The two sources you quoted so consistently in the previous thread ARE pseudo-authorities. Neither are scientists who work in relevant fields, hence they - right or wrong - are not authorities in evolutionary theory in spite of your insistence to the contrary. You do not call on the expertise of a plumber - no matter how competent they are as plumbers - to repair your computer system. However, even so, I would be willing to discuss their (especially Milton's) specific arguments IF YOU'D EVER DEIGN TO REPRODUCE THEM HERE, which so far you have not done. It is the absence of that effort on your part that leads me to believe the argument is spurious. It isn't a question of "Why is any source that disagrees with your conclusions pseudo?". Only when the disagreement is based on an appeal to an authority who isn't an authority (i.e., has no credentials in the relevant field) would I label the source in question a "pseudo-authority".
You can start by addressing the substance of my reply concerning Milton, rather than sidestepping again. Here, I'll repost it for you:
quote:
But the point is you haven't posted any scientific evidence. Even if Milton was the defining authority you take him as, you haven't yet provided the data we'd need to evaluate his claims in a scientific sense. What ARE his observations and data that led him to reject RM&NS? All you've shown is that he makes the claim they can't explain the diversity of life - a claim you obviously agree with. So, WHY does he claim this? Upon what is he basing his opinion/inference? Put that info on the table, and perhaps there can be a real discussion.
Willowtree writes:
Milton rejects RM&NS because it cannot be demonstrated the way other disciplines demonstrate theirs.
You ignored my reply to this contention. Care to follow up. Here, I'll repost it for you:
quote:
I would argue first that "demonstrated" in the context of particle physics and cosmology (two of the disciplines you mentioned) is too strong a term. In both cases observations are made, then hypotheses and/or theories are derived from those observations that provide an explanatory framework, then additional observations are sought to either confirm or disconfirm the hypothesis. As one simplified example, cosmologists have developed theories as to how stars form. Additional observations using the most up to date instruments have shown every postulated stage of star formation is correct, because they've seen stars that manifest every stage. IOW, they've observed "transitionals". Particle physicists have a bit of a harder time, since they can't directly observe the particles themselves. However, they've developed theories as to what they would expect to see in their instruments if the particles have the properties they hypothesize. When the results of their experiments match their hypotheses, they can be relatively sure that the particles exist as believed. But it's only indirect observation.
Evolutionary biologists have an even harder time - they are looking at the distant past. It is a historical science, rather than an experimental one. This means they have to be a lot more careful to avoid "just so" stories - inferences not based on evidence. However, the basic methodology is exactly the same - observation (ex, two different species complexes on two adjacent, nearly identical islands), hypothesis (continental vs oceanic island), and additional observation (succession/colonization etc on Krakatau, for instance, or loss of biodiversity on Barro Colorado Island) that provide modern and documentable observations that show the mechanisms/hypotheses are correct. These observations show the same kind of "transitionals" that cosmologists see in their stars. In addtion, there are geologists ("how long"), paleontologists (patterns over time), ecologists (observed mechanisms), population geneticists and molecular biologists ("how") and many other scientists that provide more or less conclusive support for the theory from their own, unrelated work.
Please try and address the substance of my remarks, rather than simply ignoring them and repeating your assertions.
Milton asserts that if RM&NS is to be certified as fact then where is the strata proving this sequencial evolution ?
Where is the incontrovertible voluminous fossil evidence for RM&NS ?
In fossils? Of COURSE neither can be directly observed in fossils. What we do have is the observation of RM&NS quite obviously operating in modern populations. We can edge a bit further back in time with sub-fossil remains that show the same thing happening in the recent past, and we have paleontologists showing that the pattern in the fossil record is consistent with the expected results of RM&NS over vast time scales - not that they observe the action of natural selection at a billion years remove. In addition, we have the evidence from molecular biology and genetics, etc. that supports key features of the theory. Unless you can provide Milton's evidence that the mechanisms we can observe in modern populations could NOT explain the patterns in the record, then I can only assume from what you've written that he has no evidence.
Your ignorance concerning who Daniel Harbour is makes everything you said pseudo. I will ignore these comments of yours as a courtesy.
Well, since you've ignored just about everything else I've written, this is unsurprising. I told you, based on what you said about Harbour, that I disagree with him. Here, I'll even quote myself again so you can address the substance of the remark instead of your usual cavalier dismissal:
quote:
Nor do I agree with his contention that you’ve claimed for him (taking your claim at face value) that he states atheism = neo-Darwinism = ToE. He’s as much in error as anyone else who makes the unwarranted leap that DT pointed out — A is compatible with B is not equivalent to A implies or is predicated on B.
Yes it is IF you at least understand (as opposed to agree) that the intellectual brain trusts/rank and file members who believe neo-Darwinism to be true do so because God has removed their "God sense" as a penalty for refusing to consider Him and credit Him as the ultimate Creator. This is the skeletal context that the conclusion rests in.
I wholeheartedly disagree that atheists leave their worldview bias at the door when reporting their findings to the public at large. You cannot have it both ways despite the claim of rational enquiry which says that science does not take a position on the supernatural.
On the contrary, I understand quite well what you're saying. However, not only do I disagree with you, I have challenged you to support the contention. Again, please show from the writings of ANY evolutionary biologist where they deny God. Show any scientific article from any reputable scientific publication or journal which shows an anti-God bias. Since you have not done so to date, it is doubtful you can support your assertions. Hence, your claim is invalid in the absence of corroboration from the specific literature you say shows this bias.
In your recap, items #1,6,7 were incidentially covered by me in another topic (Top Ten Reasons for Evolution, post #27 I think)
No, they weren't. Otherwise, I wouldn't have restated them. If you think you have responded, please repost here so we can discuss them in more detail.
Item #3 : We then disagree about the defintion of scientism.
Scientism is the BRANCH of science (regardless of what is claimed ) that assumes the atheist worldview and all the evidence offered has the TWIN meaning that God is not the Creator.
Please provide ANY evidence that scientism - a philosophy that assumes more or less what you've ascribed to it - is a branch of science equivalent to physics, chemistry or biology or any other science. If it is, you should be able to show by concrete examples. Do so now, or admit you are conflating a philosophy with a methodology.
Then you ended with a respectful offer to explain anything about the scientific evidence that I do not understand.
This maybe ambiguous but, tell me, when a Paleontologist like Richard Leakey uses the phrase "fossil void" is he saying that there is a paucity of fossils in whatever void he is referring to ?
I have no idea what Leakey is referring to, since I have not read the context in which he wrote that phrase. However, my offer was in response to your claim that there is some great conspiracy by paleontologists to use opaque jargon to hide the weakness of their evidence. I offered to clarify scientific jargon for you - and explain as simply as possible what the scientists were talking about. Here, let me repost it for you:
quote:
I'm sorry, but this is patent nonsense. I absolutely do NOT take everything a scientist, paleontologist or evolutionary biologist, on "faith". I may accept specific claims made by scientists without digging into the details in fields where I have little interest or training. But I don't take it as gospel or as engraved on stone tablets handed down from on high. I'm quite happy to disagree with scientists when their ideas don't appear to match my observations - in which cases I WILL dig more. And it doesn't take 20 years, but you do have to actually read enough or learn enough to understand what they're talking about if you're going to disagree with them. Which, of course, is why I suggested you pick a specific example of some claim or idea proposed by any evolutionary scientist that you think is being deliberately obfuscated through the use of jargon and I'll undertake to provide an understandable explanation for it. (emphasis added)
Would you explain to me how might migrating birds that fly thousands of miles to the exact same destinations could have evolved ?
There are a number of mechanisms that are likely to have contributed to the evolution of migratory behavior in birds as an adaptive response. I say a number of mechanisms because, given the widely varying methods different species use for the rather remarkable feats of navigation they undertake, it is likely that the migratory habit arose independently in several different lineages.
1. It is a way of avoiding within-species and between-species competition. As resources get scarce due to annual climatic fluctuations, one strategy is to move to where adequate resources are available.
2. It is a way of avoiding climatic stress. Departing from higher latitudes removes individual members of a species from climates that will exceed their tolerance limits.
3. It is a way of insuring adequate nesting sites and a longer breeding season (or multiple breeding opportunities). This is especially important in species with low nest survivorship.
One of the pieces of evidence that supports the action of natural selection in the evolution of migratory behavior is the existence of species that contain both migratory and non-migratory individuals (like the American blue jay
Cyanocitta cristata and the common yellow throat
Geothlypis trichas).
If you would like more discussion, we'll need to open a new thread.
And how about a theory as to why Richard Milton cannot embrace evolution the same way you do ?
Beats me. I'm waiting for you to explain what Milton's objections are. He's your source, after all.
[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 12-29-2003]
™ Version 4.2
