Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-20-2019 6:51 AM
22 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Percy (Admin), Tangle (3 members, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 849,858 Year: 4,895/19,786 Month: 1,017/873 Week: 373/376 Day: 4/46 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45
6
78
...
14Next
Author Topic:   Transitional fossils and quote mining
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2538 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 76 of 210 (525017)
09-21-2009 7:34 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Granny Magda
09-20-2009 1:15 PM


Re: Lies, Damn Lies and Creationist Quote Mines
Hi Magda

"the Creation model" as though there were a single coherent model out there which enjoyed consensus amongst creationists.

OK, maybe YECs is would have been a better word. As for a single coherent model philosophical naturalists aren't any better.

And everyone has somehow misunderstood what Archangel was saying (might comment on this if time allows)

The first suggests that natural selection is incapable of acting upon mutations.

Again completely wrong. Read it again. He says that natural selection is unable to stop the deteriation of our genome.

Your second link waffles on about "kinds".
I see you make no attempt to debate his main point, that "evolution" is going in the opposite way that philosophical naturalists want it to go.
As for kinds: A syngameon is probably the closest term that we have.
Definition: Syngameons are clusters that comprise several morphospecies, i.e., "the sum total of species or semispecies linked by frequent or occasional hybridization in nature".

Why does CMI accept these phenomena? Because CMI know full well that they have been proved to so high a degree that refuting them is a waster of time. They are left to flail around with nonsensical quibbles like "kinds".

This is nonsense. These mechanisms are an important part of the YEC model, so yes why would we refute them.

Tiktaalik:
These sort of animals are arguments neither for nor against creation or philosophical naturalism. That is because in the YEC model we see animals as made out of "modules", this works similar to electronic equipment. There are many different types electronic equipment however there are many similarities between all of them. There are also parts that are shared in some equipment but not in others. Some parts are also only found in one type of equipment. These combinations of parts/modules can be arraged in various ways. Some equipment may combine many of the same parts while others will have somewhat unique combinations, (such as Archaeopteryx and Tiktaalik). So while we can't predict which modules have been used in which combinations, animals like Archaeopteryx and Tiktaalik are no surprise to us.

me writes:

but where it was found fits in with flood theory.


As in its comparative "depth" not the surface location. The researchers who found tiktaalik were also not able to predict its surface location. They found good places to look for fossils.
Yes i believe in a worldwide flood.

you are using it as a general argument against the ToE

No I'm not. as explained in response to bluejay.

But you have already admitted that you know far fewer facts than the appropriate experts.
If the researchers of tiktaalik are holding back information which would completly discredit what YEC scientists on whom i rely, are saying, then this is just dishonest.

Feduccia believes that archaeopteryx was a flying, tree-dwelling animal, not an earthbound animal. Is that clear enough?
Yip, but lets bring in the full interview that augray has quoted from a number of times. http://discovermagazine.com/2003/feb/breakdialogue which shows feduccia's position. And yet there are still (as your next paragraph states)many scientists who support the dino-bird theory. Why do the experts have such opposite opinions and yet you guys take the evolution of birds as basically fact when the debate still rages as to how and from where. Also for his comments about creationists at the end of the interview, there is an excellent response to this at the end of this (http://creation.com/new-four-winged-feathered-dinosaur) article. In fact i think it is a must read so will post it.
Postscript: Feduccia v Creationists
Evidently some evolutionists have ‘got to’ Feduccia for the fact that creationists have cited his damaging arguments against dino-bird evolution. Discover therefore tried to close the ranks by asking a leading question.3 So we had better head this off at the pass in case skeptics spout all this as ‘evidence’ for their paranoia about creationists ‘misquoting’. This and Feduccia’s response is indented, and my point-by-point response is interspersed.
Discover: Creationists have used the bird-dinosaur dispute to cast doubt on evolution entirely.

A misrepresentation when it comes to Feduccia’s work. Rather, blame the evolutionists, e.g. the Skeptics at the Australian Museum, for using the dino-to-bird ‘evidence’ as ‘proof’ of evolution and against creation. It is perfectly in order to cite Feduccia’s severe criticisms as evidence against this specific evolutionary argument; after all, there can be no doubt that he is a world-class expert on fossil birds.

Also, Feduccia used dissimilarities in the development of bird and dino digits to argue strongly against the dino-to-bird theory. So it was totally legitimate to apply the same logic to the development of amphibian and amniote digits to argue against a far-bigger–picture aspect of evolution, i.e. that amniotes descended from amphibians—see Ostrich eggs break dino-to-bird theory.

Discover: How do you feel about that?
A tug at the heartstrings.

Feduccia: Creationists are going to distort whatever arguments come up, …
He should grace us all with a specific example, rather than an assertion.

…and they’ve put me in company with luminaries like Stephen Jay Gould, so it doesn’t bother me a bit.
Once again, see what we actually say about the late Dr Gould (Did Creationists ‘hijack’ Gould’s ideas?). Our main point is, there are a number of creationist alternatives consistent with both the Bible and available evidence, while the supporters of various evolutionary camps score mortal blows against the other camp. E.g. supporters of ‘jerky’ evolution (saltationism and its relative, punctuated equilibria) point out that the fossil record does not show gradualism, and that the hypothetical transitional forms would be disadvantageous. But supporters of gradual evolution point out that large, information-increasing changes are so improbable that one would need to invoke a secular miracle. Creationists agree with both: punctuational evolution can’t happen, and gradual evolution can’t happen—in fact, particles-to-people evolution can’t happen at all!

The same logic applies to the dinosaur-bird debate. It is perfectly in order for creationists to cite Feduccia’s devastating criticism against the idea that birds evolved ‘ground up’ from running dinosaurs (the cursorial theory). But the dino-to-bird advocates counter with equally powerful arguments against Feduccia’s ‘trees-down’ (arboreal) theory. The evidence indicates that the critics are both right—birds did not evolve either from running dinos or from tree-living mini-crocodiles. In fact, birds did not evolve from non-birds at all! This is consistent with the Biblical account that distinct kinds of birds were created on Day 5, while land animals were created on Day 6 (Gen. 1:20–25)

Note, we always make it very clear that Gould and Feduccia are evolutionists, and explain what they believe. E.g. my book Refuting Evolution has a chapter on birds which includes Feduccia’s support of the arboreal theory of bird evolution. It is also perfectly appropriate to quote them as ‘hostile witnesses’ who can’t be accused of believing what they do because of any creationist bias. However, to many evolutionists, a creationist quoting an evolutionist presenting evidence against a specific evolutionary ‘proof’ is ‘out of context’ by definition, because the person quoted still believes in evolution!

Archaeopteryx is half reptile and half bird any way you cut the deck, and so it is a Rosetta stone for evolution, whether it is related to dinosaurs or not.
Once again, when dino-to-bird dogmatists claim that Archaeopteryx is a feathered dinosaur, it is perfectly legitimate to cite Feduccia’s comment that this is ‘paleobabble’ because ‘Archie’ was clearly a ‘perching bird’.9 See also An anatomist talks about Archaeopteryx.

These creationists are confusing an argument about minor details of evolution with the indisputable fact of evolution:…
This is double talk, and merely closing ranks against creationists. This is the old trick of claiming ‘there is no doubt that evolution occurred; the only disagreement is about the mechanism.’

But modern evolutionary theory is all about providing a plausible mechanism for explaining life’s complexity without God. If the disputes undermine favoured mechanisms, then the materialist apologetic crumbles. The supporters of various evolutionary camps score mortal blows against the mechanisms proposed by rival camps, as shown above, so it’s perfectly reasonable for creationists to point this out.

…Animals and plants have been changing.
This is a classic equivocation or ‘bait-n-switch’. Of course, we have long pointed out that we don’t deny that things change (the Bible even predicts this); rather, we point out that evolution ‘from goo to you via the zoo’ requires changes which increase genetic information in the biosphere. See Definitions as slippery as eels. But in Feduccia’s case, it’s not likely to be conscious deception, but merely ignorance of what creationists actually say, because he’s never been an aggressive anti-creationist to my knowledge.

The corn in Mexico, originally the size of the head of a wheat plant, has no resemblance to modern-day corn. If that’s not evolution in action, I do not know what is.
Wow, so the best proof of goo-to-you evolution he can come up with is corn turning into corn?! But he has yet to prove that this is an increase in information, which would be required to turn scales into feathers or a reptile lung into a bird lung (something Feduccia never explains in his encyclopaedic book The Origin and Evolution of Birds10). Rather, this is yet another example of sorting or loss of previously-existing genetic information—this sort of change is in the opposite direction from evolution (see The evolution train’s a-comin’).

Note also a common phenomenon. An evolutionist who is an expert in one field thinks that the best evidence for evolution is in a totally different field, in which he does not speak as an authority. For example, a palaeontologist says, ‘The fossil record shows that most creatures appear fully formed, and an extreme rarity of transitional forms. But the embryologists have shown that early embryos look alike, which proves evolution.’ But an embryologist says, ‘Richardson showed that Haeckel faked the drawings purporting to show embryonic similarity. But the molecular biologists have shown that the similarity of DNA points to evolution from a common ancestor’. However, the molecular biologist says, ‘There are huge differences in DNA sequences; contradictory phylogenies; and intricate biological machinery, e.g. the rotary motors of the bacterial flagellum and F1-ATPase. But the paleontologists have shown that the fossils show an evolutionary sequence.’

Earlier in the dialogue, Feduccia stated:

The difference between feathers and scales is very, very small. You can transform bird scutes [the scales on bird feet] into feathers with the application of bone morphogenic protein.
This totally misses the point that the cells from which scutes are formed have the genetic information for feathers already present, but turned off. Somehow the chemical induced the genes coding for feathers to switch back on. Feduccia’s ‘evidence’ offers not the slightest support for the idea that the genetic information for feathers arose where none previously existed. It would be a totally different matter if bone morphogenic protein could transform scales into feathers on a reptile, which has no genetic information for feathers! Feduccia’s claim parallels an earlier misinformed claim that retinoic acid (vitamin A) could turn scales into feathers. See Putting Feathers on Reptiles and The strange recurring case of the feathered reptile for further explanation, and for electron micrographs showing the immense differences between feathers and scales. Also, feather proteins (ö-keratins) are biochemically different from skin and scale proteins (á-keratins).11

These simple mistakes by Feduccia once more illustrate the fact that even world-class experts are usually laymen outside their own field. So creationists have nothing to fear from them. Conversely, the major propagandists for evolution tend to be atheistic story-tellers like the eugenicist Richard Dawkins or ‘political animals’ like fellow atheistic anthropologist Eugenie Scott.

platypus:

magda in message 58 writes:

This is miRNA that would have been present in the most recent common ancestor of monotremes and birds, but has since been lost in placental mammals.

Just had another read of this. From an evolutionary viewpoint, I was not saying that platypus' evolved from birds. In a way they do have bird features, if the above is correct, they are just not derived features as you would say.

Tree diagrams:
I think we have enough topics already. But basically the trees are a visual representation of philosophical naturalism which as a YEC, I disagree with.

No, they are charging money for something that could easily be made available for nothing. Either they are on the take or they are astonishingly inept at the dissemination of information.

You don't like the format? Well tough cookies, I think it is abit impractical as well, but hey, you can get it for free if you really want it.

the creationists' {interpretation} is false
What was the creationist interpretation anyway? Even with the rest of the quote added "... a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test." I think this second part is just as damning as the first part. even theunissen's interpretation
What Patterson was saying to Sunderland was that, of the transitional forms that are known, he could not make a watertight argument for any being directly ancestral to living species groups.
is not very helpful in validating philisophical naturalism.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Granny Magda, posted 09-20-2009 1:15 PM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Peepul, posted 09-21-2009 11:10 AM Arphy has not yet responded
 Message 85 by Granny Magda, posted 09-21-2009 5:41 PM Arphy has not yet responded
 Message 91 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-22-2009 5:48 AM Arphy has not yet responded

    
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2538 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 77 of 210 (525019)
09-21-2009 7:45 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Huntard
09-21-2009 4:23 AM


Re: Lies, Damn Lies and Creationist Quote Mines
I've already posted two articles that deal with mutations and natural selection. This from .../refutation-of-new-scientists-evolution-24-myths-and-misconceptions-modern-evolution
Genetic drift is a good way to drive devolution by eliminating genes by chance—even beneficial mutations. Most mutations have small effects and the rare beneficial ones will mostly give a small selective advantage. This is expressed by the selection coefficient s. If a mutation has s = 0.001 or 0.1%, a supposedly typical value, then the number of surviving offspring is 0.1% greater for organisms with the mutation than without it. But the smaller the selective advantage, the more likely that random effects (e.g. genetic drift) will eliminate it—its probability of survival is about 2s.3 So the above mutation has only one chance in 500 of surviving, even though it is beneficial.

Even if a beneficial mutation survives, for it to become fixed in a population (that is, all individuals have it, so it cannot be lost), the organisms not carrying it must be eliminated. This is the cost of substitution. This limits the amount of substitution which can occur in a given time. This is known as Haldane’s Dilemma,4 after J.B.S. Haldane, one of the world’s leading evolutionists (and a Stalin-supporting communist for a while). He wanted evolution to work, but couldn’t get around his dilemma.

Take a population of 100,000. If only a male and female pair have the new trait, natural selection must eliminate the other 99,998 and all their heirs. If there is perfect selection (s = 1), this can happen in one generation. But this means that for every new trait, 49,999 individuals must be eliminated without offspring. Then the population must be regenerated with these survivors.

Anyway, even if evolution happened at the maximum speed (s = 1) for 10 million years, how many traits could be substituted in a creature with human-like generation times of say 20 years? Only 500,000. This small number of nucleotides is only a small fraction of the forty or more 500-page books worth of information (120 million base pairs) which are needed to transform an ape into a man. And in real life, selection is far less intense, meaning that only about 1700 substitutions could occur.


You are right that YECs do see the direction of these mechanisms differently than evolutionist, (Doh!! Must stop doing that) I mean, Philosophical naturalists.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Huntard, posted 09-21-2009 4:23 AM Huntard has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Coragyps, posted 09-21-2009 10:22 AM Arphy has not yet responded
 Message 80 by greyseal, posted 09-21-2009 11:17 AM Arphy has not yet responded
 Message 82 by caffeine, posted 09-21-2009 12:52 PM Arphy has not yet responded
 Message 83 by Percy, posted 09-21-2009 1:49 PM Arphy has not yet responded

    
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5381
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 78 of 210 (525038)
09-21-2009 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Arphy
09-21-2009 7:45 AM


Re: Lies, Damn Lies and Creationist Quote Mines
This is known as Haldane’s Dilemma, after J.B.S. Haldane, one of the world’s leading evolutionists (and a Stalin-supporting communist for a while).

Poison wells much? [/OT snark]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Arphy, posted 09-21-2009 7:45 AM Arphy has not yet responded

    
Peepul
Member (Idle past 3123 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 79 of 210 (525047)
09-21-2009 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Arphy
09-21-2009 7:34 AM


Re: Lies, Damn Lies and Creationist Quote Mines
quote:
... the evolution of birds as basically fact when the debate still rages as to how and from where.

Because scientists are in no doubt that birds evolved. Even though there is some debate as to what what the ancestors of birds were, not a single one of the scientists involved is contending that they did not evolve. Scientists are (mostly) not trying to prove evolution is true. That game is over. The evidence is in.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Arphy, posted 09-21-2009 7:34 AM Arphy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by greyseal, posted 09-21-2009 11:21 AM Peepul has not yet responded

    
greyseal
Member (Idle past 1967 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 80 of 210 (525049)
09-21-2009 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Arphy
09-21-2009 7:45 AM


Re: Lies, Damn Lies and Creationist Quote Mines
Genetic drift is a good way to drive devolution by eliminating genes by chance—even beneficial mutations. Most mutations have small effects and the rare beneficial ones will mostly give a small selective advantage.

completely the opposite of what most YEC's will say, which is that ALL mutations are harmful. Handy that it still "disproves" evolution.

Now the rest of what you quote seems...off.

I'm going to make a prediction - after I finish writing what i write next, I will see if "Haldane's Dilemma" is Yet Another Falsified Creationist Quote Mine - I bet any money that this "issue" has been dealt with and you're STILL just regurgitating the same canards over and over.

It talks about a single mutation, but doesn't specify how large, or how big an effect it has - a single mutation from white to black moths is a really trivial change, but proved massively influential. that's one issue.

Another one is that you never get just ONE mutation. You get many - 4, 5? 50? All happening at once.

It sounds to me as if there's more than enough room to maneuver giving that we do NOT see massive mutations happening all the time.

Evolution is sslllooowwwww - I thought you knew this?

And I'd be surprised if this doesn't come up - evolution did NOT go from "ape" to "man". It went from "ape like" to "ape like" and "ape like" to "ape like".

That is to say that humans are STILL apes, and modern apes and man have A COMMON ANCESTOR, the one did NOT evolve from the other!

Get with the program.

now, for the grand finale...let me see if I can find a refutation of Haldane's Dilemma, proving that it's a quote mine

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB121.html
(covers the following link, and that it's been refuted)

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/haldane1.html
(covers exactly wHY it's been refuted...amusingly enough it contains everything I mentioned)

How anti-climactic

Arphy, that's another failed quote mine.

Edited by greyseal, : added clarification of the links.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Arphy, posted 09-21-2009 7:45 AM Arphy has not yet responded

    
greyseal
Member (Idle past 1967 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 81 of 210 (525051)
09-21-2009 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Peepul
09-21-2009 11:10 AM


Re: Lies, Damn Lies and Creationist Quote Mines
Scientists are (mostly) not trying to prove evolution is true. That game is over. The evidence is in.

I don't think Arphy's thick, but he doesn't get the point.

Scientists are not arguing over whether Archy evolved, but how and when.

Ferocious arguments on the lineage of birds notwithstanding, they're all in agreement that there was one, and that they came from (and still are) dinosaurs.

Arguments over classification notwithstanding, Archy was both a dinosaur AND a bird.

Failure to understand that dichotomy doesn't make it not true.

Arphy, I thought you were smarter than that


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Peepul, posted 09-21-2009 11:10 AM Peepul has not yet responded

    
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1624
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 82 of 210 (525065)
09-21-2009 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Arphy
09-21-2009 7:45 AM


Haldane's dilemma
quote:
Take a population of 100,000. If only a male and female pair have the new trait, natural selection must eliminate the other 99,998 and all their heirs. If there is perfect selection (s = 1), this can happen in one generation. But this means that for every new trait, 49,999 individuals must be eliminated without offspring. Then the population must be regenerated with these survivors.

Just a quick point. This is clearly not true, for obvious reasons. The 99,998 individuals being eliminated isn't particularly difficult, since they'll all die at some point and no-one would expect this mutation to spread throughout the whole population in a single generation. More importantly, their heirs do not all need to be eliminated. Some of them may mate with the mutated pair or their descendants; or their descendants may do so. This way, many of the descendants of individuals without the mutation may wind up possessing the mutation. The magic of sex.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Arphy, posted 09-21-2009 7:45 AM Arphy has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18368
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 83 of 210 (525072)
09-21-2009 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Arphy
09-21-2009 7:45 AM


Re: Lies, Damn Lies and Creationist Quote Mines
Arphy quoting a website writes:

Take a population of 100,000. If only a male and female pair have the new trait, natural selection must eliminate the other 99,998 and all their heirs.

This is wrong, in a couple of ways. First, while it's not impossible for the same mutation to appear in two individuals in the same generation, it is highly unlikely. What usually happens is that the mutation appears in a single individual who passes it on to its offspring and their descendants.

Second, natural selection wouldn't "eliminate the other 99,998." That's just ridiculous. Let's say the mutation gives one individual an incredibly advantageous mutation that allows it to outcompete any other individual in the population for food. Even such an extremely advantageous mutation could not wipe out the rest of the population, since one individual cannot consume all the food for 100,000 and cause them to starve to death. But such an individual would be able to mate with many more females if a male, or would be much more successful in raising young if a female, and so the mutation would quickly spread through the population over the following generations.

If there is perfect selection (s = 1), this can happen in one generation. But this means that for every new trait, 49,999 individuals must be eliminated without offspring. Then the population must be regenerated with these survivors.

This is just gobbledygook. That website is lying to you about how evolution works. Most mutations provide no detectable change at all, and those that do are usually minor mutations that provide a very slight advantage or disadvantage. Over the course of generations natural selection gradually increases the representation of positive traits and decreases the representation of negative traits within the population, including new traits resulting from mutations.

There's no such thing as a mutation creating some super creature that then wipes out the rest of his species. That's just science fiction.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Arphy, posted 09-21-2009 7:45 AM Arphy has not yet responded

    
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 803 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 84 of 210 (525100)
09-21-2009 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Arphy
09-21-2009 3:51 AM


Worldviews
Hi, Arphy.

Arphy writes:

Bluejay writes:

You are confusing a scientific theory (ToE) with a worldview (philosophical naturalism) that usually includes ToE. That you want to call this worldview "evolutionism" does not mean it is the same thing as the Theory of Evolution.

Great, thank you, something i can work with. So YECs like me, and organisations like CMI, ICR, are actually YEC's as well as evolutionists by your definition of evolution. In this case maybe this forum should be called Philosophical naturalism Vs Creation.

You are being very uncareful with your choice of words, Arphy. “Evolutionism” and Theory of Evolution are not the same thing. That you accept the Theory of Evolution (and you do) does not mean you accept the “evolutionist” worldview. I should never have introduced the term “philosophical naturalism” into the discussion, and just stuck with the more parochial “evolutionism” (let’s ignore “philosophical naturalism” for the time being: you can say “evolutionist”).

First, a worldview is a system of theories and beliefs that a person accepts and by which a person defines their perspectives. There are fundamental aspects of a worldview (a “hard core”), and there are auxiliary aspects (a “soft core”). The hard core is the part of a worldview that is of central importance to everything else, and will not change readily; whereas a soft core is dynamic, and any aspect of it will be discarded long before any aspect of the hard core is called into question.

The hard core of the “evolutionism” worldview is the Theory of Evolution. Extending from that are a variable number of auxiliary appendages, usually including common descent, natural history, abiogenesis and other theories, viewpoints and beliefs that are somehow connected to the Theory of Evolution (the number of things that are included in the overall worldview is unique for each person). Let me focus on “natural history” for the moment.

Natural history is a series of events that happened in the past. Evolution, as the hard core of the worldview, is the explanation for the underlying mechanics of these events.

My view of natural history is that Archaeopteryx was closely related to a group of coelurosaurian theropod dinosaurs. Feduccia’s view of natural history is that Archaeopteryx is related to a group of non-dinosaurian archosaurian reptiles. This disagreement is only over the actual events that happened, not over the underlying mechanics of the these events.

You are conflating a disagreement over a soft-core issue with a disagreement over a hard-core issue. By extension, what you are saying is that, if any two people disagree on soft-core issues, they must also disagree on hard-core issues. But, I feel it certain that both Feduccia and Bluejay could abandon our respective views on Archaeopteryx without feeling that their hard core (i.e. the Theory of Evolution) would need to be discarded.

In fact, Feduccia’s arguments against the mainstream view on Archaeopteryx would actually be completely invalidated if the Theory of Evolution were shown to be false, because his arguments are based on the Theory of Evolution.

Material and terminology about worldviews borrowed from:

Brown JS. (2001). Ngongas and ecology: on having a worldview. Oikos 94(1):6-16.

... a very good source of information for those interested in discussing scientific thought, in my opinion.

-----

Arphy writes:

Bluejay writes:

As long as you are only using their arguments against the proposition that birds evolved from coelurosaurian dinosaurs. But, neither you nor any other creationist/IDist is using it in this fashion: you are using it to argue that evolution is itself false.

Wrong. While many arguments that YECs make does devastate large areas of evolution, oops, I mean philosophical naturalism, sometimes we have to break it down into pieces and argue individual details which when added together is then able to show that philosophical naturalism is false. birds evolving from coelurosaurian dinosaurs is just a one of those detail.

And, this approach is exactly what I am saying is invalid. The details you are arguing against are inconsequential to the larger worldview, so they cannot add together to say anything about the larger worldview. In logical debate, this is called the fallacy of composition.

Let’s apply the hard-core/soft-core concept to Christianity. Here is a Wikipedia article about the different views of Jesus. Enumerating all of the points of disagreement about the nature of Jesus does not, in any way, add up to a commentary about whether or not Jesus was a real person, because all of those views are built on the premise that Jesus was a real person.

The same for Archaeopteryx: enumerating all of the points of disagreement about the evolutionary relationships of birds and reptiles does not, in any way, add up to a commentary about whether or not birds actually evolved, because all of those views are built on the premise that birds evolved from something.

Can you see now why your quote is misused?


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Arphy, posted 09-21-2009 3:51 AM Arphy has not yet responded

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 85 of 210 (525110)
09-21-2009 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Arphy
09-21-2009 7:34 AM


Re: Lies, Damn Lies and Creationist Quote Mines
OK, maybe YECs is would have been a better word. As for a single coherent model philosophical naturalists aren't any better.

a) Even amongst YECs (perhaps especially amongst YECs) there is still widespread failure to reach any kind of consensus.
b) Your scepticism on this issue is to be applauded, but you are mistaken. There is broad consensus on the major points of the ToE.

I don't want to get bogged down debating the bare links you provided, since they are not relevant here. This I have to answer though;

As for kinds: A syngameon is probably the closest term that we have.
Definition: Syngameons are clusters that comprise several morphospecies, i.e., "the sum total of species or semispecies linked by frequent or occasional hybridization in nature".

I would love to see some practical real-world examples of the syngameons. What syngameon is a horse in for instance? What else is in the same syngameon? Do you understand the terminology you are using? Because I notice that you lifted your definition from the web.

I hope you also realise that there is absolutely no way that you could fit all of those critters on his big boat. There must be millions of discrete inter-fertile groups in existence! Most large mammal species for example do not interbreed with other species.

This is nonsense. These mechanisms are an important part of the YEC model, so yes why would we refute them.

Because if you accept natural selection, random mutation and genetic drift, evolution (whether macro- or micro-) is inevitable.

I know you have been told otherwise Arphy, but, with respect, you are being deceived.

So while we can't predict which modules have been used in which combinations, animals like Archaeopteryx and Tiktaalik are no surprise to us.

So you admit that creationism cannot predict what combinations of features. Good.

You problem is that evolution can and does. All the creatures we find with a mix of traits from different groups are combined in such a way as to be consistent with gradual change over time. Under creationism, there is no reason why the fossil record should present us with this smooth gradual change in species. Evolution explains this.

We never find a ancient Cambrian creature with the traits of a more modern Pleistocene creature. In your system, there is no reason why we wouldn't. Evolution explains this.

We ever find a mammal with bird features. Under creationism, there is no reason why we wouldn't. Evolution explains this.

Why is your own home country so full of species that exist nowhere else? There is no reason why a created world should be this way. Evolution on the other hand can explain it completely.

You can't just hand-wave this kind of stuff away for ever. Evolution has vast explanatory and predictive powers. Creationism is relegated to sniping at real scientists from the sidelines.

As in its comparative "depth" not the surface location.

You are making this up as you go along aren't you? How deep was Tiktaalik? Do you even know? Don't just go and look it up - ask yourself honestly if you know;

a) how deep the fossil was found,
b) what kind of rock it was in,
c) exactly how "flood theory" explains the position of Tiktaalik.

If you don't already have the answers to those questions, you need to admit to yourself that you are just fitting it into your "flood theory" without knowing what you're talking about.

Granny writes:

you are using it as a general argument against the ToE

Arphy writes:

No I'm not. as explained in response to bluejay.

Funny, but you were the one who brought up that quote, in this message Message 73 and I don't see anything specific about you favouring one version of bird evolution over another. You are simply attempting to use it as one of a number of attacks on the general concept of transitional forms.

As Bluejay has so eloquently said, Feduccia is arguing for one version of natural history over another. You are arguing against the whole ToE (even though you agree with all of its components).

That is the difference, He is making one argument, you are making another.

If the researchers of tiktaalik are holding back information which would completly discredit what YEC scientists on whom i rely, are saying, then this is just dishonest.

Hah! They are not holding it back. It is already in the public domain. And it does destroy creationism, it's just that no-one bothered to tell you.

Just because the creo websites refuse to accept reality does not mean that they haven't been refuted.

Why do the experts have such opposite opinions and yet you guys take the evolution of birds as basically fact when the debate still rages as to how and from where.

It's a good question.

Firstly, despite some experts holding differing views, there is a wide consensus that birds evolved from dinosaurs. I am happy to tentatively accept that consensus as accurate (pending more information).

I consider it a fact that birds evolved. I consider that almost beyond dispute. I mean, they must have evolved from something, whether it was a dinosaur or some other reptile. The general evidence for evolution is simply too compelling to dismiss.

Regarding the narrower issue of whether birds evolved from therapod dinosaurs, I am more tentative. I have seen enough compelling evidence to be very convinced of it, but I am open to other explanations. I have seen good evidence in favour. i have seen no evidence that falsifies the claim. For now, my (tentative) opinion is that birds evolved from dinosaurs.

You must understand that for those of us who value the scientific method, holding an opinion tentatively, with the possibility of later finding new information that would force a change of opinion, is seen as a good thing. My beliefs are not dogmatic (at least I strive to avoid such thinking). They are subject to constant comparison to evidence and possible re-evaluation. Until I see compelling evidence to the contrary, I am happy to accept the evidence I have seen and the consensus of the majority of experts.

I have read your cited article before. It makes a number of very bad arguments. It simply peddles the same misconceptions that Feduccia has explicitely rebuked.

Just had another read of this. From an evolutionary viewpoint, I was not saying that platypus' evolved from birds. In a way they do have bird features, if the above is correct, they are just not derived features as you would say.

No, it would be accurate to say that birds and mammals share reptilian traits. Your claim that platypus have bird traits is still as wrong as it ever was. Honestly, you should drop this one. it's a poor argument.

the trees are a visual representation of philosophical naturalism which as a YEC, I disagree with.

I don't think that phrase means what you think it means...

I hope this Wiki quote will make clear the differences between philosophical naturalism and methodological naturalism.

quote:
There are at least two basic types of philosophical stances characterizing naturalism. One is concerned with existence: what does exist and what does not exist? The second is concerned with knowledge: what are methods for gaining trustworthy knowledge of the natural world?

Naturalism is the metaphysical position that "nature is all there is, and all basic truths are truths of nature."[1] All things and powers commonly regarded as supernatural, for example, God, souls and witchcraft, are asserted to be nonexistent. This position is commonly referred to as metaphysical naturalism, or sometimes as ontological naturalism.

Methodological naturalism, sometimes called scientific naturalism, is an epistemological view that is specifically concerned with practical methods for acquiring knowledge, irrespective of one's metaphysical or religious views. It requires that hypotheses be explained and tested only by reference to natural causes and events.[2] Explanations of observable effects are considered to be practical and useful only when they hypothesize natural causes (i.e., specific mechanisms, not indeterminate miracles). Methodological naturalism is the principle underlying all of modern science.


There is nothing in the platypus paper which asserts that Gods are non-existent.

The paper does utilise methodological naturalism, but then so does every other scientific paper ever written. Methodological naturalism is one of the cornerstones of scientific practise.

I think this second part {of the Patterson quote - GM} is just as damning as the first part. even theunissen's interpretation

I think it would really help clear up some misunderstandings if you were to explain exactly why you see this as damning. Damning to what exactly? Why?

{Patterson's statement - GM} is not very helpful in validating philisophical naturalism.

It has nothing to do with philosophical naturalism. I can't emphasise enough how much you need to read what Bluejay has said on this; he ain't lying.

Mutate and Survive

Edited by Granny Magda, : Finished dinner, finished off post.


"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Arphy, posted 09-21-2009 7:34 AM Arphy has not yet responded

    
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2538 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 86 of 210 (525133)
09-21-2009 9:28 PM


To my numerous opponents
Hi everybody.
Your replies have been most interesting, I feel we might be getting somewhere (hopefully), so lets have a look.

peepul in 79 writes:

Because scientists are in no doubt that birds evolved.

greyseal in 81 writes:

Scientists are not arguing over whether Archy evolved, but how and when.

And the winner is.....(drumroll)....

magda in 85 writes:

I consider it a fact that birds evolved. I consider that almost beyond dispute. I mean, they must have evolved from something, whether it was a dinosaur or some other reptile.


(I just love this part "I mean, they must have evolved from something")
And this is what creationists have been saying all along. Even if evolutionism (is that the correct term now, look, all i want is a term that you guys are happy with that describes the belief that all living things share a commen ancestor) doesn't know how, the underlying BELIEF or presupposition remains. And don't mistake this as me saying that because a detail is wrong therefore the core issue is wrong. It is the accumulation of details that will threaten the underlying belief, not a single detail. More on this later.

Now lets go to greyseal in Msg 80:

completely the opposite of what most YEC's will say, which is that ALL mutations are harmful
Read it again, it says "Genetic drift is a good way to drive devolution". The term devolution is used to show that creationists see evolution working in the opposite way that evolutionism does. A mutation can be both degenerative to the genome and beneficial.

Another one is that you never get just ONE mutation. You get many - 4, 5? 50? All happening at once.
Yip, and this makes the dilemma even worse.

Evolution is sslllooowwwww - I thought you knew this?
Hmm... again this makes the dilemma even worse still. Hence why evolutionism came up with puncuated equalibrium. To support this i will again put up the link to http://creation.com/mutations-are-evolutions-end the point is that the more time you add, or the longer you strech out the process the worse it becomes.

That is to say that humans are STILL apes
you may classify them this way, but that doesn't make it true.

Archy was both a dinosaur AND a bird.
Firstly you have just put a lable on something which doesn't really mean anything. The point is not what you name something (you can call it anything you like) but is there a "trail" left by evolutionism from theropod to bird. And on this point there are some notable experts in the evolutionary community who disagree with this.

caffeine writes:

their heirs do not all need to be eliminated. Some of them may mate with the mutated pair or their descendants; or their descendants may do so. This way, many of the descendants of individuals without the mutation may wind up possessing the mutation.

Again this takes time which is not helpful, as my link above supports.

percy writes:

Most mutations provide no detectable change at all, and those that do are usually minor mutations that provide a very slight advantage or disadvantage.

Yes!!

Over the course of generations natural selection gradually increases the representation of positive traits and decreases the representation of negative traits within the population
hmm... Over the course of generations natural selection gradually increases the representation of traits which allow the organism to become better adapted to its environment and decreases the representation of traits that hinder the organisms success in an environment, within the population

Bluejay
So you are saying that natural selection, genetic drift, etc are the hard core. Yet as I showed at the beginning of this post, this doesn't seem to be the case. The hard core seems to be that everything evolved from something else (except you might say possibly abiogenesis). This is the worldview. The mechanisms are then supposed to show how this worldview is viable. It doesn't make any sense to say that your worldview IS a collection of mechanisms. Evidence is used to support a worldview. Evidence is not a worldview.

By extension, what you are saying is that, if any two people disagree on soft-core issues, they must also disagree on hard-core issues.
Again you are putting words into mouths of creationists that we never said. PLEASE STOP doing that. I have never said that "if any two people disagree on soft-core issues, they must also disagree on hard-core issues". In fact i have now repeatedly said the complete opposite. i.e. that if two people disagree on asoft core issue, this DOES NOT mean that they will also disagree on a hard-core issue. I would also say that if two people agree on a soft-core issue this does not mean that they necessarily agree on hard-core issues. Hopefully i have made myself clear, so don't bring this sort of thing up again, OK?

But, I feel it certain that both Feduccia and Bluejay could abandon our respective views on Archaeopteryx without feeling that their hard core (i.e. the Theory of Evolution) would need to be discarded. In fact, Feduccia’s arguments against the mainstream view on Archaeopteryx would actually be completely invalidated if the Theory of Evolution were shown to be false, because his arguments are based on the Theory of Evolution.


Substitute "Evolutionism" for "theory of Evolution" and statements above are spot on.

because all of those views are built on the premise that birds evolved from something.
Again this is what i am saying. The "premise" is the worldview.

Thanks. Will deal with Magda's post later.


Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Granny Magda, posted 09-21-2009 9:57 PM Arphy has responded
 Message 88 by bluescat48, posted 09-21-2009 11:58 PM Arphy has not yet responded
 Message 89 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-22-2009 4:03 AM Arphy has responded
 Message 94 by Percy, posted 09-22-2009 7:18 AM Arphy has responded
 Message 97 by greyseal, posted 09-22-2009 7:28 AM Arphy has responded
 Message 105 by Blue Jay, posted 09-22-2009 12:20 PM Arphy has responded

    
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 87 of 210 (525136)
09-21-2009 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Arphy
09-21-2009 9:28 PM


Re: The Term Evolutionist
And the winner is.....(drumroll)....

Yay!! I won! Oh wait, that wasn't a compliment... Oh well.

(I just love this part "I mean, they must have evolved from something")

Yeah, I thought you might like that. I notice though, that you chose to omit the reason why I believe that, namely "The general evidence for evolution is simply too compelling to dismiss.".

What do you expect me to believe? That all life forms evolved, except for birds which were created separately by the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Presuppositions don't come into it. The evidence is too compelling too ignore. The ToE is supported by numerous, mutually supportive, observations. Evolution is, whether you like it or not, the story of life. If you want to convince me otherwise, I'm going to need to see some seriously compelling evidence.

you may classify them this way, but that doesn't make it true.

Actually, it was Linnaeus who first categorised humans, apes and monkey together as primates. He was not an evolutionist, but a believer in divine creation.

quote:
It is not pleasing to me that I must place humans among the primates, but man learns to know himself. Let's not quibble over words. It will be the same to me whatever name is applied. But I desperately seek from you and from the whole world a general difference between men and simians from the principles of Natural History. I certainly know of none. If only someone might tell me one! If I called man a simian or vice versa I would bring together all the theologians against me. Perhaps I ought to, in accordance with the law of Natural History.

Linnaeus

' Deus creavit, Linnaeus disposuit, ' (God created, Linaeus organised)

Linnaeus


That aside, what I really want to address is the term "evolutionist".

In the context of debate sites such as EvC, we need a way to refer to the opposing sides. In this context, the term "evolutionist" seems fine to me. I have no objection to being so described.

It has to be said though, that in the wider world, the term is meaningless. It was once popular but. as acceptance of evolution has become the scientific norm, the term has largely fallen out of use. Only when creationists enter the picture does the term become meaningful again.

That's all I wanted to say. feel free to reply to this post or not Arphy. I can see you're pretty snowed under. Such is the eternal fate of the creationist who chooses to brave the slavering evolutionist hordes...

Mutate and Survive


"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Arphy, posted 09-21-2009 9:28 PM Arphy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Arphy, posted 09-22-2009 6:40 AM Granny Magda has responded

    
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 88 of 210 (525159)
09-21-2009 11:58 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Arphy
09-21-2009 9:28 PM


Re: To my numerous opponents
Again this takes time which is not helpful, as my link above supports.

And what is wrong with time? There has been plenty of it since the time of only protokaryotes (eubacteria), to today with the millions of species of bacteria, archaea & eukaryotes, about 3.5 billion years.

The hard core seems to be that everything evolved from something else (except you might say possibly abiogenesis).

yes, using natural selection, mutations & genetic drift.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Arphy, posted 09-21-2009 9:28 PM Arphy has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16093
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 9.1


Message 89 of 210 (525173)
09-22-2009 4:03 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Arphy
09-21-2009 9:28 PM


Re: To my numerous opponents
(I just love this part "I mean, they must have evolved from something")
And this is what creationists have been saying all along. Even if evolutionism (is that the correct term now, look, all i want is a term that you guys are happy with that describes the belief that all living things share a commen ancestor) doesn't know how, the underlying BELIEF or presupposition remains.

Oh look, a creationist dishonestly takes a quote out of context in a thread about creationists dishonestly taking quotes out of context.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Arphy, posted 09-21-2009 9:28 PM Arphy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Arphy, posted 09-22-2009 6:50 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16093
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 9.1


Message 90 of 210 (525174)
09-22-2009 4:11 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Arphy
09-19-2009 6:42 AM


Re: Lies, Damn Lies and Creationist Quote Mines
The book "evolution" by colin patterson was written BEFORE his interaction with creationists and his lecture on "Evolutionism and Creationism". yes he certainly used to have the view as in your quote, however this changed as seen by the quotes i have supplied.

First of all, his "interaction with creationists" is (according to themj) him saying that he could think of no transitionals to put in his book. But he did put them in his book. They are simply lying about what he meant in his letter.

Second, the letter he sent to the guy at TalkOrigins saying: "You are right and the creationists are wrong" was written twelve years after this famous lecture.

As for Olsen, is he really just a fringe scientist? He holds quite a high position at a reputable institute for being a fringe scientist, especially when his area of expertise is Birds.

I don't think that throwing insults like "fringe scientist" about clarifies the situation.

It is, however, true to say that the views he expressed in that letter are contrary to the consensus of the scientific community.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Arphy, posted 09-19-2009 6:42 AM Arphy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Arphy, posted 09-22-2009 7:24 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Prev1
...
45
6
78
...
14Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019