point?"----he evaded.
Howard must now acknowledge that Paley has a valid point OR revise his
comments above, which advocate natural selection as promoting fixism.
Personally I do not see how natural selection could promote fixism
since fixism (also known as stability) means selection does not exist.
What is selected that promotes immutability? Question is nonsense
since both concepts are antonyms.
> > And I can see that you do not understand immutability. EACH and every
> > species is immutable because EACH and every species owes its existence
> > in nature to a direct act of creation, whether individually or by
> > event.
>
> I don't see how immutability necessarily follows from creation. Can you
> explain?
>
This is why I capitalized the word "EACH." If each species is created
(and they are) then evolution is superfluous. Neo-Darwinism is
corrupted by the Christian Fundamentalist doctrine of Genesis single
species creation event. Genesis does not advocate a one-off original
creation event. It advocates how original and new species come into
existence.
> > Evolution is self-evidently impossible.
>
> For something that's self-evident, you sure have a hard time making a case.
>
> > Your view of
> > immutability is hampered by a false assumption that creation was a
> > single one-off event.
>
> Why is that relevant? Explain.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ray
Reddfrogg
> On Nov 17, 6:59 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > > So you are saying that Paley was right or has a point?
>
> > No. How can you possibly get that from what he said?
>
> Howard and I have already agreed (in this thread) that Paley explained
> Malthusian "selection" concept as prohibiting evolution.
Actually, Howard didn't agree with that. Paley didn't recognize that
selection could produce new species, but he didn't say it was
prohibited. Likewise, Malthus didn't really talk about selection.
He saw war, disease, etc to be population controls, not selection of
advantageous traits.
>So, when
> Howard advocates selection as promoting stabilization, he is
> acknowledging Paley's interpretation, however. I believe Howard did
> not realize this, that is, his comments supporting Paley.
You have apparently totally misunderstood what Howard was saying, and
put your own "special" (as in Special Ed, or Special Olympics) twist
on it.
> Moreover,
> when I subsequently asked him "Does Paley have a point?"----he evaded.
> Howard must now acknowledge that Paley has a valid point OR revise hi
> comments above, which advocate natural selection as promoting fixism.
Again, you are ascribing to Howard things he never said or did. He
didn't "evade" anything. Howard was telling you that Paley's
understanding of the role of natural selection was incomplete.
In any case, you deny that natural selection exists at all. How can
you now claim it "promotes fixism"?
> Personally I do not see how natural selection could promote fixism
> since fixism (also known as stability) means selection does not exist.
You've got that utterly wrong as well. Stability of a species only
means that it's well adapted to it's environment. As long as the
environment doesn't change much, the phenotype isn't likely to change
much either. That doesn't mean that there is no evolution happening
in that population. All it means is that morphology isn't
changing. Remember, despite your protests, evolution is still
allele change in a population over time.
> What is selected that promotes immutability? Question is nonsense
> since both concepts are antonyms.
Here you display not only ignorance of biology, but your massive
ignorance of the English grammar as well. "immutability" is your
own false assumption, and selection and immutibility are not antonyms
>
> > > And I can see that you do not understand immutability. EACH and every
> > > species is immutable because EACH and every species owes its existence
> > > in nature to a direct act of creation, whether individually or by
> > > event.
>
> > I don't see how immutability necessarily follows from creation. Can you
> > explain?
>
> This is why I capitalized the word "EACH." If each species is created
> (and they are) then evolution is superfluous.
There's no evidence that each species is created. The evidence shows
that species come from earlier species through branching descent.
>Neo-Darwinism is
> corrupted by the Fundamentalist doctrine of Genesis single
> species creation event.
No. A scientific theory like evolution has nothing to do with any
religious belief. The "doctrine" of single creation event is just a
plain reading of Genesis, taken literally.
> Genesis does not advocate a one-off original
> creation event. It advocates how original and new species come into
> existence.
Where is there any mention in Genesis about subsequent creation
events? Please provide chapter and verse.
>
> > > Evolution is self-evidently impossible.
>
> > For something that's self-evident, you sure have a hard time making a case.
No reply, Ray?
DJT
Ray Martinez
Natural science had no majority existence prior to 1859. The fact that
you used such an adjective ("natural") finally admits to the fact
that before 1859 science accepted Creationism (supernatural
causation).
> *Before* Darwin, people like Cuvier and Agassiz and Owen
> ('creationists' all) were already rejecting literalistic Biblical
> mythology as explanations for the *observation* that life changed over
> time and that there was a Biblical Flood and that the Bible was not
> myth but science.
Let's assume that you have a point----that Cuvier and Owen were not
literalists. This makes their fixism and anti-evolutionism all the
more objective. We know for a fact that Cuvier left his religion at
home and that he was the quintessential anti-evolutionist on the
Continent. As 1859 approached Owen devised a crude providential
evolution theory. But after 1859 providential evolution died before
Darwin and Owen was Darwin's worst enemy.
> Not a serious scientist in any field accepted
> Biblical literalism as an accurate description of pre-history. Even
> Lord Kelvin did not accept the Bible as being a source of scientific
> truth that was not to be questioned.
>
> > After 1859 Darwinism
> > became the religion of Atheism. This is why all Atheists are
> > Darwinists. Its deity: the deluded ideas of Darwin that sought to
> > replace the Biblical Creator.
>
> The Biblical Creator as described in the Bible was not just rejected
> by Darwin and atheists.
Yet this round earth fact is routinely denied here at Talk Origins by
many of your fellow evolutionists.
> Not a single one of the major *creationist*
> scientists of that time thought that the earth and life was created as
> described in the Bible.
>
They accepted immutable species created by Divine power intervening in
reality. You are attempting to erase Creationism out of scientific
history. Before 1859 there was not even one practicing-publishing
biologist in England who accepted transmutation. Darwin was in the
closet until 1858-59. Do you know why? Evolution was considered
atheistic heresy. This is why he ended the "Origin" giving lip service
to God.
Utterly false.
Except for Darwin and a handful of other scientists, natural selection
was completely rejected by Victorian science. Evolution was accepted
based solely on inference. And NS was completely unknown before 1859.
Immutability was caused by the fact that each species were accepted to
have been created where found.
> Darwin
> merely looked at that last capacity in the context of geological time
> and understood that the logic of the mechanism could produce the
> observed change in organisms over geological time that was already
> *observed*.
>
Second request:
What logic?
How does elimination form new species?
> > Entirely absent from just about all
> > explications of ToE is an explanation satisfying the "question" posed
> > above. Darwinists do not know the answer with any specificity. This is
> > why evolution by selection and speciation are handled separately.
>
> Evolution does not stop in order to speciate. Species formation is a
> process where changes accumulate that lead to reproductive isolation.
> That is a subset of the possible range of changes that natural
> selection can lead to. Specifically, when two populations produce
> less fit hybrids, there is selective pressure that favors reproductive
> isolation. But speciation can also occur by chance alone, simply
> because two populations are reproductively isolated by geography or
> some other environmental feature for a variable amount of time.
>
Again, you criticized me for supposedly conflating or misunderstanding
evolution with speciation. Yet you yourself cannot clearly
differentiate between the two. We both know what evolution claims and
we both know what speciation claims. But like I said: literature
almost never explains both in the same context. For the second time,
neither have you. This supports my claim that Darwinists do not know
how to harmonize both in an explanatory scenario.
> > Yet the *concept* of speciation conveys one species changing into
> > another----which is what the concept of evolution by natural selection
> > conveys.
>
> Yes. Species formation does indeed convey the idea of one species
> changing into another. That was a brilliant bit of analysis, Ray.
> Whether that is due to selective pressure favoring reproductive
> isolation or due to chance changes that occur during reproductive
> isolation for other, non-genetic, reasons is more of an open question
> wrt the relative frequency.
>
You've said absolutely nothing! You cannot produce a scenario
incorporating evolution and speciation because they are conceptually
the same but in explanation quite different (= contradiction). I am
asking you to BRIDGE both concepts and remove the black box, Howard.
Then Paley had a valid point? Yes or No?
Answer the god-damn question, Howard.
> But if you will agree with
> that, then we can go on to talk about your *real* problem with Darwin,
> the idea of species change and new species formation. But stupidly
> repeating nonsense like claims that Darwin used the word "natural" as
> a code word for "atheist" (when it was really used in contrast to man-
> directed selection called "artificial selection" that all the farmers
> and gentlemen scientists would have been quite aware of) only makes
> you look blind, ignorant, and a tad bit dense.
>
He used "natural" to signify that he was advocating nature to produce
itself without any intervention or assistance from intelligence.
Darwin was advocating Naturalism (under the phony guise of Deism).
This is why all Atheists are fanatical Darwinists.
> > We see design
>
> I see adaptation by change of old structures and forms to adapt them
> to new conditions. I guess I am neither you nor your tapeworm. Isn't
> it interesting that all the design in life looks like that.
>
> > Darwin said: destruction of these results in the formation of new
> > species (= PERVERTED LOGIC). How does elimination (death) generate
> > life?
>
> It doesn't. But *selective* death changes the morphology and allele
> frequencies of the remaining living. That is, it leads to change
> between birth and death. Either stabilizing selective death (actually
> relatively less reproductive success -- 'death' is so much more
> dramatic a term than simply less success at fucking) or directional
> selective death.
>
Your reply tells me that I could not be anymore right or correct.
>
>
> > Of course my question is rhetorical. Evolution is impossible.
>
> Only if change is impossible. Or only if reproductive isolation is
> impossible. You have yet to make a good case. Simply asserting that
> "evolution is impossible" doesn't make it so.
>
Yes it does.
You are advocating voodoo.
Evolution is inferred to have occurred after the alleged fact. Ancient
men thought animals were gods (idol worship). Sophisticated men in
suits and ties think animals are our creator, that material nature
produced itself. Darwinists THINK they are the exact opposite of
ancient men. In reality, Darwinists are just as deluded. This is what
happens when God is rejected: delusion follows. It is a self-evident
fact that animals cannot change. Humans cannot change and we have
superior intellect. Evolution is impossible----a mandatory belief if
you are an Atheist.
Ray
hersheyh
Don't put *your* words in my mouth, Ray. I said that Paley recognized
the existence of stabilizing selection. That is, Paley recognized the
existence of "natural selection". I don't know what sort of selection
you think is Malthusian, but I never used that term. Malthus' ideas
were important, but not about selection.
> So, when
> Howard advocates selection as promoting stabilization, he is
> acknowledging Paley's interpretation, however.
Selection is a process. It can either act in a way to maintain
morphology or it can act to produce directional change. It is *your*
claim that "Natural selection does not exist", as well as its opposite
that "Natural selection is a truism."
> I believe Howard did
> not realize this, that is, his comments supporting Paley.
I fully recognize that Paley understood NS in its stabilizing form,
even though Ray does not. He wrote specifically about the role of
nature in removing 'defectives' and the 'weak'. And, of course,
recognized the problem this had for the idea that God is good.
> Moreover,
> when I subsequently asked him "Does Paley have a point?"----he evaded.
I have never evaded. Paley was a scientist of his time. He
recognized both stabilizing natural selection *and* the directional
changes of "artificial selection." What he didn't have was the
concept of deep time and change in environments over time that allows
directional change in natural environments. That is the 'missing'
component of NS that Paley did not understand but Darwin did.
> Howard must now acknowledge that Paley has a valid point OR revise his
> comments above, which advocate natural selection as promoting fixism.
I have not said that. I point out that natural selection neither
promotes stabilization of form nor promotes directional change.
Selection promotes optimization or adaptation to the local
environment, whether that be stabilizing or directional. The fact is
that *most* (but crucially not all) selection is stabilizing only
because most organisms are already fairly well optimized to their
current environment because most environments only change slowly.
> Personally I do not see how natural selection could promote fixism
> since fixism (also known as stability) means selection does not exist.
Fixism is *your* term, not mine. I use the term 'stabilizing
selection', which is a dynamic process that occurs each generation.
Each generation produces outlier individuals (a broader bell-shaped
curve at conception) that are selected against but the mean remains
pretty much the same even as the bell-shaped curve gets narrower.
> What is selected that promotes immutability?
Stabilizing selection is NOT immutability. Immutability requires that
there be NO change at all. Stabilizing selection is a dynamic process
that acts to narrow a distribution between conception and
reproduction.
> Question is nonsense
> since both concepts are antonyms.
No. Your ideas are nonsense. But stabilizing selection is NOT
immutability.
> > > And I can see that you do not understand immutability. EACH and every
> > > species is immutable because EACH and every species owes its existence
> > > in nature to a direct act of creation, whether individually or by
> > > event.
>
> > I don't see how immutability necessarily follows from creation. Can you
> > explain?
>
> This is why I capitalized the word "EACH." If each species is created
> (and they are) then evolution is superfluous.
You have no evidence that *any* species was created. We *know* that
species (a population concept) is not immutable, since we *know* that
mutation occurs and we *know* that stabilizing selection is not
immutability. It is a process that maintains a mean while narrowing
the variance.
> Neo-Darwinism is
> corrupted by the Christian Fundamentalist doctrine of Genesis single
> species creation event. Genesis does not advocate a one-off original
> creation event. It advocates how original and new species come into
> existence.
Evidence? You need Biblical textual evidence in this case.
Rolf
As usual you are talking nonsense. First, you make arguments clearly showing
that you haven't yet understood waht evolutionasy science says; you stick to
your well known tactics of creating arguments from your own definitions and
interepretations - creating a scenario that is not in accord with what
science actually says.
Then you jump straight into "Evolution is self-evidently impossibly
impossible."
I can see that you do not understand evolution!
Got it?
YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND EVOLUTION! You never did, never will.
Because you are writing from ignorance, nothing you write is relevant.
WE have told you again and again but you are intellectually deaf and blind.
You do not understand, you do not want to understand you "know" that you are
right - and that comes at a cost: You appear as a very ignorant
person,unable to study and learn a subject; you make every effort to create
a personal understanding that conforms with your faith.
Ye Old One
No Dishonest Ray, science has NEVER accepted supernatural forces.
[snip more abject stupidity.]
--
Bob.
You have not been charged for this lesson - learn from it rather than
continuing to make a fool of yourself.
bpuharic
>
>on the fact that neo-Darwinists, unlike Darwin who did, refuse to
>address the science in special creation.
OK i give up. what is the 'science' in special creation?
since when is casper the friendly ghost science? because that's all
creationism is: ghost based view of the world
>
>Natural selection is perverted logic. A short list of truisms cobbled
>together do not become a mechanism. What NS shows is the degree of
>hatred Darwinists have for invisible Creator. Atheists have no choice
>but to act like NS exists.
gee. one wonders why the world's entire scientific community would do
this
or is it more logical to assume a group of religious
extemists...creationists...have twisted religion for their purposes...
>
>Darwinism is idol worship; they speak for dumb nature and its
>inhabitants just like ancient men worshipped the images of animals and
>spoke for them. You guys are Satan's puppets in suits and ties,
>without any awareness of how deluded you are.
and one wonders why religious fanatics believe as you do
John Harshman
You just don't understand. Natural selection promotes adaption to the
environment, right? If the population is currently poorly adapted to the
environment, natural selection moves it toward adaptation. If the
population is currently well adapted to the environment, natural
selection keeps it on that peak of adaptation. Selection can therefore
promote either stasis or change, depending. Having come late to this
thread, I have no idea whether that fits what Paley said. I do know it
doesn't fit your idea of what Paley said, though. Natural selection
definitely doesn't make evolution impossible; stabilizing selection is
an environmentally dependent contingency, not a universal principle.
>>> And I can see that you do not understand immutability. EACH and every
>>> species is immutable because EACH and every species owes its existence
>>> in nature to a direct act of creation, whether individually or by
>>> event.
>> I don't see how immutability necessarily follows from creation. Can you
>> explain?
>
> This is why I capitalized the word "EACH." If each species is created
> (and they are) then evolution is superfluous.
Well, they aren't. But even if they were, and even if evolution were
superfluous, that doesn't make it impossible, and doesn't imply
immutability. And in fact evolution happens within species.
> Neo-Darwinism is
> corrupted by the Christian Fundamentalist doctrine of Genesis single
> species creation event. Genesis does not advocate a one-off original
> creation event. It advocates how original and new species come into
> existence.
Do you have any evidence for this? Have you ever seen a creation event,
for example? Have there been any documented creation events in
historical times? The circumstantial evidence would seem to show that
species arise by splitting of previous species.
>>> Evolution is self-evidently impossible.
>> For something that's self-evident, you sure have a hard time making a case.
>>
>>> Your view of
>>> immutability is hampered by a false assumption that creation was a
>>> single one-off event.
>> Why is that relevant? Explain.
You didn't explain.
Desertphile
wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 17:43:44 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
> >We are not obligated to address any science in natural selection based
> >on the fact that neo-Darwinists, unlike Darwin who did, refuse to
> >address the science in special creation.
> OK i give up. what is the 'science' in special creation?
Jesus is the answer!
> since when is casper the friendly ghost science? because that's all
> creationism is: ghost based view of the world
Creationism boils down to rejecting observed reality in favor of
comforting delusion.
> >Natural selection is perverted logic. A short list of truisms cobbled
> >together do not become a mechanism. What NS shows is the degree of
> >hatred Darwinists have for invisible Creator. Atheists have no choice
> >but to act like NS exists.
> gee. one wonders why the world's entire scientific community would do
> this
More to the point: why would the world's entire population of
Christian scientists do that? Are all those millions of Christians
also part of the atheist conspiracy?
> or is it more logical to assume a group of religious
> extemists...creationists...have twisted religion for their purposes...
>
>
> >
> >Darwinism is idol worship; they speak for dumb nature and its
> >inhabitants just like ancient men worshipped the images of animals and
> >spoke for them. You guys are Satan's puppets in suits and ties,
> >without any awareness of how deluded you are.
>
> and one wonders why religious fanatics believe as you do
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
hersheyh
> On Nov 19, 9:26 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 19, 3:49 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 16, 7:03 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 15, 8:43 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Nov 15, 4:46 pm, Baron Bodissey <mct5...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Nov 15, 6:08 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Nov 14, 5:04 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > > Evolutionists have never ceased insulting special creation,
> > > > > > > having never dealt with the science.
>
but fails to present it]
>
> > > > Special creation by an agent beyond "natural" understanding, aka a
> > > > "supernatural" agent, is, by definition, beyond the scope of the
> > > > natural sciences. It is a religious belief.
>
> > > Atheism ideology.
>
> > > 19th century Creationism was Science before 1859.
Pre-19th century there were a lot of things that science had no answer
to. In the absence of any scientific answer, scientists of that age
would resort to comfortable myths of their culture. Their claims of
"God did it" had as much utility as "I haven't a friggin clue" as an
explanation *because* that is effectively what they were saying.
>
> > Pre-Darwin, science had no explanation for the *observation* that life
> > on this planet had changed over geological time frames. Before Darwin
> > (and necessary for his ideas) came the discoveries of the long age of
> > the earth that contradicted Biblical ideas about a young earth and a
> > world-wide Noachian Flood. Before that scientists had no ideas about
> > the age of the earth. Not surprisingly, in both cases, absent any
> > natural explanation of natural science, many scientists essentially
> > accepted the mythology that their religion taught them. That doesn't
> > and didn't make those mythological explanations natural science.
>
> Natural science had no majority existence prior to 1859. The fact that
> you used such an adjective ("natural") finally admits to the fact
> that before 1859 science accepted Creationism (supernatural
> causation).
As I said, absent a *natural* explanation, scientists, being human,
will shrug their shoulders and say "It's a miracle." or "God did it."
They still often do that today when some patient survives, say, a
cancer that should have killed them. Such explanations are the
equivalent of saying "I don't have a friggin clue." That is, they are
non-explanations of no value whatsoever at best. If, however,
scientists really believed in such non-explanations they would stop
asking questions. The only utility such non-answer answers are
presently or ever were good for in the sciences is the promotion of
ignorance about how the natural world works (the understanding of
which is what science tries to do).
>
> > *Before* Darwin, people like Cuvier and Agassiz and Owen
> > ('creationists' all) were already rejecting literalistic Biblical
> > mythology as explanations for the *observation* that life changed over
> > time and that there was a Biblical Flood and that the Bible was not
> > myth but science.
>
> Let's assume that you have a point----that Cuvier and Owen were not
> literalists.
They weren't.
> This makes their fixism and anti-evolutionism all the
> more objective.
At the time they were working, as I point out, there were blind spots
that all scientists had (particularly not understanding the
consequences of deep time) that made directional selection in nature
inapparent. It did not occur in the time-frame of human life and
experience.
> We know for a fact that Cuvier left his religion at
> home and that he was the quintessential anti-evolutionist on the
> Continent. As 1859 approached Owen devised a crude providential
> evolution theory. But after 1859 providential evolution died before
> Darwin and Owen was Darwin's worst enemy.
When *any* new explanation is presented, it is and should be
challenged. But the challenges to Darwin's theory have not
succeeded. *Because* they do not accurately describe our shared
empirical reality.
>
> > Not a serious scientist in any field accepted
> > Biblical literalism as an accurate description of pre-history. Even
> > Lord Kelvin did not accept the Bible as being a source of scientific
> > truth that was not to be questioned.
>
> > > After 1859 Darwinism
> > > became the religion of Atheism. This is why all Atheists are
> > > Darwinists. Its deity: the deluded ideas of Darwin that sought to
> > > replace the Biblical Creator.
>
> > The Biblical Creator as described in the Bible was not just rejected
> > by Darwin and atheists.
>
> Yet this round earth fact is routinely denied here at Talk Origins by
> many of your fellow evolutionists.
The Bible is a *religious* text. Not a science text. And not the
book of the Natural World open to scientific examination.
>
> > Not a single one of the major *creationist*
> > scientists of that time thought that the earth and life was created as
> > described in the Bible.
>
> They accepted immutable species created by Divine power intervening in
> reality.
They did so in the absence of a scientific alternative. Science has
accumulated more evidence since the time of Darwin and people like
that despicable unrepentant racist Agassiz (perhaps the last real
creationist scientist). They did so using the methodology of science,
not appeals to the supernatural.
> You are attempting to erase Creationism out of scientific
> history. Before 1859 there was not even one practicing-publishing
> biologist in England who accepted transmutation. Darwin was in the
> closet until 1858-59. Do you know why? Evolution was considered
> atheistic heresy. This is why he ended the "Origin" giving lip service
> to God.
>
Yes. Christian talibans were just as likely to declare "atheistic
heresy" as Islamic talibans. That just shows that might and rigid
literalism doesn't make right. It just suppresses the truth and
reality.
Utterly true. Darwin was not describing NS to an audience of
dimwits. His audience new about NS in its capacity as a stabilizing
force (as described by Paley among others) and many were, in fact,
animal or plant breeders and well knew the ability of selective
culling and breeding to cause phenotypic change.
>
> Except for Darwin and a handful of other scientists, natural selection
> was completely rejected by Victorian science.
Again, the stabilizing aspects of natural selection was widely
accepted by Victorian science.
> Evolution was accepted
> based solely on inference.
Most scientific theories are based on inference from the evidence.
> And NS was completely unknown before 1859.
No. NS was widely known, in its stabilizing aspects, before 1859. It
was the capacity of natural selection to be directional like
artificial selection given the proper conditions that was hard for the
pre-Darwinians to understand. That was because directional selection
is rare relative to stabilizing during the spans of human lifetimes.
And most naturalists could only think in the short term of human
lifetimes.
> Immutability was caused by the fact that each species were accepted to
> have been created where found.
That would be dynamic stasis, not immutability. Anyone with any
knowledge of organisms knows that species are not literally
immutable. Slow to change when environments are constant, yes.
>
> > Darwin
> > merely looked at that last capacity in the context of geological time
> > and understood that the logic of the mechanism could produce the
> > observed change in organisms over geological time that was already
> > *observed*.
>
> Second request:
>
> What logic?
What you call the truism of natural selection. That is, the *fact*
that the dumb unintelligent environment can have a *differential*
effect on the reproductive success of different types (phenotypes) of
organisms. And the consequence of that *differential* effect is that
the next generation is genetically and phenotypically better adapted
to the environmental stresses that their parent generation faced.
That is, natural selection is NOT forward looking. It does not adapt
organisms to some future environment. It adapts organisms to the
environment their parents faced. That is backwards looking, but only
a single generation back.
> How does elimination form new species?
Differential elimination based on genetic differences (not all
elimination is based on genetics) can lead to species formation under
certain conditions whether or not the differential elimination is at a
rate significantly higher than neutral drift.
Elimination (or, less dramatically but more accurately, reduced
reproductive success) of those potential parents born in the previous
generation that are less well adapted genetically to the environment
they faced will, because of that, produce a population of offspring
that are, on average, genetically better adapted to the environment
the parent generation faced than would be the case if there were no
such 'elimination'. That is as true for stabilizing selection as it
is for directional selection. That is what we call "natural
selection".
Now, because different subpopulations in different locations do not
all face the same selective environment, you will, by this process of
"natural selection", get local genetic differences. This is
observable in species today. We call these population differences
"races" or "subspecies" and they can (but need not) lead to
reproductive isolation. [Might I point out that if species really
were immutable, there should be no such thing as "race" or
"subspecies".] At this point all we are observing is natural
selection within a species. But sometimes there is an incompatibility
between a population well adapted to one distinct sub-environment and
another population adapted to a different distinct sub-environment
such that hybrids are less fit than either parent. For example, a
small subpopulation of insects may have found a rich resource, say
apple trees, that flower at a different time than crabapple trees.
The group that has genetically changed its time of mating to match the
apple trees may be perfectly able to mate with the group that prefers
crabapple trees and produce progeny. But the progeny, being
heterozygous, may not be able to use either tree very well -- it is,
on average, a little too late for one and a little to early for the
other. That makes for a condition called hybrid dysgenisis and favors
the accumulation of *any* mutations that reduce mating with the other
population. Hence speciation based on a preferred food source.
[There are as many species of tapeworms as there are hosts because
tapeworms specialize to specific hosts and do not form hybrids that
don't do well in either host.]
That would be speciation by accumulation of changes that eliminate the
middle (the hybrid).
>
> > > Entirely absent from just about all
> > > explications of ToE is an explanation satisfying the "question" posed
> > > above. Darwinists do not know the answer with any specificity. This is
> > > why evolution by selection and speciation are handled separately.
>
> > Evolution does not stop in order to speciate. Species formation is a
> > process where changes accumulate that lead to reproductive isolation.
> > That is a subset of the possible range of changes that natural
> > selection can lead to. Specifically, when two populations produce
> > less fit hybrids, there is selective pressure that favors reproductive
> > isolation. But speciation can also occur by chance alone, simply
> > because two populations are reproductively isolated by geography or
> > some other environmental feature for a variable amount of time.
>
> Again, you criticized me for supposedly conflating or misunderstanding
> evolution with speciation.
The term evolution has multiple meanings. One definition of evolution
is change in allele frequency in a population. Evolution (change in
allele frequency in a population) can occur with or without natural
selection. Stabilizing selection is also a change in allele
frequency, but only within a generation and not so much from
generation to generation.
But sometimes when people talk about evolution they are talking about
the historical process of repeated species formation that produced the
branching tree (or bush) pattern of life on this planet. That is,
descent with modification. The smallest irreversible change in the
branching tree pattern of life is species formation, where you go from
one species to two (or, for chronospecies, where enough change has
occurred that if both parent and offspring co-existed they probably
would not be able to reproduce together -- that is harder to
evidence). So species formation is the key event in the history of
life but evolutionary change, by other definitions, can occur within
species.
> Yet you yourself cannot clearly
> differentiate between the two. We both know what evolution claims and
> we both know what speciation claims. But like I said: literature
> almost never explains both in the same context. For the second time,
> neither have you. This supports my claim that Darwinists do not know
> how to harmonize both in an explanatory scenario.
There are a number of ways to generate new species (defined as
reproductively isolated populations). If you want me to list them, I
would be happy to do so. All of the ways to generate new species
involve processes that have been observed to occur in nature. Such
as, but not limited to, mechanisms that use the truism that is
"natural selection".
>
> > > Yet the *concept* of speciation conveys one species changing into
> > > another----which is what the concept of evolution by natural selection
> > > conveys.
>
> > Yes. Species formation does indeed convey the idea of one species
> > changing into another. That was a brilliant bit of analysis, Ray.
> > Whether that is due to selective pressure favoring reproductive
> > isolation or due to chance changes that occur during reproductive
> > isolation for other, non-genetic, reasons is more of an open question
> > wrt the relative frequency.
>
> You've said absolutely nothing! You cannot produce a scenario
> incorporating evolution and speciation because they are conceptually
> the same but in explanation quite different (= contradiction).
Species formation is, for definitions of evolution that are focused on
the way that the branching pattern of the tree of life formed, be
thought of as the smallest unit of such evolutionary change. Again,
evolutionary changes defined as changes in allele frequency is not
limited to species formation, but can occur within a species. And
such change can occur either in the presence or absence of the truism
called natural selection. Often people call the latter
"microevolution" and the evolution that produces new species to be
"macroevolution" to distinguish them. It is perfectly obvious that
the *mechanisms* of change within a species are also involved in those
changes that produce new species. But not all changes will produce a
new species. Species formation requires certain specific types of
changes, changes related to reproductive isolation of the populations
involved. That is, the explanations for speciation involves a subset
of all possible evolutionary changes, but uses the same processes and
mechanisms for producing change in organisms (mutation as the root
cause of genetic change and selection or drift as the explanation of
the changes in frequency of mutant or non-mutant alleles in a
population) within a species.
> I am
> asking you to BRIDGE both concepts and remove the black box, Howard.
>
See above. Changes that produce speciation are a subset of all
changes. The mechanisms that produce change in organisms (mutation
followed by selection and drift) are the same whether or not
speciation occurs.
I did. I said that Paley understood stabilizing natural selection.
And, I am sure, artificial selection, which is directional. He did
not understand or recognize directional natural selection. His
inability to understand that is not a "fault" of his. It took Darwin
to recognize it. And it required the prior work of geologists showing
the long ages that the earth existed for Darwin to be able to
understand it himself. I don't regard Paley as some sort of bete
noir. He was a good scientist of his time. But his time was soon to
pass.
> > But if you will agree with
> > that, then we can go on to talk about your *real* problem with Darwin,
> > the idea of species change and new species formation. But stupidly
> > repeating nonsense like claims that Darwin used the word "natural" as
> > a code word for "atheist" (when it was really used in contrast to man-
> > directed selection called "artificial selection" that all the farmers
> > and gentlemen scientists would have been quite aware of) only makes
> > you look blind, ignorant, and a tad bit dense.
>
> He used "natural" to signify that he was advocating nature to produce
> itself without any intervention or assistance from intelligence.
NO. As I have said before, there is not a shred of evidence to
support this bogus idea. Darwin used "natural" in "natural selection"
to distinguish it from "artificial" or man-guided selection. Look how
Darwin actually used it. Can you find *anywhere* where Darwin says
that he defines "natural" in the way you claim. The *only*
intelligence missing in "natural" selection is man's intelligence.
Darwin made no claim that God did or didn't guide selection ("natural"
or "artificial"). That is because, as a supernatural being, there is
no way to test that hypothesis. And there still isn't any way to test
it.
> Darwin was advocating Naturalism (under the phony guise of Deism).
> This is why all Atheists are fanatical Darwinists.
Keep repeating that lie, Ray. It is why you are considered a liar.
Can you point out exactly where Darwin claims to be advocating
Naturalism?
> > > We see design
>
> > I see adaptation by change of old structures and forms to adapt them
> > to new conditions. I guess I am neither you nor your tapeworm. Isn't
> > it interesting that all the design in life looks like that.
>
> > > Darwin said: destruction of these results in the formation of new
> > > species (= PERVERTED LOGIC). How does elimination (death) generate
> > > life?
>
> > It doesn't. But *selective* death changes the morphology and allele
> > frequencies of the remaining living. That is, it leads to change
> > between birth and death. Either stabilizing selective death (actually
> > relatively less reproductive success -- 'death' is so much more
> > dramatic a term than simply less success at fucking) or directional
> > selective death.
>
> Your reply tells me that I could not be anymore right or correct.
>
That does not follow.
>
> > > Of course my question is rhetorical. Evolution is impossible.
>
> > Only if change is impossible. Or only if reproductive isolation is
> > impossible. You have yet to make a good case. Simply asserting that
> > "evolution is impossible" doesn't make it so.
>
> Yes it does.
Amazing, Ray. All you have to do is declare something to be possible
and it is! Are you, therefore, claiming to BE God?
>
> You are advocating voodoo.
As opposed to what? The idea that all you have to do is assert that
something is impossible and it magically becomes impossible?
>
> Evolution is inferred to have occurred after the alleged fact.
Evolution is inferred from the material evidence and is consistent
with that evidence. The mechanisms of evolution (natural selection,
mutation, drift) are all observable today and analyzed in many
experiments.
> Ancient
> men thought animals were gods (idol worship).
Simple-minded men thought certain books were God (biblolotry)
> Sophisticated men in
> suits and ties think animals are our creator,
Lab coats or field clothes rather than suits and ties. And they think
that we have now extinct animal ancestors. If anything is a 'natural'
creator, it would be the environments the organisms have to adapt to,
not the animals.
> that material nature produced itself.
I have no idea what you think you mean by that. I think that material
nature exists and does so independently of me. And material nature
(including life) tends to follow certain natural laws that can be
explored by the methodology of science.
> Darwinists THINK they are the exact opposite of
> ancient men. In reality, Darwinists are just as deluded. This is what
> happens when God is rejected: delusion follows.
Funny. Some of the most delusional people I know are also the most
religious. Some of them are raving lunatics shouting on street
corners.
> It is a self-evident
> fact that animals cannot change.
Which would be a big surprise to all those Gurnsey cows and longhorns
and Jerseys and bulldogs and chihuahuas.
> Humans cannot change and we have
> superior intellect.
Not only can we humans change (in an evolutionary sense), we have.
For example, lactose tolerance as an adult in certain populations.
> Evolution is impossible----a mandatory belief if
> you are an Atheist.
So you keep delusionally hoping.
>
> Ray
hersheyh
idea what certain words mean in the context of the science of
evolution. Instead, you seem to be dropping terms into two categories
(good and evil) and don't seem to care what they really mean. That is
probably because you are a poor reader; one who goes through texts
with an agenda and reads evil into anything that certain authors
write. This is exemplified by the absurdity of your position on
"natural selection" where you claim both that "NS does not exist." and
that "NS is a collection of truisms" [and thus true]. Even the most
logic-impaired individual can see that the two statements cannot both
be true. Presumably you must think that NS means something more than
the "collection of truisms" (it doesn't, but that doesn't seem to stop
you) and that 'something more' (whatever it is; you seem unclear on
that point other than vaguely claiming, contrary to evidence in the
text, that the word "natural" in "natural selection" really was
intended as a code word for naturalistic atheism rather than as a way
of distinguishing between non-human-guided selection and human-guided
selection, aka "artificial selection") does not exist.
But let me define certain words as they are actually used by
scientists.
Evolution: This is the theory that, in the broadest sense, says that
the genetics of biological *populations* can and will change over
time. Note that evolution is not a "theory of everything". It is a
theory that is restricted to living organisms (and currently living
organisms on the third rock from an unremarkable star at the edge of a
spiral galaxy).
Now, the time frame within which this change occurs can vary widely:
*Stabilizing selection* produces change in the genetics of populations
over the course of a single generation. It does this by the
environment removing (actually reducing the reproductive success of --
removing by differential death is merely the most extreme effect),
each and every generation, the defectives and extreme types that are
*necessarily* generated each generation by mutation or recombination
of existing variants. Note that this is NOT the same as
'immutability'. It is a dynamic process that occurs each generation
to produce a dynamic stasis. The variance around the mean is reduced
in a single generation. Any student of biology, including those
before Darwin, had to have observed this phenomenon. Note that the
*environmental conditions* that produce stabilizing selection are
those in which environments are relatively stable and constant. In
the wild, that is in "nature" absent the hand of man, environments
tend to change slowly and thus are relatively stable and constant in
human lifespans.
*Directional selection* can produce change in the genetics of
populations either rapidly (as in when antibiotic is added to
bacteria, where the genetics can change in a single generation) or
imperceptibly slowly in terms of human generations (a 1% per
generation change in size each generation would change a rabbit-sized
organism into an elephant-sized one in 10,000 years or less and, given
the sparseness of the fossil record, it is likely that we would only
see a single fossil of the beginning and end species). Note that
selection, whether stabilizing or directional, requires that variation
exists or is generated. Selection can only select among variants that
actually exist. Selection does not create variants. Mutation does.
And, because mutation does, in fact, occur, then, by definition, the
organisms that collectively make up a species are not really
"immutable". The consequences of *directional* selection can often be
observed in the local variants (races, subspecies) within a species
when environments change (e.g. the peppered moth) or when new
resources appear (apple versus crabapple maggot flies) or simply
because environments are not constant throughout a range (northern
English sparrows are genetically stouter and larger than those in the
southern parts of the range). *Some* aspects of 'racial' differences
in humans (loss of melanin production in northern Europeans; gain of
adult lactose tolerance in European populations) can also be
attributed to *directional* selection. The Victorian pre-Darwinian
scientists were aware of such local differences in wild populations,
but had no scientific theory to explain them. Some, like Agassiz,
attributed human racial differences to God's design to make some
people perpetually fit only for slavery rather than to local
variations selected to optimize to local environments. And, of
course, pre-Darwin naturalists and farmers were quite aware of the
rapid changes in population phenotype that could be accomplished by
human guidance of the selective process.
*Selection* by environmental conditions can be thought to be on a
continuum, a line ranging from strong selection against a variant
relative to its alternative to weak selection against *through*
selective *neutrality* to weak selection for to strong selection for
the variant relative to its alternative. Thus the *absence of
selection* is selective neutrality. Both selection for and selection
against a variant is still selection. Selective neutrality is when
the variance each generation due to chance alone is larger than any
directional variance (for or against). Thus, in small populations,
where variance due to chance alone is large, more traits are
"selectively neutral". A person who does not understand selective
neutrality in real (that is, non-infinite) populations might think
that the a neutral variant will stay in a population indefinitely, ala
the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium. In actuality, selectively neutral
variants undergo random drift in frequency, but only until it hits one
of two barriers. One in which it replaces the previous variant. And
the other when it is completely lost.
Thus, *regardless* of whether there is selection or not, and even
whether the selection is stabilizing or directional, there is no
mechanism that produces immutability of a population's genome. The
closest thing to 'immutability' in the biological populations known as
'species' is stabilizing selection. And that requires a stable
unchanging constant environment with no unused resources.
All this *change* in population (species) genomes (whether by
selection or not) can be and has been observed. So it is up to you to
propose your mechanism of true 'immutability' that, as far as I can
tell does not exist in any living population. Or perhaps you don't
*really* mean that populations are literally 'immutable'? Perhaps
what you really mean is that there are some types of change that are
not possible using any of the observed mechanisms of change (mutation,
selection, or neutral drift).
As I have pointed out before, Ray, your problem does not seem to be
natural selection or mutation or the effects of those problems within
a species. Intraspecies change (evolution) in population genomes is
hard to refute. They really are observable and have been observed.
You would be better off saying that you think that none these
processes (mutation, natural selection, drift) cannot produce new
species. That producing a new, reproductively isolated species
requires some novel process. You would then have the problem of
saying exactly why those processes are unable to produce the observed
differences between species.
In all the above, I have specifically limited my discussion to
processes that can be and have been observed to produce evolutionary
change *within* a species. I did that to show that the processes
actually do exist in nature. But the next step is to ask whether
those *observable* processes can generate the smallest unit of change
that produces the 'tree' of life pattern: speciation. I will wait to
see if you can accept that there is no such thing as literal
'immutability' within a species wrt change in population genome
composition. That there is only the dynamic stasis of stabilizing
selection, which involves change in a population's genome composition
each and every generation.
Mike Lyle
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c8ee1656-c047-4ff9...@g22g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
[...]
> Natural science had no majority existence prior to 1859.
I'm sorry, I don't understand. What does that mean?
> The fact that
> you used such an adjective ("natural") finally admits to the fact
> that before 1859 science accepted Creationism (supernatural
> causation).
[...]
--
Mike.
Ray Martinez
There is no such thing as poor adaptation.
> If the
> population is currently well adapted to the environment, natural
> selection keeps it on that peak of adaptation. Selection can therefore
> promote either stasis or change, depending.
"Selection has God-like powers."
It causes change; it causes stasis; it does everything. You have
violated the basic tenets of Naturalism and Aristotelian logic.
Ray
> You didn't explain.- Hide quoted text -
Caranx latus
> On Nov 21, 4:22 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
<snip>
>> You just don't understand. Natural selection promotes adaption to the
>> environment, right? If the population is currently poorly adapted to the
>> environment, natural selection moves it toward adaptation.
>
> There is no such thing as poor adaptation.
Sure there is, Ray. A population of, say, frogs develops in a hot, humid
environment. Over time, the environment dries due to a climatic shift.
The frogs, well adapted for the humid environment are more poorly
adapted for the dry environment that develops.
>> If the
>> population is currently well adapted to the environment, natural
>> selection keeps it on that peak of adaptation. Selection can therefore
>> promote either stasis or change, depending.
>
> "Selection has God-like powers."
>
> It causes change; it causes stasis; it does everything. You have
> violated the basic tenets of Naturalism and Aristotelian logic.
Only in your own mind, Ray. If the environment is static, why would
selection cause change? If the environment is changing, why would
selection favor stasis?
<snip>
John Harshman
Really? Because it seems to me that I'm poorly adapted to, say, a deep
sea environment, while an angler fish is considerably better adapted.
>> If the
>> population is currently well adapted to the environment, natural
>> selection keeps it on that peak of adaptation. Selection can therefore
>> promote either stasis or change, depending.
>
> "Selection has God-like powers."
>
> It causes change; it causes stasis; it does everything. You have
> violated the basic tenets of Naturalism and Aristotelian logic.
No, you just don't understand how selection works. Think of it like
gravity, and imagine a smooth surface with hills and valleys. If you put
a marble on a hill, gravity moves it toward a valley. If you put a
marble in a valley, gravity doesn't move it. Is gravity therefore
possessed of godlike powers?
You still didn't explain. Will you ever?
hersheyh
> On Nov 21, 4:22 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > You just don't understand. Natural selection promotes adaption to the
> > environment, right? If the population is currently poorly adapted to the
> > environment, natural selection moves it toward adaptation.
>
> There is no such thing as poor adaptation.
When the environment changes (and no environment on earth is perfectly
uniform and stable), the adaptations to the previous environment are
now slightly to drastically out of sync with the new environment.
That is, the population is not as well adapted to the current local
conditions as it was to the prior conditions.
> > If the
> > population is currently well adapted to the environment, natural
> > selection keeps it on that peak of adaptation. Selection can therefore
> > promote either stasis or change, depending.
>
> "Selection has God-like powers."
Not at all. To have God-like powers, the mechanism of selection would
have to exhibit foresight and omniscience. Instead, as I have pointed
out, selection is *backward-looking*, and, even then only one
generation back. The mechanism produces a new generation that is
optimized, not necessarily to the environment that they will face, but
to the environment that their parents faced. That is because the
successful reproducers in the parent generation are those organisms
that did well in the envrionment they faced.
>
> It causes change; it causes stasis; it does everything.
Selection does not cause pure stasis. It causes a dynamic stasis that
changes the allele frequencies of the population between conception
and reproductive success. The apparent "stasis" occurs when the
population is, for the feature being studied, already optimal for a
relatively constant environment. That is why it is called a
stabilizing selection. The selective changes between conception and
reproduction *must* occur to generate a population that looks like the
parent population looked at the same stage of life. Change due to
selection is still occurring during the dynamic stasis called
stabilizing selection. But the change is in the amount of variance
rather than in the mean. It is change none the less.
And since selective neutrality also leads to change (albeit slower in
pace than when there is change due to selection), there is no such
thing as true immutability of any species. Let me repeat that. There
is NO such thing as true immutability of any species.
> You have
> violated the basic tenets of Naturalism and Aristotelian logic.
Not at all. The same mechanism can have different consequences
depending on the conditions under which it occurs.
[snip]
hersheyh
> Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Nov 21, 4:22 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >> You just don't understand. Natural selection promotes adaption to the
> >> environment, right? If the population is currently poorly adapted to the
> >> environment, natural selection moves it toward adaptation.
>
> > There is no such thing as poor adaptation.
>
> Sure there is, Ray. A population of, say, frogs develops in a hot, humid
> environment. Over time, the environment dries due to a climatic shift.
> The frogs, well adapted for the humid environment are more poorly
> adapted for the dry environment that develops.
A better and real life example is the axoltl, as well as some other
neotenous salamanders, in which exactly this climactic shift
occurred. There remained year-around water ways, but the surrounding
land became more desert-like. Mutations (there are several simple
mutations that can do this) led to speciation changes so that the
salamander now leads its entire life in the waterways.
>
[snip]
Ray Martinez
It is you who does not get it.
You have selection accomplishing a wide range of tricks; from causing
evolution to prohibiting evolution.
"Stability" in the history of science conveys "immutability." If you
don't believe me then go ask your good pal, John Wilkie. Howard
Hershey has already acknowledged a historical fact: William Paley
interpreted the concept of selection as preventing evolutionary
change. Darwin, of course, said the exact opposite. The point is: both
interpretations cannot be true. For Howard to come along and say that
both *are in fact* true, is not only astonishing, but impossible. The
choice is not both. The choice is one or the other.
Now, I have no doubt that Howard is parroting a widely held belief.
This does not mean it is true. It means that many people are horribly
wrong, confused and/or ignorant since both Paley and Darwin cannot be
right.
The fact that neo-Darwinists have concocted "stabilizing selection"
doctrines, while not having the slightest awareness that the doctrine
falsifies non-random selection, is humiliating to say the least.
Philosophers and historians are king----not scientists.
Ray
John Harshman
You didn't even read the analogy, did you?
> "Stability" in the history of science conveys "immutability."
As Howard has explained, no it doesn't.
> If you
> don't believe me then go ask your good pal, John Wilkie.
Who?
> Howard
> Hershey has already acknowledged a historical fact: William Paley
> interpreted the concept of selection as preventing evolutionary
> change.
No he didn't. You apparently didn't read Howard's explicit denial that
he (or Paley) said any such thing.
> Darwin, of course, said the exact opposite.
What is the exact opposite? That selection doesn't prevent evolutionary
change?
> The point is: both
> interpretations cannot be true.
Agreed. Your interpretation of Paley is wrong. Darwin was right
> For Howard to come along and say that
> both *are in fact* true, is not only astonishing, but impossible. The
> choice is not both. The choice is one or the other.
No, you merely have no clue about Paley, or selection, or pretty much
anything. Please read the analogy with the gravity and the marbles. Or
if you did read it, read it for comprehension this time.
> Now, I have no doubt that Howard is parroting a widely held belief.
> This does not mean it is true. It means that many people are horribly
> wrong, confused and/or ignorant since both Paley and Darwin cannot be
> right.
If you were correct about Paley's statement, that would be true. And in
that case Paley would be wrong. However, natural selection can both
prevent and produce change, depending on circumstance. Just like gravity
can both move a marble and keep a marble stationary, depending on where
on a surface the marble is.
> The fact that neo-Darwinists have concocted "stabilizing selection"
> doctrines, while not having the slightest awareness that the doctrine
> falsifies non-random selection, is humiliating to say the least.
Why would stabilizing selection falsify non-random selection?
> Philosophers and historians are king----not scientists.
I don't think any of them are king. Are you living in Plato's Republic?
[snip]
>>>>>>> Your view of
>>>>>>> immutability is hampered by a false assumption that creation was a
>>>>>>> single one-off event.
>>>>>> Why is that relevant? Explain.
>>>> You didn't explain.
>> You still didn't explain. Will you ever?
Hi, Ray. Do you see this down here?
hersheyh
Stabilizing selection does not prohibit evolution. Stabilizing
selection is a description of how the evolutionary mechanism of
selection maintains optimal adaptation to a stable environment.
>
> "Stability" in the history of science conveys "immutability." If you
> don't believe me then go ask your good pal, John Wilkie.
Stability is not the same as immutability. There is no known
mechanism that can produce true immutability of a population's genetic
makeup. We can only get a dynamic stasis involving selective change
occurring over the course of a single generation. The change, in this
case, alters the population's genomic variance over the course of the
generation without greatly affecting the mean.
> Howard
> Hershey has already acknowledged a historical fact: William Paley
> interpreted the concept of selection as preventing evolutionary
> change. Darwin, of course, said the exact opposite. The point is: both
> interpretations cannot be true.
Darwin recognized *both* the stabilizing and directional possibilities
of selection. Paley was blind to the directional possibilities
(understandable, given the inability to comprehend deep time). But
that failure in Paley's vision is why Darwin is the father of
evolution and Paley isn't.
Both stabilizing and directional selection can be (and are) true. The
two different effects of selection occur under different environmental
conditions.
> For Howard to come along and say that
> both *are in fact* true, is not only astonishing, but impossible. The
> choice is not both. The choice is one or the other.
Again, I have explicitly pointed out the conditions under which
stabilizing selection will occur and how that differs from the
conditions under which directional selection occurs. What you have to
do is show why selection would be stabilizing and never directional if
that is what you think is the case. In case you do not remember,
stabilizing selection (which involves selection over a single
generation) occurs when the population is well adapted to the
environment *and* the environment is relatively constant. Directional
selection occurs when the environment is changing.
>
> Now, I have no doubt that Howard is parroting a widely held belief.
> This does not mean it is true. It means that many people are horribly
> wrong, confused and/or ignorant since both Paley and Darwin cannot be
> right.
Paley was wrong. Paley only recognized the stabilizing nature of
selection. Darwin recognized everything that Paley did and more. He
recognized that, in geological time frames, selection could be
directional. Just as it is in "artificial (man-directed) selection."
>
> The fact that neo-Darwinists have concocted "stabilizing selection"
> doctrines, while not having the slightest awareness that the doctrine
> falsifies non-random selection, is humiliating to say the least.
Stabilizing selection and directional selection are both selection,
but in different circumstances. The only "opposite" (actually
absence) of selection is neutral drift. And like selection, that
produces change too, but more slowly.
>
> Philosophers and historians are king----not scientists.
Not if the philosophers and historians claim that *real* immutability
exists in populations of organisms. If they claim that kind of
immutability, they are fools. Only stabilizing selection gives the
appearance of sameness. But it does so only by ruthless selective
change over the course of each and every single generation.
Dana Tweedy
>>
>> No, you just don't understand how selection works. Think of it like
>> gravity, and imagine a smooth surface with hills and valleys. If you
>> put a marble on a hill, gravity moves it toward a valley. If you put
>> a marble in a valley, gravity doesn't move it. Is gravity therefore
>> possessed of godlike powers?
>>
>
> It is you who does not get it.
The evidence suggests otherwise.
>
> You have selection accomplishing a wide range of tricks; from causing
> evolution to prohibiting evolution.
Here's where you go off the rails. Selection doesn't cause, or "prohibit"
evolution. Selection gives direction to evolutionary changes, either
preserving the phenotype, or causing change in the phenotype. Evolution
continues regardless of whether there is selection. You are still
conflating evolution with "change in morphology". Morphological change
can and is produced by evolution, but evolution can occur without gross
morphological change.
>
> "Stability" in the history of science conveys "immutability."
No, it "conveys" lack of morphological change, not lack of capacity to
change. Immutable means "unable to change" not "hasn't changed much".
>If you
> don't believe me then go ask your good pal, John Wilkie.
Presuming you mean Wilkins, I'm sure he will agree with Dr. Harshman, and
agree that you are wrong.
> Howard
> Hershey has already acknowledged a historical fact: William Paley
> interpreted the concept of selection as preventing evolutionary
> change.
Again, you misrepresent what Howard was saying. He didn't say that Paley
claimed that selection prevented evolutionary change. He said that Paley
though that selection resulted in a form of dynamic stasis, which isn't the
same thing. Paley didn't say that change was impossible, he simply didn't
grasp that selection could guide change as well as stability.
> Darwin, of course, said the exact opposite.
No, because you don't grasp what Paley was actually saying. Darwin said
that selection, combined with variation could cause change in species.
Paley only though that selection caused stability, not inability of species
to change. Paley didn't see that species changed, but he didn't say they
never *could* change. Ray, you've always had difficulty with shades of
meanings, and this is no exception.
> The point is: both
> interpretations cannot be true.
This is another mistake on your part. Both intepretations can be true,
because selection can produce both results. When the environment is
stable, selection promotes stablity in species. When conditions change,
selection can produce change in a population.
> For Howard to come along and say that
> both *are in fact* true, is not only astonishing, but impossible. The
> choice is not both. The choice is one or the other.
Again, this is your own mistake, not Howard's. You are wrong, and it's
easy to see that you are wrong. Both actions of selection can be true,
and in fact can both be seen in existing popoulations.
>
> Now, I have no doubt that Howard is parroting a widely held belief.
Which is another false assumption on your part.
> This does not mean it is true. It means that many people are horribly
> wrong, confused and/or ignorant since both Paley and Darwin cannot be
> right.
Have you considered that it might be you who is horribly wrong? Both
Darwin and Paley can be correct in some ways. Both can be wrong about some
things. Darwin got things mostly right, while Paley got some things right,
but was mostly wrong. Either way, Darwin being right doesn't mean God does
not exist, and Paley being right doesn't mean God must exist.
>
> The fact that neo-Darwinists have concocted "stabilizing selection"
> doctrines, while not having the slightest awareness that the doctrine
> falsifies non-random selection, is humiliating to say the least.
No, it simply means that you utterly wrong about your assumptions.
Stablilizing selection is not a "concotion", it's an observation. Likewise
selection causing morphological change is also observed. Neither
falsifies the fact that selection is a non random effect.
>
> Philosophers and historians are king----not scientists.
Philosophers and historians are not scientists. None are "kings". More
to the point, you neither a philosopher, historian, or scientist.
DJT
Ray Martinez
Yes, it is.
You are ignorant of basic history of science.
> There is no known
> mechanism that can produce true immutability of a population's genetic
> makeup. We can only get a dynamic stasis involving selective change
> occurring over the course of a single generation. The change, in this
> case, alters the population's genomic variance over the course of the
> generation without greatly affecting the mean.
>
> > Howard
> > Hershey has already acknowledged a historical fact: William Paley
> > interpreted the concept of selection as preventing evolutionary
> > change.
Has your view changed?
I suspect that it has not since you are now re-defining words and
concepts.
Here are the facts:
1. We both acknowledged Paley's interpretation of selection in this
thread (prevents evolution).
2. You then argued the existence of stabilizing selection without
realizing that said advocacy supports Paley.
3. When I pointed #2 out, you then evaded; after pressing the matter
you then re-defined stability and immutability.
4. Your re-definitions are false. "Stability" and "Immutability" are
synonyms. I have shown your motive to suddenly re-define these basic
words and concepts.
5. The choice is not both but one or the other. Paley and Darwin
cannot both be right simultaneously.
Your good buddy John Harshman, that is, the guy with a "doctorate," is
now playing the role of a howler, suggesting that you should deny ever
admitting that Paley interpreted selection as preventing evolution.
You need to either retract and delete that post or admit to making a
mistake, or continue on the path of ad hoc re-definition.
Immutability is presumed real. By qualifying said word with "real" you
are engaged in corruption. No one is obligated to say "real
immutability."
You are actually advocating temporal immutability.
I doubt that you will acknowledge this mistake.
Ray
Dana Tweedy
>>> "Stability" in the history of science conveys "immutability." If you
>>> don't believe me then go ask your good pal, John Wilkie.
>>
>> Stability is not the same as immutability.
>
> Yes, it is.
No, Ray. you are wrong again. Stablity means that things aren't changing.
Immutiblity means that things can't change. There is a difference.
>
> You are ignorant of basic history of science.
You keep accusing others of ignornace, when you are the one mistaken.
>
>> There is no known
>> mechanism that can produce true immutability of a population's
>> genetic makeup. We can only get a dynamic stasis involving selective
>> change occurring over the course of a single generation. The change,
>> in this case, alters the population's genomic variance over the
>> course of the generation without greatly affecting the mean.
>>
>>> Howard
>>> Hershey has already acknowledged a historical fact: William Paley
>>> interpreted the concept of selection as preventing evolutionary
>>> change.
>
> Has your view changed?
No, his view does not appear to have changed. You got it wrong.
>
> I suspect that it has not since you are now re-defining words and
> concepts.
He's not re-defining terms. He's pointing out where you are wrong.
>
> Here are the facts:
>
> 1. We both acknowledged Paley's interpretation of selection in this
> thread (prevents evolution).
No, Howard did not acknowledge that. In fact, he pointed out that you were
wrong about this.
>
> 2. You then argued the existence of stabilizing selection without
> realizing that said advocacy supports Paley.
What Howard was telling you is that Paley's conclusions were incomplete.
Stablizing selection means that there's a force that keeps morphological
stability in a dynamic population. It does not mean that species are
unable to change at all, under any conditions. That's what "immutablity"
means. You are ascribing to Paley concepts that Paley himself didn't
claim.
>
> 3. When I pointed #2 out, you then evaded; after pressing the matter
> you then re-defined stability and immutability.
Again, you are putting your own spin on things, because you don't
understand, or refuse to accept what Howard was saying. Howard did not
"evade" or re-define. He pointed out that your own assumptions were wrong
about Paley, and about immutiblity.
>
> 4. Your re-definitions are false. "Stability" and "Immutability" are
> synonyms. I have shown your motive to suddenly re-define these basic
> words and concepts.
They don't mean the same thing. Again, you have a big problem with shades
of meaning. Stablity and immutibility are similar in meaning, but not
identical. There is a difference in the concepts. Once more: Stability
means that things aren't changing for the moment. Immutibility means that
things CAN"T change, that change is not possible at all. Can you see
there is an important difference here? Consider the difference between
an automobile on a road, and railroad car on a track. A auto can drive
straight on a highway, but it has the possibility of making a turn at any
time. A rail car, on the other hand is constrained. It goes straight on a
straight rail, but it cannot turn left or right unless the rail does. The
auto demonstrates stability. It will go straight, as long as the steering
wheel is not turned. The rail car, on the other hand must travel in a
line. It's path is immutable.
>
> 5. The choice is not both but one or the other. Paley and Darwin
> cannot both be right simultaneously.
Here, again, you are wrong. An automible can both be stable in a straight
line, or it can turn, if there is an obstruction on the road. Both
Paley's idea of stability can be correct, and Darwin's idea of changablity
can be correct. As it stands, Darwin was more correct than Paley was.
>
> Your good buddy John Harshman, that is, the guy with a "doctorate," is
> now playing the role of a howler, suggesting that you should deny ever
> admitting that Paley interpreted selection as preventing evolution.
Paley never claimed that selection prevented evolution. That's where you
are wrong.
> You need to either retract and delete that post or admit to making a
> mistake, or continue on the path of ad hoc re-definition.
Why shold Howard retract, when it's you who is wrong? Why can't you
admit that you are the one who is badly mistaken?
snip
>> Not if the philosophers and historians claim that *real* immutability
>> exists in populations of organisms. If they claim that kind of
>> immutability, they are fools. Only stabilizing selection gives the
>> appearance of sameness. But it does so only by ruthless selective
>> change over the course of each and every single generation.
>>
>
> Immutability is presumed real.
By you, and you alone. That should tell you something.
> By qualifying said word with "real" you
> are engaged in corruption. No one is obligated to say "real
> immutability."
Again, Ray, you simply are making up reasons to reject the obvious. It's
not "obligation" that makes Howard use the term, but a desire to get you to
understand the concept.
>
> You are actually advocating temporal immutability.
Howard is not advocating immutiblity at all. He's showing you why Paley
didn't either.
>
> I doubt that you will acknowledge this mistake.
One more time, Ray. Why should Howard acknowledge a mistake that YOU are
making?
snip the rest
DJT
hersheyh
> On Nov 22, 9:49 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 22, 9:51 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 22, 4:33 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
> > Stability is not the same as immutability.
>
> Yes, it is.
There are a number of definitions of "stability". The one in the
dictionary that is relevant to biological population's genome
frequencies is "the capacity of an object [in this case a population's
mean frequency of phenotypes and the underlying genotypes] to return
to equilibrium or to its original position after having been
displaced. That is the correct definition because during times of
genomic "stability", the amount of variance *must* be reduced each
generation to recover the same frequencies as the parent population at
the reproductive stage in their life cycle.
This meaning of "stability" is similar to saying that your temperature
is "stable". It does not mean that your temperature is unchangeable,
fixed, or incapable of change. In fact, as a homeostatic feature, it
cycles within a limited range and is hard to change beyond a 'normal'
range. That is, there are environmental factors that act to prevent
large or dramatic change in temperature. Stabilizing selection is the
same. There are environmental factors that prevent large or dramatic
change in the range of variance. Hard to change is NOT the same as
impossible to change. And I am sure you can think of environmental
factors that cause change in your body temperature beyond that of the
normal range (think ice skinny dips and viruse infections).
"Stability" is not the same as "immutability" which is the complete
inability to change no matter what environment you are in.
immutability - the quality of being incapable of mutation. Stability
is not a synonym of immutability. Fixity, however, is.
> You are ignorant of basic history of science.
>
> > There is no known
> > mechanism that can produce true immutability of a population's genetic
> > makeup. We can only get a dynamic stasis involving selective change
> > occurring over the course of a single generation. The change, in this
> > case, alters the population's genomic variance over the course of the
> > generation without greatly affecting the mean.
>
> > > Howard
> > > Hershey has already acknowledged a historical fact: William Paley
> > > interpreted the concept of selection as preventing evolutionary
> > > change.
>
> Has your view changed?
>
> I suspect that it has not since you are now re-defining words and
> concepts.
>
> Here are the facts:
>
> 1. We both acknowledged Paley's interpretation of selection in this
> thread (prevents evolution).
Paley thought that *species* were fixed.
> 2. You then argued the existence of stabilizing selection without
> realizing that said advocacy supports Paley.
No. I fully realized that the fact that most (but crucially not all)
selection that is observable in human time frames is stabilizing
selection. That narrow view led Paley and most scientists of his time
to support *species* fixity. It was the failure to understand the
consequence of deep time (as well as thinking of *species* as being
platonic ideas with some fixed ideal 'species type' rather than as
populations of organisms with only an average and changable 'mean
type').
> 3. When I pointed #2 out, you then evaded; after pressing the matter
> you then re-defined stability and immutability.
Nope. I do not use the terms interchangeably. You do. There is an
important difference between the two.
>
> 4. Your re-definitions are false. "Stability" and "Immutability" are
> synonyms. I have shown your motive to suddenly re-define these basic
> words and concepts.
The definition of "stability" that I am using is not a synonym of
"immutability".
>
> 5. The choice is not both but one or the other. Paley and Darwin
> cannot both be right simultaneously.
Selection is a process. Whether that selection is 'stabilizing' or
'directional' is dependent on the local conditions. Consider
selection as if it involved two forces of equal strength pushing on
the sides of a cube sitting on a low friction surface. It matters
whether the two forces are pushing on opposite sides of the cube or on
the same or two non-opposite sides. If they are pushing on opposite
sides, the cube will not move and is thus "stable". But any other
combination of sides to which the two forces can be applied will
result in "directional" movement of the cube, demonstrating that the
cube is "stable" but not "immovable".
> Your good buddy John Harshman, that is, the guy with a "doctorate," is
> now playing the role of a howler, suggesting that you should deny ever
> admitting that Paley interpreted selection as preventing evolution.
Paley thought *natural* selection would only lead toward the "ideal
species type" that only really existed in the mind of God. That
selection's only role was removing the weakest and more imperfect of
the imperfect specimens of "real" species. I am sure he also
recognized that *artificial* selection could and did lead to
morphological change. It would be hard to avoid recognizing that.
> You need to either retract and delete that post or admit to making a
> mistake, or continue on the path of ad hoc re-definition.
>[snip]
>
> Immutability is presumed real.
By whom? There are some things that are unchangeable. I cannot
change my blood type. I was born with it and it will not change. But
the frequency of alleles in a population is not unchangeable.
> By qualifying said word with "real" you
> are engaged in corruption. No one is obligated to say "real
> immutability."
I meant that to indicate that "real" immutability requires the
*inability* to change. The frequency of alleles in a population
cannot really *be* immutable. It can only give the superficial
appearance of being unchangeable.
>
> You are actually advocating temporal immutability.
No. I am saying that there is no possibility that the frequency of
alleles in a population can *really* be immutable or unchangeable.
Stabilizing selection can only give a "stability" that superficially
resembles 'fixity'. It does not and cannot produce actual fixity.
>
[snip]
John Wilkins
<redd...@bresnan.net> wrote:
> >If you
> > don't believe me then go ask your good pal, John Wilkie.
>
> Presuming you mean Wilkins, I'm sure he will agree with Dr. Harshman, and
> agree that you are wrong.
It's Ray. He's wrong in virtue of opening his mouth.
hersheyh
> In article <QPOdnfsGt4rOU5fWnZ2dnUVZ_i2dn...@bresnan.com>, Dana Tweedy
>
> <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
> > >If you
> > > don't believe me then go ask your good pal, John Wilkie.
>
> > Presuming you mean Wilkins, I'm sure he will agree with Dr. Harshman, and
> > agree that you are wrong.
>
> It's Ray. He's wrong in virtue of opening his mouth.
Doesn't even have to do that to be wrong.
John Harshman
>> By qualifying said word with "real" you
>> are engaged in corruption. No one is obligated to say "real
>> immutability."
>
> I meant that to indicate that "real" immutability requires the
> *inability* to change. The frequency of alleles in a population
> cannot really *be* immutable. It can only give the superficial
> appearance of being unchangeable.
>> You are actually advocating temporal immutability.
>
> No. I am saying that there is no possibility that the frequency of
> alleles in a population can *really* be immutable or unchangeable.
> Stabilizing selection can only give a "stability" that superficially
> resembles 'fixity'. It does not and cannot produce actual fixity.
And even that stability is possible only for genes for which there is
one best allele, or multiple alleles all with different fitnesses, or
frequency-dependent selection. If any alleles have equal fitness
(including complete neutrality), then not even stabilizing selection can
produce stability.
Now immutability, as I understand it, would require that mutation be
impossible. Has Ray ever discussed that?
John Harshman
Ray Martinez
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 18:33:49 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
>
>
>
> >And I can see that you do not understand immutability. EACH and every
> >species is immutable because EACH and every species owes its existence
> >in nature to a direct act of creation, whether individually or by
> >immutability is hampered by a false assumption that creation was a
>
> wonder if ray realizes he's a pantheist, not a christian?
>
Father, Son, Holy Spirit----yep I am a pantheist.
Ray (Christian)
SNIP....
Ray Martinez
[SNIP....]
>
> >>>>>>> Your view of
> >>>>>>> immutability is hampered by a false assumption that creation was a
> >>>>>>> single one-off event.
> >>>>>> Why is that relevant? Explain.
> >>>> You didn't explain.
> >> You still didn't explain. Will you ever?
>
> Hi, Ray. Do you see this down here?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
It is relevant because acceptance of a single creation event means
evolution had to occur in order to explain the existence of new
species.
Immutability means intervention occurred----not evolution.
Ray
Ray Martinez
> On Nov 17, 4:21 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 15, 6:20 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
> > > On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 18:06:11 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
> > > <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>
> > > >On Nov 15, 5:52 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> > > >> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 17:43:44 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
> > > >> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>
> > > >> >On Nov 15, 4:46 pm, Baron Bodissey <mct5...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Creation ex materia causes stasis/immutability of each species (=
standard Creationism).
Ray
Ray Martinez
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 13:21:02 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
> >interpret evidence. What is observed actually means something else.
> >They make it up as they go per the requirements of their starting
> >assumptions.
>
> >Ray
>
> >SNIP....
>
> Thank you, Ray, for lying about what I said. I cannot tell you how proud
> I am that you found a way to lie about what I said to support the lies
> that you tell.
>
> You are not a believer, Ray. You mock the god you claim to believe in.
> You worship your own foolishness and ignorance.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I am thrilled to be considered a liar, fool, and ignoramus by persons
who say evolution is true.
Ray (Creatorist)
Ray Martinez
> On Nov 15, 8:43 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 15, 4:46 pm, Baron Bodissey <mct5...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 15, 6:08 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 14, 5:04 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > <snip>
> > > > Evolutionists have never ceased insulting special creation,
> > > > having never dealt with the science.
>
> > > > Ray
>
> > > Perhap because there is no science in special creation.
>
> > > Okay, Ray, put your money where your mouth is: List the scientific
> > > evidence FOR special creation WITHOUT referring to the Bible (not
> > > evidence) or the Theory of Evolution (complaining about the TOE is not
> > > evidence for special creation).
>
> > > Baron Bodissey
> > > The trouble with the world is not that people know too little, but
> > > that they know so many things that ain't so.
> > > – Mark Twain
>
> > You misunderstood.
>
> > We are not obligated to address any science in natural selection based
> > on the fact that neo-Darwinists, unlike Darwin who did, refuse to
> > address the science in special creation.
>
> "supernatural" agent, is, by definition, beyond the scope of the
> natural sciences. It is a religious belief.
>
Atheism ideology.
Since we already know how modern Atheists misrepresent Creationism,
what is the point?
Ray
SNIP....
Ray Martinez
> On 2009-11-15 15:08:52 -0800, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> said:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 14, 5:04 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> I lost track of the previous topic where we were discussing natural
> >>> selection, natural causation and underlying premises.
>
> >>> I remember wanting to pursue these points:
>
> >>> 1. Difference between Naturalism and Methodological Naturalism.e
>
> >>> 2. Purpose of artificial selection elucidation in opening of "Origin
> >>> Of Species."
>
> >>> As to #2: Darwin sought to show how human breeders practice their
> >>> trade. It was meant to show how material nature does the same minus
> >>> the intelligent agent.
>
> >>> As to #1: You have stated no appreciable difference.
>
> >> Do you agree that automobile mechanics operate without inference to or
> >> regard for anything other than natural cause? Do you also agree that it
> >> is entirely possible for auto mechanics to be religious while pursuing
> >> their (methodologically naturalistic) trade?
>
> >> If so, doesn't this suggest that there can be an operational
> >> application of naturalism that does not require philosophically
> >> far-reaching assumptions?
>
> >> RLC
>
> > Ad hoc construct.
>
> Not at all. But judging by your response to Burkhard it's clear you
> don't understand even after more thorough explanation. Please reread
> his post, this time leaving aside your typical haste to dismiss
> anything that you think you might disagree with.
>
Burkhard's posts are convoluted; he also ignores what his opponent
actually says (because he cannot address or refute) while distorting
via the creation of straw men. No one is obligated to give these types
of posts the time of day.
> > Since the meaning of Naturalism is not in doubt in the minds of even
> > mildly educated persons, the construct seen above is built on
> > deception and intelligence insulting rhetoric. Since a lot of
> > "Christians" accept evolutionary theory, and since evolution
> > presupposes Naturalism true, construct motive is transparent.
>
> My motive was merely to help you make sense of that which prompted your
> opening remarks. If understanding this issue is not a possibility
> within the context of your worldview then why act as if you are willing
> to discuss it in the first place?
>
> > (Aside issue): Robert, you recently told me that I must cease
> > insulting natural selection and deal with the science involved. Unlike
> > Darwin, Evolutionists have never ceased insulting special creation,
> > having never dealt with the science.
>
> Frankly, I don't recall saying this to you, but I endorse the sentiment
> nevertheless.
>
> The problem with your rejoinder here is that due to your, shall we say,
> somewhat "unique" perspective on science and religion, what you
> consider an insult to special creation is not necessarily what someone
> of a more conventional (rational) take on these issues might think. The
> thoughtful individual recognizes that Genesis is not science (nor is it
> meant to be). The educated individual realizes that special creation,
> in its fundamental disavowal of naturalistic methodology, is not
> scientific at all.
>
Genesis makes scientific claims: they are either true or false. Your
comments say Genesis is false.
> I'm guessing these facts would be considered by you to be insulting.
> But they are not, Ray. They are observations of reality, which, in the
> end, is not obliged to comport with your rather special perspective.
>
> RLC- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Only Atheists/Darwinists say Genesis is false. Their opinion is
entirely predictable/predetermined.
From the Cambrian explosion to abrupt appearance-stasis-abrupt
disappearance seen in the fossil record: Genesis special creation is
proven to be true; evolution **is shown** to be false.
Ray
Dana Tweedy
> On Nov 22, 7:04 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> [SNIP....]
>
>>
>>>>>>>>> Your view of
>>>>>>>>> immutability is hampered by a false assumption that creation
>>>>>>>>> was a single one-off event.
>>>>>>>> Why is that relevant? Explain.
>>>>>> You didn't explain.
>>>> You still didn't explain. Will you ever?
>>
>> Hi, Ray. Do you see this down here?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> It is relevant because acceptance of a single creation event means
> evolution had to occur in order to explain the existence of new
> species.
The Bible doesn't make any mention of further creation events. That means
you'd rather suggest the Bible is wrong, than admit you might be
mistaken....
>
> Immutability means intervention occurred----not evolution.
Yet "immutability" is not what's seen in nature. In nature one sees
species that can change.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
>> Note to Ray: The maintenance of morphological form (aka morphological
>> stasis) *requires* natural selection (specifically stabilizing
>> selection). Stabilizing selection is the only known mechanism that
>> can produce the appearance of stasis. Since you claim that natural
>> selection does not exist, you have no mechanism to generate stasis
>> and you should, therefore, be arguing that stasis does not exist.
>>
>
> Creation ex materia causes stasis/immutability of each species (=
> standard Creationism).
However "creation ex materia" is never seen in nature. All that's ever
seen is populations splitting off from earlier populations. The populations
of living things all have the capacity to speciate, so they are not
immutable.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
But the only god you worship is Gene Scott....
DJT
heekster
Dana Tweedy
>> You are not a believer, Ray. You mock the god you claim to believe
>> in. You worship your own foolishness and ignorance.- Hide quoted
>> text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> I am thrilled to be considered a liar, fool, and ignoramus by persons
> who say evolution is true.
But you are seen that way by everyone.... Evolution is a fact of nature.
You seem to be saying you are "thrilled" to be seen as those things, by
people who accept facts.
DJT
John Harshman
> On Nov 22, 7:04 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> [SNIP....]
>
>>>>>>>>> Your view of
>>>>>>>>> immutability is hampered by a false assumption that creation was a
>>>>>>>>> single one-off event.
>>>>>>>> Why is that relevant? Explain.
>>>>>> You didn't explain.
>>>> You still didn't explain. Will you ever?
>> Hi, Ray. Do you see this down here?
> It is relevant because acceptance of a single creation event means
> evolution had to occur in order to explain the existence of new
> species.
>
> Immutability means intervention occurred----not evolution.
Do you have any evidence of immutability? Do you have any evidence of
intervention? What form does this intervention take, and how can it be
distinguished from natural processes?