> > "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote in message > >news:Xns9CB88E22C8E9Featjoespub@202.177.16.121... > >> Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote in > >> news:aaec5c44-ceb1-4814-8d1d- > >> 8909ab2a9...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com:
> >>> On Nov 2, 12:33 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote: > >>>> On Nov 2, 10:02 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> >>>> > Change accumulates over time. Strike five. Yer out.
> >>>> Well. If the changes are going to accumulate where are your fossils > >>>> of a creature developing the new attribute such as a wing. There > >>>> should be plenty of evidence in the fossil record of creatures > >>>> slowly changing.
> >>> Well, here's evidence of a creature's brain trippling in size > >>> over a 2.5 million year period. Does that count?
> >>> KNM WT 15000 > >>> "The Turkana Boy" > >>> Species: Homo ergaster > >>> Age: 1.6 million years > >>> Brain Size: 880cc/910cc > >>>http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/WT15k.html > >>> [A link to a rotatable skull is at the bottom of the page]
> >> These are not instances of "a creature" like you said. They are > >> different species.
> >> No "creature's brain" tripled in size. Different creatures have > >> different brain sizes. That's all.
> > What an asinine dodge? Do tell us where the Cro-Magnon fossils from > > 2.5 million years ago are . . .
> Read Forbidden Archaeology.
I suggest that you educate yourself in real archaeology, and then you will find that "Forbidden Archaeology" is a mismash of distortion, misrepresentation and outright falsehoods. Of course, you can prefer to remain ignorant, but that tells us more about you than about the reliability of "Forbidden Archaeology".
By the way, I *have* read the book, but also have read widely elsewhere in the subject. I found it to be utterly dishonest, and obviously aimed at an ill-educated audience who swallow such nonsense.
>Iain <iain_inks...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:36fee048-19ea-4b62-bfb5- >58a704118...@l2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
>> On Nov 2, 5:330m, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote: >>> On Nov 2, 10:02!m, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>>> > Change accumulates over time. Strike five. Yer out.
>>> Well. If the changes are going to accumulate where are your fossils of >>> a creature developing the new attribute such as a wing. There should >>> be plenty of evidence in the fossil record of creatures slowly >>> changing.
>> Um, yes. That's what the fossil record is all about.
>> --Iain
>There is nothing in the fossil record itself that demands an evolutionary >interpretation.
And yet, without evolution, the fossil record is hard to explain.
>What is actually observed is static forms preserved at different instants >of time in the past.
No, what is observed is evolution over the last 3.8 billion years.
> The fossils do not imply evolution. Rather, the idea >that they represent different stages of evolutionary change is an >interpretation which presupposes evolution.
No, wrong again.
-- Bob.
You have not been charged for this lesson - learn from it rather than continuing to make a fool of yourself.
> > >>> ----------------------------------------------------- > > >>> Clumsily done, indeed. You obviously have no idea how preposterous you are > > >>> (again). You start by objecting to the exhibit at the British Museum. Rather > > >>> than taking the time to refute that evidence, or even to discuss it, you > > >>> instead dismiss it out of hand with the lame comment "just one?".
> > >>> Kermit obliges by presenting multiple references with multiple examples, > > >>> each presented with links to ample evidence should you care to actually look > > >>> at it. And again you do not attempt to refute the evidence and instead fall > > >>> back on the childish "is that all there is." Very sad. What is obvious to > > >>> any rational person is that you present yourself as one whose mind has > > >>> slammed shut so hard it refuses to even acknowledge the evidence presented > > >>> to it, let alone to come up with any cogent argument against it. Hint: > > >>> shrilly sceaming "Just THAT..." is not a credible argument, it is only > > >>> another indication of how desperate you are to ignore the evidence.- Hide quoted text -
> > >> Kermit can be quite the dog and pony show at times.
> > >> My mind is not closed.
> > > Your posts prove otherwise.
> > >> I have actively looked for bonafied evidence > > >> that supports the ToE. (and i still do)
> > > Nonsense. The only thing you look for is science-denial. Your posts > > > are also proof of that.
> > >> As of now though, every bit of > > >> the ToE has either more then one interpretation or is incomplete.
> > > As it should be in science. Science is never "complete," else there'd > > > be no reason to do science.
> > >> Furthermore, the ToE does not have a working testable model that > > >> complies with the scientific method.
> > > This you know to be a lie.
> > >> It is all circumstantial evidence > > >> with more then one interpretation. Dawkins himself says evolution is > > >> all circumstancial. Darwin himself said there should be tons of fossil > > >> evidence. There is not.
> > > Counting the many fossils of large dinosaurs found to date, there > > > actually are literally "tons" of evidence.
> > >> Now the critical part seems to be the circumstancial evidence. Al long > > >> as the circumstancial evidence has more then a single interpretation > > >> the ToE will remain inconclusive. So why present it in the media as a > > >> fact?
> > > Evolution *is* a fact. It's directly observed, both in the lab and in > > > the wild. You know this, as it's been demonstrated to you time and > > > again. Why lie about it?
> > >> What ramifications does this have? This means it takes the same kind > > >> of "faith" to believe the circumstancial evidence that man evolved > > >> from an ape as it takes to believe man was created by God. Anyone > > >> with .05 percent of a working brain can see this.
> > > It takes no faith. It takes intelligence supplemented with education.
> > >> On the one side there are ancient texts, recorded eye witness > > >> accounts, and anecdotal evidences that are believed by millions for > > >> thousands of years. There is no evidence to remotely suggest these > > >> ancient documents (that span many cultures over many years) are one > > >> big lie.
> > > So you believe in the Greek Gods then? In Odin? Baal? Okeus?
> > >> On the other side we have a mere 150 year old theory that, for the > > >> most part, is circumstantial. The evidences around the theory itself > > >> conflict with other evidences. If that were not enough, there is > > >> infact a motivation for the ToE to be used by a small group of people > > >> as a lie to deceive the masses.
> > > Lame conspiracy theories are for the gullible.
> > >> So using deduction, which belief is the most viable ATM? "Man was > > >> created" of course.
> > > Most viable for toddlers. Educated adults are capable of more complex > > > understanding.
> > >> Now, if it were not abundantly clear that atheism has influenced the > > >> ToE, I would be more inclined to give the ToE's circumstantial > > >> evidence a benefit of the doubt..
> > > Most of the important discoveries of science, including evolution, > > > were made by theists. Science is not atheistic, as you well know. > > > Most theists accept the facts of science. It is mostly poorly > > > educated fundamentalists, insecure about their faith, who reject > > > reality.
> > >> But as long as their is an agenda behind the ToE it will require more > > >> then circumstantial evidence to get any thinking person to believe it. > > >> In fact, I would venture to say the ToE would be accepted by more > > >> people right now if there were no ties to atheism.
> > > The only people who tie evolution to atheism are dishonest > > > creationists.
> > No, the more militant atheists have tied them together too:
> > "The more you understand the significance of evolution, the more you are > > pushed away from the agnostic position and towards atheism." > > -- Richard Dawkins, in "The New Humanist"
> > "Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, > > Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." > > -- Richard Dawkins, "The Blind Watchmaker"
> > P.Z. Myers and the Discovery Institute disagree on nearly everything > > except one thing: Science and religion are epistemologically incompatible.
> > So the dismissal of the ToE by the creationists is mirrored in the > > dismissal of religion by the atheists who claim to be upholding the > > banner of science.
> > >> The bottom line is the ToE is circumstancial and not conclusive while > > >> the belief in God does in fact have eye witness accounts of > > >> supernatural events associated with it.
> > > False dichotomy. Evolution and theism are not mutually exclusive,
> > Sometime, you should try telling that to P.Z. Myers or Jerry Coyne or > > "Ye Old One" here on this NG, instead of just telling that to creationists.
> > They'll answer you right back.
> > I notice that the defenders of the ToE here on this NG are so quick to > > claim that there is no conflict between the ToE and Christianity, when > > they are trying to debate *creationists*--but they never try to foist > > this particular claim on the *atheists* here, or on blogs like > > "Pharyngula."
> Really? I remember rather torturous exchanges involving me, Gramond, > Bob Casanova and several others arguing with snexabout just that,
and of course you "prove" your point by making the term "christianity" so nebulous as to not have any meaning at all. the fact of the matter is that supernatural thinking of any kind is very much at odds with science.
> and I'm also on record that I think PZ Myers brings academia into > disrepute.
why? what makes him any less reputable than theist scientists who insist that theism *is* compatible with science? the atheists actually present arguments to back their case up, all the theists do is say "well im a theist and a scientist, therefore the two MUST be compatible!"
but yet, you folks certainly do "get on" us about the compatibility between science and theism - you just do a poor job of making a case.
snex wrote: > On Nov 3, 1:40 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote: >> On 3 Nov, 17:39, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> VoiceOfReason wrote: >>>> All-seeing-I wrote: >>>>> On Nov 2, 5:53 pm, "Sox" <luke...@live.com> wrote: >>>>>> "All-Seeing-I" <allseei...@usa.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:40deb104-df1f-4da6-889b-0b477648bfab@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... >>>>>> On Nov 2, 4:29 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On Nov 2, 9:33 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Nov 2, 10:02 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> Change accumulates over time. Strike five. Yer out. >>>>>>>> Well. If the changes are going to accumulate where are your fossils of >>>>>>>> a creature developing the new attribute such as a wing. There should >>>>>>>> be plenty of evidence in the fossil record of creatures slowly >>>>>>>> changing. >>>>>>> Well, here's three pages >>>>>>> worth:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html#bird >>>>>>> Biplane! "Four-winged" bird >>>>>>> transitional:http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090928205415.htm >>>>>>> Brains are important, >>>>>>> too:http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090127165505.htm >>>>>>> Everybody's favorite was more dino than >>>>>>> bird:http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091009090436.htm >>>>>>> Bird fingers, the precursor to >>>>>>> wings:http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090617171816.htm >>>>>>> More...http://www.bsu.edu/web/00cyfisher/ >>>>>>> Kermit >>>>>> Just THAT to represent millions of years and billions of species? >>>>>> umm.. No K. >>>>>> THAT ain't reality >>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> Clumsily done, indeed. You obviously have no idea how preposterous you are >>>>>> (again). You start by objecting to the exhibit at the British Museum. Rather >>>>>> than taking the time to refute that evidence, or even to discuss it, you >>>>>> instead dismiss it out of hand with the lame comment "just one?". >>>>>> Kermit obliges by presenting multiple references with multiple examples, >>>>>> each presented with links to ample evidence should you care to actually look >>>>>> at it. And again you do not attempt to refute the evidence and instead fall >>>>>> back on the childish "is that all there is." Very sad. What is obvious to >>>>>> any rational person is that you present yourself as one whose mind has >>>>>> slammed shut so hard it refuses to even acknowledge the evidence presented >>>>>> to it, let alone to come up with any cogent argument against it. Hint: >>>>>> shrilly sceaming "Just THAT..." is not a credible argument, it is only >>>>>> another indication of how desperate you are to ignore the evidence.- Hide quoted text - >>>>> Kermit can be quite the dog and pony show at times. >>>>> My mind is not closed. >>>> Your posts prove otherwise. >>>>> I have actively looked for bonafied evidence >>>>> that supports the ToE. (and i still do) >>>> Nonsense. The only thing you look for is science-denial. Your posts >>>> are also proof of that. >>>>> As of now though, every bit of >>>>> the ToE has either more then one interpretation or is incomplete. >>>> As it should be in science. Science is never "complete," else there'd >>>> be no reason to do science. >>>>> Furthermore, the ToE does not have a working testable model that >>>>> complies with the scientific method. >>>> This you know to be a lie. >>>>> It is all circumstantial evidence >>>>> with more then one interpretation. Dawkins himself says evolution is >>>>> all circumstancial. Darwin himself said there should be tons of fossil >>>>> evidence. There is not. >>>> Counting the many fossils of large dinosaurs found to date, there >>>> actually are literally "tons" of evidence. >>>>> Now the critical part seems to be the circumstancial evidence. Al long >>>>> as the circumstancial evidence has more then a single interpretation >>>>> the ToE will remain inconclusive. So why present it in the media as a >>>>> fact? >>>> Evolution *is* a fact. It's directly observed, both in the lab and in >>>> the wild. You know this, as it's been demonstrated to you time and >>>> again. Why lie about it? >>>>> What ramifications does this have? This means it takes the same kind >>>>> of "faith" to believe the circumstancial evidence that man evolved >>>>> from an ape as it takes to believe man was created by God. Anyone >>>>> with .05 percent of a working brain can see this. >>>> It takes no faith. It takes intelligence supplemented with education. >>>>> On the one side there are ancient texts, recorded eye witness >>>>> accounts, and anecdotal evidences that are believed by millions for >>>>> thousands of years. There is no evidence to remotely suggest these >>>>> ancient documents (that span many cultures over many years) are one >>>>> big lie. >>>> So you believe in the Greek Gods then? In Odin? Baal? Okeus? >>>>> On the other side we have a mere 150 year old theory that, for the >>>>> most part, is circumstantial. The evidences around the theory itself >>>>> conflict with other evidences. If that were not enough, there is >>>>> infact a motivation for the ToE to be used by a small group of people >>>>> as a lie to deceive the masses. >>>> Lame conspiracy theories are for the gullible. >>>>> So using deduction, which belief is the most viable ATM? "Man was >>>>> created" of course. >>>> Most viable for toddlers. Educated adults are capable of more complex >>>> understanding. >>>>> Now, if it were not abundantly clear that atheism has influenced the >>>>> ToE, I would be more inclined to give the ToE's circumstantial >>>>> evidence a benefit of the doubt.. >>>> Most of the important discoveries of science, including evolution, >>>> were made by theists. Science is not atheistic, as you well know. >>>> Most theists accept the facts of science. It is mostly poorly >>>> educated fundamentalists, insecure about their faith, who reject >>>> reality. >>>>> But as long as their is an agenda behind the ToE it will require more >>>>> then circumstantial evidence to get any thinking person to believe it. >>>>> In fact, I would venture to say the ToE would be accepted by more >>>>> people right now if there were no ties to atheism. >>>> The only people who tie evolution to atheism are dishonest >>>> creationists. >>> No, the more militant atheists have tied them together too: >>> "The more you understand the significance of evolution, the more you are >>> pushed away from the agnostic position and towards atheism." >>> -- Richard Dawkins, in "The New Humanist" >>> "Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, >>> Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." >>> -- Richard Dawkins, "The Blind Watchmaker" >>> P.Z. Myers and the Discovery Institute disagree on nearly everything >>> except one thing: Science and religion are epistemologically incompatible. >>> So the dismissal of the ToE by the creationists is mirrored in the >>> dismissal of religion by the atheists who claim to be upholding the >>> banner of science. >>>>> The bottom line is the ToE is circumstancial and not conclusive while >>>>> the belief in God does in fact have eye witness accounts of >>>>> supernatural events associated with it. >>>> False dichotomy. Evolution and theism are not mutually exclusive, >>> Sometime, you should try telling that to P.Z. Myers or Jerry Coyne or >>> "Ye Old One" here on this NG, instead of just telling that to creationists. >>> They'll answer you right back. >>> I notice that the defenders of the ToE here on this NG are so quick to >>> claim that there is no conflict between the ToE and Christianity, when >>> they are trying to debate *creationists*--but they never try to foist >>> this particular claim on the *atheists* here, or on blogs like >>> "Pharyngula." >> Really? I remember rather torturous exchanges involving me, Gramond, >> Bob Casanova and several others arguing with snexabout just that,
> and of course you "prove" your point by making the term "christianity" > so nebulous as to not have any meaning at all.
Where did I say in my post anything about Christianity?
the fact of the matter
> is that supernatural thinking of any kind is very much at odds with > science.
And the point in question was whether we object only if the incompatibility is claimed by creationists, not by atheists who happen to think like creationists.
Only that we have scores of excellent scientists who were also religious, making this a problematic claim.
>> and I'm also on record that I think PZ Myers brings academia into >> disrepute.
> why? what makes him any less reputable than theist scientists who > insist that theism *is* compatible with science? the atheists actually > present arguments to back their case up, all the theists do is say > "well im a theist and a scientist, therefore the two MUST be > compatible!"
The aggressive, personally insulting and fact free way that he argues on a website that shows his university affiliation. This style of debate is incompatible with the disinterested, rational and fact based spirit on which the academy is founded. If he wants to be a religious crusader rather than an academic, he is free to change jobs.
>> "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote in message >> news:Xns9CB88E22C8E9Featjoespub@202.177.16.121... >>> Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote in >>> news:aaec5c44-ceb1-4814-8d1d- >>> 8909ab2a9...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com:
>>>> On Nov 2, 12:33 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote: >>>>> On Nov 2, 10:02 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>>>>> > Change accumulates over time. Strike five. Yer out.
>>>>> Well. If the changes are going to accumulate where are your fossils >>>>> of a creature developing the new attribute such as a wing. There >>>>> should be plenty of evidence in the fossil record of creatures >>>>> slowly changing.
>>>> Well, here's evidence of a creature's brain trippling in size >>>> over a 2.5 million year period. Does that count?
>>>> KNM WT 15000 >>>> "The Turkana Boy" >>>> Species: Homo ergaster >>>> Age: 1.6 million years >>>> Brain Size: 880cc/910cc >>>> http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/WT15k.html >>>> [A link to a rotatable skull is at the bottom of the page]
All-Seeing-I wrote: > On Nov 3, 10:37 am, "Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> > wrote: >> All-Seeing-I wrote: >>> SEEK PROFESSIONAL HELP!
>> [...etc...]
>> Yes, yes. But, Adman, why _don't_ you, as Richard suggests, point us >> to an "evolutionist" website which supports its case with lies, and a >> "creationist" site which doesn't use discredited evidence? As you >> know, his claim is that you can't actually do it.
>> -- >> Mike.
> OMG. I have another stalker.
> I only replied to you ONCE
I'm sorry. I don't want to appear to "stalk" you, so I'll try not to discuss things with you again. Don't bother to answer the question.
> On Nov 3, 4:47 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 2, 3:01 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 2, 4:29 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 2, 9:33 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 2, 10:02 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Change accumulates over time. Strike five. Yer out.
> > > > > Well. If the changes are going to accumulate where are your fossils of > > > > > a creature developing the new attribute such as a wing. There should > > > > > be plenty of evidence in the fossil record of creatures slowly > > > > > changing.
> > > Just THAT to represent millions of years and billions of species?
> > > umm.. No K.
> > > THAT ain't reality
> > No, no - for birds, a hundred million years or so and just thousands > > of species.
> > [...]
> > You didn't read any of the links, did you?
> > Perhaps you could explain how many fossils there *should be. You've > > mentioned large dogs and a chicken coop; you must be rural. How many > > fossilized birds have you found on your property? There must be > > hundreds, surely - after all, on even a small country lot there must > > be several birds, and it's been 4000 years since the Flood®. Say one > > bird a year on the average, there should be 4000 fossils or > > thereabouts (just of birds! How about bison and wolves?). Probably > > also a nice transition series from the progenitor bird kind and the > > subsequent hyper-evolution of modern, local species.
> > Send a few pics, OK?
> > Kermit- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
> pffft!
> You got nothing.
Well, except for
Fossil evidence sorted by time, corresponding to progression of early, simple forms to diversity of modern forms, with numerous clear transitional series. Fossil evidence showing progression of whole ecosystems, with various types of fossils associated with only certain other fossils. Fossil evidence corresponding to plate tectonics, magnetic striping, and other geological evidence. Nested hierarchy of morphology. Nested hierarchy of all the genomes studied so far. The fact that these two nested hierarchies *match* is evidence in itself. Vestigial organs, structures, molecules, and behaviors. Life is unified by a sharing of fundamental polymers, nucleic acids, protein catalysts, etc.
Why? What do you have? Oh, yeah; you *see things.
> And yes, I read the links.
> Over all, you got nothing to represent millions of years and billions > of species
Other than geology, physical and cultural anthropology, paleontology, paleobotany, comparative anatomy, genetics, behavioral sciences, radiochemistry, climatology, and a few others.
You have... Chick comics. Ooh, and websites! ("Fear my mighty website!") And church bulletins, but not from all churches. Anything else?
<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote: >Friar Broccoli wrote: >> On Nov 4, 3:37 am, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com" >> <richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote: >>> On Nov 4, 7:54 am, "rmacfarl" <rmacf...@alphalink.com.au> wrote:
>>>> "John Wilkins" <j...@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message >>>> news:031120092214170670%john@wilkins.id.au... >>>>> In article <yoydnSlAV6iSQm3X4p2d...@giganews.com>, John >>>>> Harshman >>>>> <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote: >>>>>> I think, contrary I believe to Wilkins, that morphospecies and >>>>>> biological species are not commensurable, and a great deal of >>>>>> damage can >>>>>> be done by pretending they are. Punctuated equilibria, for >>>>>> example. >>>>> You think wrong. Morphospecies (that is, species determined by >>>>> morphological characters only, not also behavioural and >>>>> molecular data) >>>>> are not commensurable with reproductively isolated species IMO. >>>>> Neither >>>>> are those determined by molecular data alone. >>>> A nice challenge to the paleontological taxonomists... >>> Not really.
>>> As a "palaeontological taxonomist" I'm perfectly aware that when we >>> describe a new fossil species, it is a rather different use of the >>> term than that used by biologists studying existing populations. In >>> essence it is a label of convenience which allows us to look in a >>> drawer of dusty specimens and identify bones as being similar to those >>> of other specimens. Because fossils are rarely those of complete >>> organisms, it is common for different parts of the same animal to have >>> different taxonomic identification, which makes the ICZN rules on >>> naming priority an essential if tedious discipline.
>> .
>>> We know from studies of existing populations of organisms that there >>> can be wide morphological variation within species, and clearly >>> defined pairs of species which are morphologically very similar.
>> We here amongst the unwashed masses, would appreciate one >> good example of each case.
>A couple of simple ones:
>The male and female of Eclectus parrots were originally described as >separate species.
Wouldn't this just be regular sexual dimorphism, even if somewhat exaggerated, which the original describers had not yet recognized as such?
>The frogs originally described as the single species Rana pipiens appear >to be at least two dozen species, all quite difficult to distinguish >morphologically and, I suspect, impossible from skeletons.
heekster wrote: > On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 08:14:13 -0800, John Harshman > <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> Friar Broccoli wrote: >>> On Nov 4, 3:37 am, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com" >>> <richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote: >>>> On Nov 4, 7:54 am, "rmacfarl" <rmacf...@alphalink.com.au> wrote:
>>>>> "John Wilkins" <j...@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message >>>>> news:031120092214170670%john@wilkins.id.au... >>>>>> In article <yoydnSlAV6iSQm3X4p2d...@giganews.com>, John >>>>>> Harshman >>>>>> <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote: >>>>>>> I think, contrary I believe to Wilkins, that morphospecies and >>>>>>> biological species are not commensurable, and a great deal of >>>>>>> damage can >>>>>>> be done by pretending they are. Punctuated equilibria, for >>>>>>> example. >>>>>> You think wrong. Morphospecies (that is, species determined by >>>>>> morphological characters only, not also behavioural and >>>>>> molecular data) >>>>>> are not commensurable with reproductively isolated species IMO. >>>>>> Neither >>>>>> are those determined by molecular data alone. >>>>> A nice challenge to the paleontological taxonomists... >>>> Not really.
>>>> As a "palaeontological taxonomist" I'm perfectly aware that when we >>>> describe a new fossil species, it is a rather different use of the >>>> term than that used by biologists studying existing populations. In >>>> essence it is a label of convenience which allows us to look in a >>>> drawer of dusty specimens and identify bones as being similar to those >>>> of other specimens. Because fossils are rarely those of complete >>>> organisms, it is common for different parts of the same animal to have >>>> different taxonomic identification, which makes the ICZN rules on >>>> naming priority an essential if tedious discipline. >>> .
>>>> We know from studies of existing populations of organisms that there >>>> can be wide morphological variation within species, and clearly >>>> defined pairs of species which are morphologically very similar.
>>> We here amongst the unwashed masses, would appreciate one >>> good example of each case.
>> A couple of simple ones:
>> The male and female of Eclectus parrots were originally described as >> separate species.
> Wouldn't this just be regular sexual dimorphism, even if somewhat > exaggerated, which the original describers had not yet recognized as > such?
Yes. But why isn't sexual dimorphism a proper example of wide morphological variation within species?
>> The frogs originally described as the single species Rana pipiens appear >> to be at least two dozen species, all quite difficult to distinguish >> morphologically and, I suspect, impossible from skeletons.
> On Nov 4, 3:28 pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote: >> Iain <iain_inks...@hotmail.com> wrote in >> news:36fee048-19ea-4b62-bfb5- >> 58a704118...@l2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
>> > On Nov 2, 5:33 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote: >> >> On Nov 2, 10:02 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>> >> > Change accumulates over time. Strike five. Yer out.
>> >> Well. If the changes are going to accumulate where are your >> >> fossils of a creature developing the new attribute such as a wing. >> >> There should be plenty of evidence in the fossil record of >> >> creatures slowly changing.
>> > Um, yes. That's what the fossil record is all about.
>> > --Iain
>> There is nothing in the fossil record itself that demands an >> evolutionary interpretation.
> There isn't? > Well, poor saps like me who actually *study* the fossil record think > that unless we interpret in the light of evolution it is meaningless.
Well that's not my fault.
> What do you know that all those palaeontologists don't?
Apparently, how to think outside of the box of Darwinism.
>> What is actually observed is static forms preserved at different >> instants of time in the past. The fossils do not imply evolution. >> Rather, the idea that they represent different stages of evolutionary >> change is an interpretation which presupposes evolution.
> Well, it's a fact that evolution happens - we can observe it in action > in the natural world and replicate it in the laboratory. No other > known process can account for the distribution of fossils in the > geological and geographical record - unless, I suppose, you are > prepared to argue that they were placed there by some malevolent > spirit to deceive true believers. Frankly, I think that a silly > argument.
The "evolution" you observe in the laboratory is not the "evolution" you claim to observe in the fossil record. Minor tinkering with intra-species genetics is not the same as a mammal "evolving" from a reptile. Evolution is not Darwinism.
> The fossil record is entirely consistent with what we would expect > from a shared evolutionary ancestry of living organisms. Evolutionary > theory can and has made predictions about the morphology of fossils > before they were found.
In other words, you interpret the fossil record by presupposing evolution.
> Why *should* science reject evolution as an explanation when it fits > the evidence extremely well, and there is no other scientific > explanation?
It doesn't fit the evidence, and there are many other scientific explanations. But you have conflated science with materialism, just as you have conflated minor intra-species genetic changes with Darwinism.
> On Nov 4, 10:28 am, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote: >> Iain <iain_inks...@hotmail.com> wrote in >> news:36fee048-19ea-4b62-bfb5- >> 58a704118...@l2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
>> > On Nov 2, 5:33 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote: >> >> On Nov 2, 10:02 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>> >> > Change accumulates over time. Strike five. Yer out.
>> >> Well. If the changes are going to accumulate where are your >> >> fossils of a creature developing the new attribute such as a wing. >> >> There should be plenty of evidence in the fossil record of >> >> creatures slowly changing.
>> > Um, yes. That's what the fossil record is all about.
>> > --Iain
>> There is nothing in the fossil record itself that demands an >> evolutionary interpretation.
> There is, however, a time-ordered *pattern* in the fossil record. > This pattern is most obvious when the record is most complete. As in > small shelly things.
>> What is actually observed is static forms preserved at different >> instants of time in the past.
> Actually *when* the fossil record *is* fine-grained enough one > observes change over time. Even in some other cases, change is > observed over time, making for difficult decisions in deciding if the > younger and older fossils represent change within a species or > represent a new species. For example, archaic H. sapiens is not > morphologically identical to to *any* modern H. sapiens (and modern H. > sapiens skeletal specimens differ enough that experts can distinguish > different human 'races' with reasonable, albeit not perfect, > accuracy. Clearly, the claim of *static form* is often an artifact of > the paucity of the fossil record and an ignoring of the variation that > does exist in every known species (living or extinct) in favor of > those features held in common.
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.
>> 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. Speculative extrapolation from a handful of generations to millions of generations is not a "magic wand" that makes Darwinian evolution plausible.
On Nov 4, 7:22 pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> 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.
which, of course, denies the existence of nature itself. chemistry exists to explain chemical transformations. physics exists to describe processes that change energy, matter, etc. biology exists to tell us how life changes
but the creationist simply denies any change happens in nature at all.
is there any limit to creationist ignorance?
> The problem with that is that in every observed case, the offspring of a > species are the same species as the parents. Speculative extrapolation > from a handful of generations to millions of generations is not a "magic > wand" that makes Darwinian evolution plausible.-
hmmm...so you say. and your expertise in religion explaining nature? has religion ever explained athlete's foot let alone quasars?
no. it's been a failure. you're in no position, with your comic book view of nature, based on ghosts and goblins, to tell us what science is.
> > What do you know that all those palaeontologists don't?
> Apparently, how to think outside of the box of Darwinism.
yeah. and for 3000 years how's that worked out for you? you guys were still telling us certain human beings were subhuman untouchables, based on your religious beliefs, for 3000 years.
seems your religion can't tell us about PEOPLE let alone nature, doesn't it? if you thought outside the box, your co-religionists wouldn't be bathing in sewage
> > Well, it's a fact that evolution happens - we can observe it in action > > in the natural world and replicate it in the laboratory. No other > > known process can account for the distribution of fossils in the > > geological and geographical record - unless, I suppose, you are > > prepared to argue that they were placed there by some malevolent > > spirit to deceive true believers. Frankly, I think that a silly > > argument.
> The "evolution" you observe in the laboratory is not the "evolution" you > claim to observe in the fossil record. Minor tinkering with intra-species > genetics is not the same as a mammal "evolving" from a reptile. Evolution > is not Darwinism.
who says? you? what the hell do you know about it? you prance in here some some first aid technician telling us of your expertise in brain surgery.
evolution in the lab is testable. your RELIGION didn't know about evolution at all...even as much as you yourself admit exists...so you're hardly in a position to judge what scientists have done.
quite frankly, your credibility sucks.
> > The fossil record is entirely consistent with what we would expect > > from a shared evolutionary ancestry of living organisms. Evolutionary > > theory can and has made predictions about the morphology of fossils > > before they were found.
> In other words, you interpret the fossil record by presupposing > evolution.
uh...no...the ancient greeks knew about evolution.
> > Why *should* science reject evolution as an explanation when it fits > > the evidence extremely well, and there is no other scientific > > explanation?
> It doesn't fit the evidence, and there are many other scientific > explanations.
really? i'm a scientist. enlighten me. for 3000 years your religion failed, utterly, to explain ANYTHING about human beings or nature. yet you think you have god's own insight
But you have conflated science with materialism, just as
> you have conflated minor intra-species genetic changes with Darwinism.-
<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote: >heekster wrote: >> On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 08:14:13 -0800, John Harshman >> <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>> Friar Broccoli wrote: >>>> On Nov 4, 3:37 am, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com" >>>> <richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Nov 4, 7:54 am, "rmacfarl" <rmacf...@alphalink.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>> "John Wilkins" <j...@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message >>>>>> news:031120092214170670%john@wilkins.id.au... >>>>>>> In article <yoydnSlAV6iSQm3X4p2d...@giganews.com>, John >>>>>>> Harshman >>>>>>> <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> I think, contrary I believe to Wilkins, that morphospecies and >>>>>>>> biological species are not commensurable, and a great deal of >>>>>>>> damage can >>>>>>>> be done by pretending they are. Punctuated equilibria, for >>>>>>>> example. >>>>>>> You think wrong. Morphospecies (that is, species determined by >>>>>>> morphological characters only, not also behavioural and >>>>>>> molecular data) >>>>>>> are not commensurable with reproductively isolated species IMO. >>>>>>> Neither >>>>>>> are those determined by molecular data alone. >>>>>> A nice challenge to the paleontological taxonomists... >>>>> Not really.
>>>>> As a "palaeontological taxonomist" I'm perfectly aware that when we >>>>> describe a new fossil species, it is a rather different use of the >>>>> term than that used by biologists studying existing populations. In >>>>> essence it is a label of convenience which allows us to look in a >>>>> drawer of dusty specimens and identify bones as being similar to those >>>>> of other specimens. Because fossils are rarely those of complete >>>>> organisms, it is common for different parts of the same animal to have >>>>> different taxonomic identification, which makes the ICZN rules on >>>>> naming priority an essential if tedious discipline. >>>> .
>>>>> We know from studies of existing populations of organisms that there >>>>> can be wide morphological variation within species, and clearly >>>>> defined pairs of species which are morphologically very similar.
>>>> We here amongst the unwashed masses, would appreciate one >>>> good example of each case.
>>> A couple of simple ones:
>>> The male and female of Eclectus parrots were originally described as >>> separate species.
>> Wouldn't this just be regular sexual dimorphism, even if somewhat >> exaggerated, which the original describers had not yet recognized as >> such?
>Yes. But why isn't sexual dimorphism a proper example of wide >morphological variation within species?
I was not aware that anyone had formed a preferential definition of what constituted a "proper example of wide morphological variation within species." What I've read on the subject is ante 1980, so I freely admit that I'm not up to date on this. Your question seems to imply the existence of some parochial distinction which excludes sexual dimorphism from the wide intraspecies variations. I really don't know.
>>> The frogs originally described as the single species Rana pipiens appear >>> to be at least two dozen species, all quite difficult to distinguish >>> morphologically and, I suspect, impossible from skeletons.
> 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? 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.
> > On Nov 4, 10:28 am, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote: > >> Iain <iain_inks...@hotmail.com> wrote in > >> news:36fee048-19ea-4b62-bfb5- > >> 58a704118...@l2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
> >> > On Nov 2, 5:33 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote: > >> >> On Nov 2, 10:02 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> >> >> > Change accumulates over time. Strike five. Yer out.
> >> >> Well. If the changes are going to accumulate where are your > >> >> fossils of a creature developing the new attribute such as a wing. > >> >> There should be plenty of evidence in the fossil record of > >> >> creatures slowly changing.
> >> > Um, yes. That's what the fossil record is all about.
> >> > --Iain
> >> There is nothing in the fossil record itself that demands an > >> evolutionary interpretation.
> > There is, however, a time-ordered *pattern* in the fossil record. > > This pattern is most obvious when the record is most complete. As in > > small shelly things.
> >> What is actually observed is static forms preserved at different > >> instants of time in the past.
> > Actually *when* the fossil record *is* fine-grained enough one > > observes change over time. Even in some other cases, change is > > observed over time, making for difficult decisions in deciding if the > > younger and older fossils represent change within a species or > > represent a new species. For example, archaic H. sapiens is not > > morphologically identical to to *any* modern H. sapiens (and modern H. > > sapiens skeletal specimens differ enough that experts can distinguish > > different human 'races' with reasonable, albeit not perfect, > > accuracy. Clearly, the claim of *static form* is often an artifact of > > the paucity of the fossil record and an ignoring of the variation that > > does exist in every known species (living or extinct) in favor of > > those features held in common.
> 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. 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.
> >> 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 you can go 3 ft with one step that you can go 300 ft with 100 steps. The *types* of genomic differences between humans and chimps can all be accounted for by known mutational mechanisms. The *amount* of such genomic difference can be accounted for by the slowest known mechanism of genomic change (mutation plus drift) without invoking the much faster mechanism of genomic change (mutation plus directional selection). There is nothing that would prevent the common ancestor from generating chimp and human in the time available (according to standard geologic time as opposed to magical wishful time) that I can see.
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.
>> Why *should* science reject evolution as an explanation when it fits >> the evidence extremely well, and there is no other scientific >> explanation?
>It doesn't fit the evidence, and there are many other scientific >explanations.
Ah, there's another one of those unsupported assertions that creationists love. Come on then, don't be shy. Show us the evidence that doesn't fit and the other scientific explanations.
> > On Nov 4, 3:28 pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote: > >> Iain <iain_inks...@hotmail.com> wrote in > >> news:36fee048-19ea-4b62-bfb5- > >> 58a704118...@l2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
> >> > On Nov 2, 5:33 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote: > >> >> On Nov 2, 10:02 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> >> >> > Change accumulates over time. Strike five. Yer out.
> >> >> Well. If the changes are going to accumulate where are your > >> >> fossils of a creature developing the new attribute such as a wing. > >> >> There should be plenty of evidence in the fossil record of > >> >> creatures slowly changing.
> >> > Um, yes. That's what the fossil record is all about.
> >> > --Iain
> >> There is nothing in the fossil record itself that demands an > >> evolutionary interpretation.
> > There isn't? > > Well, poor saps like me who actually *study* the fossil record think > > that unless we interpret in the light of evolution it is meaningless.
> Well that's not my fault.
No, it's a demonstration of your ignorance. Choosing to remain ignorant is your choice.
> > What do you know that all those palaeontologists don't?
> Apparently, how to think outside of the box of Darwinism.
So you know nothing about the subject, know nothing about science, but think that you know more about the subject than people who do.
Why?
> >> What is actually observed is static forms preserved at different > >> instants of time in the past. The fossils do not imply evolution. > >> Rather, the idea that they represent different stages of evolutionary > >> change is an interpretation which presupposes evolution.
> > Well, it's a fact that evolution happens - we can observe it in action > > in the natural world and replicate it in the laboratory. No other > > known process can account for the distribution of fossils in the > > geological and geographical record - unless, I suppose, you are > > prepared to argue that they were placed there by some malevolent > > spirit to deceive true believers. Frankly, I think that a silly > > argument.
> The "evolution" you observe in the laboratory is not the "evolution" you > claim to observe in the fossil record.
We don't claim to observe evolution in the fossil record. We claim that a shared evolutionary ancestry is the best explanation for the fossil record. As it is the only testable mechanism consistent with the evidence, there seems no reason to reject it.
Or are you proposing a testable alternative?
> Minor tinkering with intra-species > genetics is not the same as a mammal "evolving" from a reptile.
...and you can make this authoritative pronouncement because?...
> Evolution > is not Darwinism.
Well, no. Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is one element of modern evolutionary theory. Why not educate yourself in the subject?
> > The fossil record is entirely consistent with what we would expect > > from a shared evolutionary ancestry of living organisms. Evolutionary > > theory can and has made predictions about the morphology of fossils > > before they were found.
> In other words, you interpret the fossil record by presupposing > evolution.
If you have a better, testable explanation feel free to offer it. If you can't - and face it, you can't - why on earth should we reject an exhaustively tested explanation?
> > Why *should* science reject evolution as an explanation when it fits > > the evidence extremely well, and there is no other scientific > > explanation?
> It doesn't fit the evidence,
Well, the people who have actually *studied* the fossil record think so. What do you know that they don't?
> and there are many other scientific > explanations.
There are? So why not produce one.
> But you have conflated science with materialism,
Perhaps you can explain how one can use the scientific method if one does not operate under the assumption of materialism.
>just as > you have conflated minor intra-species genetic changes with Darwinism.
>> On Nov 4, 3:280m, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote: >>> Iain <iain_inks...@hotmail.com> wrote in >>> news:36fee048-19ea-4b62-bfb5- >>> 58a704118...@l2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
>>> > On Nov 2, 5:330m, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote: >>> >> On Nov 2, 10:02!m, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>>> >> > Change accumulates over time. Strike five. Yer out.
>>> >> Well. If the changes are going to accumulate where are your >>> >> fossils of a creature developing the new attribute such as a wing. >>> >> There should be plenty of evidence in the fossil record of >>> >> creatures slowly changing.
>>> > Um, yes. That's what the fossil record is all about.
>>> > --Iain
>>> There is nothing in the fossil record itself that demands an >>> evolutionary interpretation.
>> There isn't? >> Well, poor saps like me who actually *study* the fossil record think >> that unless we interpret in the light of evolution it is meaningless.
>Well that's not my fault.
>> What do you know that all those palaeontologists don't?
>Apparently, how to think outside of the box of Darwinism.
>>> What is actually observed is static forms preserved at different >>> instants of time in the past. The fossils do not imply evolution. >>> Rather, the idea that they represent different stages of evolutionary >>> change is an interpretation which presupposes evolution.
>> Well, it's a fact that evolution happens - we can observe it in action >> in the natural world and replicate it in the laboratory. No other >> known process can account for the distribution of fossils in the >> geological and geographical record - unless, I suppose, you are >> prepared to argue that they were placed there by some malevolent >> spirit to deceive true believers. Frankly, I think that a silly >> argument.
>The "evolution" you observe in the laboratory is not the "evolution" you >claim to observe in the fossil record.
Yes it is.
> Minor tinkering with intra-species >genetics is not the same as a mammal "evolving" from a reptile. Evolution >is not Darwinism.
Evolution is just a fact of nature.
>> The fossil record is entirely consistent with what we would expect >> from a shared evolutionary ancestry of living organisms. Evolutionary >> theory can and has made predictions about the morphology of fossils >> before they were found.
>In other words, you interpret the fossil record by presupposing >evolution.
No, the fossil record is a major line of evidence for evolution. It is not the only one though.
>> Why *should* science reject evolution as an explanation when it fits >> the evidence extremely well, and there is no other scientific >> explanation?
>It doesn't fit the evidence,
Yes it does.
>and there are many other scientific >explanations.
Find one.
> But you have conflated science with materialism, just as >you have conflated minor intra-species genetic changes with Darwinism.
Come up with a better explanation.
-- Bob.
Did you know that 1 in 4 people make up a quarter of the world's population?
On Nov 3, 7:26 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
> All-Seeing-I wrote:
> snip
> > Correct. For one thing they assume divergence speciation happens.
> Actually, "divergence speciation" (is there any other kind?) is directly > observed.
You have observed a mammal gradually turning into a reptile or vs.versa?
What ever you have been smoking, please, pass it on over.
> > It does not.
> Yet it's been observed to happen many times.
evidence?
> > There is not a single shred of evidence for that unless one smokes all > > of the local herb in Mexico and begins to hallucinates.
> Or, instead of your prefered 'research' method outlined above, one actually > observes populations over time. If you do that, one does observed > divergence.
> DJT
Well. What observed changes have occured within the human population in the last 6,000 years of recorded history?
All-seeing-I wrote: > On Nov 3, 7:26 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote: >> All-Seeing-I wrote:
>> snip
>>> Correct. For one thing they assume divergence speciation happens. >> Actually, "divergence speciation" (is there any other kind?) is directly >> observed.
> You have observed a mammal gradually turning into a reptile or > vs.versa?
> What ever you have been smoking, please, pass it on over.
>>> It does not. >> Yet it's been observed to happen many times.
> evidence?
>>> There is not a single shred of evidence for that unless one smokes all >>> of the local herb in Mexico and begins to hallucinates. >> Or, instead of your prefered 'research' method outlined above, one actually >> observes populations over time. If you do that, one does observed >> divergence.
>> DJT
> Well. What observed changes have occured within the human population > in the last 6,000 years of recorded history?
Lots
Small pox resistance is one example, here are several others;
On Nov 2, 5:33 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> On Nov 2, 10:02 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> > Change accumulates over time. Strike five. Yer out.
> Well. If the changes are going to accumulate where are your fossils of > a creature developing the new attribute such as a wing. There should > be plenty of evidence in the fossil record of creatures slowly > changing.
Punctuated equalibrium.
Changes accumulate over time but changes speed up and slow down according to environmental pressure on a population. A stable environment will lead to relatively stable evolution where evolution just patches up information lost naturally to copying errors and information being lost from the gene pool (see crocodiles).
When environments change then changes may happen in times scales as short as 100,000 years, which is often difficult to caputre in the fossil record. Fossils only form under certain situations as you should know already so branches of the tree of life might not have many fossils. As it goes we keep on finding more detail on the tree of life and we know there are more creatures who do not exist today in the fossil record than we see on the planet at the moment.
How do you explain fossils if you're a creationist anyway? God put them there? If you think that you can basically trash the bible as the act of putting a full fossil record together to uncover over time is millions of magnitudes more complex and involved than getting a bunch of humans to write a short book with a few stories in it.
> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 07:10:20 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
> <ap...@email.com> wrote: > >Ok kids. Here are some facts: > I get so tired from that indoctrination mantra... > >The Case of the Missing Mechanism
> >There are five critical areas where Darwinism and evolutionary theory > >in general are failing. They are:
> >The unsubstantiation of a Darwinian mechanism of evolution
> The mechanism of mutation plus natural selection is trivial to > observe. Strike one. > That's MICROEVOLUTION, not MACROEVOLUTION!. The observed effects of random mutation plus natural selection can account for temporary changes in finch beak size, pigmentation changes in moths, and antibiotic resistance in bacteria. It has NEVER been observed creating novel 1) cell types, 2) tissue types, 3) organs, or 4) body plans. All four of those creative events must be explained by any theory of evolution. > >The total failure of origin of life studies to produce a workable > >model
> This has nothing to do with evolution. Strike two. > Are you blind? The abiogenesis is one of the headpillars of the evolution theory, not biological evolution welt understood but chemical evolution (Nucleosynthesis). So don't call that a strike. > >The inability of evolutionary mechanism to explain the origin of > >complex adaptations
> In what way is it unable to do so? Strike three. > In what way is it able to do so? the burden lies on you! > >The bankruptcy of the blind watchmaker hypothesis
> It's not a hypothesis, it's a metaphor. Strike four. > It's a hypothesis and a metaphor. Why do you deny that? > >The biological evidence that the rule in nature is morphological > >stability over time and not constant change.
> Change accumulates over time. Strike five. Yer out.
yes, but there is a limit for biodiversity. Have you ever seen a dog producing a non dog?
> On 2 nov, 17:02, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 07:10:20 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
> > <ap...@email.com> wrote: > > >Ok kids. Here are some facts: > > I get so tired from that indoctrination mantra... > > >The Case of the Missing Mechanism
> > >There are five critical areas where Darwinism and evolutionary theory > > >in general are failing. They are:
> > >The unsubstantiation of a Darwinian mechanism of evolution
> > The mechanism of mutation plus natural selection is trivial to > > observe. Strike one. > > That's MICROEVOLUTION, not MACROEVOLUTION!. The observed effects of random mutation plus natural selection can account for temporary changes in finch beak size, pigmentation changes in moths, and antibiotic resistance in bacteria. It has NEVER been observed creating novel 1) cell types, 2) tissue types, 3) organs, or 4) body plans. All four of those creative events must be explained by any theory of evolution. > > >The total failure of origin of life studies to produce a workable > > >model
> > This has nothing to do with evolution. Strike two. > > Are you blind? The abiogenesis is one of the headpillars of the evolution theory, not biological evolution welt understood but chemical evolution (Nucleosynthesis). So don't call that a strike. > > >The inability of evolutionary mechanism to explain the origin of > > >complex adaptations
> > In what way is it unable to do so? Strike three. > > In what way is it able to do so? the burden lies on you! > > >The bankruptcy of the blind watchmaker hypothesis
> > It's not a hypothesis, it's a metaphor. Strike four. > > It's a hypothesis and a metaphor. Why do you deny that? > > >The biological evidence that the rule in nature is morphological > > >stability over time and not constant change.
> > Change accumulates over time. Strike five. Yer out.
> yes, but there is a limit for biodiversity. Have you ever seen a dog > producing a non dog?
No, and it we did it would falsify evolutionary theory.
<richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Nov 5, 1:49 pm, evolutionguru <albie_yo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2 nov, 17:02, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 07:10:20 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
> > > <ap...@email.com> wrote: > > > >Ok kids. Here are some facts: > > > I get so tired from that indoctrination mantra... > > > >The Case of the Missing Mechanism
> > > >There are five critical areas where Darwinism and evolutionary theory > > > >in general are failing. They are:
> > > >The unsubstantiation of a Darwinian mechanism of evolution
> > > The mechanism of mutation plus natural selection is trivial to > > > observe. Strike one. > > > That's MICROEVOLUTION, not MACROEVOLUTION!. The observed effects of random mutation plus natural selection can account for temporary changes in finch beak size, pigmentation changes in moths, and antibiotic resistance in bacteria. It has NEVER been observed creating novel 1) cell types, 2) tissue types, 3) organs, or 4) body plans. All four of those creative events must be explained by any theory of evolution. > > > >The total failure of origin of life studies to produce a workable > > > >model
> > > This has nothing to do with evolution. Strike two. > > > Are you blind? The abiogenesis is one of the headpillars of the evolution theory, not biological evolution welt understood but chemical evolution (Nucleosynthesis). So don't call that a strike. > > > >The inability of evolutionary mechanism to explain the origin of > > > >complex adaptations
> > > In what way is it unable to do so? Strike three. > > > In what way is it able to do so? the burden lies on you! > > > >The bankruptcy of the blind watchmaker hypothesis
> > > It's not a hypothesis, it's a metaphor. Strike four. > > > It's a hypothesis and a metaphor. Why do you deny that? > > > >The biological evidence that the rule in nature is morphological > > > >stability over time and not constant change.
> > > Change accumulates over time. Strike five. Yer out.
> > yes, but there is a limit for biodiversity. Have you ever seen a dog > > producing a non dog?
> No, and it we did it would falsify evolutionary theory. > so evolutionary theory is not falsified yet, am I right?
> > evolutionguru
> ..which is a misnomer if ever there was one. > No, you are wrong, I test persons faith in Evolution by making creationist arguments ;-) > RF- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
|
