Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8943 total)
28 online now:
DrJones*, Theodoric (2 members, 26 visitors)
Newest Member: LaLa dawn
Post Volume: Total: 863,982 Year: 19,018/19,786 Month: 1,438/1,705 Week: 244/446 Day: 42/98 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can survival of the fittest accomodate morals?
jaywill
Member (Idle past 232 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 46 of 64 (562640)
05-31-2010 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Huntard
05-28-2010 9:30 AM


We're getting away from the morals question but I'll respond.

Concerning "look ahead ability" in evolution -

Of course, there is no such ability.

I believe that the outcome demands of me that I recognize it could not have come about without plan.

When I studied the boot up process of the IBM MVS operating system I could see "look ahead" ability. Things which occurred initially were revealed latter on as to their full function. Preparation and initialization demonstrated to me the look ahead intelligence of the programmers of the "Multiple Virtual Storage" (MVS) operating system.

In biological systems I think the same ability is evidenced. No matter how much time you tell me it took, I don't think a random trial and error stumbling about could produce such a result.

The formation of a child in the womb by the uniting of a sperm and an egg is a kind of boot strape operation similar to the booting up of the MVS operating system.

You are asking too much of me to believe that no intelligent look ahead ability is evidenced there.


Me:
Natural selection is suppose to cause adoption for living things as they exist at the moment.

You:
Yes.

Me:
To believe that evolutionary gradualism accounts for all the life that we see there has to have been some ability to intelligently look ahead - ie. a plan.

You:
Why would that have to be the case?

The opposite, I would regard as miraculous.

Well you have to admit that an Intelligence that is without limit would take at best a long time to catch up to.

In fact if it was limitless (what does that even mean, a limitless intelligence) you could never catch up, could you?

Too bad for us. Depending on you point of view.
If that limitless intelligence is also limitless in love ... I don't see it as a problem.

It is only a problem if we determine that we are going to get along quite well enough without the love and care of such a Mind.


But when you say Evolution explains everything we see, you are not being less presumptious ?

Of course not, we have evidence for evolution. And no evidence for god.

I think even if Evolution is true it is evidence for Intelligent Agency.

I have a problem with believing that Darwiniam gradualism can explain ALL that we see.

And who told you it explains all? That person was an idiot.

I try to not use ad homs.


It doesn't explain the sun, the moon, the stars, the other planets, how earth was formed and a whole host of other things. So no, Darwiniam gradualism doesn't explain ALL we see.

Okay. We can "all biological things" some claim, can be explained by Darwinian gradualism.


Me:

There is a lot of concepts in this charge that I do not agree with. For one it kind of insituates that God is a arbitrary despot, a tyrant bent on keeping "mere mortals" kept from their possibilities.

In this charge is the old assumption "God is out to keep you down so that you do not fulfill your highest possibilities."

This kind of suspicion does not reflect what I see in the life of Christ as the MAN with whom God was well pleased. It doesn't add up with what I see as the climax of His eternal purpose or salvation.

IF God did not want man to be like God then why would God make man in the image of God? Suspicions that "God is the enemy" I think are unfounded in many ways.

You:

The bible clearly states god dreaded man becoming like him, that's why he kicked adam and eve out of eden afterall, to keep them from the tree of life. Because after eating from that, they would be like him completely. So, god kept them from their full potential. As he is want to do in the bible.

No. That is definitely NOT how I understand the matter. The "dread" was mostly the dread of man's wretched and hellish existence as an eternal sinner poisoned with the Satanic nature of God's enemy the serpent.

Upon eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil they were corrupted with the element of Satan's nature. Sin entered into them.

God did not want them to live forever in this hellish combination. That would be a terrible suffering to man.

Now I suspect that you may object that Satan is not mentioned in Genesis three. Even so, the next account of Cain and Abel reveals that something like a living evil nature was seeking to bring Cain into captivity. God told Cain that it was lurking at the door but Cain had to master it.

This lurking evil tendency was sin. And God did not want man to live eternally in the garden in this state.

First what God told Cain in the next chapter:

"If you do well, will not [your countenance] be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and his desire is for you, but you must rule over him." (Genesis 4:7)

This lurking and personified evil power is said to be stealthfully lurking at the door. It probably means lurking at the door of Cain's heart and will to perform its murderous acts. This thing hates man. It especially hates the man who can approach God according to God's revelation, as Abel did.

Secondly, what God had previously said of Adam and his wife:

"And Jehovah God said, Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat and live forever - ... So He drove the man out, and at the east of the garden of Eden He placed the cherubim and a flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the tree of life." (See Gen 3:22-24)

Some facts to ponder:

1.) The man gained the knowlegde of good. He did not gain or possess the life power to always perform the good which he knows.

2.) The man gained the knowledge of evil. He did not gain or possess the life power to always resist the evil that he knows.

3.) The man and his descendents embark on an internal struggle between the sin at the door and thier own will. Failure to overcome the sin led to the first murder and departure of man from the presence of God not to mention the formation of a Godless culture.

4.) The tree of life was protected by three things. The cherubim of glory, the sword, and the flame of the sword.

Through further study we may interpret that God had a threefold demand upon man which man could no longer fulfill;

The glory of God, represented by the cherubim, man cannot live up to.
The sword of God, representing the righteous judgment of God, man cannot justify himself from.
The holiness of God, signified by the flame of the sword, man cannot live up to.

5.) If God does not reach out to rectify the situation fallen man cannot do so.

Someone has to express the glory of God for the sinner. Someone must accept the righteous judgment on behalf of the sinner. And Someone must live up to the demand of God's holiness on behalf of the sinner.

Latter .... enter the Son of God Jesus Christ.

The fall of Adam and Eve does show that the conscience knowing good and evil, as a kind of breaking system, was activated within them. It restricts them somewhat. But ultimately they lack the life power to live up to the holiness, righteousness, and glory of God.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Huntard, posted 05-28-2010 9:30 AM Huntard has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.7


(1)
Message 47 of 64 (562841)
06-02-2010 4:57 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by jaywill
05-28-2010 4:11 AM


You speak here about what I "have to think". All I really "have to think" is that what is spoken in the revelation of His word is truth. And what I am told is that He looked upon His creation and pronounced it "very good" (Gen. 1:31). That is all I "have to think".

But I think that you are forced into certain positions.

You believe that God is perfect, yes?

And a perfect being would never screw anything up, yes?

And you believe that God is responsible for nature, yes?

So the consequence of these beliefs is that there are no screw-ups in nature.

When I look out at the probably millions of life forms and the variety of them all, it is hard for me to say "Evolution explain what is there". I am not too concerned for the millions of other scenarios hypothetically imagined. I am concerned about the millions of scenarios that I know exist.

I think you've missed my point.

The point is that evolution perfectly explain everything that actually exists.

Evolution would fail to explain a zillion sceanarios that we could imagine. But it works great for stuff that is actually true.

We have to count that as a big score for evolution.

To me gradualism is difficult to imagine as explaining everything. The fossil of any living thing found is no garuantee that the creature had any offspring at all. How do I know that animal was the ancestor to another ?

But no evolutionist claims that this is the case. You've just got confused.

And it most mutations are said to be destructive and harmful and the minority of lucky ones are helpful, why don't we see many fold more fossils of the harmfully effected organisms.

You seem to be saying that there are fewer screw-ups in the fossil record than there would be if evolution was true.

SHOW YOUR WORKING.

Oh, but you don't have any working. You just learned to recite this nonsense after reading it on some creationist website, but you have no reason whatsoever to think that it's actually true.

This is exactly why creationists disgust me.

But when you say Evolution explains everything we see, you are not being less presumptious ?

Yes, I'm being much less presumptuous.

An evolutionist trying to explain something has to provide an explanation, or admit that he doesn't know.

A creationist can just answer every question by saying "God did it by magic".

But these disciplines all work in their own areas of expertise. I think each does not necessarily know what is going on in the other discipline. The assumption that all together they all agree on major themes of Darwinism is exaggerated.

The word "bullshit" springs to mind.

Really, don't you see what you're doing here? Your fantasy is that although every scientist knows that you're wrong about everything in particular, nonetheless you see the "big picture" and they're all a bunch of fools.

You don't see a problem with that?

There is a lot of concepts in this charge that I do not agree with. For one it kind of insituates that God is a arbitrary despot, a tyrant bent on keeping "mere mortals" kept from their possibilities.

No, that's not at all what I'm saying.

And I've had to ignore quite a lot of your post for that reason. If you disagree with my opinion, then we can debate. If you can't even understand what my opinion is, then all I can do is feel sorry for you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by jaywill, posted 05-28-2010 4:11 AM jaywill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by jaywill, posted 06-02-2010 12:27 PM Dr Adequate has responded
 Message 49 by jaywill, posted 06-02-2010 12:30 PM Dr Adequate has responded
 Message 51 by jaywill, posted 06-02-2010 12:38 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 232 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 48 of 64 (562913)
06-02-2010 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Dr Adequate
06-02-2010 4:57 AM


The point is that evolution perfectly explain everything that actually exists.

Huntard said that whoever suggests that is an idiot.

What would you say to him on that ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-02-2010 4:57 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-02-2010 9:05 PM jaywill has not yet responded

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 232 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 49 of 64 (562915)
06-02-2010 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Dr Adequate
06-02-2010 4:57 AM


A creationist can just answer every question by saying "God did it by magic".

Quote me an example. I expect to see the word "magic" in the quotation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-02-2010 4:57 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-02-2010 9:07 PM jaywill has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 50 of 64 (562916)
06-02-2010 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by jaywill
05-28-2010 4:11 AM


To me gradualism is difficult to imagine as explaining everything.

That's OK. Nobody is asking you to imagine gradualism. The evidence shows that the rates of changes in populations changes tends to be that of periods of stasis followed by relatively short bursts of rapid change. The theory backs this up.

The fossil of any living thing found is no garuantee that the creature had any offspring at all. How do I know that animal was the ancestor to another ?

You don't. But we can say that the population of organisms (animal or otherwise) that the fossilized organism was part of was either directly ancestral to x or was closely related to a population of organisms that was ancestral to x.

If you want to know how we know that, that's a topic for a completely different thread.

And it most mutations are said to be destructive and harmful and the minority of lucky ones are helpful, why don't we see many fold more fossils of the harmfully effected organisms.

How do you know you haven't seen such a fossil? Did you compare the members of the population that particular organism was part of and their differential reproductive success in the environment they lived in (including all genetic effects, as well as other organisms)?

Since you can't observe it directly, that's the kind of work you have in front of you to reach the conclusion you imply here.

As a more general answer: when it comes to terrestrial vertebrates there really aren't that many fossils. By probability the kinds of things that fossilize were things with large populations and they got that way by being pretty good at what they do. And so the handful of examples we might have of them will show us this. Grotesque mutants simply don't get born/hatch.

I suggest you look at marine life: molluscs have left a lot of fossils. You might develop a method for indirectly comparing relative fitness in at least one dimension and then you'll find your 'harmful' variants.

To believe that evolutionary gradualism accounts for all the life that we see there has to have been some ability to intelligently look ahead - ie. a plan.

But we know that evolutionary algorithms can quite happily exceed even our expectations and do better than any plan that we can produce. So why do emphatically believe there must necessarily have been a plan?

What do we lose by admiting that a Creating God is vastly more smart than we at this time? Do we lose the initiative to study science? I don't think so.

We lose nothing. However, if we are in pursuit of truth it would be wise not to automatically assume that the God has forethought. "Evolution is smarter than you." is a refrain you'll find little disagreement with in biology circles. So sure, we can assume that the creator of life as we know it is smarter than we are. I see no reason to assume it has a personality... as far as we can tell only organisms with evolved brains have personality.

Aside from humbling our ego trip a bit, what is lost by admitting that a creating God seems way ahead of us in knowledge ? Will this kill you to acknowledge this? Will it cause you to throw up your hands and research no longer ?

The counter question is: What's the harm in admitting you don't know that the creator is intelligent? Will it cause you to throw up you hands and worship no longer?

I have a problem with believing that Darwiniam gradualism can explain ALL that we see.

Good. It can't. Nor can Newtonian Mechanics.

But evolution gives an explanatory framework to operate within to either explain a biological feature or to develop a research program with which to do so.

And it keeps cranking out those results.

I get it though: You are incredulous that these things can be explained in these terms. Here we're talking about morals. Do you have some specific moral idea that simply cannot possibly be described in evolutionary terms?

If there are any other specific features you think evolution fails on, there are many threads and able-minded biology fans out there to help you get an answer.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by jaywill, posted 05-28-2010 4:11 AM jaywill has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Kaichos Man, posted 06-05-2010 5:59 AM Modulous has responded

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 232 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 51 of 64 (562918)
06-02-2010 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Dr Adequate
06-02-2010 4:57 AM


The word "bullshit" springs to mind.

Really, don't you see what you're doing here? Your fantasy is that although every scientist knows that you're wrong about everything in particular, nonetheless you see the "big picture" and they're all a bunch of fools.

You don't see a problem with that?

I didn't call anyone "fools".

Do you think that to charge that I called a lot of scientists "fools" strengthens your case ?

See what you're doing here ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-02-2010 4:57 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-02-2010 9:03 PM jaywill has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.7


Message 52 of 64 (563014)
06-02-2010 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by jaywill
06-02-2010 12:38 PM


I didn't call anyone "fools".

I never said that you did.

Do you think that to charge that I called a lot of scientists "fools" strengthens your case ?

I didn't.

See what you're doing here ?

Having statements attributed to me which I did not in fact make.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by jaywill, posted 06-02-2010 12:38 PM jaywill has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.7


Message 53 of 64 (563015)
06-02-2010 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by jaywill
06-02-2010 12:27 PM


Huntard said that whoever suggests that is an idiot.

What would you say to him on that ?

I would say: "Huntard, I'm sure that you didn't deliberately misunderstand what I meant, because you are not a creationist and have no need to do so."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by jaywill, posted 06-02-2010 12:27 PM jaywill has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Huntard, posted 06-03-2010 3:00 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.7


Message 54 of 64 (563016)
06-02-2010 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by jaywill
06-02-2010 12:30 PM


Quote me an example. I expect to see the word "magic" in the quotation.

Why in the world would you expect that? Creationists are notoriously coy on the subject of magic.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by jaywill, posted 06-02-2010 12:30 PM jaywill has not yet responded

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 586 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 55 of 64 (563060)
06-03-2010 3:00 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Dr Adequate
06-02-2010 9:05 PM


I didn't misunderstand you. I will admit however, that I was being a little pedantic when I made that statement. But with creationists ( I was responding to one), you never know if they actually think that everything came through evolution, or if they mean just the life we have observed. That's why I find it important to point out to them that evolution only explains life.

Of course, I know your stance on this, and it isn't any different from mine, as far ass I can tell.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-02-2010 9:05 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

    
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 2779 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


Message 56 of 64 (563479)
06-05-2010 5:59 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Modulous
06-02-2010 12:31 PM


Now, now.
The evidence shows that the rates of changes in populations changes tends to be that of periods of stasis followed by relatively short bursts of rapid change.

Absolutely.

The theory backs this up.

Modulous, modulous, modulous.

For 110 years this evidence contradicted the theory. Darwin was sure that future fossil discoveries would exhibit his gradualism. They didn't.

A long, long, silence.

And then the evolutionist wish-fulfillment fantasy of Punctuated Equilibrium. The smaller isolated population defies mathematics and out-mutates the larger, unisolated population. Illogical, yes, but hey- it's all we've got.

And it's got to be better than a massive, conclusive, rock-solid, worldwide, disproof of Darwinian Gradualism.

The theory backs this up? No. The theory, very nervously and with obvious embarrassment, attempts to accommodate this fact.

And succeeds only in the mind of the most dogmatically resolute evolutionist.


"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Modulous, posted 06-02-2010 12:31 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Modulous, posted 06-05-2010 6:40 AM Kaichos Man has responded
 Message 58 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-05-2010 7:30 AM Kaichos Man has not yet responded

    
Modulous
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 57 of 64 (563484)
06-05-2010 6:40 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Kaichos Man
06-05-2010 5:59 AM


did you mean 'then, then'?
Kaichos writes:

Mod writes:

The evidence shows that the rates of changes in populations changes tends to be that of periods of stasis followed by relatively short bursts of rapid change.


Absolutely.

{emphasis mine}


Modulous, modulous, modulous.

For 110 years this evidence contradicted the theory. Darwin was sure that future fossil discoveries would exhibit his gradualism. They didn't.

quote:
Species of different genera and classes have not changed at the same rate, or in the same degree

quote:
I believe in no fixed law of development, causing all the inhabitants of a country to change abruptly, or simultaneously, or to an equal degree. The process of modification must be extremely slow. The variability of each species is quite independent of that of all others. Whether such variability be taken advantage of by natural selection, and whether the variations be accumulated to a greater or lesser amount, thus causing a greater or lesser amount, thus causing a greater or lesser amount of modification in the varying species, depends on many complex contingencies,—on the variability being of a beneficial nature, on the power of intercrossing and on the rate of breeding, on the slowly changing physical conditions of the country, and more especially on the nature of the other inhabitants with which the varying species comes into competition. Hence it is by no means surprising that one species should retain the same identical form much longer than others; or, if changing, that it should change less.

quote:
... and lastly, although each species must have passed through numerous transitional stages, it is probable that the periods, during which each underwent modification, though many and long as measured by years, have been short in comparison with the periods during which each remained in an unchanged condition.

Kaichos Kaichos Kaichos - one of the most important books of the modern age (of many such examples) and you haven't even bothered to read it? Darwin didn't have a lot to go on, but he realized there was no reason to suppose constant gradual change. His view seems to be that the overall effect is constant gradual change but this could be achieved in fits and starts.

But seriously, I wasn't even referring to Darwin's outdated and no longer accepted understanding of his theory. I was talking about the more modern synthesis.

By the way - you just got baited. Although I was talking about the modern theory, I deliberately paraphrased Darwin in the section you quoted me on just in case someone hungup on Darwin wanted to try and tell us about phyletic gradualism. The best bit was getting you to agree 'absolutely' with Darwin, before launching into a criticism of him.

And then the evolutionist wish-fulfillment fantasy of Punctuated Equilibrium.

Yeah - Gould may have oversold the case by implying that the biologists hadn't thought of it before. But they had. He did do well at explicitly laying it out. But I just described the result of Punctuated Equilibrium (the actual process is quite technical) and you said 'Absolutely.' so I am assuming by 'wish fulfilment' you were being self-referential?

The case is much more complicated since the words are not being used the same way by the same people (they are not precise words, 'sudden' in geological terms might mean 10million years or 100,000 years for example) - but just realize the killer argument you thought you had is a steaming pile of poo that needs a lot of shining before it can be presented.

Now that the lesson ends: Did you have anything to say about survival of the fittest or morals?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Kaichos Man, posted 06-05-2010 5:59 AM Kaichos Man has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Kaichos Man, posted 06-05-2010 7:30 AM Modulous has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.7


Message 58 of 64 (563490)
06-05-2010 7:30 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Kaichos Man
06-05-2010 5:59 AM


Re: Now, now.
For 110 years this evidence contradicted the theory. Darwin was sure that future fossil discoveries would exhibit his gradualism. They didn't.

A long, long, silence.

Until, two years after Darwin published, someone discovered Archaeopteryx, and proved him right. What a "long, long, silence", eh?

And then the evolutionist wish-fulfillment fantasy of Punctuated Equilibrium.

Ah, yes, the concept of punctuated equilibrium which Darwin enunciated in the Origin Of Species:

The period during which each species underwent modification, though long as measured by years, was probably short in comparison with that during which it remained without undergoing any change. --- Charles Darwin, On The Origin Of Species

The smaller isolated population defies mathematics and out-mutates the larger, unisolated population. Illogical, yes, but hey- it's all we've got.

This gibberish is ... well ... gibberish ... but it appears to refer back to stupid lies which you have already told on these forums and have already been proven false by reference to the facts.

And it's got to be better than a massive, conclusive, rock-solid, worldwide, disproof of Darwinian Gradualism.

The theory backs this up? No. The theory, very nervously and with obvious embarrassment, attempts to accommodate this fact.

And succeeds only in the mind of the most dogmatically resolute evolutionist.

You are a tiresome little person, aren't you? You have already posted this nonsense and failed and been proved wrong, and yet you'll drool out the same idiocy on yet this thread in a pathetic attempt to dirty another thread with your lies.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Kaichos Man, posted 06-05-2010 5:59 AM Kaichos Man has not yet responded

  
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 2779 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


Message 59 of 64 (563491)
06-05-2010 7:30 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Modulous
06-05-2010 6:40 AM


Re: did you mean 'then, then'?
By the way - you just got baited. Although I was talking about the modern theory, I deliberately paraphrased Darwin in the section you quoted me on just in case someone hungup on Darwin wanted to try and tell us about phyletic gradualism. The best bit was getting you to agree 'absolutely' with Darwin, before launching into a criticism of him.

Assuming you paraphrased him accurately, I don't see the reason for your victory celebrations. Darwin was saying that the evidence for phyletic gradualism wasn't there. It isn't. I was -and am- agreeing with him.

But I just described the result of Punctuated Equilibrium (the actual process is quite technical) and you said 'Absolutely.'

No. You described the evidence. And I agree with the evidence- absolutely. That the evidence is "the result of Punctuated Equilibrium" is entirely your belief- based, I suggest, on your "wish" to believe in the fantasy of evolution.

"Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. ...The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change I usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'" (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)

All at once and fully formed, Modulous. So Darwin's view, which "seems to be that the overall effect is constant gradual change but this could be achieved in fits and starts" is empirically wrong.

All at once. Fully formed. One fossil is replaced by another. With no evidence whatsoever (other than the pure speculation arising from a perceived phenotypic similarity) that one creature might have descended from the other.

Not evidence, but simple surmise backed by a mighty, mighty, desire to believe.

In any other field of science, such a theory would not be submitted through fear of ridicule.

Edited by Kaichos Man, : No reason given.


"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Modulous, posted 06-05-2010 6:40 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-05-2010 7:56 AM Kaichos Man has not yet responded
 Message 62 by Modulous, posted 06-05-2010 11:54 AM Kaichos Man has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.7


Message 60 of 64 (563495)
06-05-2010 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Kaichos Man
06-05-2010 7:30 AM


Re: did you mean 'then, then'?
Assuming you paraphrased him accurately, I don't see the reason for your victory celebrations. Darwin was saying that the evidence for phyletic gradualism wasn't there.

No, he wasn't.

However, when he wrote the Origin Of Species, no such evidence has been found in the fossil record, and because, unlike you, he was an honest man, he admitted that.

Today, the evidence that has been found in the fossil record is such that you would have to be a fool, an ignoramus, or an imbecile to discount it --- or to put it more briefly, you'd have to be a creationist.

In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'" (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)

All at once and fully formed, Modulous. So Darwin's view, which "seems to be that the overall effect is constant gradual change but this could be achieved in fits and starts" is empirically wrong.

Oh, you're pretending that the quoted-out-of-context rhetoric of Stephen J. Gould proves that evolution is wrong.

Didn't you try this one before?

* yawns *

Yeah, you did, but let's quote Stephen J. Gould again:

We argued that two outstanding facts of the fossil record—geologically "sudden" origin of new species and failure to change thereafter (stasis)— reflect the predictions of evolutionary theory, not the imperfections of the fossil record. --- Stephen Jay Gould, Evolution As Fact And Theory

I want to argue that the "sudden" appearance of species in the fossil record and our failure to note subsequent evolutionary change within them is the proper prediction of evolutionary theory as we understand it. Evolution usually proceeds by speciation -- the splitting of one lineage from a parental stock -- not by the slow and steady transformation of these large parental stocks. --- Stephen Jay Gould, Ever Since Darwin

In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record --- Stephen J. Gould, Evolution's Erratic Pace

You sad little man. You can only think of one real scientist who you can pretend said you were right, and he has said explicitly that you are wrong and Darwin was right, and that his whole point was that Darwin was right.

And what really makes you utterly contemptible is that this has already been explained to you --- so you are either a moron or a liar.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Kaichos Man, posted 06-05-2010 7:30 AM Kaichos Man has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019