|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Rupert Morrish
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 5:32 am Post subject: Re: A Fine Napoleonic Retreat |
 |
|
Frank J wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jun 28, 6:14 am, "Devil's Advocaat" <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Observe the process by which the certainty of their position appears
to be crumbling into doubt.
Creationism – God did it.
If you mean classic creationism, it also included what God did, and
when. Nothing on the "how," of course, and no testing of the whats and
whens. And basing it all on sought and fabricated "weaknesses" of
evolution instead of on it's own merits.
|
You're just pontificating ;)
[snip] |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
John McKendry
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 6:24 am Post subject: Chez Watt nomination |
|
|
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 07:07:53 -0700, hersheyh wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jun 30, 10:03Â am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
snip
The minor changes that converted a fish-like forefin into a tetrapod's
forelimb broke or degraded the function of that organ as a fin. Â The
minor changes that converted a tetrapod forelimb into a bird's wing
broke or degraded the function of that organ as a forelimb. Â The minor
changes that converted a wing into a penguin's forefin broke or
degraded the function of that organ as a wing. Â Thus it is degradation
all the way down from fin to leg to wing to fin again. Â Perhaps we
should have a fins again wake to celebrate
Make that "celebrate" "rejoyce in"
In the "Hershey Collective Everywhere" category. Nice to see a literary |
double pun from the science side of the aisle.
John |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
T Pagano
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 6:43 am Post subject: Re: It is easy to understand why Steven J feigns ignorance o |
|
|
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 16:06:57 -0700 (PDT), "Steven J."
<steven_j@altavista.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jun 29, 3:37 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 22:25:21 -0700 (PDT), "Steven J."
steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
-- [snip]
|
snip
| Quote: |
2. Secularists don't have a clue how novelty emerges or how it
progresses to maturity. Such events have NEVER been observed---NEVER.
Since you've never defined this quality "novelty," it's not clear what
would qualify as observing it, or as an explanation for it.
|
1. I've defined it dozens of times in this forum and the normal
english language definition of "novel" as an adjective would do
nicely. "Novelty" is the adjective used to describe any biological
structure, system, or organ that did not exist---even in rudimentary
form----in a predecessor populations. Since the secular creation
story is one in which life and all its diversity was generated
linearly (with branching) from some prebiotic self replicating
molecule EVERY structure, system, organ was "novel' at some point in
prehistory. There is nothing controversial about this claim.
2. Evolutionists have NEVER observed the emergence and development of
biological novelty---NEVER. Many evolutionists admit that this occurs
too slowly to be observed. However, unless there exists empirical
consequences of these unobservable transformational changes the theory
is unscientific. Are there empirical consequences of this
conception?
3. The evolutionist theory of biological transformism explains that
the changes resulting in the emergence of novelty and its development
to maturity should be ubiquitous throughout prehistory. Darwin fully
expected some of the emergence and/or its development to maturity to
have been sampled by the fossil record---an empirical consequence.
This empirical consequence has never been observed---NEVER. The
fossil shows nothing but sudden appearance and STASIS.
4. There may be other empirical consequences of these theorized
ubiquitous and transformational changes leading to the emergence of
novelty and its development. But it is encumbent upon Steven J and
his merry band of atheists to identify them and then find them.
| Quote: |
However,
one can have a pretty good idea of how something happens without
observing it directly
|
"A-pretty-good-idea-of-how-something-happens" is also referred to as a
"theory," a "conjecture," or a "guess" and is NOT equivalent to saying
one knows the true explanation. Furthermore such conjectures are NOT
scientific unless we have a means of connecting them to reality either
by observing predicted events directly or observing the empirical
consequence of predicted events. Additionally investigators should
determine what the theory prohibits and make attempts to find the
prohibited events. That is, assuming they are interested in purging
falsity.
Not sure that the high priests of neoDarwinism have done any of this
with regard to the theory's transfomational claims.
| Quote: |
(and conversely, one can observe a thing and
have no clue how it is possible).
|
NeoDarwinians see dinosaur forearms and avian wings in the fossil
record and believe that one transformed into the other yet among
themselves cannot even agree conceptually how such a thing happened.
| Quote: |
In evolution, "novel" features (as
most people define the term) emerge as modifications of previously-
existing features, or as modifications of duplications of previously-
existing features.
|
Unless such claims are part of naturalist/atheistic philosophy one has
to connect it to reality with direct observation, observation of its
empirical consequences, and attempts to refute.
Time to put up....
snip
Regards,
T Pagnao |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
John Wilkins
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 7:36 am Post subject: Re: Can Steven J produce the testable details concerning eme |
|
|
Rusty Sites <SpameYouToo@spamex.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
John Harshman wrote:
I give him one or two more rounds at most before he runs a way again.
And when he returns, he will have conveniently forgotten every response
he received to his lame arguments, allowing him to repeat them exactly
as before, forever, and never have to deal with objections. Brave Sir
Tony is a phoenix, continually emerging renewed from the ashes of his
last logical pummeling.
Perhaps bipolar disorder could explain this behavior. Manic phases tend
to be short with delusions of grandeur being one of the indicators.
Episodes of depression tend to be longer and absent the delusions of
grandeur. The Pagano that we hear from is indeed resurrected by mania
each time and he may not even remember how things went the last time.
|
It need not be full bipolar. A mild case would still account for the
swings, and stupidity could account for the rest.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
John Wilkins
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 7:36 am Post subject: Re: Steven J gets both the facts about Lenski's work and the |
|
|
hersheyh <hersheyhv@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jun 30, 11:37 am, Greg Guarino <g...@risky-biz.com> wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 07:03:19 -0700 (PDT), hersheyh
hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Perhaps we should have a fins again wake
Admit it, you wrote the whole post as an excuse to get that bit in.
Actually a stream-of-consciousness afterthought blumed in my mind.
And I like Dublin the entendres.
|
A situation that has no doubt dogged you from youth, from which we can
deduce a portrait of the scientist as a young man.
| Quote: |
To me, "Finnegan's Wake" is more the song than the novel, which I
never undertook to read more than a few pages of. That song was one of
several Irish tunes that my High School English teacher would break
into from time to time.. This was in NY City in the early Seventies,
twenty-five years or so before he had a book of his own published,
Angela's Ashes.
Greg Guarino
|
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
John Wilkins
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 7:36 am Post subject: Re: Steven J gets both the facts about Lenski's work and the |
|
|
raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 07:03:19 -0700 (PDT), hersheyh
hersheyhv@yahoo.com> wrote:
The minor changes that converted a fish-like forefin into a tetrapod's
forelimb broke or degraded the function of that organ as a fin. The
minor changes that converted a tetrapod forelimb into a bird's wing
broke or degraded the function of that organ as a forelimb. The minor
changes that converted a wing into a penguin's forefin broke or
degraded the function of that organ as a wing. Thus it is degradation
all the way down from fin to leg to wing to fin again. Perhaps we
should have a fins again wake to celebrate the total degradation that
goes on in evolution?
Absolutely! Let us rejoyce!
|
Australians all! Let us read Joyce
For we are literary...
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
John Harshman
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 8:12 am Post subject: Re: It is easy to understand why Steven J feigns ignorance o |
|
|
Steven J. wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jun 30, 8:43 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
|
[snip]
| Quote: |
Time to put up....
Are you planning, at any time in the foreseeable future, to deal with
the actual intermediate fossils linking basal archosaurs to birds?
|
I'm going to say no. I would say that an even better series of
intermediates would be the ones relating basal synapsids with mammals.
But whatever. Since neither of these series has any "novelties" by
Pagano's definition, what's the point? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Stuart
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 4:28 am Post subject: Re: A Fine Napoleonic Retreat |
|
|
On Jun 28, 12:14 am, "Devil's Advocaat" <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
| Quote: |
Observe the process by which the certainty of their position appears
to be crumbling into doubt.
Creationism – God did it.
Intelligent Design – Somebody did it.
Design Inference – It looks like somebody did it.
I wonder what the next step is going to be?
|
Well somebody or something did it.
Stuart |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
John Wilkins
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 10:10 am Post subject: Re: A Fine Napoleonic Retreat |
|
|
Stuart <bigdakine@aol.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jun 28, 12:14 am, "Devil's Advocaat" <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Observe the process by which the certainty of their position appears
to be crumbling into doubt.
Creationism – God did it.
Intelligent Design – Somebody did it.
Design Inference – It looks like somebody did it.
I wonder what the next step is going to be?
Well somebody or something did it.
Stuart
|
It isn't true that nobody did it.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
RAM
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 12:48 am Post subject: Re: Steven J continues with the illegitimate extrapolation o |
|
|
On Jul 4, 7:19 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 16:06:57 -0700 (PDT), "Steven J."
steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
On Jun 29, 3:37 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 22:25:21 -0700 (PDT), "Steven J."
steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
-- [snip]
snip
3. The fossil record does not show the ubiquitous transformism that
neoDarwinism predicted. It shows without exception "sudden
appearance" and "STASIS."
The last time we had this discussion, it was painfully clear that you
did not know what "stasis" meant (Gould and Eldredge used the term to
indicate that, at least at the morphological level, a species had
undergone no evolution at all; you use it to describe entire sequences
of similar but clearly distinct species each showing microevolutionary
changes as they transition from one to another).
1. I would love to see Steven J produce any quotes of mine writen in
the last 5 years wherein I explicitly or implicitly state that
"stasis" has anything directly to do with sequences of fossil species.
It has always referred to each fossil population and that is how I
have used that label. However, the logical inference that these
discrete fossil populations, which show no directional change over
millions of years in the fossil record, DISCONFIRMS linear
gradualistic darwinism is inescapable. This inference forms the
principle dispute between the Eldredge/Gould and Dawkins camps.
2. Niles Eldredge wrote in his airing of the Punc Eqer's dispute with
the Dawkinsian gradualists, "But rarely do we see progressive
transformation in any one direction lasting very long. What we see
instead is oscillation. Variable traits usually seem to dance around
an average value." (from Eldredge's, "Reinventing Darwin" 1995, Wiley
& Sons, Inc.). This sounds dangerously like what creationists have
been arguing since the 1960s.
3. Neither Darwinism nor neoDarwinism predcts distinct, discrete
species----either in the living or the fossil world. Purely
naturalistic processes are BY NECESSITY gradual and linear--there are
no discrete entities. Yet the fossil record shows "fossil
populations" appearing suddenly, fully formed as discrete entities
from other fossil populations. While there are similarities between
populations there are enough differences that make them nonetheless
discrete. Classification schemes like that of Linneas show the same
discrete nature of populations. This is a DISCONFIRMATION of a
supposedly linear, purely naturalistic darwinian process.
4. Not only can't evolutionists explain how those fossil populations
came to be in the first place, they have been completely and utterly
unable to connect these discrete fossil populations with anything but
illegitimate extrapolations of microevolutionary observations. Gould
and Eldredge have admitted as much. Gould and Eldredge have attempted
to explain the discontinuity between fossil species with a process
that has also been highly resistant to actual empirical test.
Someone who talks
about the Pearson, _et al._ foram sequence as showing "stasis" is just
using words as magic charms, not to convey meaning or express
understanding.
1. As usual Steven J produces none of the facts to support this
epithet. The Pearson, et al. report shows fossil evidence of two
foram populations existing together in pretty much the same form for
about 15 million years. The only difference is that one of the foram
populations changed from a less spherical shell to a more spherical
shell. If that ain't an example of stasis, then I don't know what is.
2. I never used (explicitly or implicitly) the label "stasis" to
mean "rock stability" and neither did Gould. Consistent with Gould I
do use "stasis" to mean that in most (if not all) cases effectively no
progressive, coherent, TRANSFORMATIONAL change accumulates at all in
fossil population----even after several million years.
3. Pearson, et al., had no idea why one foram population exhibited
the relatively minor variation in shell shape. And there is no reason
NOT to suspect that the information for the more spherical variations
did not already exist in the collective genome of the foram
population.
4. Does Steven J really think that the relatively minor change from
an ALREADY EXISTING less spherical foram shell to a more spherical
foram shell after 15 million years is a reason to be optimistic that
this process has the slightest thing to do with how the shell came to
exist in the first place? Gould/Eldredge have shown that there is
little reason to be optimistic that observable gradualistic
oscillations back-and-forth within limits has anthing to do with
emergence of novelty.
5. As a side note after I exposed Elsberry's misuse of the Pearson,
et al. report not only did his Transitional Challenge practically
vanish from the forum so did Elsberry.
snip
Regards,
T Pagano
|
Tony your creationist religious commitments will become more and more
sectarian and cult like because of posts like this. They reflect
someone committed to charlatan creationism rather than science. Do
you think your God likes deception?
Regards
RAM |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Steven J.
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 4:24 am Post subject: Re: Steven J continues with the illegitimate extrapolation o |
|
|
On Jul 4, 7:19 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 16:06:57 -0700 (PDT), "Steven J."
steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
On Jun 29, 3:37 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 22:25:21 -0700 (PDT), "Steven J."
steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
-- [snip]
snip
3. The fossil record does not show the ubiquitous transformism that
neoDarwinism predicted. It shows without exception "sudden
appearance" and "STASIS."
The last time we had this discussion, it was painfully clear that you
did not know what "stasis" meant (Gould and Eldredge used the term to
indicate that, at least at the morphological level, a species had
undergone no evolution at all; you use it to describe entire sequences
of similar but clearly distinct species each showing microevolutionary
changes as they transition from one to another).
1. I would love to see Steven J produce any quotes of mine writen in
the last 5 years wherein I explicitly or implicitly state that
"stasis" has anything directly to do with sequences of fossil species.
It has always referred to each fossil population and that is how I
have used that label. However, the logical inference that these
discrete fossil populations, which show no directional change over
millions of years in the fossil record, DISCONFIRMS linear
gradualistic darwinism is inescapable. This inference forms the
principle dispute between the Eldredge/Gould and Dawkins camps.
Well, it's a bit more than five years old, but you might wish to look |
at:
<http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d65868129db05ee5?
hl=en>
Excerpt: "While the foram observations presented in Pearson, et al.
might show a
transition in the broad sense of the word "transition" it is not the
sort of transition which creationists and skeptics of neoDarwinian
evolution have sought. Relatively minor variations of an existing
structure WITHIN LIMITS which exist substantially the same over a 15
million year period is not what we seek. We seek fossil evidence
that
a forearm did transform into a wing. "
While, in your typical fashion, you sacrifice clarity for verbosity,
you insist that a sequence of fossils showing gradual change from one
species to another is "stasis" because the degree of change does not
satisfy your demand for "novelty." Incidentally, the Pearson, _et
al._ foram series does show directionality.
| Quote: |
2. Niles Eldredge wrote in his airing of the Punc Eqer's dispute with
the Dawkinsian gradualists, "But rarely do we see progressive
transformation in any one direction lasting very long. What we see
instead is oscillation. Variable traits usually seem to dance around
an average value." (from Eldredge's, "Reinventing Darwin" 1995, Wiley
& Sons, Inc.). This sounds dangerously like what creationists have
been arguing since the 1960s.
It sounds, for that matter, rather close to what Darwin was arguing in |
1859: that species spent most of their existence not undergoing major
evolutionary changes, and that periods of change were probably rare
compared to periods in which the mix of traits in a species remained
constant. For their own part, creationists have not argued for
"punctuated equilibria," which they mostly present as "a reptile laid
an egg which hatched into a bird," or macroevolution through
saltation. Eldredge was neither arguing for saltationism, nor, on the
other hand, arguing that evolution was limited to "change within
kinds." Eldredge accepts, e.g. the horse series, or the fossil
hominid series, as examples of large scale evolutionary changes.
| Quote: |
3. Neither Darwinism nor neoDarwinism predcts distinct, discrete
species----either in the living or the fossil world. Purely
naturalistic processes are BY NECESSITY gradual and linear--there are
no discrete entities. Yet the fossil record shows "fossil
populations" appearing suddenly, fully formed as discrete entities
from other fossil populations. While there are similarities between
populations there are enough differences that make them nonetheless
discrete. Classification schemes like that of Linneas show the same
discrete nature of populations. This is a DISCONFIRMATION of a
supposedly linear, purely naturalistic darwinian process.
Tony, unless you assume that the fossil record is astonishingly |
complete -- that a very high fraction of all organisms leave fossils
-- the fact that there are not transitional fossils between species is
hardly evidence of either saltational change or of special creation.
In any case, speciation has been observed in the field and in the lab,
which implies that the rarity of interspecies transitionals in the
fossil record cannot be telling us that speciation requires either
saltational change or miraculous intervention.
Of course, many species in the actual world are NOT "discrete" or
"distinct:" there are numerous cases where different populations can
be regarded, with equal validity, as members of the same species or as
members of different species. The so-called "ring species" or
"clines" are merely some of the examples of this.
| Quote: |
4. Not only can't evolutionists explain how those fossil populations
came to be in the first place, they have been completely and utterly
unable to connect these discrete fossil populations with anything but
illegitimate extrapolations of microevolutionary observations. Gould
and Eldredge have admitted as much. Gould and Eldredge have attempted
to explain the discontinuity between fossil species with a process
that has also been highly resistant to actual empirical test.
Gould and Eldredge are not trying to explain the "discontinuity |
between fossil species," so much as using the distinctions between
morphospecies (it is, of course, difficult to tell if extinct
populations, which don't breed and whose DNA cannot be tested, are the
same species or different species, so all paleontologists can do is
say if they *look* like different species) to argue for their idea
that gradual change from one species to another takes place rapidly
(in geological terms) in isolated fringe populations of a species.
They are not arguing so much about process, as about the tempo of
evolutionary change (to some extent, of course, Gould did argue that
changes in regulatory genes were more important that small changes to
other genes, but this is a testable proposition: do such changes in
regulatory genes produce the sorts of changes we see between taxa?).
| Quote: |
Someone who talks
about the Pearson, _et al._ foram sequence as showing "stasis" is just
using words as magic charms, not to convey meaning or express
understanding.
1. As usual Steven J produces none of the facts to support this
epithet. The Pearson, et al. report shows fossil evidence of two
foram populations existing together in pretty much the same form for
about 15 million years. The only difference is that one of the foram
populations changed from a less spherical shell to a more spherical
shell. If that ain't an example of stasis, then I don't know what is.
Well, yes, that was my point. You don't know what stasis is. |
Where a fossil species is known from many individuals over a long
period of time (many fossil species are known from a handful of, or
even a single, fragmentary specimen from a single brief period of
time), one will observe variation among the fossils (as one observes
variation among members of any living species). Some variants will
produce individuals that resemble typical individuals of earlier or
later species within the same genus. "Stasis" is that such variants
do not become more or less common over the lifetime of the species:
there is a sort of "bell curve" of variation within the species, and
the median point does not move over time, until one species is
replaced by another with a different median in the "bell curve" of
variation. Even if the change in the shell was as minor as you claim,
the fact that it was a gradual, continuous change over a long period
of time and several morphospecies shows that it was not "stasis."
| Quote: |
2. I never used (explicitly or implicitly) the label "stasis" to
mean "rock stability" and neither did Gould. Consistent with Gould I
do use "stasis" to mean that in most (if not all) cases effectively no
progressive, coherent, TRANSFORMATIONAL change accumulates at all in
fossil population----even after several million years.
Gould used "stasis" in the sense I indicated above: there is a mix of |
traits in any population, but the mix does not change over time. That
is "stasis." Note that Gould himself described a "progressive,
coherent, TRANSFORMATIONAL change" accumulating over thousands of
years in fossils that spanned the transition between two species of
the snail genus _Cerion_. Note that Gould further described several
cases of such change in successive species of various trilobite
genera, although the changes were not gradual but punctuated.
| Quote: |
3. Pearson, et al., had no idea why one foram population exhibited
the relatively minor variation in shell shape. And there is no reason
NOT to suspect that the information for the more spherical variations
did not already exist in the collective genome of the foram
population.
*sigh* You know more know what you mean by "information" than you |
know what you mean by "stasis" or "novelty." As I've complained, you
use words like magic charms rather than as tools of communication.
One might suspect that if the "information" had already existed, then
the full range of altered shells would already have been present in
the original population.
| Quote: |
4. Does Steven J really think that the relatively minor change from
an ALREADY EXISTING less spherical foram shell to a more spherical
foram shell after 15 million years is a reason to be optimistic that
this process has the slightest thing to do with how the shell came to
exist in the first place? Gould/Eldredge have shown that there is
little reason to be optimistic that observable gradualistic
oscillations back-and-forth within limits has anthing to do with
emergence of novelty.
No, they have not shown that. You do not understand their point at |
all. Gould and Eldredge have argued that most evolutionary change is
not phyletically gradualistic. They have not convinced everyone that
they are right even on that point, although it is not a terribly
radical point.
Tony, if you were consistent in your assessment of what is and is not
a "novelty," you would certainly conclude that no "novelty" is needed
to account for the differences among the various anthropoid primates
(monkeys and apes, including us).
| Quote: |
5. As a side note after I exposed Elsberry's misuse of the Pearson,
et al. report not only did his Transitional Challenge practically
vanish from the forum so did Elsberry.
Right, Tony, you're a legend in your own mind. You're an ace pilot |
who's shot down his own plane over and over again. You made a fool of
yourself over Elsberry's transitional challenge, and, now that
Elsberry is busy elsewhere, you must make do with the rest of us when
you wish to make a fool of yourself again.
| Quote: |
snip
Regards,
T Pagano
|
-- Steven J. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
T Pagano
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 5:19 am Post subject: Re: Steven J continues with the illegitimate extrapolation o |
|
|
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 16:06:57 -0700 (PDT), "Steven J."
<steven_j@altavista.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jun 29, 3:37 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 22:25:21 -0700 (PDT), "Steven J."
steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
-- [snip]
|
snip
| Quote: |
3. The fossil record does not show the ubiquitous transformism that
neoDarwinism predicted. It shows without exception "sudden
appearance" and "STASIS."
The last time we had this discussion, it was painfully clear that you
did not know what "stasis" meant (Gould and Eldredge used the term to
indicate that, at least at the morphological level, a species had
undergone no evolution at all; you use it to describe entire sequences
of similar but clearly distinct species each showing microevolutionary
changes as they transition from one to another).
|
1. I would love to see Steven J produce any quotes of mine writen in
the last 5 years wherein I explicitly or implicitly state that
"stasis" has anything directly to do with sequences of fossil species.
It has always referred to each fossil population and that is how I
have used that label. However, the logical inference that these
discrete fossil populations, which show no directional change over
millions of years in the fossil record, DISCONFIRMS linear
gradualistic darwinism is inescapable. This inference forms the
principle dispute between the Eldredge/Gould and Dawkins camps.
2. Niles Eldredge wrote in his airing of the Punc Eqer's dispute with
the Dawkinsian gradualists, "But rarely do we see progressive
transformation in any one direction lasting very long. What we see
instead is oscillation. Variable traits usually seem to dance around
an average value." (from Eldredge's, "Reinventing Darwin" 1995, Wiley
& Sons, Inc.). This sounds dangerously like what creationists have
been arguing since the 1960s.
3. Neither Darwinism nor neoDarwinism predcts distinct, discrete
species----either in the living or the fossil world. Purely
naturalistic processes are BY NECESSITY gradual and linear--there are
no discrete entities. Yet the fossil record shows "fossil
populations" appearing suddenly, fully formed as discrete entities
from other fossil populations. While there are similarities between
populations there are enough differences that make them nonetheless
discrete. Classification schemes like that of Linneas show the same
discrete nature of populations. This is a DISCONFIRMATION of a
supposedly linear, purely naturalistic darwinian process.
4. Not only can't evolutionists explain how those fossil populations
came to be in the first place, they have been completely and utterly
unable to connect these discrete fossil populations with anything but
illegitimate extrapolations of microevolutionary observations. Gould
and Eldredge have admitted as much. Gould and Eldredge have attempted
to explain the discontinuity between fossil species with a process
that has also been highly resistant to actual empirical test.
| Quote: |
Someone who talks
about the Pearson, _et al._ foram sequence as showing "stasis" is just
using words as magic charms, not to convey meaning or express
understanding.
|
1. As usual Steven J produces none of the facts to support this
epithet. The Pearson, et al. report shows fossil evidence of two
foram populations existing together in pretty much the same form for
about 15 million years. The only difference is that one of the foram
populations changed from a less spherical shell to a more spherical
shell. If that ain't an example of stasis, then I don't know what is.
2. I never used (explicitly or implicitly) the label "stasis" to
mean "rock stability" and neither did Gould. Consistent with Gould I
do use "stasis" to mean that in most (if not all) cases effectively no
progressive, coherent, TRANSFORMATIONAL change accumulates at all in
fossil population----even after several million years.
3. Pearson, et al., had no idea why one foram population exhibited
the relatively minor variation in shell shape. And there is no reason
NOT to suspect that the information for the more spherical variations
did not already exist in the collective genome of the foram
population.
4. Does Steven J really think that the relatively minor change from
an ALREADY EXISTING less spherical foram shell to a more spherical
foram shell after 15 million years is a reason to be optimistic that
this process has the slightest thing to do with how the shell came to
exist in the first place? Gould/Eldredge have shown that there is
little reason to be optimistic that observable gradualistic
oscillations back-and-forth within limits has anthing to do with
emergence of novelty.
5. As a side note after I exposed Elsberry's misuse of the Pearson,
et al. report not only did his Transitional Challenge practically
vanish from the forum so did Elsberry.
snip
Regards,
T Pagano |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
John Harshman
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 5:51 am Post subject: Re: Now Steven J claims poverty of the fossil record and tha |
|
|
T Pagano wrote:
| Quote: |
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 16:06:57 -0700 (PDT), "Steven J."
steven_j@altavista.com> wrote:
On Jun 29, 3:37 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 22:25:21 -0700 (PDT), "Steven J."
steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
-- [snip]
3. The fossil record does not show the ubiquitous transformism that
neoDarwinism predicted. It shows without exception "sudden
appearance" and "STASIS."
The last time we had this discussion, it was painfully clear that you
did not know what "stasis" meant (Gould and Eldredge used the term to
indicate that, at least at the morphological level, a species had
undergone no evolution at all; you use it to describe entire sequences
of similar but clearly distinct species each showing microevolutionary
changes as they transition from one to another). Someone who talks
about the Pearson, _et al._ foram sequence as showing "stasis" is just
using words as magic charms, not to convey meaning or express
understanding.
Note that many of what you seem to regard as "novelties" (e.g. bird
bills, bird wings, and feathers) do not appear full-blown and without
precursors in the fossil record: one can trace intermediate forms in
various maniraptoran theropods. Usually *species*, even entire
genera, appear without clear precursors, but speciation has been
observed in the lab (i.e. the sort of change that is worst-documented
in the fossil record is precisely the kind that has been observed in
the present day among living populations), and the fossil record is
known to be incomplete and incompletely uncovered and described.
1. There are similarities between all biological entities right down
to the cellular and molecular level. We may line organisms (and/or
some of their individual parts) into numerous sequences of putative
precursors/intermediates of all sorts depending on what "characters"
we consider of value and how each are weighted. Which lineal sequence
is correct and how do we know? Unless atheists produce the
empirically testable mechanism showing us which is the correct lineal
connection Steven J is merely story-telling.
|
First, let's make the perfunctory correction, which Pagano will ignore:
when he says "atheist", he really means "scientist". Second, Pagano
should know by now that we can't produce ancestor-descendant sequences,
since ancestors (even at the species level) can't be identified in the
fossil record. We can however indentify intermediates, by the simple
obsesrvation that they are indeed intermediate. And we can put fossils
into phylogenetic trees, using objective methodology, which can be
tested by new or different data. Third, fossils are all very nice, but
the bulk of evidence for common descent comes from living species,
especially, these days, DNA analysis.
| Quote: |
2. Random mutations and natural selection has only been shown to
produce oscillations back-and-forth around variations which already
exist in the collective genome of the population. While some
individual point mutations have been shown to have beneficial effects
in some specific environments such mutations have never proceeded
further progressively, directionally, or coherently. Once that
specific environment disappears populations revert "back" to its
"wild" state.
|
Nobody knows what Tony means by "progressively" or "coherently". We all
agree that natural selection acts on existing variation. Tony seems to
miss the fact that mutation increases variation in the population. And
back-and-forth oscillations happen when the environment oscillates back
and forth. Natural selection tracks the environment. If the environment
changes directionally, variation tracks it directionally.
| Quote: |
3. Steven J cannot claim poverty of the fossil record as Darwin
justifiably could 149 years ago. It is extensive and voluminous. Some
paleontologists believe that it is an adequate sampling of prehistoric
life. We have a fossil sampling of at least 800 million years worth
of prehistoric life which shows that fossil populations show
absolutely NO PROGRESSIVE, DIRECTIONAL CHANGE WHATSOEVER over the
course of several million years each.
|
We have no such thing. We certainly know much more about the fossil
record than Darwin did. But it remains patchy, and we know much more now
about just how patchy it is than we did then. Tony, of course, has no
idea what any paleontologist may have means by "adequate sampling". He's
just quote mining. I would say that the fossil record is not adequate to
show "progressive, directional change" (even without the all caps) over
the course of several million years, simply because there is no way to
get an adequate, continuous sample over several million years except in
very rare cases, and even then the geographic sampling will not be
adequate. Further, nobody is expecting such continuous change; we would
expect change to happen in spurts, which would look like saltation in
the fossil record.
| Quote: |
4. NeoDarwinism is, like ALL purely naturalistic processes,
gradualistic and linear. As such neither Darwin nor the Dawkinsian
gradualists see "species" as an entitiy of any real importance in
evolutionary biology. "Species" is merely part of the gradual linear
continuum of one creature to another. So, what on earth does the
separation of breeding populations (that is, speciation) have to do
with how novelty emerges and how one structure transforms into
another? Steven J doesn't say (and probably doesn't since neither
does anyone else).
|
Nobody knows what Tony means by "linear"; or by "novelty". It's not even
clear what he means by "gradualistic". Or what he means by "Dawkinsian
gradualist". But he's on the track of something. The idea of "species"
is quite useful when restricted to a small portion of space and time.
When you expand it too much in either dimension, it becomes untestable
and pointless. And indeed speciation has very little to do with the
emergence of novelty, except that increasing the number of species gives
more chances for different adaptations to emerge. But we can say quite a
bit about how one structure transforms into another. The fossil record
gives us many examples. Evo devo and comparative genetics tell us quite
a bit about mechanisms.
| Quote: |
5. To be sure the Gouldians conjectured that speciation in small
founder populations (when they don't become extinct) might create the
initial conditions for emergence or transformation. Perhaps it is
sometimes the case that placing a system at some set of "boundary"
conditions might cause a novel change. Gould thought that pushing a
small founder population to these boundaries might cause a rapid
change if it didn't become extinct. But Lenski has done just these
kinds of experiments with E. coli over 30,000 generations and he has
NEVER seen any progressive, directional change---NEVER.
|
Again, nobody knows what Tony means by "progressive". And Lenski's
experiments certainly show directional change. Bacteria gradually become
better adapted to whatever environment they're put in. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Devil's Advocaat
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 5:09 am Post subject: Re: A Fine Napoleonic Retreat |
|
|
On 6 Jul, 23:26, Earle Jones <earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
In article <proto-F4955F.09025206072...@news.panix.com>,
Walter Bushell <pr...@xxx.com> wrote:
In article
b4f98500-91a0-4979-9c27-ef1fe005d...@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
"Devil's Advocaat" <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Wonderful bit of double entendre, that.
I try to avoid such things, as they are too close to innuendos for my
liking. :P
What? A double entendre is nothing like a suppository.
*
"And for all the good those suppositories did, I might as well have
stuck them up my ass."
earle
*
|
Did you leave them in your back passage instead?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
