Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Foundations of ID
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 91 of 213 (204544)
05-03-2005 1:49 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by RAZD
05-02-2005 11:23 PM


RAZD - The king of the whacked message format?
You sure seem to go through a lot of effort to make your message formatting as difficult to read as possible.
Personally, I'd rather study a Brad message than deal with that monstrosity. Please stop doing such
Replies to this MUST go to the "General..." topic, link below.
Adminnemooseus

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by RAZD, posted 05-02-2005 11:23 PM RAZD has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 92 of 213 (204547)
05-03-2005 2:10 AM


Closing topic for a while
My judgement is that this one needs a break.
Adminnemooseus

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Adminnemooseus, posted 05-03-2005 3:36 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 93 of 213 (204708)
05-03-2005 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Adminnemooseus
05-03-2005 2:10 AM


Re: Closing topic for a while - Topic reopened
I don't know if it's a good idea or not, but the topic is reopened. We shall now see what happens.
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Adminnemooseus, posted 05-03-2005 2:10 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
Jerry Don Bauer
Inactive Member


Message 94 of 213 (204737)
05-03-2005 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Ooook!
05-02-2005 7:56 PM


quote:
Alrightyou’re quote mining.
I also asked for an alligator for Christmas when I was 13 that I found out later I really didn't want.
quote:
As they stand, the quotes speak for themselves but only if you know the context of Gould’s theories about punctuated equilibrium i.e. that evolution is not a straight, linear progression, and that changes are often not caught in the fossil record. Like it or not Gould doesn’t support your position at all. Find me a quote that shows an evolutionary biologist denying common descent or claiming that RM and NS are not the mechanisms for change and I will be surprised. Scrap that, I’ll be astounded!!
Sure--I agree. You don't have to send me to quotes by Gould to show he was dissing gradualism in favor of punk eek. I will readily admit this. But this mirrors a higher problem in the philosophy of Darwinism in my opinion. In many other fields of science, when a scientist looks at the major source of evidence in his field and concludes that there is no evidence there to support the current hypothesis (Darwin's gradualism), wouldn't that scientist logically conclude the hypothesis just falsified due to no evidence?
Allow me to show you how Darwinian detractors see this and what is about to be presented in Kansas. Gould and Eldredge did not do what would be expected by those that espouse the scientific method. Instead, with no experimentation what-so-ever and not even a scientific observation in their belly, they came up with a new "theory" to explain the fact that the fossil record didn't support their previous one. NOTHING, still today, supports punk eek as empirical evidence, and they have left in their wake a dissed Darwin rolling over in his grave. What does Darwinism have left, activist judges and PhD politicos in the National Academy of Sciences, 93% of which admit they hold either atheist or agnostic religious views?
quote:
It really would be good for ID (or the other creeds of creationism) if this statement were true, and no wonder you are trying to make this charge stick. Unfortunately, there are numerous falsifiable predictions that have been made. Just off the top of my head:
When Darwin wrote Origin there were few (if any) true transitional fossils and yet he predicted there would be examples found which shared the characteristics of two separate groups. Lo and behold, we now do have many examples of such fossils.
If the modern synthesis of Theory of Evolution was right, molecular phylogenies would mirror those based on taxonomy. Well blow me down with a feather if that wasn’t what was found.
Well, I'm not a creationist although many ID theorists are (unless you view quantum mechanics as a god, in which case I plead nolo contendere). But can you show me one paper that has been produced in the last 100 years that reads in the vein of, "Here is some new evidence for Darwinism?" I would love to read them. You see, you view this as all people do: from your belief system. Since my belief system is at another loci in the spectrum, I view it differently. This causes me to see it in this manner: there is even less evidence for Darwinism today, as much of the evidence has had to be retracted by Darwinists because it has been falsified over the years. No predictions there, I'm afraid.
quote:
Developmental pathways should be conserved within the pattern of common descent. This is indeed what we see.
Please get more specific on this. I'm not sure what you mean concerning developmental pathways. Have you ever observed a species actually going down these pathways? What are they? Is this a predictable mechanism or even a stochastic one?
quote:
Now while no doubt you disagree with these examples — and each of them is probably worth a topic on it’s own — they are all scientific predictions. They can (and have been) tested scientifically, by scientists and verified by other scientists.
Sure sounds like a scientific theory to me!
Er...Can you slow down and back up? You didn't give any predictions specific enough to address. Darwin didn't make any predictions that have been fulfilled. Nor did he introduce an observation that has been taken through the scientific method from observation to hypothesis to theory. So, sure sounds like no theories here to me. Couple that with the fact that the scientific method requires falsification with tenets of science if they are to be considered tenets of science and what do we have now? For example, how would we ever falsify common descent?
quote:
Let’s compare this to ID shall we?
Yes. I'm anxious to do this as the thread may then move forward.
quote:
It’s got calculations using numbers seemingly plucked out of thin air.
Really. I'm not familiar with this "thin air" math as all the formulas I am aware of are quite solidly based on science. And since I teach this, I would be quite interested in you pointing out the specifics so I can clarify for you.
quote:
It’s got obscure definitions of ‘complexity’ and ‘information’ which can’t be applied to the real world.
LOL....I'm not laughing at you but about the misconceptions we CANNOT seem to get cleared up. Complexity (and information) is defined specifically and denoted mathematically. There is nothing obscure with this.
quote:
It’s Choc-a-bloc with useless analogies
Like what? You lost me with this one.
quote:
..and it’s even got a strangely unscientific idea that people shouldn’t try to discover the nature and the methods of the designer.
Hmmm....You mean after all the effort I have put into quantum mechanics on this thread you still think we are vague on the designer and the implementation? I mean, I don't think I could have gotten much more in detail.
quote:
What it doesn’t have is a single testable, falsifiable prediction! Can you think of an example of ID leading to 1) a testable hypothesis and 2) the testing of that hypothesis? Because that’s what science does. If you want ID to be accepted as science then that’s what you have to do, and no amount of pleading to let a ‘young field’ grow will change that fact.
Well gee. We only have a ton of them too lengthy to name in only one post as opposed to Darwinism that doesn't have one you can get specific with as it seems above. Here's a couple to get you started:
1) ID predicts that that DNA can only be designed by an intelligent agent or preprogrammed code designed by an intelligent agent. This prediction stands in science and can be falsified by simply finding DNA in nature that was not designed by preprogrammed code.
2) ID predicts that genomes are at their best when they are just designed and the second law of thermodynamics takes it from there to DEVOLVE genomes in direct opposition to the musings of Darwin. This has been shown to be true in vertebrates in this study.
I can get you to the original Nature paper if you need it. This tenet could be falsified by showing a genome actually INCREASING in information over five million years rather than decreasing and Avida--Adami don't get it in science.
Ahhh....this is already too long, but ask me if you want to get into complex proteins, information entropy, or other predictions of ID.
quote:
Drat, should have known you’d have pointed to the largest gap there was and inserted a *cough* ‘designer’ into it. And yet the ‘leap’ from early fossil cells to the variety in the Cambrian period is not quite so sudden as it first appeared. New finds suggest that the ‘explosion’ was not quite as explosive as first thought, lengthening the amount of time these fossils were formed in. On top of that, delicate pre-Cambian fossils have been found that look like they were the ancestors of some of the Cambrian organisms. One of the explanations for the perceived ‘jump’ is that it was due to a lack of fossils, not a lack of organisms — 3 billion years is a lot of time to evolve in. Why wouldn’t that be possible by RM and NS?Let me ask the question in a different way:
You have (I think) stated earlier that you think the fossil record shows evidence for micro-evolution. Using the well documented evolution of horses as an example, which of those proposed steps represent ‘micro’ changes and which are ‘macro’, and therefore require a designer?
Can you present any peer-reviewed papers showing this new evidence that has been discovered ala pre-Cambrian forms.
And, finally, given any amount of time, organisms just don't start giving birth to other species. Look at the experiments of Redi and Pasteur. Pigs give birth only to pigs no matter how reproductively isolated they are from other pigs. Organisms have limits of change. Never will mankind be able to breed giraffes with wings that can fly, chickens as big as elephants to solve the food shortage in Africa or geese that will lay cylindrical eggs made of gold. Nor will a woman ever magically 'poof' out of an amoeba.
Thanks for a challenging post. Keep 'em coming.

Design Dynamics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Ooook!, posted 05-02-2005 7:56 PM Ooook! has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by PaulK, posted 05-03-2005 6:06 PM Jerry Don Bauer has replied
 Message 113 by Ooook!, posted 05-04-2005 6:07 PM Jerry Don Bauer has replied
 Message 118 by Ooook!, posted 05-07-2005 6:58 PM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

  
Jerry Don Bauer
Inactive Member


Message 95 of 213 (204739)
05-03-2005 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Kapyong
05-02-2005 8:48 PM


Re: Every species is transitional
Howdy, Iasion. Thanks for weighing in.
quote:
Hmmm...
This is a very odd way of describing it.
Jerry,
do you think the transitionals are NOT species as well?
Do you think there are TWO different TYPES of fossil?
Species and Transitional?
This seems to be a common mis-conception, but totally false.
As others have pointed out, what we DO see is:
Species A -----> Species D -----> Species E -----> Species J ...
In short - we DO see exactly what you said we don't.
Every transitional fossil represents a species,
every species is a transitional form.
This is really quite refreshing, innovative thinking that it would behoove Darwinists to come together on, as it removes a chink in the armor.
I was, of course, speaking of Darwin's notion of transitions.
Tell me. If one species starts giving birth to other species directly, how do you think this happens that wouldn't violate the species definition and known science in which a species only reproduces itself? I mean farmers keep sheep reproductively isolated all the time and they never give birth to anything but other sheep, to my knowledge.
This message has been edited by Jerry Don Bauer, 05-03-2005 06:01 PM

Design Dynamics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Kapyong, posted 05-02-2005 8:48 PM Kapyong has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by crashfrog, posted 05-03-2005 11:05 PM Jerry Don Bauer has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 96 of 213 (204740)
05-03-2005 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Jerry Don Bauer
05-03-2005 5:53 PM


quote:
Gould and Eldredge did not do what would be expected by those that espouse the scientific method. Instead, with no experimentation what-so-ever and not even a scientific observation in their belly, they came up with a new "theory" to explain the fact that the fossil record didn't support their previous one. NOTHING, still today, supports punk eek as empirical evidence, and they have left in their wake a dissed Darwin rolling over in his grave
That is seriously in error.
Gould and Eldredge produced punk eq by applying current evolutionary theory to the fossil record. And they came up with evidence to support it. About the only serious mistake they made was to attribute extreme gradualism to Darwin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-03-2005 5:53 PM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-03-2005 6:37 PM PaulK has replied

  
Jerry Don Bauer
Inactive Member


Message 97 of 213 (204745)
05-03-2005 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by PaulK
05-03-2005 6:06 PM


Paul:
quote:
Gould and Eldredge produced punk eq by applying current evolutionary theory to the fossil record. And they came up with evidence to support it.
Like what? Can you come up with papers that give punk eek intellectual weight experimentally?
quote:
About the only serious mistake they made was to attribute extreme gradualism to Darwin.
Darwin was a gradualist and there are many still today. He got this notion from his geologist buddy Lyle ( I know that's misspelled as I never could spell it correctly) and his notion of uniformitarianism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by PaulK, posted 05-03-2005 6:06 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by PaulK, posted 05-03-2005 7:00 PM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 98 of 213 (204751)
05-03-2005 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Jerry Don Bauer
05-03-2005 6:37 PM


Evidence for punctuated equilibria ? How about Eldredge and Gould's original paper setting out the idea ? Or Cheetham's paper "Tempo of Evolution in Neogene Bryzoa" (1986) ?
Darwin was a gradualist in the same sense that Eldredge is and Gould was. Punc eq is a gradualist theory. What it is opposed to is an extreme form of gradualism - that Darwin himself rejected.
http://pages.britishlibrary.net/...gin_6th/origin6th_15.html
...the periods, during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured by years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retained the same form.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-03-2005 6:37 PM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-03-2005 10:42 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 101 by Minnemooseus, posted 05-03-2005 11:19 PM PaulK has not replied

  
Jerry Don Bauer
Inactive Member


Message 99 of 213 (204802)
05-03-2005 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by PaulK
05-03-2005 7:00 PM


quote:
Evidence for punctuated equilibria ? How about Eldredge and Gould's original paper setting out the idea ? Or Cheetham's paper "Tempo of Evolution in Neogene Bryzoa" (1986)?
I could not find the latter paper via PubMed or Google. Perhaps if you know where it is at, you will link to it. And a paper setting out an idea is not scientific research supporting that idea. But shouldn't there be tons of papers out there showing the research done on punk eek? I mean you guys ARE teaching this stuff as beyond scientific theories and "facts" of science. You mean you cannot come up with a single peer-reviewed research paper to support a fact of science?
quote:
Darwin was a gradualist in the same sense that Eldredge is and Gould was. Punc eq is a gradualist theory. What it is opposed to is an extreme form of gradualism - that Darwin himself rejected.
Nah....Darwin didn't reject gradualism he necessitated it:
"[1] If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
Here is my argument from authority in zoologist Mark Ridley's book:
"Darwin’s explanation for complex adaptations is that they evolve in many small steps; that is what Darwin meant when he called evolution gradual. Evolution has to be gradual because it would take a miracle for a complex organ, requiring mutations in many parts, to evolve in one sudden step. If each mutation arose separately, in different organisms at different times, the whole process is more probable.
"Darwin’s gradualist requirement is a deep property of evolutionary theory. The Darwinian should be able to show for any organ that it could, at least in principle, have evolved in many small steps, with each being advantageous. If there are exceptions, the theory is in trouble."
Evolution - Adaptive explanation
[1] The Origin of Species, Darwin, p.154.

Design Dynamics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by PaulK, posted 05-03-2005 7:00 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by NosyNed, posted 05-03-2005 11:27 PM Jerry Don Bauer has replied
 Message 103 by PaulK, posted 05-04-2005 2:29 AM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 100 of 213 (204804)
05-03-2005 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Jerry Don Bauer
05-03-2005 6:01 PM


I mean farmers keep sheep reproductively isolated all the time and they never give birth to anything but other sheep, to my knowledge.
Well, cladistically, they never would. But what would happen is that all these different separated populations would give rise to a number of seperate subspecies of sheep, and then over more time and more separations those subspecies would beging to breed true only with their peers and become species in their own right, and at that time "sheep" would cease to be a species and become something like a genus, and as the number of different species decended from sheep populations increased and increased, "sheep" as a category would expand until it was something like "ruminate" or "mammal" in scope.
That's what evolution predicts. Not that species will jump around from taxa to taxa, but that each clade expands in regards to the number of species that it encapsulates. This is often hard for the layperson to understand so it's no surprise to see you have trouble with it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-03-2005 6:01 PM Jerry Don Bauer has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 101 of 213 (204809)
05-03-2005 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by PaulK
05-03-2005 7:00 PM


Need a good "Punctuated Equilibria" topic
Evidence for punctuated equilibria ? How about Eldredge and Gould's original paper setting out the idea ? Or Cheetham's paper "Tempo of Evolution in Neogene Bryzoa" (1986) ?
Maybe I've missed it in the past, but my impression is that there hasn't been much for on-line resources (or off-line for that matter) being presented in support of punk eek, here at .
If you have such, a new topic on "Punctuated Equilibria" would be nice. I wouldn't want the material to be buried in this topic.
Moose

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by PaulK, posted 05-03-2005 7:00 PM PaulK has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 102 of 213 (204813)
05-03-2005 11:27 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Jerry Don Bauer
05-03-2005 10:42 PM


Gradualism
Nah....Darwin didn't reject gradualism he necessitated it:
Did you not read the direct quote from Darwin just above your post???
This is an error which I laboured under too. I thought that Darwin demanded a constant rate of change by evolutionary processes. It is clear from the given quote that he was, in fact, a "punk eqer" from the get go.
Punk eq IS gradualism too. There is not suggestion that major changes arise in single steps. That has been rejected for a long time. Speciation can, on some occasions arise quickly in single steps but then species can be separate while being very, very, very similar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-03-2005 10:42 PM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-04-2005 3:11 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 103 of 213 (204841)
05-04-2005 2:29 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Jerry Don Bauer
05-03-2005 10:42 PM


Well if you haven't even heard of Cheetham's paper, then how can you tell that there is no evidence for punc eq ? Have you even read Eldredge and Gould's original paper ?
quote:
You mean you cannot come up with a single peer-reviewed research paper to support a fact of science?
So you are complaining that I mentioned 2 papers instead of only 1 ? What sense does that make ?
quote:
Nah....Darwin didn't reject gradualism he necessitated it:
I didnt say that Darwin was not a gradualist. I said that Darwin rejected the EXTREME form of gradualism wrongly attributed to him be Eldredge and Gould. Darwin was a gradualist in the same way that punc eq. is a gradualist theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-03-2005 10:42 PM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-04-2005 3:16 AM PaulK has replied

  
Jerry Don Bauer
Inactive Member


Message 104 of 213 (204851)
05-04-2005 3:11 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by NosyNed
05-03-2005 11:27 PM


Re: Gradualism
Howdy Ned:
quote:
Did you not read the direct quote from Darwin just above your post??? This is an error which I laboured under too. I thought that Darwin demanded a constant rate of change by evolutionary processes. It is clear from the given quote that he was, in fact, a "punk eqer" from the get go
Constant or not, how does Darwinism explain the Cambrian explosion? I mean here we have nothing in the record leading up to these organisms and suddenly organisms start poofing out of seemingly nothing being fully formed and ready to go in their environment. There HAS to be some gradualism somewhere unless one believes in the hopeful monster conception or is duped by the magic of David Copperfield.
.
quote:
Punk eq IS gradualism too. There is not suggestion that major changes arise in single steps. That has been rejected for a long time. Speciation can, on some occasions arise quickly in single steps but then species can be separate while being very, very, very similar.
And you would know this how, Ned? Name the papers where species are observed doing this. Herein lies the major problem with this entire concept. You guys just throw this stuff out without a shred of experimental evidence, state this is the way things are and start teaching it as an accepted theory of science as if it had actually gone through the scientific method to achieve a theory status. How do you go back in time to do the breeding experiments to even establish what was, and was not a species? This is not science, let it die with other the other silly philosophies of the 19th century like Freudianism.

Design Dynamics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by NosyNed, posted 05-03-2005 11:27 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Jerry Don Bauer
Inactive Member


Message 105 of 213 (204852)
05-04-2005 3:16 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by PaulK
05-04-2005 2:29 AM


quote:
Well if you haven't even heard of Cheetham's paper, then how can you tell that there is no evidence for punc eq ? Have you even read Eldredge and Gould's original paper?
Paul, do you really think I am so stupid as to allow you to argue a paper without actually presenting the danged paper? Please PRESENT THE PAPERS you wish to use in our discussions so that everyone can read them. I don't think I've actually ever had to point that out to anyone in these types of discussions, but there is a first for everything, I would suppose.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by PaulK, posted 05-04-2005 2:29 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by PaulK, posted 05-04-2005 3:47 AM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024