Thursday, October 7, 2010

Back to School, Part V

Shortly after World War II Mochitsura Hashimoto was summoned to the United States to give testimony in the trial of Charles McVay. Hashimoto’s and McVay’s fates intersected just after midnight, July 30, 1945, when the Japanese submarine I-58, commanded by Hashimoto, sunk the cruiser, the USS Indianapolis, commanded by McVay.

The Indianapolis quickly sank and its distress signal went ignored by the different naval stations that received it. To make matters worse the Navy failed to notice the absence of the Indianapolis, even when it didn’t show up at the Phillipines. This left the almost one thousand sailors on their own to battle for their survival and their sanity, floating in the middle of the ocean. With little more than life preservers, they suffered from severe exposure, dehydration, starvation, salt water poisoning, dementia, hallucinations, and shark attacks. One sailor was saved by his canteen which kept him afloat under his back. When accidentally discovered four days later, the crew was down to only a few hundred survivors.

Robert Shaw’s memorable retelling of the story in the movie Jaws was brilliant (for Richard Dreyfus it was a rare moment in which he didn’t need to act) but it only begins to reveal the horror—a horror for which the Navy was responsible. Imagine how the country would react to such a story. We will never know because the Navy covered it up and instead wrongfully blamed McVay.





Imagine being court martialed by those who made the mistakes, and then having testimony brought by the one who sank your ship. But Hashimoto’s testimony was far from damning. In fact it might have exonerated McVay except that it was in Japanese, and it seems the translation was less than faithful. Hashimoto’s English was weak, but good enough for him to understand the sham. And he was in no position to complain. As he later explained, “I was then an officer of the beaten country, you know, and alone, how could I complain strong enough?”

McVay was convicted and would receive his share of hate mail from Americans convinced he was to blame. He eventually committed suicide and so was not there when the Navy cleared his name in 2000.

Hashimoto and McVay experienced first hand how, as the saying goes, history is written by the winners. Sometimes people make mistakes, and sometimes they make matters worse by covering it up with lies. And when the winners do this, the lies become part of the historical record. Shaw’s monologue, as good as it was, is riddled with thirty year old Navy lies.

History as told by the evolutionists

As with wars and politics, science also has a history that is sometimes tailored by the winners. The history of evolutionary thought is easily the most egregious example today. Evolutionists, beginning with Darwin himself, portray evolution as an obvious and compelling scientific theory that overcame ignorant theological resistance. Here is how one of today’s leading textbooks [George Johnson and Jonathan Losos, The Living World, Fifth Edition, McGraw Hill, 2008] turns history on its head:

Of all the major ideas of biology, evolution is perhaps the best known to the general public, because many people mistakenly believe that evolution represents a challenge to their religious beliefs. Because Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection is the subject of often-bitter public controversy, we will examine the objections of evolution’s critics in detail, to see why there is such a disconnect between science and public opinion.

This is how evolutionists view themselves and the world around them. They represent science and those who do not accept their dogma are the problem. There is a war between science and religion because, while they merely pursue good scientific research, religious opposition stands in the way.

Immediately after publication of The Origin of Species, English clergymen attacked Darwin’s book as heretical; Gladstone, England’s prime minister and a famous statesman, condemned it.

So the publication of Origins was met with harsh opposition and the religious fervor was not limited to the clergy. Leading figures, and even the prime minister, condemned Darwin’s scientific conclusions.

Civil rights groups used the case of high school teacher John Scopes to challenge the Tennessee law [banning the teaching of evolution] within months of its being passed in 1925. The trial attracted national attention—you might have seen it portrayed in the film Inherit the Wind. Scopes, who had indeed violated the new law, lost.

It would be difficult to imagine a more misleading version of the early history of Darwin’s theory and its critics. The evolutionary rendition is misleading not because it is all false, but for more subtle reasons. The worst lies are not those that are blatantly false, but those that twist the truth ever so slightly to achieve a completely different story.

Yes Gladstone and others opposed evolution, yes there was religious opposition in the early 1900s, and yes John Scopes was found guilty of teaching evolution. But these tidbits portray an entirely false history.

Gladstone’s skepticism was well informed and thoughtful. The polymath had been seriously contemplating the idea for twenty years before 1859. And while there certainly was less considered opposition, the response of mid century Victorians to the emerging evolutionary ideas was hardly the unified front portrayed by evolutionary histories. In fact Origins was an instant hit. It quickly sold out and was welcomed by many Anglicans including many in the clergy. Indeed there was as much scientific doubt as there was religious doubt about Darwin’s new theory.

Likewise religious reaction in America in the early 1900s was mixed. Yes there certainly was opposition, often ill-informed, but there also were leading thinkers such as BB Warfield and fundamentalists such as RA Torrey who believed in an old earth and were open to evolutionary ideas. Torrey did, however, have scientific doubts about evolutionary theory.

And the Scopes Monkey Trial is far more complex than the incredibly lopsided tale presented in Inherit the Wind. John Scopes was not a humble and tireless science teacher, and he was not hauled off to jail by an angry mob of fundamentalists led by a Reverend Jeremiah Brown for trying to enlighten his science students. And no he did not, in fear for his life, contact journalist Henry Louis Mencken for help in securing a lawyer.

This is the beginning of the myth of Inherit the Wind that evolutionists continue to propagate. The reality is that the ACLU (never mentioned in the script) placed an ad in the Chattanooga Times seeking a volunteer to test Tennessee law on the teaching of evolution in the public schools. Local boosters in Dayton saw this as a wonderful opportunity to put them on the map and recruited Scopes, a coach and part-time teacher, to break the law. He was never incarcerated but rather spent most of his time hob knobbing with reporters. There was no angry mob and no vitriolic preacher.

What the play did get right is that the Monkey Trial was actually a referendum on the creationism and the Bible. Technically John Scopes was found guilty of teaching evolution, but all of that was merely logistical. The reason why the Monkey Trial is important to evolution, and the enduring message from Dayton, was that the Bible and its creationism are passe. This was established in the showdown at Dayton when the two famous lawyers squared off. Clarence Darrow called William Jennings Bryan to the stand as a Bible expert and grilled him on its foolishness.

The exchange was entirely religious (can we really believe the story of Jonah? Surely god would never do such a thing) and the result was yet another proof of evolution. It was another great moment in evolution's long history of theological mandates for a strictly naturalistic origins.

Unfortunately evolutionists do not tell history from an objective perspective, but from the viewpoint that evolution must be true. Therefore opposition must be caricatured as naïve or nefarious. Skepticism must be religiously motivated.

But in fact evolution was motivated and justified by metaphysical mandates. These began centuries before Darwin and continue today. While the opposition to evolution is portrayed as an intrusion of religion into things scientific, in fact evolution itself is the better symbol of such an intrusion.

Evolution’s retelling of history is both mythological and hypocritical. But this is nothing new when history is told by the winners.

153 comments:

  1. Galileo was attacked by some scientists and defended by some churchmen. That’s history. Heliocentrism makes better predictions than geocentrism. That’s science.

    History: Darwin’s theory was attacked by some scientists and laymen and defended by some churchmen.

    Science: Evolution makes better predictions than any alternative.

    ReplyDelete
  2. A much more apt analogy would be the frequent denial of history by the losers. Evolution-deniers and other anti-science activists are much like holocaust-deniers: despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, they deny the facts in order to preserve their dogma.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Pedant believes:

    "Science: Evolution makes better predictions than any alternative."
    ====

    Evolution is incapable of predicting anything. Remember, your own holy sages and soothsayers insist it is nothing more than blind, pointless and indifferent. How can anything governed by blind chanced randomness predict anything ??? Your statement is a condemnation of every intelligent Human expert of any field of interest who uses an educated mind and personal experience in their predictions. Evolution has none of these fauculties.

    Oh wait a minute !? There is Tinker Bell.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Troy snarked:

    "A much more apt analogy would be the frequent denial of history by the losers. Evolution-deniers and other anti-science activists are much like holocaust-deniers: despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, they deny the facts in order to preserve their dogma."
    ====

    Here's what you do Troy. Spread out a Buddhist prayer mat and sit on it cross legged facing Galapagos, meditate and repetitiously chant the above declaration countless times in an echo chamber and just maybe if it's repeated by you and others often, loud and long enough, you just may gain more cult members.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Your statement is a condemnation of every intelligent Human expert of any field of interest who uses an educated mind and personal experience in their predictions.

    Synecdoche: A figure of speech by which a more inclusive term is used for a less inclusive term or vice versa; for example, head for cattle or the law for a policeman.

    Or evolution for intelligent scientists who make predictions based on evolutionary theory.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Pedant:

    "Synecdoche: A figure of speech by which a more inclusive term is used for a less inclusive term or vice versa; for example, head for cattle or the law for a policeman.

    Or evolution for intelligent scientists who make predictions based on evolutionary theory."
    ====

    And yet there has not been one experiment that has been set up to show that randomness accomplishes anything for which a prediction can be made. When pointing out that randomness did nothing, but credit be given to brillianty encoded informational communications system of DNA surrrounded multiple nano-mechanisms which intelligently accomplish taks with purpose and intent from an already massive library, it is simply hijacked and said these things are merely the mechanisms of evolution for accomplishing amazing things over deep time which brings us all the wonders we see and experience all around us.

    The problem is if that is true and evolution at that point works intelligently, then why don't evolutionists explainhow these amazing systems came about in the first place through the blind pointless indifferent without purpose or intent non-living world ??? Science has never proven any of this and therefore is incapable of predicting anything using a blind Luck/Chance/Magic model. You can't have it both ways.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Eocene:

    "How can anything governed by blind chanced randomness predict anything ???"

    There you go again wedding the stoopid with the arrogant. You don't understand something - therefore nobody can understand it. Casinos can predict quite confidently they will make a profit in the long run. It's the statistical law of large numbers, dummy! Moreover, evolution is not just governed by randomness (e.g. mutations) but also by more deterministic processes like selection.

    ReplyDelete
  8. And yet there has not been one experiment that has been set up to show that randomness accomplishes anything for which a prediction can be made.

    Tell that to Gregor Mendel or to your genetic counselor.

    And what Troy just said.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Wow, do you have the primary evidence to support this statement please, CH?

    'The reality is that the ACLU (never mentioned in the script) placed an ad in the Chattanooga Times seeking a volunteer to test Tennessee law on the teaching of evolution in the public schools.'

    That would be very interesting to see. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Ian,

    The reality appears to be that the ACLU did not place an actual ad in the CT but was reported by that newspaper as being interested in challenging the law.

    See here, where they write:

    "Rappalyea blew off some steam by writing a letter critical of the Butler Act to the Chattanooga Times, but he saw his real chance to challenge the new law when, while sitting in his office at the coal yard, he spotted a story in that same paper. The story in the May 4th edition quoted an American Civil Liberties Union chairperson, Professor Charles Skinner, as saying the organization was “looking for a Tennessee teacher who is willing to accept our services in testing this law in the courts.” Rappalyea trotted off to Fred E. Robinson’s fountain and drugstore, the favorite gathering spot for the town’s movers and shakers. Rappalyea asked Robinson, who doubled as the chairman of the Rhea County school board, whether he’d seen the ACLU ad in the morning paper."

    Unusual use of the word "ad". Probably picked up uncritically by the usual creationist liars.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Here is another good analysis of the Scope's Trial and how the mass media uses the play Inherit The Wind to try and rewrite history. I think they have succeeded for the most part unfortunately.

    http://creation.com/inherit-the-wind-an-historical-analysis

    Enjoy.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Inherit the Wind is a literary fiction partly based on an historical event.

    The usual literary disclaimer applies:

    "This is a work of fiction, and all names, characters, places, and incidents either are the products of the author’s imagination or are used fictitiously. Any resemblance to actual events or locales, organizations, or persons, living or dead, is entirely coincidental."

    ReplyDelete
  13. Eocene:

    "Here's what you do Troy. Spread out a Buddhist prayer mat and sit on it cross legged facing Galapagos"

    I'm actually on a bird-watching trip on the opposite side of the pacific, and I thought I'd rather use some of my rare internet access time to swat a few creationist mozzies.

    cheers mate

    ReplyDelete
  14. Pedant:
    Science: Evolution makes better predictions than any alternative

    Excepot that evolution doesn't make any predictions beyond change and stasis".

    ReplyDelete
  15. troy:
    Moreover, evolution is not just governed by randomness (e.g. mutations) but also by more deterministic processes like selection.

    Except selection is BS-

    Is Natural Selection Really Non-Random?

    The Origin of Theoretical Population Genetics (University of Chicago Press, 1971), reissued in 2001 by William Provine:


    "Natural selection does not act on anything, nor does it select (for or against), force, maximize, create, modify, shape, operate, drive, favor, maintain, push, or adjust. Natural selection does nothing….Having natural selection select is nifty because it excuses the necessity of talking about the actual causation of natural selection. Such talk was excusable for Charles Darwin, but inexcusable for evolutionists now. Creationists have discovered our empty “natural selection” language, and the “actions” of natural selection make huge, vulnerable targets." (pp. 199-200)

    Thanks for the honesty Will.

    ReplyDelete
  16. troy:
    I'm actually on a bird-watching trip on the opposite side of the pacific, and I thought I'd rather use some of my rare internet access time to swat a few creationist mozzies.

    Actually you are just swatting the flies away from your fat, smelly melon.

    You couldn't form a coherent refuting argument if your life depended on it.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Pedant:
    Tell that to Gregor Mendel

    Mendel was a Creationist...

    ReplyDelete
  18. As usual, Joe G can't help himself but quote mine and lie. I invite you to use the "look inside" option and search for the quote "act on anything" on Amazon's website for Provine's 2001 book (e.g. here), and compare what you see with Joe's dishonest crap.

    Joe G is a pathological liar, as has been proven many times over.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Joe G:

    "Actually you are just swatting the flies away from your fat, smelly melon."

    I didn't think you had the courage to admit you are a fat smelly melon. Kudos!

    ReplyDelete
  20. Wow all troy can do is spew more false accusations.

    What a pathetic piece of shit you are troy.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Provine's book

    Just look for page 199 and start reading "Review of These 10 Certain Insights in 2001"

    Geez troy if you weren't such a liar and loser some people may actually believe what you spew...

    ReplyDelete
  22. False accusations, Joe? I gave clear directions how readers can discover for themselves that you are a liar. Hahaha, it is too easy to make fun of you!

    ReplyDelete
  23. troy:
    I didn't think

    That is because you don't have a brain.

    you had the courage to admit you are a fat smelly melon.

    Of course your head is nothing but a fat smelly melon- tht is why you don't have a brain.

    ReplyDelete
  24. troy:
    False accusations, Joe?

    Yes you are full of them.

    Funny that I just posted a link to the book that supports my claim.

    IOW all you are doing is proving that you are a piece of shit.

    You are also proving that you are an imbecile becaus apparently you are too stupid to read what I posted.

    ReplyDelete
  25. And I gave clear directions how readers can discover for themselves what I posted is what is in the book.

    Go figure...

    ReplyDelete
  26. All too often evolutionists say that natural selection is non-random.

    But is it?

    Well let's look at what natural selction is-


    “Natural selection is the result of differences in survival and reproduction among individuals of a population that vary in one or more heritable traits.” Page 11 “Biology: Concepts and Applications” Starr fifth edition


    “Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity—it is mindless and mechanistic.” UBerkley


    “Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view.” Dawkins in “The Blind Watchmaker”?


    “Natural selection is therefore a result of three processes, as first described by Darwin:

    Variation

    Inheritance

    Fecundity

    which together result in non-random, unequal survival and reproduction of individuals, which results in changes in the phenotypes present in populations of organisms over time.”- Allen McNeill prof. introductory biology and evolution at Cornell University


    OK so it is a result of three processes- ie an output.

    What drives the output? The inputs.

    The variation is said to be random, ie genetic accidents/ mistakes.

    With sexually reproducing organisms it is still a crap-shoot as to what gets inherited. For example if a male gets a beneficial variation to his Y chromosome but sires all daughters, that beneficial variation gets lost no matter how many offspring he has.

    Fecundity/ differential reproduction- Don't know until it happens.

    Can't tell what variation will occur. Can't tell if any of the offspring will inherit even the most beneficial variation and the only way to determine differential reproduction is follow the individuals for their entire reproducing age.

    Then there can be competing "beneficial" variations.

    In the end it all boils down to whatever survives to reproduce, survives to reproduce.

    Evolutionists love to pretend that natural selection is some magical ratchet. But when one pulls back the curtain all you have is some dude with a twinkie in each hand and a big fatty standing by.

    That's evolution for ya...

    ReplyDelete
  27. Once again, Joe "pants loading" Gallien effectively ends a thread with his scientific ignorance, belligerent ranting and flinging his poo.

    Go figure...

    ReplyDelete
  28. JoeTard said...

    In the end it all boils down to whatever survives to reproduce, survives to reproduce.


    differential reproductive success JoeTard. Not all variation have an equal chance of survival. Some changes give the possessor a better statistical probability of passing on their genes than others.

    You've only had that explained to you about a hundred times now, which explains why it still hasn't registered with your grape sized brain.

    ReplyDelete
  29. And thortard the evotard chimes in with its morning evotardgasm...

    Unfortunately for thortard I understand science better than it does- and as for flinging poo- no thorton I don't throw your food around.

    ReplyDelete
  30. throtard:
    differential reproductive success Joe.

    Yes I wrote about it.

    Are you too stupid to understand what I posted?

    thortard:
    Not all variation have an equal chance of survival.

    No way to tell what varuiation will out reproduce any of the others.

    thortard:
    Some changes give the possessor a better statistical probability of passing on their genes than others.

    Maybe and maybe not.

    I take it you didn't understand what i posted and you think your ignorance refutes what I said.

    Strange.

    You've only had that explained to you about a hundred times now, which explains why it still hasn't registered with your grape sized brain.

    What you don't understand is your "explanation" has been pulled out of your ass and has no place in science.

    ReplyDelete
  31. The Origin of Theoretical Population Genetics (University of Chicago Press, 1971), reissued in 2001 by William Provine:


    "Natural selection does not act on anything, nor does it select (for or against), force, maximize, create, modify, shape, operate, drive, favor, maintain, push, or adjust. Natural selection does nothing….Having natural selection select is nifty because it excuses the necessity of talking about the actual causation of natural selection. Such talk was excusable for Charles Darwin, but inexcusable for evolutionists now. Creationists have discovered our empty “natural selection” language, and the “actions” of natural selection make huge, vulnerable targets." (pp. 199-200)

    Thanks for the honesty Will.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Pedant,

    Evolution can accommodate nearly any finding and when something is found, then a target is drawn around it after the fact and trumpeted as a prediction. When a prediction is made before hand and then fails, the target is redrawn, the previous prediction sent into obscurity, and creationists are called names and told that they don't understand science.

    Evolutionists have a lot in common with the global warming hockey stick scientists. Both have conspired to delude the public about the evidence. It is real shame and a crime against the integrity of science.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Neal Tedford: Evolution can accommodate nearly any finding and when something is found, then a target is drawn around it after the fact and trumpeted as a prediction.

    That is incorrect. The Theory of Evolution makes numerous predictions across widely divergent fields of study from geology to molecular genetics, including historical predictions (e.g. no rabbits in the Precambrian).

    Neal Tedford: When a prediction is made before hand and then fails, the target is redrawn ...

    When a prediction fails, it means the particular hypothesis was in error and should be modified or discarded. That's what's supposed to happen. Do you understand the scientific method?

    ReplyDelete
  34. Neal Tedford said...

    Evolution can accommodate nearly any finding and when something is found, then a target is drawn around it after the fact and trumpeted as a prediction.


    Wrong again Tedford. There are many many things which if found would completely falsify the current ToE. I know you've been shown many examples, like having the fossil phylogenetic tree not match the genetic one. To date nothing yet has been found that doesn't fit the evolutionary theory, which tells us the theory must be an accurate representation of reality.

    Another dimbulb Creationist who doesn't understand the difference between not falsifiable and not falsified.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Evolution can accommodate nearly any finding and when something is found, then a target is drawn around it after the fact and trumpeted as a prediction.

    Overarching claims like this might have some purchase if supported by evidence.

    As it stands, this claim is empty rhetoric.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Zach said, "When a prediction fails, it means the particular hypothesis was in error and should be modified or discarded. That's what's supposed to happen. Do you understand the scientific method? "

    A particular hypothesis was in error???

    The so called "fact of evolution" is guarded by all the various changing hypotheses that can be modified and discarded. The theory is thereby insulated from falsification. How convenient.

    Compare the predictions and testing of the theory of evolution to the general theory of relativity...

    If a prediction of general relativity failed (and it hasn't yet), then scientists would say something like, "the theory failed to make an accurate prediction... while it has explained many things accurately, we must seek a new and better theory to explain this phenomenon."

    Compare that to predictions of evolution that have failed and something like this is said....

    ... "you creationists don't understand science... no one said it was a prediction... that's what's supposed to happen. Do you understand the scientific method?"

    It is a real shame to science that evolutionists do not lay their cards on the table and come clean about what their theory can predict and what is wild speculation and what was just a plain old failed prediction. The problem is evolutionists have elevated their theory to that of a force of nature like gravity. So whether it can be explained or not, does not change the "fact" that it is there. That is a huge stretch because no one has observed the common descent of life from a single organism. It serves to wrongly insulate the theory from falsification. The theory is such a big tent that it will accommodate nearly anything. If it can't the tent is just expanded!

    ReplyDelete
  37. Neal Tedford said...

    Evolutionists have a lot in common with the global warming hockey stick scientists.


    Hey, you finally got one right!

    Evolutionists and climatologists have both been attacked by anti-science wingnuts pushing a political (not a scientific) agenda. And in both cases, detailed examination of the evidence showed the evolutionists and climatologists to be both honest and correct in their methodology and results. Also, in both cases the original results have been confirmed and verified with new, independently done research.

    But since you're a willfully ignorant git who gets his science only from crank websites, I'm sure you missed it.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Pedant said, "Overarching claims like this might have some purchase if supported by evidence."

    Dr Hunter has already documented some of them... see his link on this blog to the "Survey of failed evolutionary predictions"

    ReplyDelete
  39. Neal Tedford said...

    A particular hypothesis was in error???

    The so called "fact of evolution" is guarded by all the various changing hypotheses that can be modified and discarded. The theory is thereby insulated from falsification. How convenient.


    Of course it's not insulated from falsification you idiot. You've been shown many thing that if found would falsify the theory instantly.

    Having a hypothesis about some small detail of evolutionary mechanisms be wrong doesn't affect the overall major tenets of the theory - common descent with modification, heritable genetic changes filtered by differential reproductive success.

    Dr Hunter has already documented some of them... see his link on this blog to the "Survey of failed evolutionary predictions"

    Most of Hunter's examples are creationist strawmen with no connection to actual evolutionary theory. The few that aren't are just cases of where understanding of some small detail was revised when new evidence became available.

    It's impossible to discuss the actual ToE with you when you insist on remaining so ignorant of what it actually says and does.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Tiktaalik website said:

    "...Four groups of lobe-finned fish we looked at first appear in the fossil record around 390-380 million years ago. The first tetrapods appear around 363 million years ago. Common sense tells us that the transitional form between fish and land animals must have arisen between 380 and 363 million years ago. In order to find our transitional fossil, we'll need to find rocks that are between 380 and 363 million years old ... Ultimately, the site produced Tiktaalik in 2004! Not only was it exciting to find a new species, but it was made all the better by the fact that scientists had PREDICTED the existence of a creature like this all along. We only needed to do some detective work to find it. Another affirmation of our theory!"

    Shift to 2010 and Nature writes: "The oldest known tracks of a four-limbed land animal could rewrite part of vertebrate evolution. Some prints, showing individual digits, were found in limestone slabs unearthed in a quarry near Zachełmie, Poland, dated to about 395 million years ago -- more than 18 million years before tetrapods were thought to have evolved."

    Of course, playing shell games and word definitions with some name calling and belittling of creationists thrown in can send any evolutionary prediction into obsurity and turn even a failed prediction into a resounding victory for science and evolution!

    ReplyDelete
  41. Eocene said...

    Troy snarked:

    "A much more apt analogy would be the frequent denial of history by the losers. Evolution-deniers and other anti-science activists are much like holocaust-deniers: despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, they deny the facts in order to preserve their dogma."
    ====

    Here's what you do Troy. Spread out a Buddhist prayer mat and sit on it cross legged facing Galapagos, meditate and repetitiously chant the above declaration countless times in an echo chamber and just maybe if it's repeated by you and others often, loud and long enough, you just may gain more cult members.


    ============================

    Alternatively,Troy could start dancing around while speaking in tongues.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Troy:

    "I'm actually on a bird-watching trip on the opposite side of the pacific, and I thought I'd rather use some of my rare internet access time to swat a few creationist mozzies.

    cheers mate"
    ====

    Actually on a totally way off topic side note: Do you know of any historical charts/graphs out there on the net regarding the decline of specific mammals or bird life dating back from the beginning of 1900 to the present ??? I saw something a while back about North American birds, many of which I am familiar with and even grew up around that are no longer abundant in many areas.

    The decline in numbers is dramatic, but something I've noticed for decades. I am given a public discourse dealing with the unexplained earthquake increases which began to gradually increase starting with the year 1915, but have really shot through the roof and spiked beginning with 1999 on up to 2008. The chart created by the U.S. Geological Survey deals strictly with earthquake Magnitudes of 6 - 8 and concerns reporting dealing with catastrophic events effecting human populations.

    What I found quite by accident, but suspected before I found this confirmed, is the human fault behind the increase. This will create flack from the political right, but so what. I always suspected deforestation to be a major contributor. Looking at hundred+ of different charts/graphs dealing with tragic increase regarding anything environmental, I found that increase in deforestation, increased temperatures, increase CO2s, even the decrease in bird & animal populations charts (especially if you were to flip those charts) to be almost identical to the earthquake chart I found.

    Anyway I wonder if you know of any bird or mammal charts/graphs on the Net that would beautifully illustrate the historic timeline decline from any early 1900s record keeping to the present ???

    As far as the rest of this thread, it's apparent it's gone into the toilette and there is nothing more needed in reply. I'm surprised Cornelius allows this, because he hasn't in the past.

    Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  43. Tedford, if you see a contradiction between the two quotes about tetrapod evolution that you gave, please tell us what it is.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Ambiorix:

    Alternatively,Troy could start dancing around while speaking in tongues.
    ====

    Actually to be honest, I think he like others may be just burned out on what they've observed regarding discusting behavior of many Churhes. I know I felt that way for decades. I believe things are soon going to come to a head. Time is right anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Pedant, said "if you see a contradiction between the two quotes about tetrapod evolution that you gave, please tell us what it is. "

    As expected, the first response is to deny a problem.

    Tiktaalik evolutionists predicted that a fossil like Tiktaalik would be found in a specific location in the fossil record. When that "transitional" form was found in that location, they celebrated it as a successful prediction of evolution. They even mocked creationists because of it.

    The theory is so mushy and imprecise that trying to pin a failure on the theory of evolution is like trying to pin Jello to the wall with a nail. It's predictions always have an escape clause.

    Jerry Coyne says in his book, "Why Evolution is true"...


    "One of the greatest fulfilled predictions of evolutionary biology is the discovery, in 2004, of a transitional form between fish and amphibians. This is the fossil species Tiktaalik roseae, which tells us a lot about how vertebrates came to live on the land. Its discovery is a stunning vindication of the theory of evolution. ... This is where the prediction comes in. If there were lobe-finned fishes but no terrestrial vertebrates 390 million years ago, and clearly terrestrial vertebrates 360 million years ago, where would you expect to find the transitional forms? Somewhere in between. Following this logic, Shubin predicted that if transitional forms existed, their fossils would be found in strata around 375 million years old. ... equally marvelous is that [Tiktaalik's] discovery was not only anticipated, but predicted to occur in rocks of a certain age and in a certain place. Why Evolution is True, pp. 35-38

    ReplyDelete
  46. Thorton said, "Having a hypothesis about some small detail of evolutionary mechanisms be wrong doesn't affect the overall major tenets of the theory - common descent with modification, heritable genetic changes filtered by differential reproductive success"

    There you go again. A theory rests on the details. You are dancing around the problems by making excuses about small details. What you have is the hypothesis of common descent with lots of details unknown and contradictions stomping around like a herd of wild elephants in a china shop.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Neal Tedford: The so called "fact of evolution" is guarded by all the various changing hypotheses that can be modified and discarded.

    Indeed, the Theory of Evolution generates many novel testable hypotheses. That's the whole point!

    Consider an example. A simplified view of evolution is as the interplay between chance variations and selection. The question then arises, which is more important? And it turns out that the answer isn't so simple. One experiment may show a greater importance of chance, such as short-term molecular experiments; while another may show greater importance on selection, such as long-term morphological adaptation. Each new hypothesis, each new test, reveals important insights into this complex relationship.

    Just pointing out that this or that particular hypothesis may be in error or incomplete doesn't mean the overall theory is incorrect.

    Neal Tedford: Compare the predictions and testing of the theory of evolution to the general theory of relativity...

    The General Theory of Relativity is already known to have problems, both on the cosmic scale and on the quantum scale.

    Neal Tedford: The problem is evolutionists have elevated their theory to that of a force of nature like gravity.

    We observe evolution and evidence of its history. We have a Theory of Evolution which explains those observations. We observe gravity and evidence of its history. We have a Theory of Gravity which explains those observations. (Actually, several closely related competing theoretical structures.)

    Neal Tedford: That is a huge stretch because no one has observed the common descent of life from a single organism.

    No one sees the nuclear engine in the Sun. We infer it from theoretical predictions (e.g. neutrinos). No one saw the Big Bang, but we can observe its aftermath. No one saw a living dinosaur. We infer their existence from their remains. No one can see a quark. We infer their existence from symmetries in sub-atomic particles. Each of these claims is supported by predictions made in the relevant fields of inquiry. The Theory of Evolution is supported by observation of everything from rocks to molecules.

    Neal Tedford: The theory is such a big tent that it will accommodate nearly anything.

    Nope. However, the existence and long history of biological evolution is so strongly supported that the current Theory of Evolution would only likely to be replaced by a new Theory of Evolution.

    On a more general note, a scientific theory is a set of interconnected claims about the empirical world. A fruitful theory will generate many testable hypotheses, and will often be in a state of flux with many closely related theories competing to explain new observations.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Zachriel:
    The Theory of Evolution makes numerous predictions across widely divergent fields of study from geology to molecular genetics, including historical predictions.

    It doesn't make any predictions based on its proposed mechanisms.

    You have failed to produce a testable hypothesis for your position Zachriel.

    Why is that?

    (e.g. no rabbits in the Precambrian).

    Talk to dave Heddle about that ridicupous piece of nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Neal Tedford: The theory is so mushy and imprecise that trying to pin a failure on the theory of evolution is like trying to pin Jello to the wall with a nail.

    So imprecise that researchers spent years looking in a specific strata in the Canadian arctic to find the predicted fossil. Of course, this particular leaf may be on a branch which arose somewhat earlier. Tiktaalik is not detached in time, but buried in its line of descent.

    Neal Tedford: What you have is the hypothesis of common descent with lots of details unknown and contradictions stomping around like a herd of wild elephants in a china shop.

    Yes, there is a lot unknown. But that doesn't mean we don't know anything. What we have is a strong signal of a nested hierarchy across many taxa of interest. What we have is a succession of fossils. What we have is direct observations of evolutionary processes.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Zachriel:
    Indeed, the Theory of Evolution generates many novel testable hypotheses.

    That is false.

    All it generates is so vague it is useless.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Zachriel:
    So imprecise that researchers spent years looking in a specific strata in the Canadian arctic to find the predicted fossil.

    They had no business looking there.

    The data should have led them to some other place and strata to find what they were looking for.

    Zachriel:
    What we have is a strong signal of a nested hierarchy across many taxa of interest.

    Which has absolutely nothing to do with the claims of your position.

    What we have is a succession of fossils.

    False

    What we have is direct observations of evolutionary processes.

    And what we observe pretty much refute the claims of your position.

    Deal with it.

    ReplyDelete
  52. thorton:
    It's impossible to discuss the actual ToE with you when you insist on remaining so ignorant of what it actually says and does.

    Excuse me but I have exposed your ignorance of the theory of evolution on more than one occasion.

    Your chest-thumping is meaningless here.

    However you may have a chance- go out and buy several boxes of "Enzyte" and "Extenze"- take several caps a day and perhaps you may see something in a few years...

    ReplyDelete
  53. Joe G: (e.g. no rabbits in the Precambrian).

    It's a negative prediction, a stand-in for a positive prediction: New species, extant and extinct, are discovered all the time. Each new species is predicted to fit the existing nested hierarchy.

    Zachriel: What we have is a succession of fossils.

    Joe G: False

    Of course we do. The oldest strata have no life, then single-celled life, then simple vertebrates, fish, reptiles, mammals, humans. You don't find rabbits in the Precambrian, or mice or birds or people.

    ReplyDelete
  54. I asked:

    Tedford, if you see a contradiction between the two quotes about tetrapod evolution that you gave, please tell us what it is.

    Tedford’s non-response:

    As expected, the first response is to deny a problem.

    No denial of a problem; a simple question about whether a problem exists.

    Precisely what is the problem? In your own words, if that's possible.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Neal Tedford said...

    Pedant, said "if you see a contradiction between the two quotes about tetrapod evolution that you gave, please tell us what it is. "

    As expected, the first response is to deny a problem.

    Tiktaalik evolutionists predicted that a fossil like Tiktaalik would be found in a specific location in the fossil record. When that "transitional" form was found in that location, they celebrated it as a successful prediction of evolution. They even mocked creationists because of it.

    The theory is so mushy and imprecise that trying to pin a failure on the theory of evolution is like trying to pin Jello to the wall with a nail. It's predictions always have an escape clause.


    Why specifically is it a problem Tedford? The researchers predicted a transitional form between in the sediment of a predicted date. They found the predicted transitional form in sediment of the predicted date.

    BTW, what "kind" of animal is Tiktaalik, and how do you know?

    ReplyDelete
  56. Joe G said...

    Zachriel:
    So imprecise that researchers spent years looking in a specific strata in the Canadian arctic to find the predicted fossil.

    They had no business looking there.

    The data should have led them to some other place and strata to find what they were looking for.


    BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!

    JoeTard telling us scientists had "no business" looking where they did after the scientists found exactly what they were looking for in the precise predicted spot.

    Good thing you weren't in charge of the looking for the fossil JoeTard. You never would have found Tiktaalik in your constant examination of the inside of your own rectum.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Neal Tedford said: Compare the predictions and testing of the theory of evolution to the general theory of relativity...

    Zachriel said: The General Theory of Relativity is already known to have problems, both on the cosmic scale and on the quantum scale.
    -----------------------------------------------

    There is no science in this world like physics. Nothing comes close to the precision with which physics enables you to understand the world around you. It’s the laws of physics that allow us to say exactly what time the sun is going to rise. What time the eclipse is going to begin. However, currently, all theories have gaps, which is why
    the pursuit now is for theory of everything.

    Biology doesn’t do that. Darwin’s theory of evolution is a framework for explaining the diversity of life on Earth. But there is no equation sitting there in Darwin’s “Origin of Species” that you apply and say,
    “What is this species going to look like in 100 years or 1,000 years?”


    I believe that that the marriage of biology and physics in the form of quantum biology will lead to
    more precision in biology and will cause an upheaval of the foundations of biology. Specifically, we will be able to precisely observe whether mutation is truly random.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Jerry Coyne says in his book, "Why Evolution is true"...


    "One of the greatest fulfilled predictions of evolutionary biology is the discovery, in 2004, of a transitional form between fish and amphibians. This is the fossil species Tiktaalik roseae, which tells us a lot about how vertebrates came to live on the land. Its discovery is a stunning vindication of the theory of evolution. ... This is where the prediction comes in. If there were lobe-finned fishes but no terrestrial vertebrates 390 million years ago, and clearly terrestrial vertebrates 360 million years ago, where would you expect to find the transitional forms? Somewhere in between. Following this logic, Shubin predicted that if transitional forms existed, their fossils would be found in strata around 375 million years old. ... equally marvelous is that [Tiktaalik's] discovery was not only anticipated, but predicted to occur in rocks of a certain age and in a certain place. Why Evolution is True, pp. 35-38


    This is why "evolution is true". Right?


    Now shift to 2010 and Nature writes: "The oldest known tracks of a four-limbed land animal could rewrite part of vertebrate evolution. Some prints, showing individual digits, were found in limestone slabs unearthed in a quarry near Zachełmie, Poland, dated to about 395 million years ago -- more than 18 million years before tetrapods were thought to have evolved."

    Note the 395 million year old evidence of tetrapod tracks from the Nature article. Tiktaalik, the supposed transition TO tetrapods is 18 million years younger than tetrapods.

    Are you guys still in denial of a failed prediction by noted evolutionists?

    ReplyDelete
  59. Note the 395 million year old evidence of tetrapod tracks from the Nature article. Tiktaalik, the supposed transition TO tetrapods is 18 million years younger than tetrapods.

    Are you guys still in denial of a failed prediction by noted evolutionists?


    The discovery of possible earlier tetrapods from possibly different lineages doesn't negate the correct prediction, discovery, and transitional nature of Tiktaalik you idiot.

    Tiktaalik is A transitional, not necessarily the ONLY transitional. Just how clueless are you?

    ReplyDelete
  60. Thorton,

    If tetrapods are said to already exist at 395 million years how is A transitional at 375 million years "one of the greatest fulfilled predictions of evolutionary biology"???

    Perhaps you should write Nature and inform them that they don't have to "rewrite part of vertebrate evolution", because Tiktaalik "A" transitional.

    First came denial by Pendant. The next step was word games, which you have now initiated. The next explanation is a more enlightened definition of transitional, to be followed by name calling. While evolution may not be predictable, evolutionists certainly are.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Thanks again CH for another clarified piece of history as it really happened instead of the always exaggerated and twisted views based on metaphysical mandates given by the Darwinistas.

    Btw, Darweiners, under NDT (neoDarwinian-theory) everything is transitional including you, so nothing is worth touting as a transitional!

    Some time in the distant future you may evolve enough brain power to figure that out, but I doubt it.

    It is not even possible to postulate a transitional except by assuming NDT is true a priori.

    Your hypothesis (doesn't even qualify as a legit theory even according to some of your own) is futile.

    Darwinism has long since been proven wrong.

    As Hoyle stated, "The speculations of the Origin of Species turned out to be wrong, as we have seen in this chapter. It is ironic that the scientific facts throw Darwin out, but leave William Paley, a figure of fun to the scientific world for more than a century, still in the tournament with a chance of being the ultimate winner."

    Only insidious religious fanaticism and its propaganda and writhing discrimination tactics keeps the rotting corps of Darwinism tied to the public display pole.

    The truly smart ones all know this, unfortunately, as Berlinski states,"there isn't a first class intellect among" you.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Espagnat,

    I tend you agree with your post that, "Darwin’s theory of evolution is a framework for explaining the diversity of life on Earth"

    It is a philosophy that requires faith.

    Evolution is pretty much the "theory of everything" for evolutionary biologists. Evolutionists have presumed a theory of everything and set it in stone while being unable to fill in a lot of details and ignoring the contradictions. It would be like physicists saying that all future theories of everything must be String Theory and we won't accept anything but String theory and if you don't agree then your a flat-earth dummy... You can believe in 10 or 11 or 12 dimensions, but String theory is a fact and settled science. While string theory may turn out to be true, it would be presumptuous to call it settled science.

    ReplyDelete
  63. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Neal Tedford said...

    Thorton,

    If tetrapods are said to already exist at 395 million years how is A transitional at 375 million years "one of the greatest fulfilled predictions of evolutionary biology"???


    All the new tracks mean is that there were possible earlier transitional lineages from lobe-finned fishes to tetrapods in different parts of the world. The fossil record from South America, Africa, and most of Central Asia in that time frame is almost non-existent. The new data doesn't detract or negate the Tiktaalik finding at all.

    Dr. Per Ahlberg, one of Tiktaalik's discoverers, answers questions about the track finds here

    New paper on the origin of tetrapods

    One of the surest predictions in the world is that some Creationist idiot will glom onto every new scientific discovery and scream "SEE!!! EVILUTION MUST BE ALL WRONG!!!"

    ReplyDelete
  65. Hey fart-n-dart Gary!

    Where are those equations from statistical mechanics you claim disprove the ToE?

    You weren't lying about having such important evidence, were you?

    ReplyDelete
  66. Neal Tedford said...

    I think that "kinds" in Genesis simply means species.

    Originally each "kind" reproduced. The fact that some "kinds" could no longer reproduce with the original kind is not a big deal. Each new kind reproduced with its own kind.


    "some "kinds" could no longer reproduce with the original "kind"."

    You've just described a speciation event where one population is no longer interfertile with another.

    Please give us a real world example of where some "kind" could no longer reproduce with its original kind.

    What was the mechanism that caused this large of a change of one "kind" into another "kind"?

    ------------------------------------------

    Cross posted from the "fruit fly" thread so you won't ignore it Tedford.

    ReplyDelete
  67. It generally helps to read the original paper.

    http://163.178.108.3/profesores/Chavez%20Gerardo%20(Cachi)/Herpetologia/Niedzweidzki%20et%20al%202010%20origen%20de%20tetrapodos.pdf

    "In fact, tetrapods and elpistostegids coexisted for at least 10 million years (Fig. 5b). This implies that the elpistostegid morphology was not a brief transitional stage, but a stable adaptive position in its own right. It is reminiscent of the lengthy coexistence of non-volant but feathered and ‘winged’ theropod dinosaurs with volant stem-group birds during the Mesozoic.
    The Wojciechowice Formation represents a tidal flat environment or a lagoon in a broad shallow carbonate basin with little terrigenous input. This suggests that the origin of tetrapods occurred, not in the vegetated margins or surrounding seasonal ‘flooded forest’ environments of rivers, as has frequently been argued, but in the marine intertidal and/or lagoonal zone. Such a scenario has considerable explanatory power. The intertidal environment provides a ready food source of stranded marine animals on a twice-daily basis, in the immediate vicinity of the sea, and would thus have allowed marine ancestors of tetrapods gradually to acquire terrestrial competence while accessing a new and essentially untouched resource.
    ...
    The discovery of the Zachełmie footprints substantially changes the context for future research on the origin of tetrapods. Intertidal laminites of Middle and Early Devonian age should be examined systematically for tetrapod tracks, and we should search for tetrapod and elpistostegid body fossils in associated marginal marine strata. For the present the timing of the fish–tetrapod transition is best regarded as uncertain, though it clearly predates the early Eifelian; an Early Devonian date seems most likely, but even earlier potential tetrapod ichnofossils such as the Silurian Glenisla track should not be dismissed out of hand."


    This is a scientific explaination with implied predictions.

    So what is YOUR explaination?

    Could it be the Designer (capital "D") purposely want us to doubt his/her/its existance?

    Could it be scientists are doing exactly as the Designer wishes?

    ReplyDelete
  68. Joe G: They had no business looking there.

    Thorton: BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!

    Missed that one. Thanks.

    BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!

    ReplyDelete
  69. Espagnat: Nothing comes close to the precision with which physics enables you to understand the world around you... But there is no equation sitting there in Darwin’s “Origin of Species” that you apply and say, “What is this species going to look like in 100 years or 1,000 years?”

    That's a question of the numbers of parameters, precision of measurement and unknown variables. For instance, it's very difficult to predict the exact movement of an asteroid, much less the position of all the asteroids in the asteroid belt in a thousand years. With all your "physics", you still can't predict the trajectory of a single photon.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Neal Tedford: This is why "evolution is true".

    Tiktaalik is one data-point. Because they didn't just stumble across the fossil, but found it in a rare strata with the predicted characteristics, a heretofore unknown species, it adds credence to the hypothesis.

    Neal Tedford: Note the 395 million year old evidence of tetrapod tracks from the Nature article. Tiktaalik, the supposed transition TO tetrapods is 18 million years younger than tetrapods.

    A transitional organism only has to be near the point of divergence, and show transitional characteristics. Tiktaalik is a leaf on a closely related branch.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Zach is right on cue in clarifying the definition of transitional for us as I predicted.

    I was well aware of the weasle definition of transitional and fully expected it as a response. The problem is that the weasle definition of transitional that you give is not what Coyne was referring to. Again, falsifying an evolutionary prediction is like nailing Jello to the wall. Actually Jello would be easier as it doesn't move as much.


    I'm sure that if they did not find Tiktaalik at that strata then evolution would be falsified. No?

    Evolution has ten thousand ways of dancing around problems.

    No we have this updated bold prediction by evolutionists:

    "For the present the timing of the fish–tetrapod transition is best regarded as uncertain, though it clearly predates the early Eifelian; an Early Devonian date seems most likely, but even earlier potential tetrapod ichnofossils such as the Silurian Glenisla track should not be dismissed out of hand."

    Talk about having an escape clause. That would be as bold as saying that I predict that democrat or republican candidates will win the November elections.

    Evolutionists see what they want to see and have an elaborate system for dealing with stuff they don't want to see.

    They call that science?

    ReplyDelete
  72. Thorton said, "Please give us a real world example of where some "kind" could no longer reproduce with its original kind."

    Dogs.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Evolutionists see what they want to see and have an elaborate system for dealing with stuff they don't want to see.

    It's clear that you know all about seeing what one wants to see.

    What's your theory for the origin of tetrapods?

    ReplyDelete
  74. Neal Tedford said...

    Thorton said, "Please give us a real world example of where some "kind" could no longer reproduce with its original kind."

    Dogs.


    Which dogs? What was the original "kind", how many "kinds" diversified from the original, and how did you determine they were no longer interfertile with the original?

    More importantly,

    What was the mechanism that caused this large of a change of one "kind" into another "kind"?

    ReplyDelete
  75. Where in the Bible does it say that God created dogs?

    ReplyDelete
  76. Neal Tedford: I was well aware of the weasle definition of transitional and fully expected it as a response.

    That is the scientific definition: A transitional fossil will represent an organism near the point where individual lineages (clades) diverge. When vertebrates diverged into tetrapods, there were probably many radiations from the common ancestor. Tiktaalik is one of them.

    It really is phenomenal. Scientists seek out exposed strata from hundreds-of-millions of years ago and find an organism with traits intermediate between fish and primitive tetrapods.

    Neal Tedford: I'm sure that if they did not find Tiktaalik at that strata then evolution would be falsified.

    Of course not. We're talking about remains of organisms from hundreds-of-millions of years ago! Fossilization is a rare occurrence, and erosion destroys them as fast as they are exposed.

    What would falsify current theories of evolutionary history would be to find a substantive violation of common ancestry.

    A large part of evolutionary theory is reconstructing a past history from tenuous evidence. But the fundamental fact that life evolves and shares common ancestry are firmly established science.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Zach, animals that look transitional between fish and land can be found throughout the fossil record right up to living ones today. Predicting such a transitional in the Tiktaalik strata then is no big deal. It would be like predicting that I could find presidential dollars at the local bank, or sand on a particular island in the south pacific before visiting.

    Leading evolutionary scientists thought much of Tiktaalik's stratigraphic location in the fossil record and used it as an argument for their theory. They claimed it fulfills a specific prediction of evolution. But now new evidence challenges the view that 375 million years ago is "the right time period in earth's history" to find organisms making the transition from water to land. It was in Time magazine, NY Times, and major networks. The impression made by many noted evolutionists was that it was a direct ancestor at just the right time in the bridge between water and land animals.

    You guys are stepping all over yourselves making excuses for the big evolutionary guys who touted the fulfillment of a big prediction only to be refuted.

    Stop the farce that this was touted as something other than a direct transitional fossil by leading evolutionists.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Neal Tedford said...

    Zach, animals that look transitional between fish and land can be found throughout the fossil record right up to living ones today. Predicting such a transitional in the Tiktaalik strata then is no big deal. It would be like predicting that I could find presidential dollars at the local bank, or sand on a particular island in the south pacific before visiting


    My word you're an idiot Tedford. Tiktaalik is not judged to be a transitional form due to superficial "looks". Detailed morphological studies clearly show transitional features between lobe-finned fush and later tetrapods. These include the skull, snout, lower jaw and palate, spiracular notch, branchial skeleton showing the transition for gills, pectoral girdle, lepidotrichia, vertebrae and ribs, among other things.

    The impression made by many noted evolutionists was that it was a direct ancestor at just the right time in the bridge between water and land animals.

    Stop the farce that this was touted as something other than a direct transitional fossil by leading evolutionists.


    Stop the lying Tedford. No one in the paleontology community referred to Tiktaalik as a direct ancestor or transitional.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Neal Tedford: animals that look transitional between fish and land can be found throughout the fossil record right up to living ones today.

    Indeed, organisms can diverge then remain largely unchanged for long periods of time. As Darwin pointed out, we can find intermediate structures in extant biology!

    But you ignored the point.

    Zachriel: When vertebrates diverged into tetrapods, there were probably many radiations from the common ancestor. Tiktaalik is one of them.

    Zachriel: A large part of evolutionary theory is reconstructing a past history from tenuous evidence.

    It still represents transitional features, and is consistent with a pattern of radiation into a new niche. This is why we keep returning to the tree structure.

    Though all extant tetrapods share a common ancestor, the evolution of tetrapodalism, starting from very similar beginnings, may have occurred more than once.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Neal Tedford: Predicting such a transitional in the Tiktaalik strata then is no big deal.

    Of course it's a big deal. Nor did ID predict the existence of such an organism.

    Neal Tedford: They claimed it fulfills a specific prediction of evolution.

    It does. Tiktaalik exhibits intermediate characteristics between fish and tetrapods.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Let's ask Grzegorz Niedźwiedzki, the geologist who discovered the tracks, and the authors of the study, about the implications for phylogeny. See the difference?

    No. Neither the before or after phylogenies show Tiktaalik on the direct line of descent, but as a cousin. No. The relationships between the known species haven't changed. The significant difference is that evolution occurred over a *longer* period of time than originally thought.

    ReplyDelete
  82. thortard:
    Joe telling us scientists had "no business" looking where they did after the scientists found exactly what they were looking for in the precise predicted spot.

    Geez asswipe if Shubin had the data that shows tetrapods were alive and well 395 mya he wouldn't have been looking where he did and in the strata he did.

    You don't go looking for transitional forms AFTER the transition has been made.

    Only ignorant evotards do shit like that...

    ReplyDelete
  83. Zachriel:
    Tiktaalik exhibits intermediate characteristics between fish and tetrapods.

    Great now all you have to do is take fish embryos and mutate them and see if such a transitional form will arise.

    In the absence of such a test all you have is wishful thinking.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Zachriel: That's a question of the numbers of parameters, precision of measurement and unknown variables. For instance, it's very difficult to predict the exact movement of an asteroid, much less the position of all the asteroids in the asteroid belt in a thousand years. With all your "physics", you still can't predict the trajectory of a single photon.

    ---------------------------------------------

    There are equations to approximate the results or its probability with a known margin of error.
    As for the prediction of a photon trajectory, well, welcome to the world of quantum mechanics which is weird but astoundingly successful. Without quantum mechanics computer chips would not exist, and a 'personal' computer would probably take up an entire room.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Zachriel:
    This is why we keep returning to the tree structure.

    There isn't any evidence for such a tree.

    I have pointed this out to you and you still on insisting on twisting the data.

    It appears all you can do is lie.

    Go figure...

    ReplyDelete
  86. And we are STILL waiting for these dishonest evotards to ante up a testable hypothesis for their position.

    That they refuse to do so is one reason why the vast majority of people think their position is nonsense.

    I can hear it now"

    Oh but the vast majority of scientists acceot the ToE"- perhaps but it is very telling that thy cannot produce a testable hypothesis for their position.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Zachriel:
    (e.g. no rabbits in the Precambrian).

    That is not a valid fasification- again ask dave Heddle and stop being such a wussy.

    Zachriel:
    It's a negative prediction, a stand-in for a positive prediction:

    It is a meaningless "prediction"

    New species, extant and extinct, are discovered all the time. Each new species is predicted to fit the existing nested hierarchy.

    Liar - there isn't any evidence for the tree

    ReplyDelete
  88. Espagnat: There are equations to approximate the results or its probability with a known margin of error.

    Chaotic systems such as the asteroid belt are not predictable over the long term.

    Espagnat: As for the prediction of a photon trajectory, well, welcome to the world of quantum mechanics which is weird but astoundingly successful.

    Yes, that's right. Physics can only predict the quantum world in aggregate. So this statement is no longer operative:

    Espagnat: Nothing comes close to the precision with which physics enables you to understand the world around you...

    Physics is only precise in limited situations. When a system is sensitive to initial conditions, or when there are a large number of uncertain parameters, then physics is not always very precise.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Zachriel: Chaotic systems such as the asteroid belt are not predictable over the long term.

    That's not true. Chaotic systems are not entirely predictable over the long.

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11641-climate-myths-chaotic-systems-are-not-predictable-.html


    Zachriel: Yes, that's right. Physics can only predict the quantum world in aggregate. So this statement is no longer operative:

    If the prediction is good enough for the invention
    computer chips and other amazing techologies like MRI, why would it bother you?

    Zachriel: Physics is only precise in limited situations. When a system is sensitive to initial conditions, or when there are a large number of uncertain parameters, then physics is not always very precise.

    Physics is not yet perfect and every physicist admit that. What I mean is that in comparison, Physics is more precise than Biology.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Espagnat: If the prediction is good enough for the invention computer chips and other amazing techologies like MRI, why would it bother you?

    It doesn't bother us, any more than understanding evolution leading to better vaccines bothers us.

    Espagnat: What I mean is that in comparison, Physics is more precise than Biology.

    Physics is only precise in limited circumstances. They can't even predict the weather accurately, which is based on well-known physical interactions!

    You drew an analogy between physics and evolutionary biology in an attempt to minimize our knowledge in that field. But the analogy is faulty. Scientists can and do make many testable predictions in evolutionary biology.

    ReplyDelete
  91. From January 2010 NATURE:

    "The discovery of fossil trackways made by four-legged land vertebrates (tetrapods) almost 400 million years ago will cause a SIGNIFICANT REAPPRASIAL of our understanding of tetrapod origins. The finds, reported by Per Ahlberg and colleagues, come from Zachelmie Quarry in the Holy Cross Mountains of Poland. Some of the tracks are so well preserved as to permit detailed examination of the foot morphology, which resembles that of the early, primitive tetrapod Ichthyostega. BUT it is their age that makes these tracks so special: 18 million years OLDER than the earliest known tetrapod body fossils, and 10 million years older than the OLDEST elpistostegids — Tiktaalik , Panderichthys and their relatives, seen as transitional forms between fishes and tetrapods. THE FINDS suggests that the elpistostegids that we know were late-surviving RELICS RATHER THAN DIRECT transitional forms, and they highlight just HOW LITTLE we know of the earliest history of land vertebrates."

    THE FINDS (i.e. the new finds from Poland) points to Tiktaalik as a RELIC RATHER THAN A DIRECT transitional. Funny that evolutionists didn't say they predicted to find a RELIC!



    Even in 2008 from the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, they write:

    "The team that discovered the new fossil decided to focus on far northern Canada when they noticed in a textbook that the region contained sedimentary rock deposited about 375 million years ago, JUST WHEN shallow-water fishes were predicted by evolutionary science to be making the TRANSITION to land. ... A prediction from more than a century of findings from evolutionary biology suggests that one of the early species that EMERGED from the Earth's oceans about 375 million years ago was THE ancestor of amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, and mammals. The discovery of Tiktaalik strongly supports that prediction."


    Evolutionists used the Tiktaalik finding as a hammer to mock creationism in major media outlets.

    According to the NAS - "JUST WHEN" shallow-water fishes were predicted by evolutionary science to be making the TRANSITION to land...

    "EMERGED" from the Earth's oceans about 375 million years ago was "THE" ancestor.


    Now Tiktaalik is a RELIC.

    The new discovery of tracks from a fully developed tetrpod 18 million years before the predicted transitional blows the all the hype over Tiktaalik away.

    Now Tiktaalik is known as a late surviving RELIC.

    I'm sure that that is what Coyne meant about Tiktaalik being one of the greatest fulfilled predictions of evolution. Why he meant that it was a late surviving relic!

    Dance around that one.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Don't forget to answer these questions about your claims Tedford

    Neal Tedford said...

    Thorton said, "Please give us a real world example of where some "kind" could no longer reproduce with its original kind."

    Dogs.


    Which dogs? What was the original "kind", how many "kinds" diversified from the original, and how did you determine they were no longer interfertile with the original?

    More importantly,

    What was the mechanism that caused this large of a change of one "kind" into another "kind"?

    ReplyDelete
  93. Tedford the idiot said...

    THE FINDS (i.e. the new finds from Poland) points to Tiktaalik as a RELIC RATHER THAN A DIRECT transitional. Funny that evolutionists didn't say they predicted to find a RELIC!

    Now Tiktaalik is a RELIC.

    Now Tiktaalik is known as a late surviving RELIC.


    Hey idiot, the paper says the the elpistostegids that we know were late-surviving relics. Elpistostegids are the lobe-finned fish that gave rise to the tetrapods.

    The paper says some lineages of the elpistostegids continued on for a while before dying out, after other lineages evolved into tetrapods like Tiktaalik. That's why those elpistostegids are referred to as relics.

    You must get up every morning and think "what can I do to make myself look like a clueless moron today?".

    ReplyDelete
  94. thortard:
    What was the mechanism that caused this large of a change of one "kind" into another "kind"?

    Strawman- no one said that one "kind" can change into another "kind".

    Geez I provided you with links to baraminology on more than one occasion.

    What is your malfunction?

    ReplyDelete
  95. Tiktaalik-

    You don't go looking for transitional forms AFTER in strata younger than when the transition occurred.

    And yo definitely cannot predict the presence of specific transitional forms millions of years after the transition has been made.

    You chumps are so full of it that you are trying to dishh it out to everyone else.

    ReplyDelete
  96. thortard:
    ...after other lineages evolved into tetrapods like Tiktaalik.

    Tiktaalik was not a tetrapod.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Zachriel:
    It doesn't bother us, any more than understanding evolution leading to better vaccines bothers us.

    And still more equivocation.

    Ole Zacho knows all the BS propaganda!

    The theory of evolution has nothing to do with vaccines- I bet that bothers you...

    ReplyDelete
  98. JoeTard doesn't use vaccine. He gets healthy by swigging a bottle of hydrogen peroxide.

    Right JoeTard?

    ReplyDelete
  99. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  100. thorton gets healthy by swigging strangers jizz.

    right thortard?

    I take it that it bothers you tht the theory of evolution doesn't have anything to do with vaccines.

    Deal with it.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Zachriel: They can't even predict the weather accurately, which is based on well-known physical interactions!

    That's not true. For instance, you can check with the aviation industry which depend on accurate weather forecasting.

    Zachriel: You drew an analogy between physics and evolutionary biology in an attempt to minimize our knowledge in that field.

    I'm not trying to minimize your knowledge in any way. What I'm saying is that research in biology can benefit from the application of quantum mechanics, especially when it comes to validating Darwin's theory.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Neal Tedford: "A prediction from more than a century of findings from evolutionary biology suggests that one of the early species that EMERGED from the Earth's oceans about 375 million years ago was THE ancestor of amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, and mammals. The discovery of Tiktaalik strongly supports that prediction."

    Yes, it supports the prediction. You keep ignoring previous responses. You were shown the proposed phylogeny before and after Niedźwiedzki's discovery. You ignore the relationship between theory and observation. You ignore the distinction between mechanism and reconstructing a history.

    Espagnat: What I mean is that in comparison, Physics is more precise than Biology.

    Zachriel: It doesn't bother us, any more than understanding evolution leading to better vaccines bothers us.

    Joe G: And still more equivocation.

    It's not equivocation: Espagnat pointed to direct observation of 'microphysical' events, not reconstructions of the history of the cosmos, or even the weather, that is, 'macrophysical' events.

    Joe G: Tiktaalik was not a tetrapod.

    Tiktaalik exhibits intermediate characteristics.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Espagnat: For instance, you can check with the aviation industry which depend on accurate weather forecasting.

    Weather forecasting is only accurate in the near term. Even then, pilots know that even near term forecasts can be wrong.

    Espagnat: What I'm saying is that research in biology can benefit from the application of quantum mechanics, especially when it comes to validating Darwin's theory.

    In what way?

    ReplyDelete
  104. Chance of rain in London is 60% tonight.

    ReplyDelete
  105. It doesn't bother us, any more than understanding evolution leading to better vaccines bothers us.

    And still more equivocation.

    Zachriel:
    It's not equivocation:

    Yes it is as the theory of evolution has nothing to do with vaccines.

    Baraminology is perhaps a better framework for guiding such research.

    Tiktaalik was not a tetrapod.

    Zachriel:
    Tiktaalik exhibits intermediate characteristics.

    It isn't a tetrapod.

    You don't go looking for transitional forms in strata younger than when the transition occurred.

    And you definitely cannot predict the presence of specific transitional forms millions of years AFTER the transition has been made.

    ReplyDelete
  106. The theory of evolution:

    Without any planning nor guidance,our existence is due to something(s) happened some time in the past.

    Some time in the past (mysterious) changes (magically) occurred and here we are.

    Very powerful stuff, this theory of evolution...

    ReplyDelete
  107. I take it that it bothers you tht the theory of evolution doesn't have anything to do with vaccines.

    Tell that to the vaccine researchers who are continuously working to keep up with influenza virus evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Joe G: You don't go looking for transitional forms in strata younger than when the transition occurred.

    Even younger than that. As Darwin pointed out, you can find intermediate characters in *extant* organisms.

    Joe G: Without any planning nor guidance,our existence is due to something(s) happened some time in the past.

    Humans are the way they are, in large part, because of whom they descended from. Humans are animals.

    Oh, and what Pedant said.

    ReplyDelete
  109. I take it that it bothers you tht the theory of evolution doesn't have anything to do with vaccines.

    Pedant:
    Tell that to the vaccine researchers who are continuously working to keep up with influenza virus evolution.

    I am sure they already know.

    Some have even spoken up about it.

    ReplyDelete
  110. You don't go looking for transitional forms in strata younger than when the transition occurred.

    Zachriel:
    Even younger than that. As Darwin pointed out, you can find intermediate characters in *extant* organisms.

    Evotards can find whatever they are looking for wherever they look for it.

    Without any planning nor guidance,our existence is due to something(s) happened some time in the past.

    Zachriel:
    Humans are the way they are, in large part, because of whom they descended from.

    The evidence says we are descended from humans.

    Go figure...

    Zachriel:
    Oh, and what Pedant said.

    Yes I see it is also botherd by the fact the theory of evolution doesn't have anything to do with vaccines.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Why do we invoke darwin?

    "I would tend to agree. Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming’s discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin’s theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No."

    Choke on it...

    ReplyDelete
  112. Zachriel: Weather forecasting is only accurate in the near term. Even then, pilots know that even near term forecasts can be wrong.

    Most of the time it's accurate. It's better than nothing. Even military decision is based on it. I've never said it's perfect but the technology is getting better.

    Espagnat: What I'm saying is that research in biology can benefit from the application of quantum mechanics, especially when it comes to validating Darwin's theory.

    Zachriel:In what way?

    The premise is simple. Life is a molecular process; molecular processes operate according to the quantum playbook; therefore, life is a quantum process. As such it's plausible that mutation is driven by quantum effects. By studying the quantum mechanics of mutation we can validate Darwin's assertion that it's random.

    ReplyDelete
  113. Espagnat: It's better than nothing.

    Yes, 60% chance of rain is better than not knowing anything. But that's quite different than your previous comments. Physical predictions can be quite limited in natural systems, especially over long time scales.

    Espagnat: Life is a molecular process; molecular processes operate according to the quantum playbook; therefore, life is a quantum process.

    Most molecules can be considered macroscopic in size.

    Espagnat: As such it's plausible that mutation is driven by quantum effects.

    There is some evidence of tunneling being involved in some mutations, but the evidence is somewhat ambiguous.

    Espagnat: By studying the quantum mechanics of mutation we can validate Darwin's assertion that it's random.

    Mutation is not purely random. The biological question is whether it is random (uncorrelated) with respect to fitness.

    ReplyDelete
  114. Joe G: "Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution."

    Skell is a chemist, not a biologist. He did not invent antibiotics, but had a role in the production of Penicillin during the 1940's. However, we do know that the overuse of antibiotics has led to the evolution of antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria.

    Joe G: You don't go looking for transitional forms in strata younger than when the transition occurred.

    Then you apparently don't understand the theory of evolution. If you did, you would know that Darwin indicated we could find intermediates in extant organisms.

    ReplyDelete
  115. "Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution."

    Zachriel:
    Skell is a chemist, not a biologist.

    He worked on anti-biotics- you know for humans- biology.

    It still bothers you that the theory of evolution doesn't have anything to do with vaccines.

    You can't point to one peer-reviewed paper that states the theory was absolutely required to invent/ discover vaccines.

    You don't go looking for transitional forms in strata younger than when the transition occurred.

    Zachriel:
    Then you apparently don't understand the theory of evolution.

    Obvioously I understand it better than you.

    If you did, you would know that Darwin indicated we could find intermediates in extant organisms.

    That doesn't make it true.

    Also as I said earlier Evotards can find whatever they are looking for wherever they look for it.

    And if what you said is true then why the heck was Shubin looking where he did?

    IOW all you are doing is proving he was looking in the wrong place!

    Nice job.

    ReplyDelete
  116. Zachriel:
    Mutation is not purely random.

    That is what ID says.

    Your position says they are all errors/ mistakes/ accidents.

    Zachriel:
    The biological question is whether it is random (uncorrelated) with respect to fitness.

    Which is meaningless because biological fitness is an after-the-fact assessment.

    ReplyDelete
  117. Zachriel: Skell is a chemist, not a biologist.

    Joe G: He worked on anti-biotics- you know for humans- biology.

    That's irrelevant to his qualifications in biology. Nor would we expect the Theory of Evolution to inform his work in chemistry, so it's not a meaningful statement on his part.

    Joe G: You can't point to one peer-reviewed paper that states the theory was absolutely required to invent/ discover vaccines.

    The influenza virus evolves new strains every year, and every year new vaccines have to be developed. This is common knowledge now.

    Smith et al., Mapping the Antigenic and Genetic Evolution of Influenza Virus, Science 2004.

    Weinstock & Zuccotti, The Evolution of Influenza Resistance and Treatment, JAMA 2009.

    Zimmer & Burke, Emergence of influenza A (H1N1) viruses, NEJM 2009.

    Bragstad, Nielsen & Fomsgaard, The evolution of human influenza A viruses from 1999 to 2006: a complete genome study, Virology 2008.

    Zachriel: If you did, you would know that Darwin indicated we could find intermediates in extant organisms.

    Joe G: That doesn't make it true.

    It does mean it has been a component of the Theory of Evolution since its original publication in 1859. You can't then just deny that it is part of the theory.

    Zachriel: Mutation is not purely random.

    Joe G: That is what ID says.

    ID claims that life is designed by an intelligent agent. It's usually difficult to get a clear statement on mutations as ID is a polemic and not a research program.

    Zachriel: The biological question is whether it is random (uncorrelated) with respect to fitness.

    Joe G: Which is meaningless because biological fitness is an after-the-fact assessment.

    Of course it's after the fact. And it is certainly not meaningless. A mutation may, for instance, make an organism faster or more agile. This can be an advantage for an organism trying to flee from a predatory.

    ReplyDelete
  118. You can't point to one peer-reviewed paper that states the theory was absolutely required to invent/ discover vaccines.

    Zachriel:
    The influenza virus evolves new strains every year, and every year new vaccines have to be developed. This is common knowledge now.

    Yes and that fits in very well with Baraminology.

    IOW the ToE was not a factor.

    Zachriel:
    It does mean it has been a component of the Theory of Evolution since its original publication in 1859. You can't then just deny that it is part of the theory.

    Again yo have proven Shubin et al. were looking in the wrong place.

    Nice job.

    Zachriel:
    ID claims that life is designed by an intelligent agent.

    Living organisms were designed by some agency, yes.

    It's usually difficult to get a clear statement on mutations as ID is a polemic and not a research program.

    Yeah right- unfortunately you have proven that your position is bullshit and not a research program.

    It doesn't produce any meaningful/ useful prewdictions.

    Which is meaningless because biological fitness is an after-the-fact assessment.

    Of course it's after the fact. And it is certainly not meaningless. A mutation may, for instance, make an organism faster or more agile. This can be an advantage for an organism trying to flee from a predatory.

    Or be the first into the ambush.

    And just what mutation would do such a thing?

    ReplyDelete
  119. Again with the equivocation:

    Smith et al., Mapping the Antigenic and Genetic Evolution of Influenza Virus, Science 2004.

    Weinstock & Zuccotti, The Evolution of Influenza Resistance and Treatment, JAMA 2009.

    Zimmer & Burke, Emergence of influenza A (H1N1) viruses, NEJM 2009.

    Bragstad, Nielsen & Fomsgaard, The evolution of human influenza A viruses from 1999 to 2006: a complete genome study, Virology 2008.

    Every one of those papers supports baraminology and not descent with modification via an accumulation of genetic accidents.

    ReplyDelete
  120. Joe G: Again yo have proven Shubin et al. were looking in the wrong place.

    In order to understand how Shubin's team were able to find such an extraordinary organism, you have to look at the actual Theory of Evolution, and not your mangled strawman version.

    The (first-order) Theory of Evolution posits a tree-like structure of divergence from common ancestors. When we consider divergent organisms, such as fish and tetrapods, then the closer we look at the point of divergence, the more primitive traits we will tend to see, and the fewer derived traits. Meanwhile, other lineages may show primitive traits even in extant organisms, such as lungfish. Still others, such as the coelacanth, may show little morphological change over very long periods of time. These are all consistent with a tree-like structure of divergence.

    Joe G: Or be the first into the ambush.

    Each trait is balanced against other traits. Increased speed may mean higher caloric requirements. Increased agility may mean a greater risk of injury. So, a particular trait may or may not be advantageous, depending on the environment.

    ReplyDelete
  121. Zachriel:
    In order to understand how Shubin's team were able to find such an extraordinary organism, you have to look at the actual Theory of Evolution, and not your mangled strawman version.

    Unfortunately for you you cannot produce any evidence that I have a mangled strawman version of evolution.

    As for understandiong how Shubin et al. found it well, unlike you, I read his book "Your Inner Fish".

    But all that is moot because YOU said they could have found their transitional form just about anywhere!

    Are you that stupid that you don't understand the implications of what you spew?

    Zachriel:
    The (first-order) Theory of Evolution posits a tree-like structure of divergence from common ancestors.

    1- That is false- we don't see a tree with first-order living organisms

    and

    2- There isn't any evidence for a tree in any order organisms

    Zachriel:
    So, a particular trait may or may not be advantageous, depending on the environment.

    That is exactly what I have been telling you.

    ReplyDelete
  122. Joe G: Unfortunately for you you cannot produce any evidence that I have a mangled strawman version of evolution.

    Sure you have. You have misstated the nature of an intermediate several times in this thread. Indeed, you have shown no comprehension of the the posited tree-like structure of descent.

    Joe G: we don't see a tree with first-order living organisms

    First-order living organisms?

    Joe G: But all that is moot because YOU said they could have found their transitional form just about anywhere!

    Not anywhere. And that's why it's apparent you don't understand the theory you are attempting to criticize.

    When there is a branching, as posited, the individual branches inherit primitive characters and then evolve derived characters. That's why you will never find a rabbit in the Precambrian, and that pegasi never existed in the natural world. Rabbits descended from more primitive mammals that never existed in the Precambrian, and pegasi have no plausible ancestry at all.

    Zachriel: So, a particular trait may or may not be advantageous, depending on the environment.

    Joe G: That is exactly what I have been telling you.

    Which means that a particular trait may be advantageous.

    ReplyDelete
  123. Unfortunately for you you cannot produce any evidence that I have a mangled strawman version of evolution.

    Zachriel:
    Sure you have.

    Liar.

    Zachriel:
    You have misstated the nature of an intermediate several times in this thread.

    Evidence please.

    I bet you are lying- I know that because I never discussed the nature of an intermediate.

    Zachriel:
    Indeed, you have shown no comprehension of the the posited tree-like structure of descent.

    Actually I have referenced evolutionary biologists who say there isn't any evidence for such a tree.

    All you do is ignore that as if your ignorance means something.

    But all that is moot because YOU said they could have found their transitional form just about anywhere!

    Zachriel:
    Not anywhere.

    All you said was in extant organisms- you didn't specify.

    Zachriel:
    And that's why it's apparent you don't understand the theory you are attempting to criticize.

    All that shows is that I can't follow someone who runs around with the goalposts like you do.

    Zachriel:
    When there is a branching, as posited, the individual branches inherit primitive characters and then evolve derived characters.

    Yes I know the claim.

    It is the evidence that is lacking.

    Zachriel:
    That's why you will never find a rabbit in the Precambrian, and that pegasi never existed in the natural world.

    But Pagasi fits what you just said- as do rabbits in the precam- ya see Zacho a rabbit in the precam could be caused by several known processes.

    Which means that a particular trait may be advantageous.

    And yet again maybe not,.

    Also I noticed you have nothing on that mutation that would make an organism faster.

    Is that all you can do- baldly throw shit around?

    ReplyDelete
  124. Joe G: Unfortunately for you you cannot produce any evidence that I have a mangled strawman version of evolution.

    Joe G: But all that is moot because YOU said they could have found their transitional form just about anywhere!

    This shows you still don't grasp the basics of phylogeny.

    Joe G: Actually I have referenced evolutionary biologists who say there isn't any evidence for such a tree.

    Of course there's a tree. It's just not a perfect tree. We know there's a tree for many taxa, because we can draw strong correlations between traits. For instance, if an organism has mammary glands, it also has a cranium.

    Joe G: All you said was in extant organisms- you didn't specify.

    Extant organisms isn't anywhere. Indeed, most organisms are extinct, not extant. It's expected that at some point you would learn the basics of the theory you criticize. For instance, lungfish exhibit an intermediate structure. Nevertheless, extant lungfish are just as derived as any other organism.

    Zachriel: When there is a branching, as posited, the individual branches inherit primitive characters and then evolve derived characters.

    Joe G: Yes I know the claim.

    Then you should understand why Shubin would look never the point of divergence between fish and tetrapods for an intermediate form. Tiktaalik is a leaf on a branch near the point of divergence.

    Zachriel: That's why you will never find a rabbit in the Precambrian, and that pegasi never existed in the natural world.

    Joe G: But Pagasi fits what you just said- as do rabbits in the precam-

    What do they fit? A mammal in the Precambrian precedes its plausible ancestors. And a pegasus has six limbs, two with feathers. It didn't descend from a tetrapod, or a bird. A pegasus violates the expected nested hierarchy. It has the hallmarks of design, and never existed in the natural world.

    Joe G: a rabbit in the precam could be caused by several known processes.

    What processes are those?

    ReplyDelete
  125. But all that is moot because YOU said they could have found their transitional form just about anywhere!

    Zachriel:
    This shows you still don't grasp the basics of phylogeny.

    More false accusations.

    Go figure.

    Actually I have referenced evolutionary biologists who say there isn't any evidence for such a tree.

    Zachriel:
    Of course there's a tree.

    Funny how I referenced evolutionary biologists who said there isn't any evidence for one.

    Zachruiel:
    For instance, if an organism has mammary glands, it also has a cranium.

    By design.

    All you said was in extant organisms- you didn't specify.

    Zachriel:
    Extant organisms isn't anywhere.

    Extant organisms are just about everywhere.

    Then you should understand why Shubin would look never the point of divergence between fish and tetrapods for an intermediate form.

    Unlike yu I have read his book.

    He made specific claims using specific data.

    Had he known about the tetrapod tracks that are 395 myo he wouldn't have been looking where he did.

    That much is obvious just by reading the book.

    But Pagasi fits what you just said- as do rabbits in the precam-

    What do they fit?A mammal in the Precambrian precedes its plausible ancestors.

    maybe and maybe not.

    It could be that the earth wasn't formed as you think.

    It could be that we find those missing ancestors somewhere down the road in earlier strata.

    A pegasus violates the expected nested hierarchy.

    How does it do that?

    Also your position doesn't expect a nested hierarchy based on characteristics.

    a rabbit in the precam could be caused by several known processes.

    What processes are those?

    Trampling, cracks in the crust, burrowing- heck we have found artifacts allegedly in the precam...

    ReplyDelete
  126. Zachriel: This shows you still don't grasp the basics of phylogeny.

    Joe G: More false accusations.

    Instead of thumping your chest, you could demonstrate an understanding of phylogeny. That would help move the conversation forward.

    Zachriel: For instance, if an organism has mammary glands, it also has a cranium.

    Joe G: By design.

    Whether by design or not, there is a strong signal of the nested hierarchy across many taxa. It's not an artifact of observation or categorization because we can make empirical predictions based on the pattern.

    Joe G: Extant organisms are just about everywhere.

    You won't find rabbits in undisturbed Precambrian strata.

    Joe G: It could be that the earth wasn't formed as you think.

    Perhaps, but all we need to know is how strata are formed.

    Zachriel: A pegasus violates the expected nested hierarchy.

    Joe G: How does it do that?

    By combining traits from two disparate taxa, mammals and birds, and a number of limbs that is in neither category.

    ReplyDelete
  127. Zachriel:
    Instead of thumping your chest, you could demonstrate an understanding of phylogeny. That would help move the conversation forward.

    Instead iof acting like a little baby asswipe you could demonstrate an understading of phylogeny- or you could make your case against my as opposed to bald/ false accusations.

    Whether by design or not, there is a strong signal of the nested hierarchy across many taxa.

    It is by design.

    Wev wouldn't expect an accumulation of genetic accidents to produce such a pattern.

    It's not an artifact of observation or categorization because we can make empirical predictions based on the pattern.

    Not really- the "predictions" you have presented are all just based on the definitions.

    Extant organisms are just about everywhere.

    You won't find rabbits in undisturbed Precambrian strata.

    Bald assertion.

    It could be that the earth wasn't formed as you think.

    Perhaps, but all we need to know is how strata are formed.

    You don't know that.

    A pegasus violates the expected nested hierarchy.

    How does it do that?

    Also your position doesn't expect a nested hierarchy based on characteristics.


    By combining traits from two disparate taxa, mammals and birds, and a number of limbs that is in neither category.

    Again your position does not predict a nested hierarchy based on characteristics.

    And transitional forms combine the traist of two disparate taxa.

    Geez I have only been telling you that for years.

    ReplyDelete
  128. Zachriel: Perhaps, but all we need to know is how strata are formed.

    Joe G: You don't know that.

    Ah, so the geologists are all wrong too.

    Zachriel: You won't find rabbits in undisturbed Precambrian strata.

    Joe G: Bald assertion.

    No, an empirical prediction. Let us know when you have some evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  129. Zachriel:
    Ah, so the geologists are all wrong too.

    Not all geologists are in agreement.

    And just what to you think thy say about how the strata fromed?

    Zachriel:
    Zachriel: You won't find rabbits in undisturbed Precambrian strata.

    take that up with Dave Heddle.

    He is a real working scientist who is on record saying and explaining why that is nonsense.

    OTOH all you can do is mindlessly parrot others...

    ReplyDelete
  130. Charles Darwin's tree of life is 'wrong and misleading', claim scientists:

    Dr Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, said: "For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life. We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality."

    ReplyDelete
  131. Zachriel:
    By combining traits from two disparate taxa, mammals and birds, and a number of limbs that is in neither category.

    What limbs would those be?

    ReplyDelete
  132. Zachriel: You won't find rabbits in undisturbed Precambrian strata.

    Joe G: take that up with Dave Heddle. He is a real working scientist who is on record saying and explaining why that is nonsense.

    Seriously. You consider that an argument? Can you point to a paper by Dave Heddle that contradicts the statement above?

    Charles Darwin's tree of life is 'wrong and misleading', claim scientists:

    The scientists are overstating, and may be incorrect on the posited universal common ancestor. Keep in mind, also, that they consider vertebrates to be a very minor part of the tree of life. Bapteste states, "The tree of life was useful. It helped us to understand evolution was real. But now we know more about evolution it's time to move on."

    So if we are to work with your cites, then evolution is not in question. It's also why we refer to first-order evolutionary theory.

    Joe G: What limbs would those be?

    A pegasi has six limbs, two of which are bird wings.

    ReplyDelete
  133. Joe G: Not all geologists are in agreement.

    There are a variety of mechanisms for the formation of stratum. For our purposes, the point is that they are formed in layers by natural forces. The Principle of Superposition allows us to provide relative dating of the stratum.

    ReplyDelete
  134. Zachriel:
    There are a variety of mechanisms for the formation of stratum.

    I know and that is why I said what I did.

    Zachriel:
    For our purposes, the point is that they are formed in layers by natural forces.

    Design is a natural force.

    Zachriel:
    The Principle of Superposition allows us to provide relative dating of the stratum.

    Based on a materialistic assumption- one tat doesn't have any support...

    ReplyDelete
  135. Charles Darwin's tree of life is 'wrong and misleading', claim scientists:

    Dr Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, said: "For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life. We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality."


    Zachriel:
    The scientists are overstating, and may be incorrect on the posited universal common ancestor.

    No they are not overstating and they know more about this than you do.

    So if we are to work with your cites, then evolution is not in question.

    Evpolution isn't in question- the proposed mechanisms are as are the tarting point(s) and the extent evolutionary processes can take a population.

    What limbs would those be?

    Zachriel:
    A pegasi has six limbs, two of which are bird wings

    A bird has bird wings and a horse has 4 legs- you said:

    " a number of limbs that is in neither category."

    Yet it is clear you don't have any idea what those would be.

    ReplyDelete
  136. achriel:
    You won't find rabbits in undisturbed Precambrian strata.

    Joe G: take that up with Dave Heddle. He is a real working scientist who is on record saying and explaining why that is nonsense.

    Zachriel:
    Seriously. You consider that an argument?

    Seriously I am saying your precam rabbit isn't an argument.

    Heddle explains why.

    Now you cn remain ignorant of that explanation and continue to spew your ignorance- that is why you choose to remain anonymous- so you can spew nonsense and not have any consequences except for continually getting banned from forums that are sick of your brand of lies and tard.

    ReplyDelete
  137. Zachriel: The Principle of Superposition allows us to provide relative dating of the stratum.

    Joe G: Based on a materialistic assumption- one tat doesn't have any support...

    Your position requires not only that the vast majority of biologists are wrong, from geneticists to paleontologists, but that geologists are wrong too! Not only that, but geology is particularly easy to verify. Most people can find exposed geological strata in their areas and compare them to geological maps, even finding a few common fossils to verify their placement.

    Joe G: No they are not overstating and they know more about this than you do.

    A cite to authority is only valid when it expresses a consensus within the relevant peer community. Bapteste et al. are on one end of the spectrum, and even then, they acknowledge that the tree applies to many taxa of interest. We are content to discuss those cases, but we can't get past the simplest terminology. Consider this,

    ReplyDelete
  138. Joe G: A bird has bird wings and a horse has 4 legs-

    Yes, birds and horses each have four limbs. A pegasus has six limbs.

    Joe G: Seriously I am saying your precam rabbit isn't an argument.

    Ah, but that's not what you claimed. Here it is again:

    Zachriel: You won't find rabbits in undisturbed Precambrian strata.

    Joe G: take that up with Dave Heddle. He is a real working scientist who is on record saying and explaining why that is nonsense.

    The statement is not nonsense. David Heddle is correct that it is a weak test of evolutionary theory, a negative claim, but the statement is true nonetheless. Nor is any single individual authoritative, in any case.

    No rabbit in the Precambrian is actually a stand-in for any substantial violation of common descent, an organism that precedes any plausible ancestry.

    ReplyDelete
  139. Zachriel:
    Your position requires not only that the vast majority of biologists are wrong, from geneticists to paleontologists, but that geologists are wrong too!

    Umm that alleged vast majority of biologists don't haveany evidence to support theiur claims.

    If they did I would still be an evolutionist.

    Heck they can't even convince all biologists!

    Your last hope is evo-devo and that isn't looking so good.

    As for geologists funny how all you can do is spew shit without supporting anything.

    Not only that, but geology is particularly easy to verify.

    LoL!

    How can you verify something that allegedly hapopened millions of years ago?

    No they are not overstating and they know more about this than you do.

    Zachriel:
    A cite to authority is only valid when it expresses a consensus within the relevant peer community.

    Funny that no one in that alleged community can produce any evidence for the tree.

    A bird has bird wings and a horse has 4 legs-

    Yes, birds and horses each have four limbs. A pegasus has six limbs.

    you said:

    " a number of limbs that is in neither category."

    Yet it is clear you don't have any idea what those would be ya see both bird wings and legs are in both categories.

    Seriously I am saying your precam rabbit isn't an argument.

    Ah, but that's not what you claimed.No rabbit in the Precambrian is actually a stand-in for any substantial violation of common descent, an organism that precedes any plausible ancestry.

    Again you ignore the reasons why that isn;'t so.

    You are a pathetic piece of shit.

    ReplyDelete
  140. Zachriel:
    Your position requires not only that the vast majority of biologists are wrong, from geneticists to paleontologists, but that geologists are wrong too!

    The point is they are not even wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  141. Joe G: Umm that alleged vast majority of biologists don't haveany evidence to support theiur claims.

    You asked for testable hypotheses of evolutionary biology. Your position is that generations of biologists have not proposed any such hypotheses. That just doesn't seem like the parsimonious explanation.

    Joe G: How can you verify something that allegedly hapopened millions of years ago?

    Dinosaurs once roamed the Earth.

    Zachriel: Your position requires not only that the vast majority of biologists are wrong, from geneticists to paleontologists, but that geologists are wrong too!

    Joe G: The point is they are not even wrong.

    So your position is that geneticists, paleontologists and geologists are not even wrong. But when we compare the content of your puerile insults in this thread to the studies found in the journals cited above, your being right just doesn't seem like the parsimonious explanation.

    ReplyDelete
  142. Zachriel: Yes, birds and horses each have four limbs. A pegasus has six limbs.

    Joe G you said: " a number of limbs that is in neither category."

    That's right. Both categories, birds and mammals each have four limbs. But a pegasus has six limbs. It's a chimera of bird and horse.

    ReplyDelete
  143. Umm that alleged vast majority of biologists don't haveany evidence to support theiur claims.

    Zachriel:
    You asked for testable hypotheses of evolutionary biology.

    And you have failed to produce one.

    Zachriel:
    Your position is that generations of biologists have not proposed any such hypotheses.

    Strange that you can't produce ONE for this forum- nor any other forum.

    LoL!

    Are you saving it for a rainy day?

    How can you verify something that allegedly hapopened millions of years ago?

    Zachriel:
    Dinosaurs once roamed the Earth.

    You can't verify WHEN they roamed the earth.

    Zachriel:
    So your position is that geneticists, paleontologists and geologists are not even wrong.

    Not all, and most likely just a few.

    Ya see they don't have any positive evidence for the claims they make.

    Not one geneticist knows what genes nor DNA sequences are involved with the transformations required.

    Evo-devo is your last hope and it ain't helping.

    Zacho:
    But when we compare the content of your puerile insults in this thread to the studies found in the journals cited above, your being right just doesn't seem like the parsimonious explanation.

    Yet when we look not one of those studies support your claims.

    Go figure.

    Zacho:
    That's right. Both categories, birds and mammals each have four limbs.

    That dosn't have anything to do with your claim.

    ReplyDelete
  144. Dave Heddle::

    "As for the Precambrian rabbit, suppose we all were atheists"”then some of us would still argue that the precambrian rabbit is not a legitimate falsification test, because no scientific counter-theory to evolution predicts that we would find such a fossil. It would be like saying a green-cheese moon would falsify theories of planetary formation. True enough, but scientifically useless."

    ReplyDelete
  145. Zachriel: Dinosaurs once roamed the Earth.

    Joe G: You can't verify WHEN they roamed the earth.

    Sure we can. Let's start with relative dating. Dinosaur lived and died before humans were on the Earth. We know this because of their stratigraphical placement.

    As for the Precambrian rabbit, suppose we all were atheists"”then some of us would still argue that the precambrian rabbit is not a legitimate falsification test, because no scientific counter-theory to evolution predicts that we would find such a fossil. It would be like saying a green-cheese moon would falsify theories of planetary formation. True enough, but scientifically useless.

    Notice that David Heddle is directly rejecting your position. 'A rabbit in the Precambrian' would certainly falsify evolution, but is not a *useful* falsification, because it's a negative test that would require an exhaustive search of the Precambrian. Nonetheless, as David Heddle will tell you, there were no rabbits in the Precambrian.

    A more useful test would be to say that there will be no substantive violations of common descent. This test would then encompass every newly discovered species, extinct or extant, and would subject to falsification with each new discovery. And that is what 'no rabbits in the Precambrian' represents. We said this already, so your point is unclear.

    ReplyDelete
  146. You can't verify WHEN they roamed the earth.

    Zachriel:
    Sure we can.

    Nonsense.

    Ya see in order to do that you need to know the age of the Earth- and in order to do that you need to know HOW it was formed.

    Dinosaur lived and died before humans were on the Earth.

    maybe and maybe not

    However that proves my point- you cannot verify WHEN.

    As for a rabbit in the precam evotards would just hand-wave it away just as they do all other falsifying data.

    ReplyDelete
  147. Joe : Ya see in order to do that you need to know the age of the Earth- ...

    Do you know what "relative dating" means?

    Joe : and in order to do that you need to know HOW it was formed.

    No, you don't have to know the age of the Earth to determine the age of strata. There are independent means of making that determination, such as observation of the process of deposition. But let's start with relative dating.

    ReplyDelete
  148. Zachriel's continual reference to "dolphin, fish, cat" is both a red herring and nonprobative. Detectable morphological and other physical features lack necessarily granularity and so do not inexorably led to only one possible classification system, do not necessarily relate to underlying genetic relationships (convergent evolution, etc.). Furthermore, there does not exist a one-to-one correlation between DNA and the physical expression of features. Consequently, it is inherently impossible to use the limited fossil morphological information to derive iron-clad inferences about the underlying DNA.

    In any event, there is no necessarily logical relationship between a nested hierarchy and evolution.

    As for material evidences of a potential, phylogenetic trees based upon one fundamental gene or protein often conflict with trees based upon another gene or protein. In addition, lateral gene transfer, etc., means that such a concept has little meaningful application to early and primitive forms of life.

    John I.

    ReplyDelete
  149. Joe G.

    Can we do without the name-calling, please? Even if they annoy you? Evolution believers are not evotards. They have a rational belief along with some evidence consistent with their belief.

    ReplyDelete