>> > On Nov 5, 5:19 pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote: >> >> hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote >> >> innews:c6e8468d-9592-45c6-b501-960b8 >> > 95c3...@w19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com:
>> >> > On Nov 4, 7:22 pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote: >> >> >> hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote >> >> >> innews:0d531dc5-6466-4c40-b156-46ff7 >> >> > a46d...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com: >> >> >> Mere "change over time" is not evolution. If I see a Ford in my >> >> >> driveway today, and a BMW in my driveway tomorrow, it does not >> >> >> follow that the Ford "evolved" into the BMW.
>> >> > That is not what the best fossil records show. The best records >> >> > show the equivalent of a Ford (recognized by the identifying >> >> > feature of the Ford name) that goes from having tail fins to >> >> > having smaller tail fins to having very small tail fins to >> >> > having none. >> >> > In some cases, we see this happening to one Ford car >> >> > (representing >> >> > a population) whereas it is not occurring to another which >> >> > remains like the parent car (although it may have a few dents >> >> > and scratches added). That is not >> > a >> >> > perfect analogy, but the point is that a new *species* of >> >> > organism is NOT the magical poofing of a BMW from a Ford. It is >> >> > the modification of a Ford into a new type of Ford while still >> >> > being recognizable as a Ford.
>> >> The flaw in that argument is that the Ford will never become a BMW >> >> as long as it remains "a new type of Ford". A BMW is not "a new >> >> type of Ford".
>> > As long as the two companies don't merge to become one. After all, >> > Chrysler became, for a while, merely a branch of Mercedes Benz. >> > And it is not a flaw, because what happened to Chrysler (the >> > merging of two separate companies) rarely happens in biology (the >> > formation of lichens and our mitochondria being exceptional). >> > After two lineages diverge in biology, one or both may go extinct, >> > but one will never again become the other. Ford may produce a car >> > that looks similar to a BMW, but anyone who looks carefully enough >> > will see the Ford logo and recognize that this is an example of >> > convergence. >> >> Neither is a homo sapiens a "new type of homo habilis", or >> >> whatever the "missing link of the hour" is supposed to be.
>> > That is a different story. H. habilis is ancestral to modern >> > humans and is in the *hominid* lineage (as are modern humans) and >> > could be the population of hominids out of which came a modified >> > population (say, H. erectus) that then, later, produced a modified >> > population which became H. sapiens. But they are all, in essence, >> > Ford sedans. Some older sedans, some newer, each with >> > modifications. If humans evolve into a different species, that >> > species would also be a hominid (Ford), and likely just a new model >> > of Ford sedan. It would not be a Mercury (chimp), even though that >> > lineage has its ancestral source in a larger "Ford" grouping that >> > includes Mercury and Lincoln (equivalent to all the great apes, >> > including humans, chimps, gorillas, and orangutans).
>> OK. So you will stipulate that Homo Habilis is an ancestor of Homo >> Sapiens.
> Not, however, the *immediate* ancestor. That honor likely goes to > some population of H. erectus. There are recent H. erectus fossils > that are difficult to distinguish from archaic H. sapiens fossils, > both being off at the margins of the range of variation in modern H. > sapiens.
>> It follows that there is a direct sequence of generations from some >> particular Homo Habilis to some particular Homo Sapiens. Then there >> must be a point in that sequence at which the creature was no longer >> Homo Habilis, but its parents were Homo Habilis. This means that >> perforce one species did indeed give birth to another species in one >> generation. The logic is inescapable.
> Oh, what bullshit dumbness. Apparently you are unaware of the fact > that names we give to different colors in the rainbow are an arbitrary > (and culturally determined at that) naming necessity not a physical > reality. The boundaries of each named color is necessarily fuzzy > because the colors represent a continuum that we arbitrarily divide up > into the separate colors.
>> Or are you going to now claim that Homo Sapiens is merely "another >> kind of Homo Habilis"? What is the explanatory power of that?
> BTW, the naming convention is that we do NOT capitalize the species > part of the binary name. And you did notice that I pointed out that > H. habilis may be more like the grandfather species to H. sapiens. H. > erectus has more features in common with H. sapiens and is > *intermediate* (aka, *transitional*) in morphology.
>> > Why do you persist in forgetting that evolution is branching and >> > that modern organisms do not become other modern organisms by >> > evolution. My ancestors can give rise to both me and my cousins (we >> > share ancestors). I did not produce my cousins.
>> Cousins are the same species, as are their ancestors. I have no >> quarrel with that.
> That is an *analogy*, term you apparently do not understand. In the > evolutionary framework, modern cousin (or sister) *species* are > related to each other only through their having a common ancestor. In > the case of human and chimp, because of the *known* number of > intermediates, the two modern species can be best considered as > cousins at 5th (or more) remove. That is, they do not share a common > parent ancestor species, or a common grandparent ancestor species, but > somewhere in the likely range of a common great-great-great-great (or > more) -grandparent species. That is still relatively recent, but not > as recent as you apparently think.
>> >> > Humans and chimps are both modifications of an ancestral ape >> >> > (over several intermediate speciation events) while both remain >> >> > quite recognizable as apes. Humans did not magically poof into >> >> > existence from chimps. Both are modern species. Neither did >> >> > both magically poof into existence from their common ancestor. >> >> > Chimps may not have undergone as many intermediate speciation >> >> > events (the record in the chimp lineage is the one that is >> >> > missing), but there have been at least 5-6 speciation events >> >> > with organisms having *intermediate* form in the process leading >> >> > to modern humans.
>> >> If you want to claim that humans and chimps are modifications of >> >> an ancestral ape, you should produce that ape, along with its >> >> genome, and show how the genome maps onto both human and chimp >> >> genomes by many small modifications over large numbers of >> >> generations, with each modification producing a viable organism.
>> > It is being done, in essence, by analysing the known genomes of >> > chimp and human and determining which genetic differences are >> > crucial for the phenotypic differences. But you seem to be asking >> > to find DNA in fossils long after the DNA is degraded and >> > resurrecting extinct species.
>> Yeah, if you want to convict someone of a crime based on DNA >> evidence, you can't use their great-great-great grandchildren's, or >> great-great-great grandparent's DNA to do it. The "reasonable doubt" >> factor will hang any honest judge and jury.
> We are not trying to convict humans (or chimps) of a crime. You > certainly can determine that two living people had a common ancestor > reasonably far back by examination of the DNA of the two living > people. Same thing with the DNA of living species. Same logic, same > material, same analytic tools.
>> >> >> >> The fossils do not imply evolution. Rather, the idea >> >> >> >> that they represent different stages of evolutionary change >> >> >> >> is an interpretation which presupposes evolution.
>> >> >> > In actuality the *only* way to produce the *dynamic stasis* >> >> >> > of form (where each generation is more variable than the >> >> >> > population of breeding adults that produced them) that we >> >> >> > often observe is natural selection's conservative feature. >> >> >> > Absent *conservative* natural selection, there would only be >> >> >> > drift (when there is no selective pressure) and directional >> >> >> > selection (leading to change). So the *capacity* of >> >> >> > organisms to undergo change over time is present and clearly >> >> >> > observable both in the present *and* in the fossil record >> >> >> > (*when* that record is complete enough to >> >> >> > provide a fair test).
>> >> >> The problem with that is that in every observed case, the >> >> >> offspring of a species are the same species as the parents.
>> >> > Yes. Who but a brain-dead creationist (like Ray Comfort) would >> >> > think that a new species is magically poofed into existence in >> >> > one generation as *individuals* of a different species born to >> >> > parents of the old species. You also seem to think that a >> >> > speciation event must involve some sort of *major* change in >> >> > form. Probably based on such kindergarten taxonomy that >> >> > creationists use to declare "But it's still a fruitfly!" Well, >> >> > humans are still great apes.
>> >> >> Speculative extrapolation >> >> >> from a handful of generations to millions of generations is not >> >> >> a "magic wand" that makes Darwinian evolution plausible.
>> >> > You seem to be claiming that there is some sort of invisible >> >> > barrier to speciation. Can you tell me what that barier would >> >> > be? >> >> > It is quite normal to think that if
>>> On Nov 5, 5:190m, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote: >>>> hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote >>>> innews:c6e8468d-9592-45c6-b501-960b8 >>> 95c3fbd@w19g2000
[snip]
>>OK. So you will stipulate that Homo Habilis is an ancestor of Homo > Sapiens. >>It follows that there is a direct sequence of generations from some >>particular Homo Habilis to some particular Homo Sapiens. Then there >>must > be >>a point in that sequence at which the creature was no longer Homo > Habilis, >>but its parents were Homo Habilis.
> No.
> There were points in time when the population were all Habilis and a > time when they were all Sapiens. Where you draw the line between one > and another in between those two times it is impossible to say.
Sorry, but organisms are not a continuum. They are discrete individual units. They do not vaguely blend into one another. They have individual, discrete ancestors and individual discrete descendants.
>>This means that perforce one species did >>indeed give birth to another species in one generation.
> No, doesn't happen like that.
Yes. It must happen like that according to Darwinism. Otherwise, the premise that species have an origin is false, since without discrete species there is no "origin".
>>Or are you going to now claim that Homo Sapiens is merely "another >>kind > of >>Homo Habilis"? What is the explanatory power of that?
> Well, to a certain extent, yes. Look at it like this.
> We will atart with a population of people we consider in every way > normal today. No, assume a mutation which reduces the effect of > cholesterol on the body, cutting the risk if heart disease. After a > few generations that mutation becomes reasonably widespread in the > local population so that, when the diet of the population changes, as > the result of McDonalds opening a lot of outlets in the area, those > with the mutation live longer and raise more kids. Maybe, after a long > time, all the population will have the mutated gene.
They are still Homo Sapiens. They have not evolved into a new species.
> Now of course, that is just one small mutation, you would need more > than that (usually) to make a new species. But it does illustrate the > point - there is no dividing line between the two populations.
> Oh, by the way, the mutation is one that has actually been found in > Italy.
On Nov 6, 11:19 am, "kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> "Sapient Fridge" <use_reply_addr...@spamsights.org> wrote in messagenews:thvhYtBub18KFwEv@spamsights.org... > > In message <Xns9CBA9BED370B5eatjoes...@202.177.16.121>, Kalkidas > > <e...@joes.pub> writes
> >>If you want to claim that humans and chimps are modifications of an > >>ancestral ape, you should produce that ape, along with its genome, and > >>show how the genome maps onto both human and chimp genomes by many small > >>modifications over large numbers of generations, with each modification > >>producing a viable organism.
> > How would that be possible to do, regardless of the truth of the ToE?
> The "truth of the ToE" includes the principle that accumulated, viable mutations over many generations produces radically new types of organisms. If it is not possible to verify that principle, then the "ToE" is not verified.
uh..why? who says?
we scientists certainly consider it verified as well as any other theory in science.
you religious fanatics? you're still telling us why certain people are 'untouchables' and are subhumans...
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:00:22 -0700, Kent Paul Dolan
<xanth...@well.com> wrote: >Umm, with ToE roughly== RM+NS, how does falsifying >NS _not_ falsify the ToE? The creationist contention >is that the ToE is unfalsifiable, not, in >particular, that NS is unfalsifiable, so narrowing >the result to merely proving NS falsifiable would >not have served the larger purpose. As usual, your >problems with reading for intention trip you up.
Someone was said the theory could be falsified by finding rabbit fossils in the Devonian.
-- ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatu...@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
>>>> On Nov 5, 5:190m, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote: >>>>> hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote >>>>> innews:c6e8468d-9592-45c6-b501-960b8 >>>> 95c3fbd@w19g2000
>[snip]
>>>OK. So you will stipulate that Homo Habilis is an ancestor of Homo >> Sapiens. >>>It follows that there is a direct sequence of generations from some >>>particular Homo Habilis to some particular Homo Sapiens. Then there >>>must >> be >>>a point in that sequence at which the creature was no longer Homo >> Habilis, >>>but its parents were Homo Habilis.
>> No.
>> There were points in time when the population were all Habilis and a >> time when they were all Sapiens. Where you draw the line between one >> and another in between those two times it is impossible to say.
>Sorry, but organisms are not a continuum. They are discrete individual >units. They do not vaguely blend into one another. They have individual, >discrete ancestors and individual discrete descendants.
Yes, individuals are discrete. However, a species is not, it is a collective. The members of the collective change over time.
>>>This means that perforce one species did >>>indeed give birth to another species in one generation.
>> No, doesn't happen like that.
>Yes. It must happen like that according to Darwinism.
No, there is nothing is the ToE that requires anything of the sort.
>Otherwise, the >premise that species have an origin is false, since without discrete >species there is no "origin".
During the origin of a species there will usually be a long time where the news species still interbreeds with the old so that within a population their will be a fair gene mix.
>>>Or are you going to now claim that Homo Sapiens is merely "another >>>kind >> of >>>Homo Habilis"? What is the explanatory power of that?
>> Well, to a certain extent, yes. Look at it like this.
>> We will atart with a population of people we consider in every way >> normal today. No, assume a mutation which reduces the effect of >> cholesterol on the body, cutting the risk if heart disease. After a >> few generations that mutation becomes reasonably widespread in the >> local population so that, when the diet of the population changes, as >> the result of McDonalds opening a lot of outlets in the area, those >> with the mutation live longer and raise more kids. Maybe, after a long >> time, all the population will have the mutated gene.
>They are still Homo Sapiens. They have not evolved into a new species.
Yet. But who knows.
>> Now of course, that is just one small mutation, you would need more >> than that (usually) to make a new species. But it does illustrate the >> point - there is no dividing line between the two populations.
>> Oh, by the way, the mutation is one that has actually been found in >> Italy.
>That's nice, but no new species originated.
But every new species starts with a reproducible mutation that spreads through a population. It then requires natural selection.
-- Bob.
Theists think all gods but theirs are false. Atheists simply don't make an exception for the last one.
>>>> On Nov 5, 5:190m, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote: >>>>> hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote >>>>> innews:c6e8468d-9592-45c6-b501-960b8 >>>> 95c3fbd@w19g2000
>[snip]
>>>OK. So you will stipulate that Homo Habilis is an ancestor of Homo >> Sapiens. >>>It follows that there is a direct sequence of generations from some >>>particular Homo Habilis to some particular Homo Sapiens. Then there >>>must >> be >>>a point in that sequence at which the creature was no longer Homo >> Habilis, >>>but its parents were Homo Habilis.
>> No.
>> There were points in time when the population were all Habilis and a >> time when they were all Sapiens. Where you draw the line between one >> and another in between those two times it is impossible to say.
>Sorry, but organisms are not a continuum. They are discrete individual >units. They do not vaguely blend into one another. They have individual, >discrete ancestors and individual discrete descendants.
At exactly which point does a rainbow turn from orange to green?
[snip] >> The flaw in that is that the phrase, "so long as the changes are >> either near neutral or beneficial" is unverifiable for any but the >> most restricted, short-term cases (of laboratory-observed cultures of >> bacteria, or fruit flies, for example). > Certainly none of the differences in the genomes of humans and chimps > would fall outside the range of "near neutral or beneficial" given > that both genomes are quite compatible with life and reproductive > success in specific local environments on this planet. >> And I won't let you get away with saying, "well we know evolution >> happened, so the changes MUST have been either neutral or >> beneficial".
> > I am saying it because both normal chimps and normal humans have > > differences (a percent or two of sequence, depending on how you > > determine the %) and both are quite alive in specific environments. > > Those difference, perforce, must be considered to be either neutral or > > beneficial. If they were detrimental, selection would not have > > allowed them to continue to be present at any large frequency.
> The flaw in that is that the idea that "percentage difference" in genomes > is useless as a measure of evolutionary closeness, as you well know.
I was not making a point about any measure of evolutionary closeness. I was pointing out that there are genomic differences and that *all* these differences, even gathered *all* together in a single organism, do not affect the viability of that species. Your claim was that there was some sort of barrier in transforming an ancestral genome into the currently observed genome in modern humans on the one hand or into the currently observed genome of chimps on the other. That means that you must think that, for some reason, organisms with *fewer* genomic differences from each other than we see in modern humans and modern chimps must be inviable. Can you tell me why and how that would/could be the case? Where is there evidence of a barrier, some intermediate organism in the hominid lineage with *fewer* differences (both genetic and phenotypic) from the common ancestor that would *necessarily* be inviable?
> Geez, who do you think you're talking to?
A creationist who obviously did not get the point I was making. In other words, someone both scientifically ignorant and arrogant enough to mistake his ignorance for scientific truth.
> >> >> > If you will note, the speculative extrapolation of known rates > >> >> > makes *predictions* that can be and have been tested. No magic > >> >> > wand is needed. Only the known natural processes that can be > >> >> > observed in a handful of generations and that you just admitted > >> >> > exist.
> >> >> OK. Predict the next major taxonomic change for homo sapiens.
> >> > I predict that there will be slightly less than the neutral rate of > >> > fixation of mutations in the future. The next speciation event, if > >> > any, in humans will produce a slightly different species that will > >> > still be in the Homo genus. To predict what that difference will > >> > be would require knowledge about what environments we will face in > >> > the future and whether we solve facing it biologically or > >> > technologically.
> >> Did you base your "prediction" on a mathematical model, as all > >> reliably predictive sciences do?
> > Yes. The expectations of random mutation rates and random fixation > > rates of neutral mutations. That is the slowest mechanism of genomic > > sequence change. Change due to selection is many times faster. It is > > also the historical rate and is consistent with the percent of the > > genome of humans that is essentially sequence-insensitive (about 97%).
> Baloney. There is no mathematical model of Darwinian evolution over long > time spans.
I said that I based it on neutral change alone. If a population contains a neutral variant allele at a frequency of p, then the probability that that allele will go to fixation is p. [This is the same argument as saying that the probability of rolling a six in an honest dice is 1 in 6, which is the frequency of faces with a six.] A *newly* arisen mutation is present in a population at a frequency of 1/ (2N) where N is population size. The 2 is because we are assuming diploid organisms with two copies of each gene. If that *newly* arisen neutral mutation occurs at a frequency of u per gene per generation, then the number of new such mutations each generation is 2Nu (the population of genes times the rate of mutation to the new allele). That makes the steady state rate of fixation in a population = to u. That is, it is rate of fixation X number of new neutral mutations each generation: [1/(2N) X (2Nu]. Look in any population genetics textbook.
The rate of fixation of an allele undergoing non-neutral positive selection (or the rate of loss of alleles undergoing non-neutral negative selection) is dependent upon the relative fitness of the phenotypes produced and (in either direction) is necessarily faster than fixation due to drift. There are really only two possible rates of change in genomes over time (the rate due to neutral fixation and the faster rates when there is significant selection acting on the alleles). In fact, that is how *selection* is identified -- it produces a rate of change significantly faster than neutral drift.
> Again, who do you think you're talking to?
An ignorant and arrogant creationist. What did you think? Did you somehow delude yourself into thinking that I regarded you as the genius *you* think you are in your own mind?
> >> As far as I know, there is no mathematical model > >> for long-term Darwinian evolution. The reason being that, as you > >> pointed out, there is virtually no DNA evidence from ancient fossils, > >> nor can we observe what will happen over the next million years. So > >> it is impossible to verify any such mathematical model.
> > The fossil record is an indicator of *when* certain divergence events > > occurred. The amount of genomic difference in living systems > > correlates amazingly well with that evidence. So well that, with > > certain known limitations, one can use the amount of genomic > > difference as a rough clock to estimate time of divergence. Which > > helps us know where to look for ancestral forms intermediate between > > two living groups. Most of this is based on *neutral* change (random > > mutation and random fixation). The rate of mutation is measurable. > > The probability of fixation is also determined by mutation rate. > > Mathematically, the calculation is based on the same types of > > probability analysis that allows one to predict the odds of getting a > > seven in craps or heads in an honest coin flip.
> Baloney. The fossil record is the last thing anyone will use to determine > "when" anything happened. Every time a new fossil is discovered, the > "when" has to be revised, up or down. It's even worse than Hubble's > "constant".
It only has to be revised if the new fossil is found either before the earliest previously found fossil or after the most recent previously found fossil. Before and after is determined by either position in strata (which is a qualitative 'older than and 'younger than' methodology) or by radiodating (which gives quantitative values of age). Most fossils of particular species (as indicated by the admittedly imperfect idea of similarity in parts that fossilize) are only found in a relatively small range, with the ranges not being uniform in either points in time or length of time, as would be expected for a process of historical descent with modification.
> >> If you did not use a mathematical model, then I suggest that > >> Darwinist claims of the "theory's" predictive power are quite > >> premature, whether applied to past, present or future evolutions.
> You did not use any mathematical model. Stop bullshitting me or I won't > reply to you any more.
Do you really think your ignorance of population genetics makes you a genius?
> >>> On Nov 5, 5:190m, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote: > >>>> hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote > >>>> innews:c6e8468d-9592-45c6-b501-960b8 > >>> 95c3fbd@w19g2000
> [snip]
> >>OK. So you will stipulate that Homo Habilis is an ancestor of Homo > > Sapiens. > >>It follows that there is a direct sequence of generations from some > >>particular Homo Habilis to some particular Homo Sapiens. Then there > >>must > > be > >>a point in that sequence at which the creature was no longer Homo > > Habilis, > >>but its parents were Homo Habilis.
Let me re-point out that there is at least one intervening species (H. erectus) that has properties intermediate between H. habilis and H. sapiens. Let again point out that the species part of the binomial nomenclature is not capitalized, as any biology student would know.
> > No.
> > There were points in time when the population were all Habilis and a > > time when they were all Sapiens. Where you draw the line between one > > and another in between those two times it is impossible to say.
> Sorry, but organisms are not a continuum. They are discrete individual > units.
Yes. They are individuals that vary from each other as well as their parents. The populations, past and present, that are *labelled* H. sapiens vary geographically in the modern populations (any physical anthropologist worth his or her PhD will be able to identify *modern* human races) and also temporally (archaic fossils labelled H. sapiens differ from modern bones labelled H. sapiens in ways that experts can identify). However, it is somewhat more difficult to clearly distinguish between recent H. erectus fossils and archaic H. sapiens fossils.
> They do not vaguely blend into one another. They have individual, > discrete ancestors and individual discrete descendants.
Individuals do. But *species* is a collection of such variable individuals that are distinguished by broad *common* features they share. But these common features are not *universal*. There are outliers. And the features used to identify and name a *species* is not stable in time either. In the hominid lineage, many of these identifying characters are quantitative in nature.
> >>This means that perforce one species did > >>indeed give birth to another species in one generation.
> > No, doesn't happen like that.
> Yes. It must happen like that according to Darwinism. Otherwise, the > premise that species have an origin is false, since without discrete > species there is no "origin".
According to evolution, there will be past *populations* with individuals that are difficult to identify using the criteria that work well with modern reproductively isolated species. That is, there will be a fuzzy boundary in the *species* defining features.
> >>Or are you going to now claim that Homo Sapiens is merely "another > >>kind > > of > >>Homo Habilis"? What is the explanatory power of that?
> > Well, to a certain extent, yes. Look at it like this.
> > We will atart with a population of people we consider in every way > > normal today. No, assume a mutation which reduces the effect of > > cholesterol on the body, cutting the risk if heart disease. After a > > few generations that mutation becomes reasonably widespread in the > > local population so that, when the diet of the population changes, as > > the result of McDonalds opening a lot of outlets in the area, those > > with the mutation live longer and raise more kids. Maybe, after a long > > time, all the population will have the mutated gene.
> They are still Homo Sapiens. They have not evolved into a new species.
Speciation requires particular types of mutations -- those that produce reproductive isolation over time. Those rarely fossilize well. Chronospecies are more arbitrary and are based on the presence of differences in fossils large enough that they *likely* would be different species today. With single or a small number of specimens, this could be wrong. But the difficulty in defining the difference between recent H. erectus and archaic H. sapiens is real evidence of change over time.
> > Now of course, that is just one small mutation, you would need more > > than that (usually) to make a new species. But it does illustrate the > > point - there is no dividing line between the two populations.
> > Oh, by the way, the mutation is one that has actually been found in > > Italy.
> That's nice, but no new species originated.
By the BSC definition, species have been created. But you seem to be using the typical 'dog giving birth to a cat' definition that creationists always think is the height of reason.
John Harshman wrote: > Kent Paul Dolan wrote: >> John Harshman wrote: >> > Kent Paul Dolan wrote: >> >> In response to the thread:
>> >> Evolution's nervous breakdown.
>> >> but retitled to highlight a different aspect of >> >> what was achieved in hershryh's excellent News >> >> article.
>> >> hersheyh wrote: >> >>> Some self-absorbed moron wrote:
>> >>>> Who said natural selection is a valid method
>> >>> 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.
>> >>> 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.
>> >>> 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.
>> >>> 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.
>> >>> 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.]
>> >>>> or even a valid method God would use?
>> >>> If there is a God, it is necessary that he uses >> >>> natural selection because natural selection >> >>> exists in the real world.
>> >> [I fixed up your item numbering.]
>> >> Besides earning you a well deserved POTM >> >> nomination, it is well worth noting that you have >> >> _also_ provided _five_ ways to falsify the Theory >> >> of Evolution, thus completely debunking the >> >> frequent mendacious creationist claim that the >> >> ToE is somehow "unfalsifiable".
>> > Actually, those are five ways to falsify the >> > theory of natural selection. Don't confuse that >> > with the theory of evolution.
>> Umm, with ToE roughly== RM+NS, how does falsifying >> NS _not_ falsify the ToE?
> Looks like Howard answered that pretty well already. In short, your > initial assumption is wrong. The ToE is not roughly == RM+NS. There's > much more to it than that, and much of that would still be valid if both > RM and NS were shown wrong. Common descent, for example.
But NS is what distinguishes the ToE from Intelligent Design. (Behe accepts evolution of species from common descent.)
And we've had "backspace" on this NG arguing that NS is a tautology.
So yes, it's NS, not the rest of the ToE, that's the big issue.
-- Steven L. Email: sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Steven L. wrote: > John Harshman wrote: >> Kent Paul Dolan wrote: >>> John Harshman wrote: >>> > Kent Paul Dolan wrote: >>> >> In response to the thread:
>>> >> Evolution's nervous breakdown.
>>> >> but retitled to highlight a different aspect of >>> >> what was achieved in hershryh's excellent News >>> >> article.
>>> >> hersheyh wrote: >>> >>> Some self-absorbed moron wrote:
>>> >>>> Who said natural selection is a valid method
>>> >>> 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.
>>> >>> 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.
>>> >>> 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.
>>> >>> 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.
>>> >>> 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.]
>>> >>>> or even a valid method God would use?
>>> >>> If there is a God, it is necessary that he uses >>> >>> natural selection because natural selection >>> >>> exists in the real world.
>>> >> [I fixed up your item numbering.]
>>> >> Besides earning you a well deserved POTM >>> >> nomination, it is well worth noting that you have >>> >> _also_ provided _five_ ways to falsify the Theory >>> >> of Evolution, thus completely debunking the >>> >> frequent mendacious creationist claim that the >>> >> ToE is somehow "unfalsifiable".
>>> > Actually, those are five ways to falsify the >>> > theory of natural selection. Don't confuse that >>> > with the theory of evolution.
>>> Umm, with ToE roughly== RM+NS, how does falsifying >>> NS _not_ falsify the ToE?
>> Looks like Howard answered that pretty well already. In short, your >> initial assumption is wrong. The ToE is not roughly == RM+NS. There's >> much more to it than that, and much of that would still be valid if >> both RM and NS were shown wrong. Common descent, for example.
> But NS is what distinguishes the ToE from Intelligent Design. (Behe > accepts evolution of species from common descent.)
> And we've had "backspace" on this NG arguing that NS is a tautology.
> So yes, it's NS, not the rest of the ToE, that's the big issue.
Creationists argue about this among themselves. Most of them think that theistic evolution is still evolution, and to hell with it. BS rejects common descent too. Behe is an outlier. Why he refuses to call himself a theistic evolutionist is beyond me, unless it's for political reasons.
> Steven L. wrote: > > John Harshman wrote: > >> Kent Paul Dolan wrote: > >>> John Harshman wrote: > >>> > Kent Paul Dolan wrote: > >>> >> In response to the thread:
> >>> >> Evolution's nervous breakdown.
> >>> >> but retitled to highlight a different aspect of > >>> >> what was achieved in hershryh's excellent News > >>> >> article.
> >>> >>>> Who said natural selection is a valid method
> >>> >>> 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.
> >>> >>> 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.
> >>> >>> 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.
> >>> >>> 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.
> >>> >>> 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.]
> >>> >>>> or even a valid method God would use?
> >>> >>> If there is a God, it is necessary that he uses > >>> >>> natural selection because natural selection > >>> >>> exists in the real world.
> >>> >> [I fixed up your item numbering.]
> >>> >> Besides earning you a well deserved POTM > >>> >> nomination, it is well worth noting that you have > >>> >> _also_ provided _five_ ways to falsify the Theory > >>> >> of Evolution, thus completely debunking the > >>> >> frequent mendacious creationist claim that the > >>> >> ToE is somehow "unfalsifiable".
> >>> > Actually, those are five ways to falsify the > >>> > theory of natural selection. Don't confuse that > >>> > with the theory of evolution.
> >>> Umm, with ToE roughly== RM+NS, how does falsifying > >>> NS _not_ falsify the ToE?
> >> Looks like Howard answered that pretty well already. In short, your > >> initial assumption is wrong. The ToE is not roughly == RM+NS. There's > >> much more to it than that, and much of that would still be valid if > >> both RM and NS were shown wrong. Common descent, for example.
> > But NS is what distinguishes the ToE from Intelligent Design. (Behe > > accepts evolution of species from common descent.)
> > And we've had "backspace" on this NG arguing that NS is a tautology.
> > So yes, it's NS, not the rest of the ToE, that's the big issue.
> Creationists argue about this among themselves. Most of them think that > theistic evolution is still evolution, and to hell with it. BS rejects > common descent too. Behe is an outlier. Why he refuses to call himself a > theistic evolutionist is beyond me, unless it's for political reasons.- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Behe accepts Intelligent causation to be operating in nature----that's why. Read Black Box (1996): he endorses Paley 1802.
Theistic Evolutionists do not accept Intelligent causation (Creationism) operating in nature. They accept the claims of Darwin. Judge Jones ruled ID to be Creationism.
> On Nov 7, 8:52 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > Steven L. wrote: > > > John Harshman wrote: > > >> Kent Paul Dolan wrote: > > >>> John Harshman wrote: > > >>> > Kent Paul Dolan wrote: > > >>> >> In response to the thread:
> > >>> >> Evolution's nervous breakdown.
> > >>> >> but retitled to highlight a different aspect of > > >>> >> what was achieved in hershryh's excellent News > > >>> >> article.
> > >>> >>>> Who said natural selection is a valid method
> > >>> >>> 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.
> > >>> >>> 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.
> > >>> >>> 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.
> > >>> >>> 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.
> > >>> >>> 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.]
> > >>> >>>> or even a valid method God would use?
> > >>> >>> If there is a God, it is necessary that he uses > > >>> >>> natural selection because natural selection > > >>> >>> exists in the real world.
> > >>> >> [I fixed up your item numbering.]
> > >>> >> Besides earning you a well deserved POTM > > >>> >> nomination, it is well worth noting that you have > > >>> >> _also_ provided _five_ ways to falsify the Theory > > >>> >> of Evolution, thus completely debunking the > > >>> >> frequent mendacious creationist claim that the > > >>> >> ToE is somehow "unfalsifiable".
> > >>> > Actually, those are five ways to falsify the > > >>> > theory of natural selection. Don't confuse that > > >>> > with the theory of evolution.
> > >>> Umm, with ToE roughly== RM+NS, how does falsifying > > >>> NS _not_ falsify the ToE?
> > >> Looks like Howard answered that pretty well already. In short, your > > >> initial assumption is wrong. The ToE is not roughly == RM+NS. There's > > >> much more to it than that, and much of that would still be valid if > > >> both RM and NS were shown wrong. Common descent, for example.
> > > But NS is what distinguishes the ToE from Intelligent Design. (Behe > > > accepts evolution of species from common descent.)
> > > And we've had "backspace" on this NG arguing that NS is a tautology.
> > > So yes, it's NS, not the rest of the ToE, that's the big issue.
> > Creationists argue about this among themselves. Most of them think that > > theistic evolution is still evolution, and to hell with it. BS rejects > > common descent too. Behe is an outlier. Why he refuses to call himself a > > theistic evolutionist is beyond me, unless it's for political reasons.- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
> Behe accepts Intelligent causation to be operating in nature----that's > why. Read Black Box (1996): he endorses Paley 1802.
Behe is wrong, however. You yourself call him a "evolutionist".
> Theistic Evolutionists do not accept Intelligent causation > (Creationism) operating in nature.
Of course, that's wrong. "Intelligent causation" is not the same thing as creationism. Creationism is basically a belief that magic was the cause of everything, whereas "intelligent causation" can include the action of naturally occuring intelligent beings. I don't know of any theistic evolutionist that would deny that human selective breeding has an effect, and can be seen operating in nature.
> They accept the claims of Darwin.
They accept the scientific theory that Darwin outlined, and has grown far beyond Darwin's foundation. Darwin claimed nothing more than the diversity of life can be explained by natural processes, that can be observed, tested, and verified. There's no reason why any sane person should deny such an observation.
> Judge Jones ruled ID to be Creationism.
Judge Jones ruled correctly that ID was a religious belief.
> On Nov 3, 7:01 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 3, 3:15 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 3, 4:00 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 3, 11:37 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 3, 2:05 pm, Kent Paul Dolan <xanth...@well.com> wrote:
> > > > > > In response to the thread:
> > > > > > Evolution's nervous breakdown.
> > > > > > but retitled to highlight a different aspect of what > > > > > > was achieved in hershryh's excellent News article.
> > > > > > hersheyh wrote:
> > > > > > > Some self-absorbed moron wrote:
> > > > > > >> Who said natural selection is a valid method
> > > > > > > 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.
> > > > > > > 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.
> > > > > > > 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.
> > > > > > > 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.
> > > > > > > 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.]
> > > > > > >> or even a valid method God would use?
> > > > > > > If there is a God, it is necessary that he uses > > > > > > > natural selection because natural selection exists > > > > > > > in the real world.
> > > > > > [I fixed up your item numbering.]
> > > > > > Besides earning you a well deserved POTM nomination, > > > > > > it is well worth noting that you have _also_ > > > > > > provided _five_ ways to falsify the Theory of > > > > > > Evolution, thus completely debunking the frequent > > > > > > mendacious creationist claim that the ToE is somehow > > > > > > "unfalsifiable".
> > > > Creationists point out ToE's unfalsifiability based on starting > > > > assumptions.
> > > Scientists point out that the ToE has not been falsified despite being > > > falsifiable *because* its testable assumptions are not false. The > > > assumptions I presented are testable assumptions.
> > The assumption that nature somehow produced itself (Naturalism), which > > then requires some kind of transmutation hypothesis, is not > > falsifiable (only modifiable)----that was the only assumption that I > > was talking about, Howard.
> Where did I make that assumption in my comments on natural selection, > Ray? I don't need to make any such assumption about whether or not > nature somehow produced itself. I only need assume that there is an > independent and knowable real nature wrt how living organisms work. > Those are the assumptions I am checking: that genetic variation really > does exist, that it is generated, that it produces difference in > phenotype, that those differences have consequences in particular > environments as measured as reproductive success. There is no > assumption about nature producing itself there at all.
Yes there is. Natural selection presupposes that nature produces itself. This is why all evolution literature specifies the process to be *natural.*
In the phrase "Natural selection" the first word indicates the assumption. Both words in tandem indicate how nature produces itself, announcing the specifics. In these context "natural" means supernatural is absent. Otherwise said word has no purpose. The fact that you did not know this proves that you are ignorant in basic Philosophy of Science and History of Science.
My experience with you is that you are unteachable and never admit to any mistakes. I am not deleting the remainder of your post below so the audience can see that you really had no idea that the most basic assumption of natural selection and Darwinism is that nature produced itself because Creationism (Creator-did-it) is absent from nature, false.
> Just the > assumption that organisms imperfectly reproduce and that environments > affect the extent of that reproduction.
> > Once transmutation is accepted it is NOT > > falsifiable. Phenomena is always explained as supporting the > > assumption and its explanatory concept.
> This is incoherent bullshit signifying nothing and related to nothing > I said. It is nothing but your own delusions.
> > > Moreover, I > > > specifically pointed out conditions where natural selection does not > > > work and stated that such states do exist in the real world.
> > So did Darwin. That's why he repeatedly said natural selection was the > > main but not the exclusive means of evolutionary change. The > > underlying *premise* that nature produced itself is not falsifiable.
> It is not even relevant. I do assume that living organisms reproduce > (imperfectly). You are certainly free to pretend that they don't, but > rational people know differently. The fact that they do has necessary > or predicted consequences that can be tested.
> > Once *that* assumption is accepted it is not subject to falsification.
> It is not even an assumption that I made. In fact, I am not even sure > what you mean by it.
> > The same is true with Creationism: once the premise of ID is > > postulated to explain nature it is not subject to falsification.
> ID is not subject to falsification because it is a non-explanation > that posits invisible entities doing unspecified somethings at > unspecified times and places that somehow magically produce whatever > we see. Such a nebulous non-explanation is inherently unfalsifiable. > It is not even wrong. But perhaps you will be the first to provide > the necessary specificity of prediction that will allow it to be > tested. I doubt it, but go ahead.
> > > It is creationism, which is vague (at best) about anything testable, > > > that is unfalsifiable. How do you falsify an explanation that says > > > that an invisible undetectable something did something at some time > > > that somehow produced whatever we see?
> > You can't UNLESS you are well versed in the historic claims of natural > > theology. These claims are virtually lost to the neo-Darwinian > > mindset. But Darwin knew them. He attacked them in the Origin.
> And these testable claims, the mysterious missing historic claims of > natural theology, are?> > When creationism actually > > > makes testable claims (as YEC does), those claims are demonstrably > > > false.
> > YECism is pseudoscience.
> > Ray
> > > > Once the concept of evolution is accepted to explain > > > > nature it is not falsifiable, only modifiable.
> > > I have, above, described in detail how to falsify the very existence > > > of 'natural selection'. I note that you have not presented any > > > evidence to falsify natural selection.
> > > > Ray
> > > > > I would only say that I have tossed off a few ways to falsify the > > > > > possibility of natural selection. That would rule out evolution by > > > > > the mechanism of natural selection, but would not rule out other > > > > > possible mechanisms. It also would not rule
> On Nov 3, 3:00 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 3, 11:37 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 3, 2:05 pm, Kent Paul Dolan <xanth...@well.com> wrote:
> > > > In response to the thread:
> > > > Evolution's nervous breakdown.
> > > > but retitled to highlight a different aspect of what > > > > was achieved in hershryh's excellent News article.
> > > > hersheyh wrote:
> > > > > Some self-absorbed moron wrote:
> > > > >> Who said natural selection is a valid method
> > > > > 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.
> > > > > 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.
> > > > > 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.
> > > > > 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.
> > > > > 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.]
> > > > >> or even a valid method God would use?
> > > > > If there is a God, it is necessary that he uses > > > > > natural selection because natural selection exists > > > > > in the real world.
> > > > [I fixed up your item numbering.]
> > > > Besides earning you a well deserved POTM nomination, > > > > it is well worth noting that you have _also_ > > > > provided _five_ ways to falsify the Theory of > > > > Evolution, thus completely debunking the frequent > > > > mendacious creationist claim that the ToE is somehow > > > > "unfalsifiable".
> > Creationists point out ToE's unfalsifiability based on starting > > assumptions. Once the concept of evolution is accepted to explain > > nature it is not falsifiable, only modifiable.
> > Ray
> Correct. For one thing they assume divergence speciation happens.
> It does not.
> There is not a single shred of evidence for that unless one smokes all > of the local herb in Mexico and begins to hallucinates.- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Of course it is an assumption. Darwinism assumes nature produced itself because Creationism is rejected.
The explanation of speciation is ridiculous and unbelievable. But, since nature HAD to produce itself Darwinists must offer an explanation. The ridiculousness of the explanation is the evidence that the assumption that nature produced itself is false.
And I might add Adman: microevolution is also an assumption. How is it that you can recognize the lunacy seen in speciation assumptions and explanations but fail to see the same in microevolution?
Evolution is Atheism ideology from start to finish. "Christian"evolutionists are fools and buffoons. I am glad that the Fundies accept evolution. There is nothing amiss about Atheists and Fundies in bed together.
On Nov 7, 12:40 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 3, 8:59 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
snip
> > Where did I make that assumption in my comments on natural selection, > > Ray? I don't need to make any such assumption about whether or not > > nature somehow produced itself. I only need assume that there is an > > independent and knowable real nature wrt how living organisms work. > > Those are the assumptions I am checking: that genetic variation really > > does exist, that it is generated, that it produces difference in > > phenotype, that those differences have consequences in particular > > environments as measured as reproductive success. There is no > > assumption about nature producing itself there at all.
> Yes there is. Natural selection presupposes that nature produces > itself. This is why all evolution literature specifies the process to > be *natural.*
All scientific theories specify that the processes involved be natural. The supernatural is beyond the abilty of science to address. Natural selection is just one of the mechanisms of evolutionary change.
> In the phrase "Natural selection" the first word indicates the > assumption.
It was intended to differentiate between artificial selection, as done by humans.
> Both words in tandem indicate how nature produces itself, > announcing the specifics.
However natural selection doesn't apply to all of nature, only to the process of adaptive change in populations.
> In these context "natural" means > supernatural is absent.
Ray, this is another mistake you keep making. "Natural" does not mean "the supernaturl is absent". There's no way anyone can determine that. Natural only means that the supernatural is not being used as an explanation. Not being present, and not being invoked as an explanation are two separate ideas.
> Otherwise said word has no purpose.
Again, "natural selection" was used to contrast artificial selection, as in human choosing traits useful to humans.
> The fact > that you did not know this proves that you are ignorant in basic > Philosophy of Science and History of Science.
The fact you keep making the same mistake proves that you have a problem with learning. Your own misconceptions about history and philsophy are of no consequence to others.
> My experience with you is that you are unteachable and never admit to > any mistakes.
Ray, do you see that this is projection?
> I am not deleting the remainder of your post below so > the audience can see that you really had no idea that the most basic > assumption of natural selection and Darwinism is that nature produced > itself because Creationism (Creator-did-it) is absent from nature, > false.
"Creator did it" doesn't answer any questions. It just abandons any pretence of doing science. You still haven't faced the question of why can't God use evolution as a means of creating.
> On Nov 3, 5:05 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 3, 3:00 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 3, 11:37 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 3, 2:05 pm, Kent Paul Dolan <xanth...@well.com> wrote:
> > > > > In response to the thread:
> > > > > Evolution's nervous breakdown.
> > > > > but retitled to highlight a different aspect of what > > > > > was achieved in hershryh's excellent News article.
> > > > > hersheyh wrote:
> > > > > > Some self-absorbed moron wrote:
> > > > > >> Who said natural selection is a valid method
> > > > > > 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.
> > > > > > 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.
> > > > > > 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.
> > > > > > 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.
> > > > > > 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.]
> > > > > >> or even a valid method God would use?
> > > > > > If there is a God, it is necessary that he uses > > > > > > natural selection because natural selection exists > > > > > > in the real world.
> > > > > [I fixed up your item numbering.]
> > > > > Besides earning you a well deserved POTM nomination, > > > > > it is well worth noting that you have _also_ > > > > > provided _five_ ways to falsify the Theory of > > > > > Evolution, thus completely debunking the frequent > > > > > mendacious creationist claim that the ToE is somehow > > > > > "unfalsifiable".
> > > Creationists point out ToE's unfalsifiability based on starting > > > assumptions. Once the concept of evolution is accepted to explain > > > nature it is not falsifiable, only modifiable.
> > > Ray
> > Correct. For one thing they assume divergence speciation happens.
> > It does not.
> > There is not a single shred of evidence for that unless one smokes all > > of the local herb in Mexico and begins to hallucinates.- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
> Of course it is an assumption. Darwinism assumes nature produced > itself because Creationism is rejected.
No, science requires there to be natural explanations for natural events. Creationism was rejected because it was a useless concept, and because it was contradicted by the evidence.
Nature isn't an object, it's a set of observations about the universe. The processes by which nature operates can be studied, and explanations for those processes tested. Saying "Goddidit" is abandoning any attempt to learn.
> The explanation of speciation is ridiculous and unbelievable.
Yet, you've never been able to show why it's either. Speciation happens when a population accrues enough genetic change so that it's unable to breed with the parent population. You seem to agree that variation happens, and that changes can be passed on to the next generation. If you accept that, what is "ridiculous" or "unbelievable" about the process?
> But, > since nature HAD to produce itself Darwinists must offer an > explanation.
Science is like that. It doesn't simply accept "it was magic" as an answer.
> The ridiculousness of the explanation is the evidence > that the assumption that nature produced itself is false.
You merely assert that it's "ridiculous" but can't show why. The processes that nature operates under don't require a magical explanation. Why are you settling for a useless concept?
> And I might add Adman: microevolution is also an assumption.
No, it's an observed process.
> How is it > that you can recognize the lunacy seen in speciation assumptions and > explanations but fail to see the same in microevolution?
Because he's not as deluded as you are?
> Evolution is Atheism ideology from start to finish.
No amount of repeating a falsehood makes it true, Ray. Evolution can be used by theists, and atheists equally well. If it were "atheism ideology" it would state that God doesn't exist. Evolution doesn't do that.
> "Christian"evolutionists are fools and buffoons.
Then why are you wearing the red nose, and clown shoes, Ray?
> I am glad that the > Fundies accept evolution. There is nothing amiss about Atheists and > Fundies in bed together.
Except that you are in that bed, Ray. You agree with some atheists that if God is not visible, then God doesn't exist. You don't have the faith to believe that God can use any process he wishes to create. You run away from the evidence, and try to limit God's powers.
If you want to claim that "fundies" are in bed with atheists, you need to explain what you are doing under the same covers.
Ray Martinez wrote: >>>>> Creationists point out ToE's unfalsifiability based on starting >>>>> assumptions. >>>> Scientists point out that the ToE has not been falsified despite being >>>> falsifiable *because* its testable assumptions are not false. The >>>> assumptions I presented are testable assumptions. >>> The assumption that nature somehow produced itself (Naturalism), which >>> then requires some kind of transmutation hypothesis, is not >>> falsifiable (only modifiable)----that was the only assumption that I >>> was talking about, Howard. >> Where did I make that assumption in my comments on natural selection, >> Ray? I don't need to make any such assumption about whether or not >> nature somehow produced itself. I only need assume that there is an >> independent and knowable real nature wrt how living organisms work. >> Those are the assumptions I am checking: that genetic variation really >> does exist, that it is generated, that it produces difference in >> phenotype, that those differences have consequences in particular >> environments as measured as reproductive success. There is no >> assumption about nature producing itself there at all.
> Yes there is. Natural selection presupposes that nature produces > itself. This is why all evolution literature specifies the process to > be *natural.*
> In the phrase "Natural selection" the first word indicates the > assumption. Both words in tandem indicate how nature produces itself, > announcing the specifics. In these context "natural" means > supernatural is absent. Otherwise said word has no purpose.
Sure has, to distinguish it from "artificial selection", also known as "breeding"
> On Nov 3, 8:59 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 3, 7:01 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 3, 3:15 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 3, 4:00 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 3, 11:37 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Nov 3, 2:05 pm, Kent Paul Dolan <xanth...@well.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > In response to the thread:
> > > > > > > Evolution's nervous breakdown.
> > > > > > > but retitled to highlight a different aspect of what > > > > > > > was achieved in hershryh's excellent News article.
> > > > > > > hersheyh wrote:
> > > > > > > > Some self-absorbed moron wrote:
> > > > > > > >> Who said natural selection is a valid method
> > > > > > > > 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.
> > > > > > > > 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.
> > > > > > > > 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.
> > > > > > > > 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.
> > > > > > > > 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.]
> > > > > > > >> or even a valid method God would use?
> > > > > > > > If there is a God, it is necessary that he uses > > > > > > > > natural selection because natural selection exists > > > > > > > > in the real world.
> > > > > > > [I fixed up your item numbering.]
> > > > > > > Besides earning you a well deserved POTM nomination, > > > > > > > it is well worth noting that you have _also_ > > > > > > > provided _five_ ways to falsify the Theory of > > > > > > > Evolution, thus completely debunking the frequent > > > > > > > mendacious creationist claim that the ToE is somehow > > > > > > > "unfalsifiable".
> > > > > Creationists point out ToE's unfalsifiability based on starting > > > > > assumptions.
> > > > Scientists point out that the ToE has not been falsified despite being > > > > falsifiable *because* its testable assumptions are not false. The > > > > assumptions I presented are testable assumptions.
> > > The assumption that nature somehow produced itself (Naturalism), which > > > then requires some kind of transmutation hypothesis, is not > > > falsifiable (only modifiable)----that was the only assumption that I > > > was talking about, Howard.
> > Where did I make that assumption in my comments on natural selection, > > Ray? I don't need to make any such assumption about whether or not > > nature somehow produced itself. I only need assume that there is an > > independent and knowable real nature wrt how living organisms work. > > Those are the assumptions I am checking: that genetic variation really > > does exist, that it is generated, that it produces difference in > > phenotype, that those differences have consequences in particular > > environments as measured as reproductive success. There is no > > assumption about nature producing itself there at all.
> Yes there is. Natural selection presupposes that nature produces > itself. This is why all evolution literature specifies the process to > be *natural.*
Natural selection certainly does not presuppose that *all* nature produces itself. Natural selection is a phenomenon that is limited to biological organisms and has nothing to do with the fact that 2H2 + O2 => 2H2O when the energy of activation (a match) starts the process. It has nothing to do with the fact that gravity will lead to you demise if you walk out the 23rd story window. It has nothing to do with the fact that stars of certain sizes will generate energy by fusion. Those are also all "natural" phenomena, but not "natural selection". If you do not think that natural selection occurs, the real phenomenon and not whatever you think "natural selection" means, you need to look at the assumptions of *that* phenomenon. I have presented those assumptions. Do you or do you not think that *natural selection* occurs in populations of biological organisms?
> In the phrase "Natural selection" the first word indicates the > assumption.
Then I guess there is also "natural chemistry", "natural geology", "natural gravity", and "natural reproduction" and "natural everything that is actually found to happen in nature".
> Both words in tandem indicate how nature produces itself, > announcing the specifics. In these context "natural" means > supernatural is absent.
Well, usually it is used in the context of not being manipulated by humans, as in what is called "artificial selection". No science, not chemistry, not geology, not physics, deals with the "supernatural". All "natural" science is constrained to only deal with "natural" events, "natural" evidence, and "natural" explanations. That is a constraint on science, the constraint of *methodological* naturalism.
> Otherwise said word has no purpose. The fact > that you did not know this proves that you are ignorant in basic > Philosophy of Science and History of Science.
And you, sir, are the one who is ignorant of, well, pretty much everything, including the Philosophy of Science and the History of Science. In fact, you are filled with negative knowledge and would have to unlearn most of what you think you know to reach the point of merely being ignorant.
> My experience with you is that you are unteachable and never admit to > any mistakes.
No. I have previously admitted mistakes in this forum. You, OTOH, still think cannibals are having a Baal in Canna.
Does *natural selection* (the biological phenomenon described as such) exist or doesn't it? I say that it does.
> I am not deleting the remainder of your post below so > the audience can see that you really had no idea that the most basic > assumption of natural selection and Darwinism is that nature produced > itself because Creationism (Creator-did-it) is absent from nature, > false.
> Ray
> > Just the > > assumption that organisms imperfectly reproduce and that environments > > affect the extent of that reproduction.
> > > Once transmutation is accepted it is NOT > > > falsifiable. Phenomena is always explained as supporting the > > > assumption and its explanatory concept.
> > This is incoherent bullshit signifying nothing and related to nothing > > I said. It is nothing but your own delusions.
> > > > Moreover, I > > > > specifically pointed out conditions where natural selection does not > > > > work and stated that such states do exist in the real world.
> > > So did Darwin. That's why he repeatedly said natural selection was the > > > main but not the exclusive means of evolutionary change. The > > > underlying *premise* that nature produced itself is not falsifiable.
> > It is not even relevant. I do assume that living organisms
> On Nov 7, 2:40 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 3, 8:59 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 3, 7:01 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 3, 3:15 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 3, 4:00 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Nov 3, 11:37 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Nov 3, 2:05 pm, Kent Paul Dolan <xanth...@well.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > In response to the thread:
> > > > > > > > Evolution's nervous breakdown.
> > > > > > > > but retitled to highlight a different aspect of what > > > > > > > > was achieved in hershryh's excellent News article.
> > > > > > > > hersheyh wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Some self-absorbed moron wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> Who said natural selection is a valid method
> > > > > > > > > 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.
> > > > > > > > > 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.
> > > > > > > > > 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.
> > > > > > > > > 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.
> > > > > > > > > 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.]
> > > > > > > > >> or even a valid method God would use?
> > > > > > > > > If there is a God, it is necessary that he uses > > > > > > > > > natural selection because natural selection exists > > > > > > > > > in the real world.
> > > > > > > > [I fixed up your item numbering.]
> > > > > > > > Besides earning you a well deserved POTM nomination, > > > > > > > > it is well worth noting that you have _also_ > > > > > > > > provided _five_ ways to falsify the Theory of > > > > > > > > Evolution, thus completely debunking the frequent > > > > > > > > mendacious creationist claim that the ToE is somehow > > > > > > > > "unfalsifiable".
> > > > > > Creationists point out ToE's unfalsifiability based on starting > > > > > > assumptions.
> > > > > Scientists point out that the ToE has not been falsified despite being > > > > > falsifiable *because* its testable assumptions are not false. The > > > > > assumptions I presented are testable assumptions.
> > > > The assumption that nature somehow produced itself (Naturalism), which > > > > then requires some kind of transmutation hypothesis, is not > > > > falsifiable (only modifiable)----that was the only assumption that I > > > > was talking about, Howard.
> > > Where did I make that assumption in my comments on natural selection, > > > Ray? I don't need to make any such assumption about whether or not > > > nature somehow produced itself. I only need assume that there is an > > > independent and knowable real nature wrt how living organisms work. > > > Those are the assumptions I am checking: that genetic variation really > > > does exist, that it is generated, that it produces difference in > > > phenotype, that those differences have consequences in particular > > > environments as measured as reproductive success. There is no > > > assumption about nature producing itself there at all.
> > Yes there is. Natural selection presupposes that nature produces > > itself. This is why all evolution literature specifies the process to > > be *natural.*
> Natural selection certainly does not presuppose that *all* nature > produces itself.
Yes it does. You are making a foolish mistake. To say otherwise means God had a hand.
Lewontin has said that science cannot let a Divine Foot in the door anymore.
> Natural selection is a phenomenon that is limited to > biological organisms and has nothing to do with the fact that 2H2 + O2 > => 2H2O when the energy of activation (a match) starts the process. > It has nothing to do with the fact that gravity will lead to you > demise if you walk out the 23rd story window. It has nothing to do > with the fact that stars of certain sizes will generate energy by > fusion. Those are also all "natural" phenomena, but not "natural > selection". If you do not think that natural selection occurs, the > real phenomenon and not whatever you think "natural selection" means, > you need to look at the assumptions of *that* phenomenon. I have > presented those assumptions. Do you or do you not think that *natural > selection* occurs in populations of biological organisms?
Now you are engaged in bait-and-switch (whether you know it or not). You have conflated other valid meanings of the word "natural" to be talking about natural causation or causation that originates in and by nature itself. "Natural phenomena" (which you provide examples) has departed our subject of natural causation or nature producing itself.
> > In the phrase "Natural selection" the first word indicates the > > assumption.
> Then I guess there is also "natural chemistry", "natural geology", > "natural gravity", and "natural reproduction" and "natural everything > that is actually found to happen in nature".
> > Both words in tandem indicate how nature produces itself, > > announcing the specifics. In these context "natural" means > > supernatural is absent.
> Well, usually it is used in the context of not being manipulated by > humans, as in what is called "artificial selection".
Yes, which also presupposes absence of Divine Intelligence. Darwin was attempting to say that material nature behaves the same MINUS intelligence (= God).
> No science, not > chemistry, not geology, not physics, deals with the "supernatural".
Since the rise of Darwinism----yes.
> All "natural" science is constrained to only deal with "natural" > events, "natural" evidence, and "natural" explanations. That is a > constraint on science, the constraint of *methodological* naturalism.
Since 1859----yes.
"Natural" means absence of supernatural. Otherwise, as an adjective, it has no purpose. "Natural phenomena" as used by you earlier is referring to generic reality.
> > Otherwise said word has no purpose. The fact > > that you did not know this proves that you are ignorant in basic > > Philosophy of Science and History of Science.
> And you, sir, are the one who is ignorant of, well, pretty much > everything, including the Philosophy of Science and the History of > Science. In fact, you are filled with negative knowledge and would > have to unlearn most of what you think you know to reach the point of > merely being ignorant.
> > My experience with you is that you are unteachable and never admit to > > any mistakes.
> No. I have previously admitted mistakes in this forum. You, OTOH, > still think cannibals are having a Baal in Canna.
On Nov 7, 9:37 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 7, 5:34 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Natural selection certainly does not presuppose that *all* nature > > produces itself.
> Yes it does. You are making a foolish mistake. To say otherwise means > God had a hand.
> Lewontin has said that science cannot let a Divine Foot in the door > anymore.
hey ray...
evolution isn't all of science. lewontin is correct; NO science lets the divine in the door
you guys had 2000 years of foolishness with your wizard of oz view of nature. you failed. not a SINGLE feature of nature is explained by creationism.
I have
> > presented those assumptions. Do you or do you not think that *natural > > selection* occurs in populations of biological organisms?
> Now you are engaged in bait-and-switch (whether you know it or not). > You have conflated other valid meanings of the word "natural" to be > talking about natural causation or causation that originates in and by > nature itself. "Natural phenomena" (which you provide examples) has > departed our subject of natural causation or nature producing itself.
first you talk about natural SELECTION
THEN you talk about NATURAL CAUSATION
ray's a religious fanatic and can't understand that these are not identical
creationism destroys language. creationists have a byzantine, and ultimately useless language capability
> > > In the phrase "Natural selection" the first word indicates the > > > assumption.
> > Then I guess there is also "natural chemistry", "natural geology", > > "natural gravity", and "natural reproduction" and "natural everything > > that is actually found to happen in nature".
notice ray doesn't address this totally valid point..a central idea because it destroys ray's view of science
> > No science, not > > chemistry, not geology, not physics, deals with the "supernatural".
> Since the rise of Darwinism----yes.
and how successful has science been since darwin?
pretty damn successful, compared to creationism.
ray thinks science, before darwin, was more advanced than it is today.
wonder what they used for computers back then
creationism leads to this backwards view of logic...
On Nov 7, 7:37 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote: snip
> > Natural selection certainly does not presuppose that *all* nature > > produces itself.
> Yes it does. You are making a foolish mistake. To say otherwise means > God had a hand.
Ray, when it comes to making foolish mistakes, no one is your equal. Natural selection refers to how adaptive changes are fixed in populations, not about how "nature" is produced. Science can't say that God had a hand, or God didn't have a hand in nature.
> Lewontin has said that science cannot let a Divine Foot in the door > anymore.
As usual you misunderstand what was being said. The "divine foot" was never part of science in the first place. Questions about the actions of God, or gods is beyond all science.
> > Natural selection is a phenomenon that is limited to > > biological organisms and has nothing to do with the fact that 2H2 + O2 > > => 2H2O when the energy of activation (a match) starts the process. > > It has nothing to do with the fact that gravity will lead to you > > demise if you walk out the 23rd story window. It has nothing to do > > with the fact that stars of certain sizes will generate energy by > > fusion. Those are also all "natural" phenomena, but not "natural > > selection". If you do not think that natural selection occurs, the > > real phenomenon and not whatever you think "natural selection" means, > > you need to look at the assumptions of *that* phenomenon. I have > > presented those assumptions. Do you or do you not think that *natural > > selection* occurs in populations of biological organisms?
> Now you are engaged in bait-and-switch (whether you know it or not).
No, you are just wrong, Ray.
> You have conflated other valid meanings of the word "natural" to be > talking about natural causation or causation that originates in and by > nature itself. "Natural phenomena" (which you provide examples) has > departed our subject of natural causation or nature producing itself.
"Nature" is the name given to the observed phenomena all around us. Science is the process of finding natural explanations for natural events. The only causation that can be observed is natural causation. The only causation that ever has been observed is natural causation. If there is a supernatural being behind it all, that being is using "natural causation".
> > > In the phrase "Natural selection" the first word indicates the > > > assumption.
> > Then I guess there is also "natural chemistry", "natural geology", > > "natural gravity", and "natural reproduction" and "natural everything > > that is actually found to happen in nature".
> > > Both words in tandem indicate how nature produces itself, > > > announcing the specifics. In these context "natural" means > > > supernatural is absent.
> > Well, usually it is used in the context of not being manipulated by > > humans, as in what is called "artificial selection".
> Yes, which also presupposes absence of Divine Intelligence.
No, as "divine intelligence" is an assumption beyond the ability of science to determine. You can't presume it's absence if you can't tell if it's there or not.
> Darwin was > attempting to say that material nature behaves the same MINUS > intelligence (= God).
Darwin was saying that one doesn't have to invoke supernatural influences to explain the diversity of life, just as Newton said one doesn't have to invoke supenatural influences to explain gravity, or Pasteur said you don't have to invoke supernatural influences to explain diseases.
This is not saying that God must be absent, all it says is that you don't need to resort to an untestable, subjective concept to explain nature.
> > No science, not > > chemistry, not geology, not physics, deals with the "supernatural".
> Since the rise of Darwinism----yes.
No, long before Darwin, science did not deal with the supernatural. Science CANNOT deal with the supernatural, as it's beyond the boundries of science.
> > All "natural" science is constrained to only deal with "natural" > > events, "natural" evidence, and "natural" explanations. That is a > > constraint on science, the constraint of *methodological* naturalism.
> Since 1859----yes.
Wrong again, Ray. Science cannot operate without methodological naturalism. This was understood by scientists centuries before Darwin.
> "Natural" means absence of supernatural.
No, it means by means that can be observed, and tested.
> Otherwise, as an adjective, > it has no purpose. "Natural phenomena" as used by you earlier is > referring to generic reality.
Usually the term is used to differentiate between man made, and non man made processes and objects. Of course, man is a natural being as well.
> > > Otherwise said word has no purpose. The fact > > > that you did not know this proves that you are ignorant in basic > > > Philosophy of Science and History of Science.
> > And you, sir, are the one who is ignorant of, well, pretty much > > everything, including the Philosophy of Science and the History of > > Science. In fact, you are filled with negative knowledge and would > > have to unlearn most of what you think you know to reach the point of > > merely being ignorant.
> > > My experience with you is that you are unteachable and never admit to > > > any mistakes.
> > No. I have previously admitted mistakes in this forum. You, OTOH, > > still think cannibals are having a Baal in Canna.
> > Does *natural selection* (the biological phenomenon described as such) > > exist or doesn't it? I say that it does.
> NS does not exist.
This is a foolish comment. Natural selection is a fact, and can be observed whenever one wishes.
> Creationism says Creator is supervising nature > hands on.
Which would mean that you make God into a deranged monster. You are claiming that God deliberately, and with malice aforethought, kills a large portion of every generation, and for what purpose?
> There is no need to postulate such fantasies as "natural > selection."
Natural selection is not a fantasy, it's an observed fact.
> Eyes were designed and created to see reality.
Yet eyes show the signs of evolving over time. They don't appear to have been designed, or the designer has built in some very bizarre design flaws
> The purpose > of nature is to conclude that invisible Intelligence created it (Paley > 1802).
That's a religious belief, without any support. Besides the presumption involved, in assuming you know God's purpose, Paley was mistaken in his claims.
> On Nov 7, 5:34 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 7, 2:40 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 3, 8:59 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 3, 7:01 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 3, 3:15 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[snip]
> > Natural selection certainly does not presuppose that *all* nature > > produces itself.
> Yes it does. You are making a foolish mistake. To say otherwise means > God had a hand.
So you are purposely saying that if any phenomenon (not just NS) can be explained via *natural* causes, then God is necessarily excluded and had no role at all, not even as the maker of the natural system in question? Then *you* are the one who is constraining God to act by miracles or be irrelevant, not me.
> Lewontin has said that science cannot let a Divine Foot in the door > anymore.
> > Natural selection is a phenomenon that is limited to > > biological organisms and has nothing to do with the fact that 2H2 + O2 > > => 2H2O when the energy of activation (a match) starts the process. > > It has nothing to do with the fact that gravity will lead to you > > demise if you walk out the 23rd story window. It has nothing to do > > with the fact that stars of certain sizes will generate energy by > > fusion. Those are also all "natural" phenomena, but not "natural > > selection". If you do not think that natural selection occurs, the > > real phenomenon and not whatever you think "natural selection" means, > > you need to look at the assumptions of *that* phenomenon. I have > > presented those assumptions. Do you or do you not think that *natural > > selection* occurs in populations of biological organisms?
> Now you are engaged in bait-and-switch (whether you know it or not). > You have conflated other valid meanings of the word "natural" to be > talking about natural causation or causation that originates in and by > nature itself.
I am using the word consistently. *You* are the one that uses it inconsistently, by claiming that some natural phenomena (and NS is a natural phenomena) are nothing but atheism whereas others are not. Natural selection is talking about natural causation that originates in and by natural mechanisms, just like "natural" chemistry, "natural" physics, "natural" geology, etc., does.
> "Natural phenomena" (which you provide examples) has > departed our subject of natural causation or nature producing itself.
> > > In the phrase "Natural selection" the first word indicates the > > > assumption.
> > Then I guess there is also "natural chemistry", "natural geology", > > "natural gravity", and "natural reproduction" and "natural everything > > that is actually found to happen in nature".
> > > Both words in tandem indicate how nature produces itself, > > > announcing the specifics. In these context "natural" means > > > supernatural is absent.
> > Well, usually it is used in the context of not being manipulated by > > humans, as in what is called "artificial selection".
> Yes, which also presupposes absence of Divine Intelligence. Darwin was > attempting to say that material nature behaves the same MINUS > intelligence (= God).
No. He was just saying that NS actually does occur (which most biologists of his time understood) and can indeed lead to phenotypic change *under certain environmental conditions* (which was the new part of his understanding of NS). NS producing change is a natural phenomenon no different from any other natural phenomena. No different from chemistry or physics or whatever science. *You* seem to be implying that *if* ***anything*** can be explained as a natural phenomenon, then that excludes Divine Intelligence. To you, if doesn't happen by magic contrary to natural explanation, then it is atheism. That is, you think that if you start chemical reaction with just H2 and O2 and no carbon, if it doesn't magically produce wine (mostly H2O, but with significant CH3OH, and certain flavorings), then it is atheism denying God's existence. Most things that happen in our material world have "natural" causes. *You* are constraining God to only be valid in the small number of cases where we are currently ignorant of cause or cannot explain things "naturally". Most *intelligent* theologians would disagree with you.
> > No science, not > > chemistry, not geology, not physics, deals with the "supernatural".
> Since the rise of Darwinism----yes.
> > All "natural" science is constrained to only deal with "natural" > > events, "natural" evidence, and "natural" explanations. That is a > > constraint on science, the constraint of *methodological* naturalism.
> Since 1859----yes.
> "Natural" means absence of supernatural.
Quite correct. *No* natural science uses supernatural explanation. Not chemistry. Not physics. Not geology. Not materials science. Not engineering. Not computer science. Not biology. None. Not a single one. That is a *constraint* on the natural sciences. *All* natural science is constrained to use methodological naturalism.
> Otherwise, as an adjective, > it has no purpose. "Natural phenomena" as used by you earlier is > referring to generic reality.
[snip]
> > Does *natural selection* (the biological phenomenon described as such) > > exist or doesn't it? I say that it does.
> NS does not exist.
Then which of the assumptions I made in the initial post about NS -- the biological phenomenon -- is untrue and what evidence do you have that it is untrue? Let me again give those assumptions:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> Creationism says Creator is supervising nature > hands on.
I understand that.
> There is no need to postulate such fantasies as "natural > selection." Eyes were designed and created to see reality.
Why do you think that NS (the real biological phenomenon, not your bogus ideas about NS) does not exist? Why do you think that your invisible Creator appear to be supervising nature by using what appears to our eyes to be NS (see the above assumptions, all of which I can back up)?
> The purpose > of nature is to conclude that invisible Intelligence created it (Paley > 1802).
Paley recognized the existence of natural selection. He simply failed to understand (like most of his contemporaries) that, in a changed environment, natural selection could be directional and lead to phenotypic change in a population. He fully recognized that dumb, stupid, unintelligent environments weeded out mutants (or sports) that were diseased or defective relative to others of its species. Paley would never be so dumb as to make a statement that "NS does not exist".
Ray Martinez wrote: > On Nov 7, 8:52 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote: >> Steven L. wrote: >>> John Harshman wrote: >>>> Kent Paul Dolan wrote: >>>>> John Harshman wrote: >>>>> > Kent Paul Dolan wrote: >>>>> >> In response to the thread: >>>>> >> Evolution's nervous breakdown. >>>>> >> but retitled to highlight a different aspect of >>>>> >> what was achieved in hershryh's excellent News >>>>> >> article. >>>>> >> hersheyh wrote: >>>>> >>> Some self-absorbed moron wrote: >>>>> >>>> Who said natural selection is a valid method >>>>> >>> 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. >>>>> >>> 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. >>>>> >>> 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. >>>>> >>> 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. >>>>> >>> 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.] >>>>> >>>> or even a valid method God would use? >>>>> >>> If there is a God, it is necessary that he uses >>>>> >>> natural selection because natural selection >>>>> >>> exists in the real world. >>>>> >> [I fixed up your item numbering.] >>>>> >> Besides earning you a well deserved POTM >>>>> >> nomination, it is well worth noting that you have >>>>> >> _also_ provided _five_ ways to falsify the Theory >>>>> >> of Evolution, thus completely debunking the >>>>> >> frequent mendacious creationist claim that the >>>>> >> ToE is somehow "unfalsifiable". >>>>> > Actually, those are five ways to falsify the >>>>> > theory of natural selection. Don't confuse that >>>>> > with the theory of evolution. >>>>> Umm, with ToE roughly== RM+NS, how does falsifying >>>>> NS _not_ falsify the ToE? >>>> Looks like Howard answered that pretty well already. In short, your >>>> initial assumption is wrong. The ToE is not roughly == RM+NS. There's >>>> much more to it than that, and much of that would still be valid if >>>> both RM and NS were shown wrong. Common descent, for example. >>> But NS is what distinguishes the ToE from Intelligent Design. (Behe >>> accepts evolution of species from common descent.) >>> And we've had "backspace" on this NG arguing that NS is a tautology. >>> So yes, it's NS, not the rest of the ToE, that's the big issue. >> Creationists argue about this among themselves. Most of them think that >> theistic evolution is still evolution, and to hell with it. BS rejects >> common descent too. Behe is an outlier. Why he refuses to call himself a >> theistic evolutionist is beyond me, unless it's for political reasons. > Behe accepts Intelligent causation to be operating in nature----that's > why. Read Black Box (1996): he endorses Paley 1802. > Theistic Evolutionists do not accept Intelligent causation > (Creationism) operating in nature. They accept the claims of Darwin. > Judge Jones ruled ID to be Creationism.
> This is basic stuff Dr. Harshman.
Theistic evolutionists reject intelligent causation operating in nature? Can you back that up? How does theistic evolution differ from non-theistic evolution?
Anyway, Behe thinks species are mutable. Doesn't that make him an atheist, by your standards?
> On Nov 7, 9:37 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 7, 5:34 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 7, 2:40 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 3, 8:59 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 3, 7:01 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Nov 3, 3:15 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> [snip]
> > > Natural selection certainly does not presuppose that *all* nature > > > produces itself.
> > Yes it does. You are making a foolish mistake. To say otherwise means > > God had a hand.
> So you are purposely saying that if any phenomenon (not just NS) can > be explained via *natural* causes, then God is necessarily excluded > and had no role at all, not even as the maker of the natural system in > question? Then *you* are the one who is constraining God to act by > miracles or be irrelevant, not me.
> > Lewontin has said that science cannot let a Divine Foot in the door > > anymore.
> > > Natural selection is a phenomenon that is limited to > > > biological organisms and has nothing to do with the fact that 2H2 + O2 > > > => 2H2O when the energy of activation (a match) starts the process. > > > It has nothing to do with the fact that gravity will lead to you > > > demise if you walk out the 23rd story window. It has nothing to do > > > with the fact that stars of certain sizes will generate energy by > > > fusion. Those are also all "natural" phenomena, but not "natural > > > selection". If you do not think that natural selection occurs, the > > > real phenomenon and not whatever you think "natural selection" means, > > > you need to look at the assumptions of *that* phenomenon. I have > > > presented those assumptions. Do you or do you not think that *natural > > > selection* occurs in populations of biological organisms?
> > Now you are engaged in bait-and-switch (whether you know it or not). > > You have conflated other valid meanings of the word "natural" to be > > talking about natural causation or causation that originates in and by > > nature itself.
> I am using the word consistently. *You* are the one that uses it > inconsistently, by claiming that some natural phenomena (and NS is a > natural phenomena) are nothing but atheism whereas others are not. > Natural selection is talking about natural causation that originates > in and by natural mechanisms, just like "natural" chemistry, "natural" > physics, "natural" geology, etc., does.
> > "Natural phenomena" (which you provide examples) has > > departed our subject of natural causation or nature producing itself.
> > > > In the phrase "Natural selection" the first word indicates the > > > > assumption.
> > > Then I guess there is also "natural chemistry", "natural geology", > > > "natural gravity", and "natural reproduction" and "natural everything > > > that is actually found to happen in nature".
> > > > Both words in tandem indicate how nature produces itself, > > > > announcing the specifics. In these context "natural" means > > > > supernatural is absent.
> > > Well, usually it is used in the context of not being manipulated by > > > humans, as in what is called "artificial selection".
> > Yes, which also presupposes absence of Divine Intelligence. Darwin was > > attempting to say that material nature behaves the same MINUS > > intelligence (= God).
> No. He was just saying that NS actually does occur (which most > biologists of his time understood) and can indeed lead to phenotypic > change *under certain environmental conditions* (which was the new > part of his understanding of NS). NS producing change is a natural > phenomenon no different from any other natural phenomena. No > different from chemistry or physics or whatever science. *You* seem > to be implying that *if* ***anything*** can be explained as a natural > phenomenon, then that excludes Divine Intelligence. To you, if > doesn't happen by magic contrary to natural explanation, then it is > atheism. That is, you think that if you start chemical reaction with > just H2 and O2 and no carbon, if it doesn't magically produce wine > (mostly H2O, but with significant CH3OH, and certain flavorings),
Sorry. That should have been CH3CH2OH. It was late at night and I wanted to get some sleep, not to imply that God would magically try to poison people. [Note to Ray: See, I admit my mistakes. And I often catch my own mistakes.]
> then > it is atheism denying God's existence. Most things that happen in our > material world have "natural" causes. *You* are constraining God to > only be valid in the small number of cases where we are currently > ignorant of cause or cannot explain things "naturally". Most > *intelligent* theologians would disagree with you.
> > > No science, not > > > chemistry, not geology, not physics, deals with the "supernatural".
> > Since the rise of Darwinism----yes.
> > > All "natural" science is constrained to only deal with "natural" > > > events, "natural" evidence, and "natural" explanations. That is a > > > constraint on science, the constraint of *methodological* naturalism.
> > Since 1859----yes.
> > "Natural" means absence of supernatural.
> Quite correct. *No* natural science uses supernatural explanation. > Not chemistry. Not physics. Not geology. Not materials science. Not > engineering. Not computer science. Not biology. None. Not a single > one. That is a *constraint* on the natural sciences. *All* natural > science is constrained to use methodological naturalism.
> > Otherwise, as an adjective, > > it has no purpose. "Natural phenomena" as used by you earlier is > > referring to generic reality.
> [snip]
> > > Does *natural selection* (the biological phenomenon described as such) > > > exist or doesn't it? I say that it does.
> > NS does not exist.
> Then which of the assumptions I made in the initial post about NS -- > the biological phenomenon -- is untrue and what evidence do you have > that it is untrue? Let me again give those assumptions:
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
> > Creationism says Creator is supervising nature > > hands on.
> I understand that.
> > There is no need to postulate such fantasies as "natural > > selection." Eyes were designed and created to see reality.
> Why do you think that NS (the real biological phenomenon, not your > bogus ideas about NS) does not exist? Why do you think that your > invisible Creator appear to be supervising nature by using what > appears to our eyes to be NS (see the above assumptions, all of which > I can back up)?
> > The purpose > > of nature is to conclude that invisible Intelligence created it (Paley > > 1802).
> Paley recognized the existence of natural selection. He simply failed > to understand (like most of his contemporaries) that, in a changed > environment, natural selection could be directional and lead to > phenotypic change in a population. He fully recognized that dumb, > stupid, unintelligent environments weeded out mutants (or sports) that > were diseased or defective relative to others of its species. Paley > would never be so dumb as to make a statement that "NS does not > exist".
On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 20:47:07 -0800 (PST), Reddfrogg
<reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote: >On Nov 7, 7:37 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote: >snip
>> > Natural selection certainly does not presuppose that *all* nature >> > produces itself.
>> Yes it does. You are making a foolish mistake. To say otherwise means >> God had a hand.
>Ray, when it comes to making foolish mistakes, no one is your equal. >Natural selection refers to how adaptive changes are fixed in >populations, not about how "nature" is produced. Science can't say >that God had a hand, or God didn't have a hand in nature.
"Natural selection" to distiguish it from "artificial selection", such as the way homo sapiens made umpty breeds of dog from a wolf, or umpty types of corn/maize from teosinte.
[...]
>> There is no need to postulate such fantasies as "natural >> selection."
>Natural selection is not a fantasy, it's an observed fact.
See above.
>> Eyes were designed and created to see reality.
>Yet eyes show the signs of evolving over time. They don't appear to >have been designed, or the designer has built in some very bizarre >design flaws
If eyes were created or designed, the Creator or Designer had a hard time getting ir right; eyes have evolved a number of different times. Worse yet, we homo sapiens didn't get the best design. No decent designer would have designed the human eye the way it is.
-- ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatu...@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
|
