Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Is Evolution Repeatable?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

One of our commenters here, trrll, made the oft-cited claim that evolution is unrepeatable. I asked what evidence there is of this and he made some unsubstantiated claims. Because of the frequency of such claims here I asked that he back them up before he comments here again. As of now the result of my request is the sound of crickets chirping. To be fair, perhaps trrll didn’t see my last response. If not he’s sure to see this.

I posted a paper on the sidebar back in January written by Jean Staune titled Non Darwinian Evolution. Professor Dembski had originally linked to it as an article but I thought it important enough to make a permanent link to it on the sidebar. It’s a survey of evolutionary scientists in Europe who reject both creationism and the Darwinian mechanism of chance & necessity. Among those non-creationist dissenters from Darwinism are several who say that evolution is repeatable i.e. that if it happened again here or elsewhere it would follow the same course. An inescapable conclusion of Darwinian evolution is that evolution would NOT repeat itself due to being driven by random mutation and there being so many possible paths that a random walk could take.
A small excerpt:

Repeatabilty of Evolution

One of the fundamental predictions which rises from Darwinian theory is the impossibility that evolution can reach the same goal twice. Authors as different as Richard Dawkins or Stephen Jay Gould agree on this point: the role of contingency is central in the evolutionary process (the ‘bullet’ is always shot randomly) and there are so many possible targets (”the range of possibilities is almost infinite”), that it is unthinkable that the process of evolution, if it really rests on the Darwinians mechanisms, can produce the same result twice. In theory, if one received an image coming from another planet, the simple presence of a cat or a dog would be enough to disprove Darwinism. However for the three authors whom we gather in this school, evolution must more or less follow identical paths in different places.

I encourage everyone to read the paper. One might also be well served to compare and contrast these non-Darwinian schools of thought with Doctor Davison’s Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis, also on the sidebar. I think you’ll find that Davison’s conclusions are largely compatible with some of the European thinking (although I might wrong on that and I’d like Doctor Davison to chime in on that score if he would take the time to review Staune’s paper).

I’ll close this with another small excerpt from Staune:

What about “ Intelligent Design ”?

If Intelligent Design theorists recognize that all living beings have a common ancestor, Intelligent Design is nothing more than a particular school of thought of non-Darwinian evolutionist biology of the type: “ non random macro mutation ” similar to Schutzenberger, Denton and Chauvin’s ideas. But more extreme than them. Non-Darwinians of this sort say that we need to include something able to coordinate or channel the macro mutations (like meteorologists need a more global concept on Pluto which obliges them revisit all their world views but do not include the direct intervention of a designer) to really understand how evolution works. These scientists will not claim that this is evidence of a Creator even if it is fully compatible with such a concept.

If Intelligent Design rejects the idea of common ancestry, or even if, Intelligent Design is “ agnostic ” concerning this idea, it would be a catastrophe for any sort of non-Darwinian way of thinking. Recent history fully demonstrates that if you deny the existence of common ancestry, the concluding result of your action will be the reenforcement of Darwinism. The existence of common ancestry is a thing of the past and not of the present. Evolution cannot be established as much as for example, the fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun but evolution is as well established as possible for a phenomenon that belongs to the past. To deny it is to re-enforce Darwinism and to discredit the non-Darwinian school of thought.

Comments
This thread was intiated by DaveScot on September 19th. In the introdyctory message he asks the reader to consult my papers on the side bar. What side bar and what papers, or am I missing something again? "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." John A. DavisonJohn A. Davison
September 25, 2006
September
09
Sep
25
25
2006
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PDT
Boy has this thread ever gone to the dogs - what a monumental waste of my further participation. It is hard to believe isn't it? I love it so!John A. Davison
September 25, 2006
September
09
Sep
25
25
2006
02:46 PM
2
02
46
PM
PDT
Don' t know why something got cut off, but it did. Underneath the above quote I wrote something to the effect: "Sorry. I hadn't been following your discussion closely. I should have read some more before commenting."PaV
September 25, 2006
September
09
Sep
25
25
2006
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT
StephenA:
It was Karl who first made that claim. I was just using his logic against him, hence my ironic claim that his logic was flawless.
PaV
September 25, 2006
September
09
Sep
25
25
2006
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT
The fact remains that people can and do place objects that are man-made and do not share a common ancester, into NH. A common design- not any design- but a common design would allow for NH. If we didn't observe NH then the design wouldn't be common. Design still could be true but common design wouldn't be inferred. Common descent doesn't predict NH, it accomodates it. There isn't any reason that common descent wouldn't allow the mixing of traits. If we saw that it wouldn't falsify common descent. Now how about talking about those differences. Ya know what common descent has not and cannot explain...Joseph
September 25, 2006
September
09
Sep
25
25
2006
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PDT
"Further, common descent does predict some convergence. For instance, the similarities in the streamlined shape of fish and whales is absolutely predicted by NDE." Bit of a disconnect there. Common descent is not the same thing as NDE. But since Karl seems to be arguing that the evidence supports NDE rather than plain common descent (which is compatable with ID) it doesn't really hurt your point. Also I note your use of the word 'some' ("common descent does predict some convergence"). Apparently there is convergence, and then there is convergence. :) Taking this into account, it would then seem that that common design predicts all kinds of convergence, while NDE only predicts some kinds. The questions then become: What kind of convergence does NDE predict? and: What kind(s) are found? Since Karl is the NDE supporter, I guess I'd better let him say what it predicts. BTW, I would include marsupials as an example of 'crosstalk like convergence'. Good to see that you have a sense of humor Karl. It can really help keep these discussions civil. I'm afraid petrol prices have been rather high for a while ($1.30 per litre). PaV: I was not actually arguing that the designer would have designed a certain way (well, I would say that he wouldn't, and didn't, design things so they would look like they came from common descent. If he did, he did a lousy job :) ). It was Karl who first made that claim. I was just using his logic against him, hence my ironic claim that his logic was flawless.StephenA
September 24, 2006
September
09
Sep
24
24
2006
11:49 PM
11
11
49
PM
PDT
Uh, PaV... StephenA is a skeptic of common descent. He's arguing for your side. He was being ironic when he said my logic was flawless.Karl Pfluger
September 24, 2006
September
09
Sep
24
24
2006
10:11 PM
10
10
11
PM
PDT
StehenA:
It seems then that what Karl is saying, is that common design predicts convergence, while common ancestry does not. I’m afraid I can’t find a way to disagree with you Karl. Your logic is flawless.
How is it that Darwinists complain that we don't know who the Designer is, so we can't possibly know anything about how he designs, yet you seem to know exactly how design--common design--is supposed to work. You say, "perfectly logical", and yet make a thunderous blunder in logic by assuming you know exactly how design will take place--apparently there's only one way it can take place, and apparently it MUST result in convergence, so that the cephlepod eye and the mammalian eye prove that dissimilarities can't happen if design is at work. Please, tell me, on what rule of logic is this based? Sorry, this won't work. And, when convergence is seen, as bFast points out in his post, it points to design.PaV
September 24, 2006
September
09
Sep
24
24
2006
09:18 PM
9
09
18
PM
PDT
Stephen, Your last two sentences were perfect. Now if you had only cut the rest of the comment... Serious response to follow later. First I need to get some work done. P.S. How are gas (petrol) prices? I may be doing a motorcycle tour there this (your) summer.Karl Pfluger
September 24, 2006
September
09
Sep
24
24
2006
08:53 PM
8
08
53
PM
PDT
StephanA, "It seems then that what Karl is saying, is that common design predicts convergence, while common ancestry does not." Oh my, Karl is by no means saying that. Further, common descent does predict some convergence. For instance, the similarities in the streamlined shape of fish and whales is absolutely predicted by NDE. However, I challenge that there are a growing list of examples of convergences that are a bit on the "common design" side of the debate. My favorites are first, well, the panda's thumb. The greater and lesser panda both have an extended wrist bone which functions as a thumb. This similarity of feature lead to a lot of taxonomical confusion. Scientists were convinced that the pandas had to have had a common ancestor. Turns out the greater panda is a bear and the lesser is a raccoon (I think). The second is the placental shark. Yup, a shark that bears live young, complete with a placenta and an ambilical cord. Though examples like these are not by any means as rich as the examples of crosstalk in human engineering, they are, as far as I can see, well beyond what NDE would account for.bFast
September 24, 2006
September
09
Sep
24
24
2006
08:46 PM
8
08
46
PM
PDT
Karl Pfluger:
But since you keep bringing up the “missing links”, I’ll assume that you’re unsatisfied with my explanation of why we can’t point to a particular fossil and declare it ancestral to a pair of living species. . . . But don’t conflate the absence of fossils with the absence of ancestors.
You've failed to concede what is a legitimate point: namely, that without direct evidence of ancestry, there is no "conclusive" proof of common descent. In fact, in the second of the coupled quotes above, you get things backwards. You say, "Don't conflate the absence of fossils with absence of ancestors." Instead, what you should have written is: "In the absence of fossils, don't hastily conclude that the ancestors were there." John Davison picked up on this distinction immediately. When you're talking about humans descending from humans, say, for example, in the particular case of John Kennedy, we might not know--ever know--who his great, great, great, great.........great grandfather is. But, with certainty, we can conclude that he descended from humans. In this case, the absence of known ancestors does not get in the way of concluding that he had human ancestors. However, when you make the Darwinian assumption that humans are descended from apes, without direct evidence of a linkage--you remember, all those intermediate forms that Darwin was so sure would turn up in the fossil record!--one can only conclude conditionally that common descent, i.e., the apes-to-man scenario, took place. This is a chink in the armor for Darwinism--and you seem to resist it mightly because of fear (I suppose) of its effects on the overall Darwinian argument. Nevertheless, logic requires that we not conclude with certainty that common descent actually occurred in the absence of fossil intermediates. The "missing links" are still missing, however inconvenient that is for Darwinian logic. As to the physical and molecular similarities, a ski chalet, a ranch house, and a home in Los Angeles, are all made with a lot of the same materials. Now inanimate objects are very different than biological objects; they're, let us say, static, versus the dynamic nature of biological building blocks. Nonetheless, building blocks are building blocks. And just as designers use the same kinds of available materials to construct very differently designed homes, the argument from design would more than likely, if not certainly, result in the differences and similarities that we see. In other words, these similarities and differences "prove" nothing. They're not sufficient proof.PaV
September 24, 2006
September
09
Sep
24
24
2006
08:45 PM
8
08
45
PM
PDT
After some more thought it seems to me that what Karl is saying is that there are nested higherarchies, and then there are nested higherachies. That is, both common decent and common design can be said to predict nested higherarchies, but different kinds of nested higherarchies. from the EvoWiki quote: "The most obvious explanation for the observed nested hierarchy of taxonomic categories is evolution. In fact, a nested hierarchy is the almost inevitable result of descent with modification, if no transfer of traits between branches of descent is possible." From this and other things Karl has posted it seems that the difference between the 'common desent nested higherarchy' and the 'common designer nested higherarchy' is that in the latter case we would expect to see similarities that are independant of common ancestry. If common design were true then we should see things like surprisingly similar eyes in cephelpods (sp?) and mammals even though their common ancestor had eyes that were vastly different. there is a word for this. The word is convergence. It seems then that what Karl is saying, is that common design predicts convergence, while common ancestry does not. I'm afraid I can't find a way to disagree with you Karl. Your logic is flawless. ;)StephenA
September 24, 2006
September
09
Sep
24
24
2006
08:22 PM
8
08
22
PM
PDT
(off topic) Guess what country I'm from.StephenA
September 24, 2006
September
09
Sep
24
24
2006
07:08 PM
7
07
08
PM
PDT
"We might as well mention the whole series, for the benefit of any readers who aren’t aware of them: Douglas Theobald’s “29 Evidences for Macroevolution”: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ Ashby Camp’s critique of “29 Evidences”: http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp Theobald’s response to Camp’s critique: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/camp.html" You didn't give the whole series. Here's Camp's reply to Theobald's response to Camp's critique. http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_ac_01.asp From your EvoWiki quote: "While it might seem that this arrangement is obvious and unavoidable, it is not. Taxonomic groups are defined by traits and it should be possible to mix traits from multiple defined groups. An example from classical mythology is the Pegasus, a creature with features defined as both mammal and bird (class Aves). Mammals and birds are both orders, so, if pegasus existed, it would be a violation of the nested hierarchy, a creature that belonged to two seperate groups. " So would it be a violation of your nested higherachy prediction if there existed, say, a mammal that lays eggs? "To predict a nested hierarchy, common design would have to disallow the mixing and matching of components from unrelated organisms. It does not. The designer is free to use aardvark proteins in beetles, or to stick a marsupial pouch on a gopher. If common design is true, then the designer is choosing to avoid this mixing and matching. It is not predicted by common design. " Your gopher comment puzzles me. You seem to be saying 'If there was a common designer, why didn't he stick pouches on animals that, apart from the pouches, are very different?' Why didn't the designer put pouches on animals as different as koalas, echidnas, and kangaroos?StephenA
September 24, 2006
September
09
Sep
24
24
2006
07:07 PM
7
07
07
PM
PDT
todd wrote:
Karl, your argument closing almost seems from incredulity - but not quite - rather, from inconcievability!
Hi Todd, I can see where you would get that impression. But I actually don't think it is inconceivable. How could we tell the difference between common descent being true, and the designer fooling us into believing that common descent were true? The evidence would be exactly the same in both cases (assuming the designer was skilled at deception). That's why I've said throughout the thread that the evidence gives us two choices: Either common descent is true, or the designer made it look that way by choosing a nested hierarchy out of all the zillions of possible patterns.
How is it that common design cannot ‘predict’ nested hierarchies?
When we say that a theory 'predicts' x, we mean that if the theory is true, then x is true. But common design can be true even if we don't see a nested hierarchy, as the EvoWiki excerpt in one of my previous comments demonstrated. Therefore, common design does not predict a nested hierarchy.
Moreover, if you look at the core of life, aren’t there at least two commonalities: Carbon and DNA? The same root material and type of code is everywhere.
Yes, but it's not the existence of commonalities that is incompatible with a nested hierarchy. You have to look at the pattern of the commonalities and dissimilarities.
So, if the designer choosing to avoid mixing and matching taxa is evidence against design is the the lack thereof at the genetic level evidence for design?
The lack of mixing and matching or the lack of choosing to avoid mixing and matching? Sorry, but I'm not sure I understand the question. If you're asking whether a common DNA code is evidence for common design over common descent, the answer is no, because common descent does not preclude the sharing of traits among all organisms in the tree, as long as the patterns of difference and similarity follow the nested hierarchy arrangement. On the other hand, if you're asking whether horizontal gene transfer is evidence for design, I'd say the answer is no. Common design neither predicts nor precludes a nested hierarchy, so the presence or absence of cross-connections between sub-branches cannot decide the issue.Karl Pfluger
September 24, 2006
September
09
Sep
24
24
2006
05:43 PM
5
05
43
PM
PDT
PaV, Rereading the thread, I can’t see any way in which I’ve neglected to address the points you raised. But since you keep bringing up the “missing links", I’ll assume that you’re unsatisfied with my explanation of why we can’t point to a particular fossil and declare it ancestral to a pair of living species. Richard Dawkins, of course, puts it more eloquently than I could:
It is theoretically conceivable that a particular fossil really is the direct ancestor of some modern animal. But it is statistically unlikely, because the tree of evolution is not a Christmas tree or a Lombardy poplar, but a densely branched thicket or bush. The fossil you are looking at probably isn’t your ancestor, but it may help you to understand the kind of intermediate stage your real ancestors went through, at least in respect of some particular bit of the body, such as the ear, or the pelvis. A fossil, therefore, has something like the same status as a modern animal. Both can be used to illuminate our guesses about some ancestral stage. Under normal circumstances, neither should be treated as though it really is ancestral. Fossils as well as living creatures are usually best treated as cousins, not ancestors.
You may wish to call the ancestors “missing links” because we have no fossil specimens. But don’t conflate the absence of fossils with the absence of ancestors. The pattern of similarity and difference in living organisms alone leads us to the conclusion of common descent (with some HGT exceptions among unicellular lifeforms, as bFast pointed out). Fossils are just a bonus.Karl Pfluger
September 24, 2006
September
09
Sep
24
24
2006
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT
Karl, your argument closing almost seems from incredulity - but not quite - rather, from inconcievability! How is it that common design cannot 'predict' nested hierarchies? Moreover, if you look at the core of life, aren't there at least two commonalities: Carbon and DNA? The same root material and type of code is everywhere. So, if the designer choosing to avoid mixing and matching taxa is evidence against design is the the lack thereof at the genetic level evidence for design?todd
September 24, 2006
September
09
Sep
24
24
2006
04:00 PM
4
04
00
PM
PDT
Joseph wrote:
First I will state that common design most certainly does predict NH. If Karl P thinks it does not it is up to him to tell us why.
My computer example shows you why, as does bFast's transportation example. EvoWiki explains it thus (in their short "nested hierarchy" article):
"Nested hierarchy" refers to the way taxonomic groups fit neatly and completely inside other taxonomic groups. For instance, all bats (order Chiroptera) are mammals. All mammals are vertebrates. Likewise, all whales (order Cetacea) are also mammals, and thus also vertebrates. While it might seem that this arrangement is obvious and unavoidable, it is not. Taxonomic groups are defined by traits and it should be possible to mix traits from multiple defined groups. An example from classical mythology is the Pegasus, a creature with features defined as both mammal and bird (class Aves). Mammals and birds are both orders, so, if pegasus existed, it would be a violation of the nested hierarchy, a creature that belonged to two seperate groups. It is not always possible to define a nested hierarchy for any arbitrarily selected set of items. For instance, motor vehicles do not show conservation of traits to single taxonomic groups, no matter how you choose to define your taxonomy. Whether a car has air-conditioning is completely independent of whether it has power-steering, for example. Life, however, shows a clear nested hierarchy, at least with regards to multicellular organisms. Why should this be? The most obvious explanation for the observed nested hierarchy of taxonomic categories is evolution. In fact, a nested hierarchy is the almost inevitable result of descent with modification, if no transfer of traits between branches of descent is possible.
To predict a nested hierarchy, common design would have to disallow the mixing and matching of components from unrelated organisms. It does not. The designer is free to use aardvark proteins in beetles, or to stick a marsupial pouch on a gopher. If common design is true, then the designer is choosing to avoid this mixing and matching. It is not predicted by common design.Karl Pfluger
September 24, 2006
September
09
Sep
24
24
2006
03:38 PM
3
03
38
PM
PDT
Pav:
I’ve pointed out, time and again, where you’re going wrong in your thinking, and it doesn’t slow you down one bit. I’m simply tired trying to point it out to you. You’re either unable, or unwilling, to see it.
Pav, the process of working out truth is a much slower process than you seem to realize. People dont, nor should they, recognize you as a divine authority. You present a case that is totally convincing to you, but that doesn't mean that it is very convincing at all to someone else. If you developed a lot more respect for other people's views, allowing others to be wrong and dense (at least in your eyes), you would find getting along with others to be much easier. I highly recommend that you read Barrett1's post #159, and understand what he is saying. If you can stand allowing another person to continue to have a view that is different from yours, your blood pressure will be much lower.bFast
September 24, 2006
September
09
Sep
24
24
2006
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT
Karl Pfluger:
I think you may be a little too thin-skinned for this blog. Being challenged to support your views is obviously not congenial to your temperament. Perhaps you’d be happier if you left the thrust and parry to others who aren’t threatened by it.
The problem, I'm afraid, is not that I'm thin-skinned, but that you're thick-skulled. I've pointed out, time and again, where you're going wrong in your thinking, and it doesn't slow you down one bit. I'm simply tired trying to point it out to you. You're either unable, or unwilling, to see it. I think, as John Davison pointed out, that your whole-hearted devotion to Darwinism doesn't permit you to see the glaring deficiencies that exist in the Darwinian explanation. So, if you like, you can re-read my posts and perhaps see something new there, or you can drop the whole thing altogether. I'm simply not willing to repeat myself over and over again. Three times is plenty enough. Ciao!PaV
September 24, 2006
September
09
Sep
24
24
2006
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT
Can I say something that might lower the temperature on this discussion of common descent? My best friend is of the Christian Science faith. He is truly the neatest person I've had the pleasure of knowing in my life. He's never been to a physician and he's 65 years old and in fantastic shape. He flat denies any kind of materialistic world view, especially any link between the brain and the mind. To him, Darwin was most certainly wrong. We've been on a number of rigorous backpacking and climbing trips over the past 30 years or so. We've spent many, many nights talking science and theology around a blazing camp fire. The Jew and Christian Scientist. And to top it all off, my wife is an attending psychiatrist at a university hospital (treating very ill people). She draws links between the mind and the brain all day long, a link my friend doesn't even think exists. Yet we've had my friend and his wife over for dinner numerous times. I've learned alot from my friend and I've learned alot from those who deny common descent on this thread. Common descent sure looks like a reality to me, but hell's bells, I've been around long enough to know that it could be false or at least partially false. So, relax. If my Christian Science friend and I can be civil, all of us surely can be too.Barrett1
September 24, 2006
September
09
Sep
24
24
2006
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT
Joseph: "First I will state that common design most certainly does predict NH." Lets look at an example. Consider the other great "development" experiment -- technology. When we examine, say the transportation tree we see a reasonable nested hierarchy. However, we see glaring exceptions. We see the airplain branch, the car branch, the truck branch, the bycicle branch etc., a nice nested hierarchy. However, when we look at specifics: electronics, materials, tires, etc., we see an incredible amount of crosstalk between the various branches. Both convergence and HGT have that "look" of "this isn't a nested hierarchy", more resembling what we see in the heierarchy of man's technology. The reality, however, is that HGT is a fairly rare phenomenon amongst the multi-cellular forms, and convergence has less of a similarity to what we see in man's technology than HGT does. Bottom line, while common design can produce a nested hierarchy, it certainly doesn't need to. However, the phenomenons of HGT and of convergence point a finger, possibly too short of a finger, in a direction more compatible with common design than with a simple nested hierarchy.bFast
September 24, 2006
September
09
Sep
24
24
2006
10:01 AM
10
10
01
AM
PDT
First I will state that common design most certainly does predict NH. If Karl P thinks it does not it is up to him to tell us why. I can think of several reasons why common design would predict NH. Karl P: What do you mean by “explaining the differences”? NH explains the similarities, which can be explained by common design. Karl P: I can think of three possibilities: 1. You think that the existence of differences is evidence against common descent. But this is nonsensical, because if there were no differences between chimps and humans, we’d be the same species. That thought never crossed my mind. Next- 2. You don’t think that common descent advocates know of a mechanism which is capable of accounting for the differences. This is also obviously wrong, because common descent does not depend on any particular mechanism. Here’s a clue: John Davison, DaveScot and I vociferously disagree on the mechanism driving evolutionary change, yet the three of us agree on the truth of common descent. The evidence for common descent is so strong that it has convinced not only Darwinists, but many supporters of ID as well. The evidence for common descent is strong only to those who already accept it. 3. You believe that the nature or magnitude of the differences between humans and chimps cannot be accounted for by common descent. I know that no one knows what caused the differences. I know we don't even know what makes a human- well human. IOW we don't know what makes an organism what it is beyond the following: What makes a fly a fly? In his book (English title) “Why is a Fly not a Horse?”, the prominent Italian geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti, tells us the following : Chapter VI “Why is a Fly not a horse?” (same as the book’s title)
”The scientist enjoys a privilege denied the theologian. To any question, even one central to his theories, he may reply “I’m sorry but I do not know.” This is the only honest answer to the question posed by the title of this chapter. We are fully aware of what makes a flower red rather than white, what it is that prevents a dwarf from growing taller, or what goes wrong in a paraplegic or a thalassemic. But the mystery of species eludes us, and we have made no progress beyond what we already have long known, namely, that a kitty is born because its mother was a she-cat that mated with a tom, and that a fly emerges as a fly larva from a fly egg.”
Karl P: In that case it is up to you to cite a particular difference or set of differences and explain why common descent is insufficient to account for them. Again? Try upright bipedal walking. That will do for starters. Then read the following site and try to account for the others: Chimps become Human? We also know that although genes may influence every aspect of development they do NOT determine it. Karl P: Let me say it yet again: Either common descent is true, or different categories of organisms were created with the appearance of common descent. And I will say it again- you are full of it. Why can I say that with the utmost confidence? Because of what Dr Sermonti tells us.Joseph
September 24, 2006
September
09
Sep
24
24
2006
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT
Karl Pfluger Pav has altready made a fool out of you. Why don't you take me on now? As I used to say over at EvC before Percy couldn't take it any more and banned me for life - Who is next? It is hard to believe isn't it? I love it so! "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." John A. (Your stench has preceded you*) Davison * courtesy of P.Z. MeyersJohn A. Davison
September 24, 2006
September
09
Sep
24
24
2006
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT
Karl Pfluger One can't even insult Darwinians. Like nearly all pure white cats they are stone deaf to any deviation from their rabid litany of unverified assumptions upon which the Darwinian fairy tale has always miraculously teetered, supported by not a scintilla of experimental science and in perfect defiance of ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING in the fossil record. You are the perfect Darwinian mystic, reciting the Darwinian creed with ritual monotony, oblivious to the revelations being revealed by the experimental laboratories of the world, not one of which will ever be reconciled with the Darwinian hoax, and every one of which still remains in perfect accord with the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. "Science commits suicide when she adopts a creed." Thomas Henry Huxley NeoDarwinism is the slowest yet surest form of intellectual suicide in the history of mankind. It has taken far longer than either Communism or Freudian Psychology. "Marx, Darwin and Freud are the three most crashing bores of the Western World." William Golding Incidentaly, Huxley's aphorism is the sole frontispiece to Leo Berg's Nomogenesis, without question the single most significant evolutionary work ever published. It is hard to believe isn't it? I love it so! "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." John A. DavisonJohn A. Davison
September 24, 2006
September
09
Sep
24
24
2006
04:11 AM
4
04
11
AM
PDT
Thanks. I was getting paranoid again or is it still?John A. Davison
September 24, 2006
September
09
Sep
24
24
2006
03:20 AM
3
03
20
AM
PDT
John, Your comment was in the spam bucket. I'm not sure which forbidden word triggered it this time. Probably something to do with c asinos.DaveScot
September 24, 2006
September
09
Sep
24
24
2006
02:54 AM
2
02
54
AM
PDT
Whatever happened to my rebuttal to Karl Pfluger. It was one of my better efforts.John A. Davison
September 24, 2006
September
09
Sep
24
24
2006
12:45 AM
12
12
45
AM
PDT
PaV, How can we have an intelligent discussion if each of us doesn't point out where, and why, we think the other is mistaken? Read the thread again -- you've certainly shown no hesitation in contradicting me or declaring me wrong. Why am I not entitled to suggest that you've misunderstood something? I think you may be a little too thin-skinned for this blog. Being challenged to support your views is obviously not congenial to your temperament. Perhaps you'd be happier if you left the thrust and parry to others who aren't threatened by it.Karl Pfluger
September 24, 2006
September
09
Sep
24
24
2006
12:16 AM
12
12
16
AM
PDT
You left out "but ascertainable nevertheless." That is par for the Darwimpian course. Judging from your comments here you are just another garden variety, probability intoxicated worshipper of the Great God Chance. They are a dime a dozen. Their altar consists of a roulette wheel flanked by a pair of giant fuzzy dice. There are tens of thousands of them. Like lemmings they march behind their leader, Richard Dawkins, to certain oblivion as they tumble over the cliffs of reason and objectivity into the sea below. It is hard to believe isn't it? I love it so! "Never in the history of mankind have so many owed so little to so many." after Winston Churchill You can't turn over a rock but there is another Darwimp staring up at you, grinning with what Pierre Grasse called "Olympian assurance." It's disgusting. "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." John A. DavisonJohn A. Davison
September 24, 2006
September
09
Sep
24
24
2006
12:14 AM
12
12
14
AM
PDT
1 2 3 6

Leave a Reply