tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post5920450028715277715..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Falsifying Evolution and Moving GoalpostsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger108125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-72236244416886188042010-06-10T06:02:27.559-07:002010-06-10T06:02:27.559-07:00Michael said...
The point is that even this h...<i>Michael said...<br /><br /> The point is that even this hypothesis you prefer is not supported by the fossil record. Take a moment and try to create a plausible narrative for the mechanisms of fossilization that account for what we actually see and what you and Darwin proposed.</i><br /><br />Once again you are demonstrating your near total ignorance of evolutionary theory. Here, let me help:<br /><br /><a href="http://theobald.brandeis.edu/pe.html" rel="nofollow">All you need to know about Punctuated Equilibrium (almost)</a><br /><br /><i>If you expect a post modern critique of the Darwinian narrative, then you are naive to the highest degree. The laws of nature & logic are not a subjective set of suggestions of how reality can be like. </i><br /><br />Actually Michael, it is reality that is not subject to your ignorance based bloviating and armchair philosophizing.<br /><br />You really ought to try learning at least a little about a topic before you make yourself look like a fool by attacking your pathetic misunderstanding of it.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-47172377546059471122010-06-10T00:08:03.404-07:002010-06-10T00:08:03.404-07:00Zachriel said...
"The proper term is phylet...Zachriel said... <br /><br />"The proper term is phyletic gradualism, meaning that evolutionary change occurs at a more-or-less regular rate. Darwin, on the other hand, stated that "the periods during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured in years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retain the same form." <br /><br />=====<br />The point is that even this hypothesis you prefer is not supported by the fossil record. Take a moment and try to create a plausible narrative for the mechanisms of fossilization that account for what we actually see and what you and Darwin proposed.<br /><br />If you expect a post modern critique of the Darwinian narrative, then you are naive to the highest degree. The laws of nature & logic are not a subjective set of suggestions of how reality can be like. It is the core reality that enable us to achieve successful scientific inquiry.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12218303841952833621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-38559063244461172252010-06-09T16:59:32.240-07:002010-06-09T16:59:32.240-07:00teleological blog: There you go again, changing th...<b>teleological blog</b>: <i>There you go again, changing the meaning of words. A more accurate analogy would be, Darwinian gradualism “states” the car drives across town slowly without any perceivable stops. </i><br /><br />The proper term is phyletic gradualism, meaning that evolutionary change occurs at a more-or-less regular rate. <a href="http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=side&itemID=F391&pageseq=437" rel="nofollow">Darwin</a>, on the other hand, stated that "<i>the periods during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured in years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retain the same form.</i>" <br /><br /><b>teleological blog</b>: <i>In reality your teleportation example is more accurate for PE than driving, because PE leaves no evidence of movement between point A and point B. </i><br /><br />If you make a movie of a car moving, it turns out that there are gaps. It could be due to teleportation, but we can show that these gaps are the result of the recording process. Fossilization is rare and largely happenstance, so we have a diffuse sampling, at best. <br /><br /><b>teleological blog</b>: <i>The examples that you gave are artificial selection for specific trait across the entire population of a species. </i><br /><br />Yes, but the variations are natural. <br /><br /><b>teleological blog</b>: <i>That was my proposal for a scientific approach to test Darwinism,</i><br /><br />Yes, your strawman demonstrates your ignorance of the scientific method. The whole point of the scientific method is that it allows us to reach tentative conclusions absent omniscience. <br /><br /><b>teleological blog</b>: <i>... since you have no evidence because the dog ate your homework. </i><br /><br />There's plenty of *scientific* evidence. <br /><br /><b>teleological blog</b>: <i>This method is meant to recreate the putative pathway required by Darwinian macroevolution. </i><br /><br />Because the Theory of Common Descent is so strongly supported, this provides us the historical framework for understanding the mechanisms involved in those transitions. <br /><br /><b>teleological blog</b>: <i>You keep using this inane line of argument I am beginning to think that you sincerely believe this is a rational argument. </i><br /><br />You have several times insisted that we should be able to provide not just every ancestor, but every mutation for the transition from land mammal to modern extant whale. You can't seem to provide your own genealogy over a few thousand years, or the bones of your ancestors from 6000 years ago, yet you expect that if whales descended from land mammals tens of millions of years ago, we should be able to show you not just the complete skeletons, but know every mutation.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-28221846501224171672010-06-09T15:03:56.015-07:002010-06-09T15:03:56.015-07:00teleological blog said...
There you go again,...<i>teleological blog said...<br /><br /> There you go again, changing the meaning of words. A more accurate analogy would be, Darwinian gradualism “states” the car drives across town slowly without any perceivable stops. PE “states” the car drives across town rapidly making long stops. They are contradictory to each other. In reality your teleportation example is more accurate for PE than driving, because PE leaves no evidence of movement between point A and point B.</i><br /><br />There is nothing in evolutionary theory that says evolutionary rates for all species must be the same. As I tried to explain to you before, evolution acts like a feedback loop and tracks changes in the environment. If a particular environmental niche changes rapidly, you can get rapid evolutionary changes for the creatures in that niche. If a niche is stable for a long time, you can get relatively slow evolution. If the niche changes gradually you can get gradual evolution. It's not an either-or situation. The fossil records shows both clear cases of gradualism and clear cases of PE for different species.<br /><br />You could read about this yourself with a few minutes' searching of Google. But first you have to <b>want</b> to learn.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-75950471980082708212010-06-09T14:24:49.231-07:002010-06-09T14:24:49.231-07:00Zachriel: The claim is that the person drove acros...<i><b>Zachriel:</b> The claim is that the person drove across town a bit at a time, as opposed to say teleporting hither and thither. Just because the speed may change, or even stop, that doesn't mean the person didn't drive across town.</i><br /><br />There you go again, changing the meaning of words. A more accurate analogy would be, Darwinian gradualism “states” the car drives across town slowly without any perceivable stops. PE “states” the car drives across town rapidly making long stops. They are contradictory to each other. In reality your teleportation example is more accurate for PE than driving, because PE leaves no evidence of movement between point A and point B.<br /><br /><br /><i><b>Zachriel:</b> Because it shows that natural variation displays enough variation to turn a wolf into a minature poodle, or a wild grass into maize, within a few thousand years.</i><br /><br />No, try again. The examples that you gave are artificial selection for specific trait across the entire population of a species. No one is suggesting that they started with a limited number of founders to create these variations. But the bigger problem is that even with the entire population at your disposal and artificial selection. Darwinian evolution is still incapable of creating the macroevolutionary changes required, e.g. turn the wolf into a whale.<br /><br /><br /><i><b>Zachriel:</b> That's correct. But that wasn't your demand, but that we show you all the innumerable intermediaries, the entire pathway of how macroevolutions occurred, every mutation nucleotide by nucleotide.</i><br /><br />That was my proposal for a scientific approach to test Darwinism, since you have no evidence because the dog ate your homework. This method is meant to recreate the putative pathway required by Darwinian macroevolution.<br /><br /><br /><i><b>Zachriel:</b> No, because we don't expect every organism to fossilize.</i><br /><br />Yes, the evolutionary dog ate your homework, but we should take your word that it is a fact you did your homework.<br /><br /><br /><i><b>Zachriel:</b> We don't have the bones of all your ancestors since 4004 BCE either.</i><br /><br />You keep using this inane line of argument I am beginning to think that you sincerely believe this is a rational argument.teleological bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06267994656995639019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-55976557560555545972010-06-09T13:23:31.544-07:002010-06-09T13:23:31.544-07:00Zachriel: That's like saying someone couldn...<b>Zachriel</b>: <i>That's like saying someone couldn't have driven across town because they had to stop at the lights. </i><br /><br /><b>teleological blog</b>: <i>I don’t see how that is analogous. </i><br /><br />The claim is that the person drove across town a bit at a time, as opposed to say teleporting hither and thither. Just because the speed may change, or even stop, that doesn't mean the person didn't drive across town. <br /><br /><b>teleological blog</b>: <i>When you reduce the population size the cost of acquiring beneficial mutation is substantially increased. </i><br /><br /><b>Zachriel</b>: <i>We already have some good idea of the range of variation in organisms. The variations that led to the poodle or maize were natural variations. </i><br /><br /><b>teleological blog</b>: <i>And how does this even remotely address the problem of acquiring advantageous mutations in a small population, especially in species with low reproductive rates? </i><br /><br />Because it shows that natural variation displays enough variation to turn a wolf into a minature poodle, or a wild grass into maize, within a few thousand years. <br /><br /><b>teleological blog</b>: <i>Frankly I don’t need to quote-mine anyone to make this point because it is self-evident that numerous transitional are required if macroevolution is true. </i><br /><br />That's correct. But that wasn't your demand, but that we show you all the innumerable intermediaries, the entire pathway of how macroevolutions occurred, every mutation nucleotide by nucleotide. <br /><br /><b>teleological blog</b>: <i>So if his theory and common descent is true then there must be “inconceivably great number of intermediate and transitional links”. </i><br /><br />Yes, that is correct, the vast majority of which are extinct and left no remains. <br /><br /><b>teleological blog</b>: <i>Do we have these “infinitely numerous links”? No. </i><br /><br />No, because we don't expect every organism to fossilize. We don't have the bones of all your ancestors since 4004 BCE either.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-53490103677722223982010-06-09T11:42:53.992-07:002010-06-09T11:42:53.992-07:00Janfeld,
I agree with you that Meyer's approa...Janfeld,<br /><br />I agree with you that Meyer's approach were far to tentative in this publication. The reason might be because of the biased peer review process, I don't know. <br /><br />What I do know is that his latest book (Signature in the Cell) takes this argument to maturity. He approach it systematically from the position of looking at the origin of life itself. Which seems like a less contentious starting point. <br /><br />He develops his method and arguments far better. He also makes predictions and propose research subjects.<br /><br />I think the epistemic resources supplied by the evolutionary account of the Cambrian Explosion are far from closing the case and this article of Meyer expose that very effectively. Why can't evolution just stick to the prediction that Darwin made about the fossil record and agree that the prediction was wrong? That is what science would have done.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12218303841952833621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-49057347837918940022010-06-09T11:26:00.026-07:002010-06-09T11:26:00.026-07:00Michael said...
This is it Thorton... You had...<i>Michael said...<br /><br /> This is it Thorton... You had your share of my attention and you won't have it any more. </i><br /><br />LOL! Another Intelligent Design Creationist gets caught being long on bluster but short on scientific evidence, decides to head for the door.<br /><br />Shouldn't you at least tell me I'm going to burn in hell for not believing in HIM? Isn't that the standard parting shot?<br /><br />Don't worry Michael. I'll still be here pointing out your ignorance and stupidity whether you respond on not. No need to thank me. :)Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-82683445565441630402010-06-09T11:14:56.178-07:002010-06-09T11:14:56.178-07:00Zachriel: That's like saying someone couldn...<i><b>Zachriel:</b> That's like saying someone couldn't have driven across town because they had to stop at the lights.</i><br /><br />I don’t see how that is analogous.<br /><br /><br /><i><b>Zachriel:</b> We already have some good idea of the range of variation in organisms. The variations that led to the poodle or maize were natural variations.</i><br /><br />And how does this even remotely address the problem of acquiring advantageous mutations in a small population, especially in species with low reproductive rates?<br /><br /><br /><i><b>Zachriel:</b> You can quote-mine Darwin, but apparently haven't tried to read his chapter "On the Imperfection of the Geological Record."</i><br /><br />Frankly I don’t need to quote-mine anyone to make this point because it is self-evident that numerous transitional are required if macroevolution is true. But I love that every once in awhile that a Darwinist, in this case your religious founder Darwin himself, admits to some truth that is detrimental to your myth. The truth is that if minute gradual changes are needed for macroevolution then there has to be numerous transitional, that is exact what Darwin admits to.<br />=== quote ===<br /><i>By the theory of natural selection all living species have been connected with the parent-species of each genus, by differences not greater than we see between the natural and domestic varieties of the same species at the present day; and these parent-species, now generally extinct, have in their turn been similarly connected with more ancient forms; and so on backwards, always converging to the common ancestor of each great class. <b>So that the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great.</b> But assuredly, if this theory be true, such have lived upon the earth. <br />ON THE LAPSE OF TIME, AS INFERRED FROM THE RATE OF DEPOSITION AND EXTENT OF DENUDATION. <br /><b>Independently of our not finding fossil remains of such infinitely numerous connecting links,</b> it may be objected that time cannot have sufficed for so great an amount of organic change, all changes having been effected slowly. It is hardly possible for me to recall to the reader who is not a practical geologist, the facts leading the mind feebly to comprehend the lapse of time.</i><br />=== end quote ===<br />So if his theory and common descent is true then there <b>must be “inconceivably great number of intermediate and transitional links”</b>. Do we have these “infinitely numerous links”? No. Does this mean that Darwinism is falsified? Darwin forbid, Darwinism over facts. Let’s create some cockamamy excuse of geological time. So much time has passed the evidence for these <b>“inconceivably great number of intermediate and transitional links”</b> were destroyed. <br /><br />In other words, <b>the evolutionary dog ate my homework</b>.teleological bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06267994656995639019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-56570424791186822632010-06-09T11:11:56.540-07:002010-06-09T11:11:56.540-07:00This is it Thorton... You had your share of my att...This is it Thorton... You had your share of my attention and you won't have it any more.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12218303841952833621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-53630732057360104242010-06-09T10:51:43.492-07:002010-06-09T10:51:43.492-07:00Michael said...
Thorton said...
"W...<i>Michael said...<br /><br /> Thorton said...<br /><br /><br /> "When will you be providing the before the fact specification for any genome or any biological entity? Is there a reason you're dragging your feet on this simple request?"<br /><br /> I have given you your answer to the degree that serves a stupid question like this. You clearly don't even know what you are asking for. You ask me to provide the intelligence that caused the specification.</i><br /><br />I know exactly what I'm asking, and why you're stalling. I'm asking for the actual specification. IDiots went out and measured the genome <b>after the fact</b>, and declared the results to be specified. Any moron can map an object, even a complex one <b>after the fact</b> and claim it is full of "complex specified information". If you can't provide a <b>before the fact</b> specification, you don't have squat. It's still the lottery fallacy, claiming <b>after the fact</b> that the lottery number picked was too improbable so must be intelligently guided. It's still BS no matter how many meaningless buzzword phrases you come up with to describe it.<br /><br /> <i>This is still my answer:<br /> "This is exactly the point... specification or the intent to specify exist apart from the code baring medium that instantiate the complex specified information (In the intelligent minds that brought the English language into existence). This statement of yours confirm this and then you argue against this in the very next paragraph."</i><br /><br />That's still not an answer, it's an evasive rhetorical handwave. But since empty rhetoric is all you've got, I guess that's the best you <br />can do.<br /><br /><i>Why are you completely silent about the article I posted?<br />"The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity"</i><br /><br />Another piece of ID dreck full of meaningless buzzwords and unsupported assertions? What's to comment on?<br /><br /><i>Open your heart and you might meet HIM.</i><br /><br />Who's HIM? I though ID wasn't about religion, no siree bob!Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-39819657828216419942010-06-09T10:30:48.448-07:002010-06-09T10:30:48.448-07:00Thorton said...
"When will you be p...Thorton said...<br /><br /> <br /> "When will you be providing the before the fact specification for any genome or any biological entity? Is there a reason you're dragging your feet on this simple request?"<br /><br />I have given you your answer to the degree that serves a stupid question like this. You clearly don't even know what you are asking for. You ask me to provide the intelligence that caused the specification... Open your heart and you might meet HIM.<br /><br />This is still my answer:<br />"This is exactly the point... specification or the intent to specify exist apart from the code baring medium that instantiate the complex specified information (In the intelligent minds that brought the English language into existence). This statement of yours confirm this and then you argue against this in the very next paragraph."<br /><br />Why are you completely silent about the article I posted?<br />"The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity"<br /><br />David L. AbelMichaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12218303841952833621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-89548646758482086582010-06-09T10:28:26.060-07:002010-06-09T10:28:26.060-07:00Michael: "An experience-based analysis of the...Michael: "An experience-based analysis of the causal powers of various explanatory hypotheses suggests purposive or intelligent design as a causally adequate--and perhaps the most causally adequate--explanation for the origin of the complex specified information required to build the Cambrian animals and the novel forms they represent. For this reason, recent scientific interest in the design hypothesis is unlikely to abate as biologists continue to wrestle with the problem of the origination of biological form and the higher taxa." <br /><br />Well I suppose Meyer deserves some credit for at least being willing to speculate. I wish more IDers would be willing to do that.<br /><br />But I have to say I'm not sure it is much of an "explanation". There is no mechanism described, no timeline. Evolutionary biologist can and have provide a very detailed, plausible explanation of the Cambrian. Instead this is little more than "the designer did it but I don't know how". <br /><br />This honestly seems more of an assertion or a "suggestion". If it looks designed, than it must be. But I think I understand the problem - to really know how ID could explain the Cambrian would require insight to the designer's mind wouldn't it. And it's become quite evident that the designer (despite being apparently super-intelligent) has absolutely no interest in divuluging those secrets. <br /><br />I think if an evolutionary biologist had come up with this, there would be cries of "just so story" by now.TrevorDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06650660580820963962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-56795193672114452542010-06-09T10:18:07.543-07:002010-06-09T10:18:07.543-07:00Michael said...
Thorton,
Do you think I ...<i>Michael said...<br /><br /> Thorton,<br /><br /> Do you think I have not seen "Expelled!". Sternberg's prosecution is evident for all to see, but it pose no argument against Meyer's work.</i><br /><br />Most people have seen Disney's <i>Fantasia</i> too but they don't think dancing hippos in tutus are real.<br /><br />When will you be providing the <b>before the fact specification</b> for any genome or any biological entity? Is there a reason you're dragging your feet on this simple request?Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-6672889117698729202010-06-09T10:02:22.393-07:002010-06-09T10:02:22.393-07:00Thorton,
Do you think I have not seen "Expel...Thorton,<br /><br />Do you think I have not seen "Expelled!". Sternberg's prosecution is evident for all to see, but it pose no argument against Meyer's work.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12218303841952833621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-33719348219531091252010-06-09T09:57:02.185-07:002010-06-09T09:57:02.185-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.TrevorDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06650660580820963962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-54472469701301482522010-06-09T09:46:59.493-07:002010-06-09T09:46:59.493-07:00Michael said...
Janfeld said...
"I&...<i>Michael said...<br /><br /> Janfeld said...<br /><br /> "I'd still like to see you attempt to explain an event such as the Cambrian Explosion using the ID explanatory framework."<br /><br /> I'd be happy to oblige:<br /><br /> Link:<br /> http://www.discovery.org/a/2177<br /><br /> "Intelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories<br /><br /> By: Stephen C. Meyer<br /> Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington<br /> May 18, 2007</i><br /><br />Ah, you mean the worthless piece of dreck that creationist Richard Sternberg dishonestly sneaked past the peer review process, and which caused the Biological Society of Washington to issue this disclaimer:<br /><br /><b>"The paper by Stephen C. Meyer, "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," in vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239 of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, was published at the discretion of the former editor, Richard v. Sternberg. Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process. The Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, and the associate editors would have deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings because the subject matter represents such a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 122-year history."</b><br /><br />When are you going to provide the <b>before the fact specification</b> for any genome or any biological entity? Any moron can map an object, even a complex one <b>after the fact</b> and claim it is full of "complex specified information".Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-61345481074670642012010-06-09T09:26:24.640-07:002010-06-09T09:26:24.640-07:00Janfeld said...
"I'd still like to see y...Janfeld said...<br /><br />"I'd still like to see you attempt to explain an event such as the Cambrian Explosion using the ID explanatory framework."<br /><br />I'd be happy to oblige:<br /><br />Link:<br />http://www.discovery.org/a/2177<br /><br />"Intelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories<br /><br />By: Stephen C. Meyer<br />Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington<br />May 18, 2007<br /><br />Conclusion:<br />An experience-based analysis of the causal powers of various explanatory hypotheses suggests purposive or intelligent design as a causally adequate--and perhaps the most causally adequate--explanation for the origin of the complex specified information required to build the Cambrian animals and the novel forms they represent. For this reason, recent scientific interest in the design hypothesis is unlikely to abate as biologists continue to wrestle with the problem of the origination of biological form and the higher taxa."Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12218303841952833621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-65150354736341226342010-06-09T09:21:01.260-07:002010-06-09T09:21:01.260-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12218303841952833621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-67409672724999019402010-06-09T09:04:51.085-07:002010-06-09T09:04:51.085-07:00teleological blog: Tell me what is gradual about P...<b>teleological blog</b>: <i>Tell me what is gradual about PE? </i><br /><br />Adaptation is gradual in terms of generations, but rapid in terms of geological time. <br /><br /><b>teleological blog</b>: <i>If that is true we wouldn’t need PE ... </i><br /><br />Punctuated Equilibrium only explains some transitions. Many other transitions are better explained by phyletic gradualism, where change is more-or-less continuous. <br /><br /><b>teleological blog</b>: <i> ... and we wouldn’t have all the gaps in the fossil record, ... </i><br /><br />You can quote-mine Darwin, but apparently haven't tried to read his chapter "<i>On the Imperfection of the Geological Record.</i>" <br /><br /><b>teleological blog</b>: <i> ... we wouldn’t need a “small isolated population”, ...</i><br /><br />Small isolated populations are a fact of biology, whether you want them or not. <br /><br /><b>teleological blog</b>: <i> ... we would see infinitely numerous transitional fossils. </i><br /><br />There will always be gaps in the fossil record. <br /><br /><b>teleological blog</b>: <i>If macroevolution is a result of gradualism then there is continuous change throughout the span of all generations. You can’t have stasis and still call it gradual. Stasis means stopped, not gradual. <br /></i><br /><br />That's like saying someone couldn't have driven across town because they had to stop at the lights. In any case, evolution occurs even during periods of equilibrium. Nor is punctuated equilibrium considered the only mode of evolutionary change. <br /><br /><b>teleological blog</b>: <i>You have no idea if this was capable of creating macroevolutionary changes. When you reduce the population size the cost of acquiring beneficial mutation is substantially increased. </i><br /><br />We already have some good idea of the range of variation in organisms. The variations that led to the poodle or maize were natural variations.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-76931460361029504072010-06-09T07:42:16.136-07:002010-06-09T07:42:16.136-07:00Michael said...
The ability to decipher almos...<i>Michael said...<br /><br /> The ability to decipher almost any type of message is a known property of mind. </i><br /><br /> The ability to decipher almost any type of <b>human produced </b> message <b> by assuming a before the fact human produced specification</b> is a known property of mind. <br /><br /><i>Ask Sherlock Holmes... It's elementary dear Watson, elementary. </i><br /><br />Sherlock Holmes is a fictional character. Unlike you, the scientific community prefers reality based evidence over your ID fantasies.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-74552445189837441462010-06-09T07:16:55.211-07:002010-06-09T07:16:55.211-07:00Michael said...
""METHINKS THORTON ...<i>Michael said...<br /><br /> ""METHINKS THORTON IS A WEASEL" is only specified because the English language existed before the fact to provide the specification."<br /> =====<br /><br /> This is exactly the point... specification or the intent to specify exist apart from the code baring medium that instantiate the complex specified information (In the intelligent minds that brought the English language into existence). This statement of yours confirm this and then you argue against this in the very next paragraph.</i><br /><br />You forgot to provide the <b>before the fact</b> specification for a genome, or for any biological entity. Any moron can map an object, even a complex one <b>after the </b>fact and claim it is specified.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-73067058839100482402010-06-09T07:07:16.034-07:002010-06-09T07:07:16.034-07:00Michael: "The explanatory framework of intell...Michael: "The explanatory framework of intelligent causation is simple. If a pattern has complex specificity the only reasonable conclusion is that it was caused by the intentional act of intelligence. "<br /><br />I'd still like to see you attempt to explain an event such as the Cambrian Explosion using the ID explanatory framework.TrevorDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06650660580820963962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-59195304679151002822010-06-09T06:58:33.163-07:002010-06-09T06:58:33.163-07:00""METHINKS THORTON IS A WEASEL" is ...""METHINKS THORTON IS A WEASEL" is only specified because the English language existed before the fact to provide the specification."<br />=====<br /><br />This is exactly the point... specification or the intent to specify exist apart from the code baring medium that instantiate the complex specified information (In the intelligent minds that brought the English language into existence). This statement of yours confirm this and then you argue against this in the very next paragraph.<br /><br />The ability to decipher almost any type of message is a known property of mind. Ask Sherlock Holmes... It's elementary dear Watson, elementary. You use the faculty of deduction.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12218303841952833621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-43975824763353680242010-06-09T06:51:52.607-07:002010-06-09T06:51:52.607-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12218303841952833621noreply@blogger.com