Punctuated equilibrium vs spontaneous generation

Randman, You have made a similar remark before, regarding being able to line up extant species as transitionals.Cladistic analyses basically lines up forms "in order", as if evolution had taken place. So, if the transitional form is an illusion, then why do cladistic nodes (the taxon) match relative statigraphic positioning as well as it does?Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

randman, G&E specifically attempted to conflate changes in the tempo of evolution with speciation. Although logically sound & eminently reasonable in & of itself, I'm not aware of any evidence that this has ever been demonstrated via the fossil record. G&E's formulation of PE is often confused with changes in the tempo of evolution for any reason, often called "weak PE". Weak PE was first nodded at by the master himself, Charles Darwin, & more fully by Myer in the 1940's. Weak PE also has the advantage of evidence.Given that the issue in question is not whether evolutionary rate changes are tied up with speciation, or not, but whether they occur at all. Then G&E's formulation of PE is irrelevant to the discussion with creationists. Evolutionary rate changes occur, the evidence is in the fossil record.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Randman, A complete non-answer, a great example of an Ad hoc argument. You need to show that the lining up is actually unreliable in order to make a logical argument. Moreover, the "lining up" is not an artifact of human subjectivity, it is an artifact of the principle of parsimony, that's the point. To do away with the old Linnaean method of classification by introducing an objective method. So no-go there.I think atoms are actually solid rather than mostly space, I've often suspected the data is unreliable. As for your "existing paradigm" argument. How can cladistics matching stratigraphy as it does be informed by whatever paradigm is fashionable, or "in"? The correlation is an expectation of evolutionary theory & is therefore evidence of it, regardless of whether Biblical Creation, The Squiggly Spaghetti Monster, or Norse Mythology are the reigning paradigms, or not.And what data has been left out? Another Ad hoc? No-one gives a Great Ape for your personal delusions of conspiracy. The FACT is that cladistics & stratigraphy match better than they ought to if evolution hadn't occurred. It is not a "false idea", it is a fact. Ah, so the fossil record contradicts the bible, then?But you finally concede that stratigraphy & cladistics matching is evidence of evolution. Why did it take so long?Your third explanation is post-modernist nonsense. We see quantised energy because it is quantised, obviously. It is not beyond our ability to concieve non-quantised energy, nor is it beyond our ability to conceive a scenario where stratigraphy & cladistics show no statistical correlation. But it does. If your complaint were true, then no contradicting data would ever be found for any scientific theory, & evil spirits would still cause disease.MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 11-17-2005 04:34 PM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

randman, PAH! Is that it? All the other points go ignored? How TYPICAL!The fossil record does indeed contradict the bible. Prokarotic bacteria came first, then eukaryotic algae, then bryophytes, then seedless vasculars, then gymnosperms, THEN grasses & FRUIT bearing plants. But inbetween eukaryotic algae & bryophytes animals appeared in the record. Sorry randman, but the bible is w-r-o-n-g. Animals weren't the last-but-man thing to appear. Bullshit. Please provide the paper that shows energy is non-quantised. I won't hold my breath. Oh, It turns out your favourites are postmodernist metaphysicists after all!But your tiny concession that the correlation between cladistics & stratigraphy was evidence of evolution was long overdue. Long overdue. Given that it also contradicts the bible, what now?Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Post removed as it was a reply to myself in error. Reposted as message 41.This message has been edited by mark24, 11-18-2005 05:17 PM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

randman, An Ad hoc argument is an argument that uses an unsubstantiated claim in order to counter criticism of your point, as per the link you failed to read.Given that you failed to support your claim that data has been left out, that "lining up" is unreliable, that the conclusion is affected by what the reigning paradigm is, that it is a false idea, & that John Wheeler and Anton Zellinger's "lab experiments" support your claim, or that god/ID did anything whatsoever. Then all three of your arguments are ad hoc by definition. That you think they are "sound" arguments is ludicrous, & exposes your ignorance of logic. When you are as ignorant of logic & science as you are, a good offensive is the best defence, right? : I think the person that has to reiterate the point-of-order that you have committed logical fallacies can be safely said to know more about logic than you, randman. Also the fact that I never attacked the bible probably needs pointing out (again) too.The point of showing that your only remaining logically valid point contradicted the bible was to put you in the position where you had to say bye-bye to one position or the other, you can't have it both ways. It would be hypocritical to hold to progressive ID & Biblical Creation when they are mutually exclusive. Which position do you hold to?MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 11-18-2005 05:33 PMThis message has been edited by mark24, 11-18-2005 05:34 PM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

randman, I did respond to all of your points, you made three points, I responded to three. Three ad hocs with an own goal thrown in to boot.#1 Your first point is an ad hoc. It fails to support it's own claims.#2 The second contradicts the bible, & you admit it is evidence of the ToE. I never said pointing out that your own scenario contradicts the bible supported my posistion in & of itself, but your own scenario contradicts your own beliefs as indicated. What a bizarre position to take!Given that god-did-it can be spouted out for any scenario whatsoever without evidence, it is also an ad hoc argument.#3 Your third point lacks any references to facts, & is just unsupported hand wavy hope-over-expectation. If you want to elevate it beyond that, then you have to show how the physicists in question have performed "lab experiments" that support you. Given that you haven't, point three is ad hoc, too.See post 39 also. I didn't concede defeat, nor did I attack the bible. I would expect someone who whines about being misrepresented so much would be a little more sensitive to doing it to others. I pointed out that your progressive evolution scenario as per the fossil record directly contradicts the bible, which it does. Nor did I say my comment supported my position like you think it did.I did note, however that you accept that the correlation is evidence for the ToE. You said that we see the universe as quantized (ie. energy) because information is quantized. I merely pointed out that if the evidence suggested the universe isn't quantized, then that's what we would accept, regardless of whether information is quantized, or not. It has bugger all to do with information being quantized biasing our conclusions. I also pointed out that the evidence supports the ToE & not biblical creation regardless of what the reigning paradigm was.As for the challenge, your claim, it is therefore incumbent on you to support it. I already asked for a paper showing that we see quantization as a result of informational quantization. It is conspicuously absent. I'm sure they are fine physicists, I just want you to show that they support your claim scientifically. You think I'm going to take your word for it? You are the one making the logically fallacious ad hoc arguments, & arguments that contradict your own belief system, so I find the comments above a little rich, don't you? Secondly (again), I never attacked the bible, I pointed out that your own scenario contradicted the bible. So which is it, the bible or progressive ID? You would love to play the poor set upon Christian, though, wouldn't you?But since you started out with a "what's good for the goose" comment, & at the risk of Tu quoque-ing. There is no evidence for a god, therefore this is a gap in your argument, therefore not only is it false, it is evidence against progressive ID. This is exactly the logic you apply with your fossil gap argument. But as you say, what's "good for the goose". Or are you going to commit a Special Pleading logical fallacy, too?MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 11-18-2005 05:38 PM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

randman,Point #1 Even if true, this is another logical fallacy, the fallacy of composition. Just because an unrelated interpretation was wrong, does not mean all interpretations are wrong.Your first point is still an ad hoc, it fails to support it's own claims.Point #2. No, it does not. No one made any such stipulation. You are misrepresenting again. Irrelevant. The criticism is that your ID argument is ad hoc. This does not tackle that point. Irrelevant. The criticism is that your ID argument is ad hoc. This does not tackle that point. Again, this is still guilty of speculation, there is no evidence that god-did-it. This is why it is an ad hoc fallacy.Point #3 Exactly right. But you are making the argument here, not elsewhere. It is therefore incumbent on you to support your argument here, or at least provide a link to where you do. Remember, you have claimed that the past is influenced by the questions we ask of it. Support please.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

randman, Same difference, because other interpretations were not to be trusted, doesn't mean all interpretations were not to be trusted. This is still a fallacy of composition. You still need to show why cladistics/stratigraphy can't be trusted in & of itself. Wherever you paste the attributes of one part of a group on to all parts of a group = a compositional fallacy.That's like saying no atomic theory can be trusted because previous interpretations proved untrustworthy. Or that the germ theory of disease can't be trusted because previous interpretations were untrustworthy. Or that you are untrustworthy because some religious people are untrustworthy. Taking your points in reverse order, I am not demanding that you take the thread off topic, I have already said it was a side comment & can be ignored, it is you who are using it as an excuse to cut & run. But for the record, you have said I have brought the bible into a scientific discussion, when you haven't provided any science either! Doh!The rest of post 43 was not bare assertion, but showed that your points are irrelevent at tackling the criticisms levelled at it based on cited definitions of fallacious logic.I still rightly point out that you haven't supported your metaphysical (& you berate me for bringing non-science into a scientific discussion? ) claim that the past is informed by the question we ask of it. You also misrepresented both myself & PaulK by stating that our position requires that theistic evolution cannot be true (& who brought up theistic evolution in a scientific discussion? Good grief, randman, have you no shame?). I don't think pointing out your very real errors can be described as, "you make no substantive points", or, "repeat bare assertions", do you?All three points are ad hoc.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

randman, Because it's ad hoc argumentation, & nothing you have said has changed this.And since we are supposed to be having a scientific discussion, according to you, there's no reason why anyone should respond to your theistic claims. In fact, everyone should refuse to respond to you at all, if they are consistent with your excuses not to engage. You refused to respond to me when I was misinterpreted as introducing theism, what's good for the goose, eh, randman? Whether PaulK agrees or disagrees does not alter the fact that this line of reasoning commits a fallacy of composition, rendering it moot as regards getting you off the hook as regards your ad hoc argumentation, as described here, here, here, here, & here . It is also a diversionary in nature, failing to address the fact that the following passage is ad hoc argumentation, & is therefore also a red herring, also previously defined. Nothing you have typed has removed the conditions that meet an ad hoc logical fallacy, therefore you are still guilty of committing it & your argument lacks the logical support to be considered at all.The offending unrepentant "explanation" is quoted below. Please do something about it, randman, your claim you know more about logic than I do depends on it.MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 11-19-2005 07:03 PM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

randman, Yes it is, I have cited the conditions that need to be met for an argument to be ad hoc, & shown how your arguments meet those conditions. Nothing you have since said has changed this, as outlined & linked to in my last post..Simply claiming you aren't committing logical fallacies without support is just descending into childish playground, "is-too, is-not" whining.Grow up. I have responded to all your points, & shown why they do not counter the charge of fallacious logic laid at their feet. You have yet to counter them sufficiently. And a declaration that your arguments are not ad hoc does not cut the mustard. You need argumentation that does not meet the criteria necessary to be considered fallacious logic. Your bad. Not mine. What relevant facts did you present?What relevent valid logic have you presented?And only the most obtuse illiterate would claim that I have merely written off your arguments as nonsense. Your arguments are ad hoc, I have shown why, & you haven't changed the conditions of your arguments so that they are not ad hoc. Ergo, they still are.Point #1 Was ad hoc because it initially provided no support for it's claims. Your attempts you conflate poor conclusions & issues of trust committed a fallacy of composition & can be discounted. It is therefore still ad hoc.Point #2 is goddidit ad hoc.Point #3 requires support, & until you do provide, is ad hoc.Nowhere have you provided relevant facts or logically valid explanations that remove the ad hoc nature of your initial response.If you feel I have glossed over or ommitted anything, please feel free to draw my attention to it.MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 11-20-2005 06:17 AM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't