Punctuated equilibrium vs spontaneous generation

quote:

---

What seems to have occured is that evos for many, many years claimed the fossil record essentially proved evolution, but that was BS.

​

Some evos began to admit that the fossil record did not show what other evos said it did, and that their models of evolution were incorrect or needed tweaking and so they proposed Punctuated Equilibrium.

---

No, that's just the creationist misrepresentation of what happened.What really seems to have happened is that paleontologists got hung up on an idea of evolution always proceeding at a very slow and more or less constant rate (here I assume that Gould and Eldredge are at least correct regarding their own discipline).The main line of evolutionary theory, on the other hand was working on quite different ideas - and Gould and Eldredge tapped into those to formulate their concept of punctuated equilibria. Which is, in fact, closer to Darwin's views than the "phyletic gradualism" opposed by Gould and Eldredge.Even Gould and Eldredge's view of the evidence is more consistent with evolution than creationism. Creationists generally accept that evolution between species can and does happen - but deny relationships between higher taxonomic groups. Thus if PE were wholly false we should expect to see many more species-level intermediates and if creationism were true we should expect to see no intermediates between higher level groups. It is significant that the intermediates actually found are those that we would expect to see if evolution and PE were true - not those we would expect to see if PE were entirely false and a typical creationist view was correct.w

Well I reject most of your accusations against "evos". Nor do I accpet your opinion of the fossil record - it may not be as complete as we would like, but it still strongly endorses evolutio.Your argument essentially reduces all the major transitionals to coincidence - but it has to be asked why these strange coincidences are so strongly consistent with evolutionary theory. Is it really reasonable to put down the fossils illustrating the development of the mammalian jaw structure down to coincidence ? And if it were a coincidence why would it appear at the right period in the fossil record ?Quite frankly I would say that it is your argument that doesn't take the full fossil record into account.

Well if you aren't attributing the fact that we do have good intermediates which turn up at the right sort of position in the fossil record to coincidence, how do you explain it ?"Commonality" doesn't work because it doesn't deal with the time factor - which leaves the timng down to coincidence. Nor does it really explain why we should have intermediate structures - especially not intermediates with the "double hinge" structure evolution would need to make the transition. Commonalities explain functional similarities - like the similar shape of sharks, icthyosaurs and dolphins but not the intermediates actually found.You say you can explain the intermediates in the evolution of the mammalian jaw - well lets' see you do it. Offer a real explanation for why we see the double hinge structure and why it appears at the right point in the fossil record.And you are still wrong about PE. PE didn't show up problems in evolution - only a problem in paleontology - a problem that was solved by using up to date evolutionary theory. ”

Well you are wrong on both counts.Eldredge and Gould explicitly state that they are applying existing evolutionary theory to the question of the fossil record. There's no mention of any genuine evolutionary model underlying the view that they oppose.And no you haven't expalined why the double hinge jaw should happen to appear at the time it would have to if the mammalian jaw evolved from the reptilian model. Or really why it should appear at all. Is it just a big coincidence ?i

quote:

---

But your reversion to attacking the Bible is an indication that you have moved away from debating the science on this issue. So I will accept that as your concession of defeat.

---

Of course anyone who looks back at the actual post can see that it did raise scientific points and only included one short comment on the Bible.It's pretty clear that you are using that one short sentence as an excuse to evade the scientific issues and falsely claim victory.

quote:

---

I am not evading, but want to point out the basic state of mind of the person that thinks attacking the Bible is a good point.

---

In other words you are using ad hominems to avoid answering the scientific points raised in the post. That IS evasion.

quote:

---

If he did not want to derail the discussion, he should not resort to that. Once it is clear the type of mentality we aredealing with, it seems proper to me to focus on that, and try to resolve that issue, either by having the poster recognize his error in creating a false dichotomy of the Bible versus his beliefs, or realizing fruitful discussion with such a person is not feasible because their logic is so anti-religiously oriented they have a hard time taking what you say at face value.

---

Of course the fact is that that was just one short comment apart from the main thrust of the post. If you did not want to divert the discussion you certainly had the option of ignroing it. Instead you chose to ignore the scientific points to which you really have no good answer. Indeed the sentence you take offence at is a question - and one you did not even answer.
As for the religious side of things you're the one making a big deal of it. So I would say that you're in no position to make the sort of attacks we see above.

quote:

---

Plus, I believe the resort to attacking the Bible is evidence hehas a losing argument. I didn't see any valid points in his post worth discussing. He claims sound arguments are ad hoc, at least from my perspective, and thus refuses to address the substance of any of what I posted, and then tops it off attacking the Bible, as if he believes that makes his argument stronger.

---

Well he didn't attack the Bible as such - all he did was point out that your ideas seemed to disagree with the Biblical account. If the Bible isn't important to you you coulkd simply have disagreed and moved on. So presumably it is important to you - and you can't answer the point. Unless it is just an excuse to ignore the main part of the post.As to the question of whose arguments are weak I only need to point out that one person is choosing to make one marginal issue the centre of the discussion - and is using it as the basis for an ad hominem argument for dismissing the other points. I would say that that person is the one who concedes that his arguments are weak.

quote:

---

No, I think Mark's post indicates he hasn't clue as to what science and logic actually are, or once his beliefs arethreatened, he resorts to a irrational mentality that thus loses the ability to understand basic things like attacking the Bible does not advance his theory.

---

Of course you haven't even shown that Nark actually thought that his comment DID advance his theory. He might, for instance, have thought that it is somethinh you would consider a weakness in your own. And by your reaction it appears that he was right - and that it threatened your beleifs and so we see you reduced to evasions and ad hominems as if they advanced your theory.

In Message 16 Randman claimed:

quote:

---

..the fossil record is grossly inconsistent with current evo models.

---

And that there are only a

quote:

---

... paltry few potential "transitionals between major taxon"

---

So when he claim that he has "sound arguments" to deal with the fact that there are many transitionals that appear geologically where they should if evolution were true we should expect something more than ad hoc excuses.SO what arguments does he offer ?

quote:

---

The answer could be the "lining up" is unreliable as scientists have
been persuaded, as is endemic in ToE in the past, to essentially interpret data according to the existing paradigm and leave out data that does not fit, creating a self-fulfilling illusions. Personally, I think there is a good bit of this going on, and I base that on other
areas where evos clung to false ideas for decades despite criticism and then finally lamented here and there.

---

This is a speculative answer, and does not appeal to the actual evidence at all - not even the specific example of the mammalian jaw raised earlier in this thread.The suppposed basis of this argument can be just as easily dismissed as the product of Randman's own prejudice.This is not a sound argument.

quote:

---

The other possibility is that some sort of progressive creation or ID-type of evolution is taking place so you see something causing species to appear, either via evolution or via creation, in a manner that leaves no fossil record of the transitions developing.

---

This is another purely speculative answer, essentially amounting to the idea that "God (Or the Intelligent Designer) just did it that way". Which is a non-scientific answer not least because it could be claimed no matter what the fossil record showed. And that in itself makes evolution a better explanation - because it IS more constrained.

quote:

---

Actually, a third possibility is somewhat metaphysical and without getting into too much detail could entail the past, present and future being influenced by the questions we ask of it, and that things, even the past, are not set in stone as we think. John Wheeler, a noted physicist, has suggested that the universe is "participatory" based on his work as a physicist and quantum physics, and thus suggests what we observe in the universe is partly the result of "the questions we ask of it" and thus our state of mind.

---

What Randman carefully leaves out is any explanation of how he gets from the scientific ideas of Wheeler to an actual explanation of the data in this case. Without that this is not any sort of argument at all. Indeed it looks very like pseudoscientific "New Age" abuses of QM.In conclusion all of these are ad hoc excuses. None of them is supported by any appeal to the actual evidence. Two of the thre "answers" accept that the evidence actually IS consistent with evolution in this important respect and seek to explain it away - without actually offering a good explanation in either case.Wrose it seems that Rnadman's "rational" approach involves making claims about the evidence without actually bothering to find out what the evidnece actually is. Indeed Randman even denied that much of the evidence he tries to explain away actually existed. That is not a rational approach.T

quote:

---

I appealed to the history of the use and misuse of data withing the evo community. If you feel differently about that history, please know that others feel there is a tendency to make false claims as if they are facts before those facts are known. The initial depiction of Pakicetus with webbed feet is a good example. There was no reason at all to think Pakicetus had webbed feet. Nothing had been found to suggest that, but it sure made a more convincing argument if evos depicted Pakicetus with webbed feet, and so that's what we got.

---

i.e. you appealed to your prejudices. Thus your argument is self-defeating, because it is valid it must be rejected by the very criteria it uses.

quote:

---

No, you are wrong on several points. First, your stance means theistic evolution cannot be true. Secondly, if the fossil record showed the transitions, then these hypotheses would be discredited. So you make a false claim to say they could be true no matter what the fossil record shows. In fact, people that think God exists and that accept evolutionary models and interpretation of the data, don't say ID or progressive creation is the answer but claim theistic evolution.

---

Your criticisms are entirely in error. Firstly theistic evolution is commonly taken as a faith position and thus it matters not if it is unscientific, unfalsifiable or even a less-good explanation than naturalistic evolution. Secondly none of these points proves theistic evolution false - a view may be less well supported by the evidence and still true. Thirdly since we are only considering one piece of evidence - the fossil record - my points do not rule out other evidnece (scientific or otherwise) which might be held to weigh more heavily in favour of theistic evolution. Thus your assertion that my argument asserts that "theistic aevolution cannot be true" rests on both an extreme form of Scientism and an incomplete consideration of the evidence.As to your other point, there are species-level transitions in the fossil record and thus any position that denies that they will be found is already falsified. Also the "absence" of species level transitions is a purely ad hoc assumption that would have never been included if they were commonly found. PE is also preferable since it is rooted in actual science rather than the religious hypotheses of progressive creation or ID.

quote:

---

It is the fossil record that points to no transitionals which begs the question of how did this occur. In other words, my stance is based on looking at the evidence, and the evo stance is based on ignoring the fossil evidence, imo.

---

In other words you do not look at the evidence, you deny that it exists and then you accuse your opponents of ignoring the evidence.
The mere fact that we are still discovering new transitionals - one was announced a few days ago - completely demolishes your argument.Finally on QM I suggest that you explain the specific effects you have in mind and - if you indeed have already explained how they can happen, using real science (and not your opinions) you should offer a link to the thread. Quite frankly as it stands there is simply no reason to take your argument as anything more than a desperate appeal to discount all the evidence without any real basis. Which certainly would be a very odd thing to do if you really beleived that the evidence firmly supported your claims.

quote:

---

You are not getting the point, as usual I might add. You claim my claim fits with any facts. I pointed out where you are wrong, and where those that believe God-did-it, but accept ToE's take on the facts are theistic evos.I thought you could have seen that without having to spell it out.So that proves you are wrong. People that want to credit God do not are not all IDers.

​

Why can't you see this?

---

I cannot see that you proved me wrong because you did not. At the most you could see that the criticisms I made of your suggestion could also be applied to some forms of theistic evolution - but that neither disproves theistic evolution nor is it a valid criticism of my arguments.Moroever any individual who claims to be rational should understand that they cannot prove me wrong by refuting a claim I never made. Since I did not claim that only ID'ers wished to credit God, arguing otherwise is a mere red herring.

quote:

---

Let's stick with this before moving on to anything else. Why would you claim my position that the fossil record indicates an ID approach rather than standard evo models is something that exists regardless of any facts? Why can you now acknowledge that I am basing my beliefs on the facts as I see them?

---

Whether your view is in agreement with the facts as you see them is an interesting question. The fact that your make arguments directed at rejecting all evidence would suggest at the very least that you doubt that the evidence does support your view.Nevertheless when you accuse others of refusing to consider all the evidence when they disagree with you it should be reasonably be expected that you do have a good degree of familiarity with the whole of the evidence. If the "way you see" the evidence omits significant parts of it then it is clear that you lack such familiarity and are not in a position to render such judgements.

quote:

---

Also, do you think it was mere prejudice on my part to show where Pakicetus was presented with webbed feet?

​

What? You don't believe that is what happened?

​

This is what is so weird about discussing things with you guys. This is a fact, not prejudice. Evos presented Pakicetus with webbed feet/

​

Do you, or do you not agree that it is a fact they presented Pakicetus with webbed feet?

​

And if you agree, how can it be biasness to bring it up?

---

It is evidence of bias in that you attribute great significance to such a trivial thing and with so little knowledge. Reconstruictions of the soft parts of fossils often involve a degree of speculation and thus will often have one error or another. The mere fact of an error in such a reconstruction - is of no great significance at all.Yet when your usage of this example is questioned all you can try to do is accuse your opponents of denying the facts.In other words the fact that you use this example is evidence of your prejudice. And the fact that you misrepresent the criticisms of your usage is yet further evidence.

quote:

---

YOu guys can call it ad hoc all you want, but it's not. It's fruitless to continue if instead of responding to my points, all you do is ignore them with bare assertions. After awhile, I feel I am arguing with people that wouldn't admit the sky was blue without insisting it was an ad hoc argument or some other weasel statement to avoid intelligent discussion.

​

No facts, no logic, nada can be presented to you, period, without you simply writing it off as nonsense and refusing to deal with the facts, logic, etc,...

---

Of course the real fact is that you aren't up to intelligent discussion. You complain that ad hoc exccuses for discounting contrary evidence are called what they are. You misrepresent your opponents positions so that you can claim that they are wrong. And now, because you have lost so badly you run away leaving this ill-tempered and completely false rant.