Outsider Meddling — Skeptics Need Not Apply (or, Just Have Faith)

_{Gil Dodgen

March 28, 2009

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Someone by the name of skeech is cluttering up UD with impervious sophistry and wasting a lot of our time.

His/her latest thesis is that “according to biologists…” there is a “credible possibility that small incremental changes could have developed massive increases in biological information in a short time — followed by stasis.”

So, skeech assures us that “biologists” are universally agreed upon this proposition?

How about this and this?

Darwinian evolutionary theory is a boiling, ever-changing, amorphous cloud that is impenetrable and completely immune to critical analytical scrutiny. It was designed that way, for obvious reasons.

It should be noted that the “scientific” consensus in the early 20th century was the steady-state universe theory (that is, the universe is eternal, and has no beginning and no end). Those subscribing to the consensus were wrong (including Albert Einstein), and they put up a big fight until the end, when the evidence became overwhelming.

Continental drift theory was also ridiculed.

Wegener was the first to use the phrase “continental drift” (1912, 1915)… During Wegener’s lifetime, his theory of continental drift was severely attacked by leading geologists, who viewed him as an outsider meddling in their field.

The criticism we always hear from Darwinists is: Outsiders are not permitted to question the dogma, because they don’t understand the subtleties and the “science.”

The essence of Darwinian philosophy, presented as “science,” takes about 15 minutes to learn and understand: Random variation and natural selection explain everything — never mind the details, we’ll make up stories later to explain away the anomalies, contradictions, and improbabilities.

In the meantime, just have faith, and don’t ask any annoying questions.

This is not science, it’s religious indoctrination.

Comments

Dave Wisker (#315), What you are doing is a great way of arguing that the evidence I cited does not disprove evolution. What it is not is a convincing way of arguing that evolution is susceptible to disproof. I discuss the problem of contamination of macroscopic fossils, of plants that as far as I (and presumably you) know do not live in the area now, and you propose that those plants lived there previously and got buried and placed in the Cambrian sediment because the area is geologically active. You go on to say later that "since all confirmed fossils of Q. clamensis are found in North America, not Asia, as far as I’m aware." Thus there is no evidence that there were these particular oaks in the Oligocene, or apparently at any other time, that lived in the area, but you still write it off to contamination. You then minimize the problem thus: Bhardwal was unable to find microfossils similar to those apparently found by Sahni (who argued for a Cenozoic age IIRC), so the fossil (partial) oak leaf is "unconfirmed", and then you ask,
Do you think one unconfirmed sample is enough evidence to have botany textbooks changed to declare this species having existed in Asia? Is that how you think science should work?
To put it another way, we found the paw of a rabbit in the Cambrian. We now need to find more rabbit parts, because one rabbit in the Cambrian isn't really enough. You minimize the Precambrian angiosperm example from Venezuela as "those very rare unresolved samples you are bringing up." Precisely how many Precambrian rabbits do we need to find to disprove evolution? You state that
A good theory should be difficult to prove wrong from a practical point of view. That’s because a good theory is built from a large base of well-supported data.
In physics this is not true. The reason a good theory is difficult to prove wrong in physics is that nature behaves in ways that the theory describes. If one could accelerate electrons reproducibly to the speed of light in a vacuum and beyond, relativity would collapse. Period. If someone were to show that a body were to accelerate towards another one at a rate disproportional to the inverse square of the distance between them, gravitation would collapse as a theory. In fact, it did so when the motion of Mercury did not fit the theory. Gravitation may be a useful approximation, but nobody believes it any more as a complete explanation. Perhaps evolution is a useful approximation, but does not explain everything. Can one not be a little more tentative about the complete adequacy of the theory?Paul Giem_{April 18, 2009
April
04
Apr
18
18
2009
07:10 PM
7
07
10
PM
PDT}

"Jerry, if someone found a single error or contradiction in the Bible, would you consider Christianity to be disproved? Because that’s essentially what you’re demanding of science." What an inane comment. First of all if you check anyone around here I would be the last person to use the bible to support anything having to do with intelligent design and rarely comment on anything religious. So what has the comment about the bible and Christianity got to do with anything. Second, what kind of convoluted reason led you to your comment. It doesn't compute from what I said. I was showing how Haldane was avoiding the issue about how to falsify neo Darwinism with his comment and somehow this means I expect zero contradictions from the bible or else Christianity is disproved. Talk about silliness.jerry_{April 16, 2009
April
04
Apr
16
16
2009
02:35 PM
2
02
35
PM
PDT}

Spin-art- The pattern expected from evolution is pretty much the same pattern expected from spin-art- pretty much all over the place depending on the circumstances.Joseph_{April 16, 2009
April
04
Apr
16
16
2009
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT}

Cabal, If defining characteristics can be lost then containment is also lost. And seeing that evolution does not have a direction and defining characteristics can be lost, then you can see that the ToE dopes not expect a nested hierarchy. Also as a matter of fact the ToE does not say that defining charcteristics have to be added. This means that with evolution we may expect to see only one set. And one set does not make a nested hierarchy. Then there is the issue of transitional forms- where to put them? For example say we have species X as having ten defining charcteristics. And we have species why which has ten different defining characteristics. X & Y also have ten defining characteristics in common. Now on the road to each of these there had to have been organisms which do not fit into either X & Y, but had a mix of X and Y. Ya see with evolution the best one can hope for is a lineage of branching lineages. And a lineage is never to be confused with a nested hierarchy.Joseph_{April 16, 2009
April
04
Apr
16
16
2009
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT}

Joseph, I beg to differ. From "the the standard and accepted definition":
Nested and non-nested hierarchies: nested hierarchies involve levels which consist of, and contain, lower levels. Non-nested hierarchies are more general in that the requirement of containment of lower levels is relaxed. For example, an army consists of a collection of soldiers and is made up of them. Thus an army is a nested hierarchy. On the other hand, the general at the top of a military command does not consist of his soldiers and so the military command is a non-nested hierarchy with regard to the soldiers in the army. Pecking orders and a food chains are also non-nested hierarchies.
Isn’t the requirement of containment satisfied by the ToE?Cabal_{April 16, 2009
April
04
Apr
16
16
2009
05:09 AM
5
05
09
AM
PDT}

Jerry, if someone found a single error or contradiction in the Bible, would you consider Christianity to be disproven? Because that's essentially what you're demanding of science.djmullen_{April 16, 2009
April
04
Apr
16
16
2009
04:16 AM
4
04
16
AM
PDT}

Hi Jerry,
By defending the absurdity of the Haldane quote you are admitting the same thing that Haldane did and that is that his theory of evolution had no basis in reality.
Hyperbole isn't the best way to discuss a scientific issue, in my opinion.
You are deflecting from the basic issue by saying we have to be careful about rock formation and fossils and we will be ok.
No, that is not a deflection at all. I was very clear in saying that a good theory will be difficult to falsify in practice, especially one with as many converging and supporting lines of evidence from so many disciplines. But for a theory to be falsifiable in principle, there has to be some way, some data that can conceivably disconfirm it. Haldane chose his example because it was extreme, and it's extreme because it would unravel many lines of supporting evidence at once, as I outlined. In practice it would be very difficult, given the large amount of evidence, to disconfirm evolution in one stroke. But, as I said, that doesn't change the fact that evolution is falsifiable in principle, which is the issue, I believe.
The quote assumes that any evidence of deep time automatically dismisses alternatives and you basically support this subterfuge.
Haldane simply took the inferences from the supporting lines of evidence for evolution and came up with an example which would disconfirm many of them in one stroke, and he did it with panache as well (have you ever seen that picture of him in that crazy suit?) :)
The alternative is not 6,000 year old creationism but the basic mechanism of evolution itself and thus the rabbit comment is an embarrassment to Haldane and an admission that he could not defend his theory.
I’m having a hard time seeing where Haldane’s example has anything to do with “6,000 year old creationism”.
If he had better defenses he would have used them
What he used was perfectly serviceable.
but instead went for the mocking of the opposition instead.
He’s not mocking the opposition. The failure of the opposition to adequately comprehend his example makes mockery unnecessary.
And you proceeded with the same irrelevant argument.
I suppose I’ll just have to look to the good Dr Samuel Johnson:
Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding.
Dave Wisker_{April 16, 2009
April
04
Apr
16
16
2009
03:46 AM
3
03
46
AM
PDT}

David Wisker, By defending the absurdity of the Haldane quote you are admitting the same thing that Haldane did and that is that his theory of evolution had no basis in reality. You are deflecting from the basic issue by saying we have to be careful about rock formation and fossils and we will be ok. When neither of these two issues is relevant in the current debate and should not have been relevant when Haldane made the comment. The quote assumes that any evidence of deep time automatically dismisses alternatives and you basically support this subterfuge. The alternative is not 6,000 year old creationism but the basic mechanism of evolution itself and thus the rabbit comment is an embarrassment to Haldane and an admission that he could not defend his theory. If he had better defenses he would have used them but instead went for the mocking of the opposition instead. And you proceeded with the same irrelevant argument.jerry_{April 15, 2009
April
04
Apr
15
15
2009
09:56 PM
9
09
56
PM
PDT}

Hi Paul,
I’m still blown away by the ease with which a leaf from an oak strongly resembling Oligocene Quercus clarnensis can be dismissed as contamination. Are there claims that such oaks live in India or Pakistan at the present? If not, how can one contaminate rock with this kind of fossil?
Contamination does not always mean from extant material. Intrusions from younger layers can insert themselves into areas where older layers have been pushed up, especually in geologically active areas. The Salt Range lies in one of the most geologically complex areas of the world, right where the Indian plate crashes into the Eurasian plate. In addition, salt deposits can move like glaciers, due to what is called salt tectonics. Did Pitman's source mention teh paper by Bhardwaj (1950) in Nature who examined sandstone (6292) given by Sahni, to look for evidence of land plants (carbonized wood, etc)? His results:
In all, more than fifty permanent preparations and a number of smear slides were examined; but no micro-fossils were recovered. The results are negative and do not show any evidence of a post-Cambrian age for these rocks.
Bhardwaj goes on to say:
Careful researches by Hsu on the purple sandstone, and by Sahni, Lakhnapal and Bhardwaj on beds of salt pseudomorphs have revealed a complete absence of any tertiary fossils in them.
So, what does Bhardwaj have to say about Ghosh's findings?
[Ghosh's findings] make it difficult to reconcile our findings with their work. The only explanation of their find of tertiary plant remains in these rocks of a Cambrian sequence would seem to be contamination during investigation, or the use of cracked and fissured samples.
Bhardwal DC (1950). Examination of the Magnesian Sandstone beds of the Punjab Salt Range for plant microfossils. Nature 4203: 821 As for the genus Quercus, several species are known in Asia, but not Q. clamensis. One report suggesting a leaf "strongly resembling" Q. clamensis isn't exactly confirmation, now is it? In paleobotany, misidentification of plant fossils is an occupational hazard, (see Noe's "Paleozoic Angiosperm" as one excellent example), so I'll wait for confirmation before jumping to conclusions, especially since all confirmed fossils of Q. clamensis are found in North America, not Asia, as far as I'm aware. Do you think one unconfirmed sample is enough evidence to have botany textbooks changed to declare this species having existed in Asia? Is that how you think science should work?
If a drill core finds such a leaf, would you at that point surrender to the “Cambrian rabbit”, or would you soldier on, knowing that there must be an answer consistent with evolutionary theory, even if you don’t know it and can’t hazard a guess as to what it might be? Your dismissal of the Precambrian stuff about which the “controversy, which as far as I know, hasn’t been completely resolved”, suggests that you have a pretty large shelf on which to put things that do not fit.
How is recognizing that a controversy hasn't been resolved a dismissal? I have a pretty large shelf, yes. But it isn't full of unresolved samples. Its crammed with examples contradicting those very rare unresolved samples you are bringing up.Dave Wisker_{April 15, 2009
April
04
Apr
15
15
2009
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT}

Hi jerry, This quip by Haldane is an admission that the theory is not falsifiable. While apparently dismissing objections to the theory on technical grounds that it is not falsifiable, the quip was supposed I guess to be an amusing put down of those who have objections. But in reality it is an admission that there is really no way to falsify the theory. If there were, then Haldane would have provided some real examples Haldane's quip was amusing, but in principle it was absolutely correct. Just because the theory would never expect to see such a thing has nothing to do with the theory being falsifiable. If the theory is wrong, then evidence supporting it (from such disciplines as basic geology and paleontology) could very well be wrong too. Finding a confirmed mammal fossil in what current paleontology tells us are PreCambrian rocks behooves us to make sure of the fossil itself and the evidence for the rocks being PreCambrian. We need to do this because so much of the evidence (fossil and geological) indicates otherwise. Should the evidence solidly indicate it, then a rethinking and possible abandonment of the theory and/or some of its supporting evidence might be necessary.Dave Wisker_{April 15, 2009
April
04
Apr
15
15
2009
06:08 AM
6
06
08
AM
PDT}

Paul Giem, Forbidden Archaeology- There is allegedly a mortar and pestle found in sediments allegedly 25 million years old. And that is just one case.Joseph_{April 15, 2009
April
04
Apr
15
15
2009
04:38 AM
4
04
38
AM
PDT}

I never knew that the infamous "rabbit in the Cambrian " was a quote by Haldane. It pops us frequently but it is nice to know the origin of it. This quip by Haldane is an admission that the theory is not falsifiable. While apparently dismissing objections to the theory on technical grounds that it is not falsifiable, the quip was supposed I guess to be an amusing put down of those who have objections. But in reality it is an admission that there is really no way to falsify the theory. If there were, then Haldane would have provided some real examples. The clever absurdity of the rabbit in the Cambrian was in reality a way to hide any serious attempt to discuss the issue. It is typically used by people on this site as a way of mocking those who oppose the Darwinian paradigm. Interesting technique to avoid the serious. Mock the attempt to do so.jerry_{April 14, 2009
April
04
Apr
14
14
2009
07:58 PM
7
07
58
PM
PDT}

Hi Dave, I'm still blown away by the ease with which a leaf from an oak strongly resembling Oligocene Quercus clarnensis can be dismissed as contamination. Are there claims that such oaks live in India or Pakistan at the present? If not, how can one contaminate rock with this kind of fossil? If a drill core finds such a leaf, would you at that point surrender to the "Cambrian rabbit", or would you soldier on, knowing that there must be an answer consistent with evolutionary theory, even if you don't know it and can't hazard a guess as to what it might be? Your dismissal of the Precambrian stuff about which the "controversy, which as far as I know, hasn’t been completely resolved", suggests that you have a pretty large shelf on which to put things that do not fit. It is probably fair to note that ideological preference plays a large part in the evaluation of evidence in these cases. As you note, in principle, Precambrian rabbits would disprove evolutionary theory. In practice, it doesn't happen.Paul Giem_{April 14, 2009
April
04
Apr
14
14
2009
04:48 PM
4
04
48
PM
PDT}

Hi Paul, Sahni's results were, as I pointed out by the reference to Bose, best explained as contamination, since numerous core drillings in the same area (which would not be subject to contamination) not only failed to find any modern plant remains, but only found plant remains consistent with Cambrian deposits throughout the world. That is why the geological consensus lies with a Cambrian age for those rocks. Had they found Tertiary plant remains, then I agree, the results would have been comparable to a preCambrian rabbit.
There is further evidence of what looks like Precambrian rabbit tracks in the plant world. See R. M. Stainforth, “Occurrence of Pollen and Spores in the Roraima Formation of Venezuela and British Guiana,” Nature, Vol. 210, No. 5033 (April 16, 1966), pp. 292–294. (I am indebted to Sean Pitman for drawing my attention to these references.)
I'm familiar with that paper, and the subsequent controversy, which as far as I know, hasn't been completely resolved.
My point is not so much that I have proven that the theory of evolution is wrong, as that it is for practical purposes impossible to prove it wrong. Data can be disputed, and the theory is flexible enough to swallow most data anyway, and if all else fails we can put the data on a shelf and work with it later.
A good theory should be difficult to prove wrong from a practical point of view. That's because a good theory is built from a large base of well-supported data. We don't expect a PreCambrian rabbit for very solid reasons: the data indicate the origin of mammals in much later strata. Not only that, all the geological and paleoecological data indicate the PreCambrian environment could not support mammals, never mind vascular plants. To accept the idea of such a rabbit requires abandoning numerous rich lines of converging, mutually supporting evidence from different disciplines. So, in practical terms, rare announcements (and they are very, very very rare) proclaiming the discovery of angiosperm pollen in PreCambrian rocks should be treated with considerable skepticism, especially when more prosaic explanations (such as contamination) are known to be problems. In principle, if PreCambrian rabbits were found (especially in significant numbers), modern evolutionary theory (and several other disciplines as well) would probably have to be discarded. The fact that this is difficult to do in practical terms doesn't change that. Nor should it.Dave Wisker_{April 14, 2009
April
04
Apr
14
14
2009
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT}

Dave Wisker (#255), Thanks for your answer. My purpose here is not so much to introduce new data (although I will do so), but to point out the difficulty with falsifying evolution. You mentioned, following Haldane, a Cambrian rabbit, or actually, IIUC, a Precambrian rabbit. You (#210) quoted me (#198) as asking if the falsification would be that easy:
Finally, if someone claimed to find a Cambrian rabbit, would you immediately give up the ToE? Or would you spend a great deal of time trying to prove that A. it was not a rabbit, B. It was not Precambrian, or C. The ToE can handle it very nicely after all, thank you? In other words, is your theory truly falsifiable, or did you just throw something out that you think and hope you’ll never see to keep critics of the ToE off of your back?
(To be fair, this was addressed to Alan Fox, not to you.) Your response was,
Paul, if the theory is valid, and the lines of evidence we currently use to support it are reliable, we should NEVER see a PreCambrian rabbit, so it is a valid criterion for falsification. There can be, indeed should be, many others. The reason the Precambrian rabbit is used so often is because it is such a good example to counter the silly assertion that the theory of evolution is unfalsifiable in principle. Haldane’s quip makes short work of that.
This outlines clearly your answer to my first paragraph but does not address the paragraph you quoted. My point is that in practice, evolutionary theory is not susceptible to such falsifications, because what actually happens is that the data is challenged, and what cannot be challenged is forced into the evolutionary scenario, which then adapts to the data. Your latest post (#255) demonstrates this process well. Your first paragraph argues that the Salt Range is late Cambrian, not Precambrian. That's my point B. You then quote someone else (Stewart and Rothwell) arguing that the spores are not really of the plants they appear to be (point A), and that they are really contaminants (a variant of point B). Earlier (#210), you had discounted the problem of a Jurassic rabbit, as evolutionary theory could presumably swallow that one easily (my point C). Presumably that is why you did not respond to the data on Triassic shore birds. We now have Cambrian chordates, and even vertebrates, and it is unlikely that we would ever find a Cambrian rabbit for an entirely different reason, namely, that the Cambrian is largely marine, and early on mostly bottom-dwellers, and rabbits are simply not found at the sea bottom. They have some problems with respiration there, I think. ;) So Haldane proposed a very safe bet as his test of falsifiability. You grant that the Salt Range is Cambrian. You argue that spores are not good enough. This understates the controversy. There were those who argued that the Salt Range was Tertiary because of plant fragments, not just spores. For example,
This specimen clearly contains fragments of several specimens of dicotyledonous leaves. This places their age as not older than the Lower Cretaceous when the first dicots appeared. One of the leaves is very probably oak (Quercus) and its size and margin strongly suggest the Oligocene species Quercus clarnensis from western America. It is of interest to note that I found a closely related species in the Oligocene deposits of Manchuria. Your specimen is almost certainly of Tertiary age. (Anderson, R. V. V. (1927) Tertiary stratigraphy and orogeny of the northern Punjab. Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, 38: 665-720.)
It might be helpful to read some of the details collected at http://www.mcremo.com/saltrange.html (BTW, not, AFAICT, a creationist or even ID site). In fact, I will quote the abstract:
The age of the Salt Range Formation in the Salt Range Mountains of Pakistan was a matter of extreme controversy among geologists from the middle nineteenth century to the middle twentieth century. Of great importance in the later discussions were fragments of advanced plants and insects discovered in the Salt Range Formation by researchers such as B. Sahni. According to Sahni, these finds indicated an Eocene age for the Salt Range Formation. But geological evidence cited by others was opposed to this conclusion, supporting instead a Cambrian age for the Salt Range formation. Modern geological opinion is unanimous that the Salt Range Formation is Cambrian. But Sahni's evidence for advanced plant and insect remains in the Salt Range Formation is not easily dismissed. It would appear that there is still a contradiction between the geological and paleontological evidence, just as there was during the time of active controversy. During the time of active controversy, E. R. Gee suggested that the conflict might be resolved by positing the existence of an advanced flora and fauna in the Cambrian. This idea was summarily dismissed at the time, but, although it challenges accepted ideas about the evolution of life on earth, it appears to provide the best fit with the different lines of evidence. The existence of advanced plant and animal life during the Cambrian is consistent with accounts found in the Puranic literature of India.
This would appear to be roughly equivalent to a Cambrian rabbit. There is further evidence of what looks like Precambrian rabbit tracks in the plant world. See R. M. Stainforth, "Occurrence of Pollen and Spores in the Roraima Formation of Venezuela and British Guiana," Nature, Vol. 210, No. 5033 (April 16, 1966), pp. 292--294. (I am indebted to Sean Pitman for drawing my attention to these references.) My point is not so much that I have proven that the theory of evolution is wrong, as that it is for practical purposes impossible to prove it wrong. Data can be disputed, and the theory is flexible enough to swallow most data anyway, and if all else fails we can put the data on a shelf and work with it later. The myth that evolution is a falsifiable theory should be laid to rest. The Cambrian rabbit, or even Precambrian rabbit, is not an adequate retort.Paul Giem_{April 14, 2009
April
04
Apr
14
14
2009
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT}

Joseph, "You are an intellectual coward..." Do you want to be moderated Joseph? Don't call names, don't be disrespectful, or you will be.Clive Hayden_{April 12, 2009
April
04
Apr
12
12
2009
08:27 PM
8
08
27
PM
PDT}

The definition of NH that I used is from the International Society for the Systems Sciences:
Origin and Purpose of the ISSS The International Society for the Systems Sciences (ISSS) is among the first and oldest organizations devoted to interdisciplinary inquiry into the nature of complex systems, and remains perhaps the most broadly inclusive. The Society was initially conceived in 1954 at the Stanford Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences by Ludwig von Bertalanffy, Kenneth Boulding, Ralph Gerard, and Anatol Rapoport. In collaboration with James Grier Miller, it was formally established as an affiliate of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1956. Originally founded as the Society for General Systems Research, the society adopted its current name in 1988 to reflect its broadening scope. The initial purpose of the society was "to encourage the development of theoretical systems which are applicable to more than one of the traditional departments of knowledge," with the following principal aims: to investigate the isomorphy of concepts, laws, and models in various fields, and to help in useful transfers from one field to another; to encourage the development of adequate theoretical models in areas which lack them; to eliminate the duplication of theoretical efforts in different fields; and to promote the unity of science through improving the communication among specialists. In the intervening years, the ISSS has expanded its scope beyond purely theoretical and technical considerations to include the practical application of systems methodologies to problem solving. Even more importantly, it has provided a forum where scholars and practitioners from across the disciplinary spectrum, representing academic, business, government, and non-profit communities, can come together to share ideas and learn from one another.
So now I am really curious as to what is the ultra-secret definition those evolutionary scientists use... Any luck finding it David?Joseph_{April 12, 2009
April
04
Apr
12
12
2009
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PDT}

And common design and/ or convergence can also be assumed from the number of shared characteristics. What descent has failed to do, however, is explain the differences observed. No one knows if the changes required are even possible for universal common descent to have a chance at being true.Joseph_{April 11, 2009
April
04
Apr
11
11
2009
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PDT}

Joseph,
He is a front-loading evolutionist- no intervention required. Nature has unfolded according to some destiny. That destiny is what brought forth living organisms.
Ok, fair enough. That's exactly how I would describe him, based on what I've seen from his Nature's Destiny book.
Descent/ relationship is assumed from the number of shared characteristics.
I also agree with this.madsen_{April 11, 2009
April
04
Apr
11
11
2009
02:56 PM
2
02
56
PM
PDT}

madsen:
The evolutionary tree indicates relations determined by descent.
It is based on characteristics, not descent. Descent/ relationship is assumed from the number of shared characteristics. However both convergence and common design can also explain similar characteristics. Nested hierarchies are NOT built on descent. Descent leads to a sequence/ lineage.Joseph_{April 11, 2009
April
04
Apr
11
11
2009
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT}

madsen, You are very funny. He does NOT attack common descent in "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis". He attacks the nonsensical evidence presented for it. He attacks Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism. You should really read that 2004 essay- just as its title indicates it is his intellectual journey from Creation, to accepting common descent, to critiquing the evidence for common descent, to finally come to an understanding on the mechanism. He is a front-loading evolutionist- no intervention required. Nature has unfolded according to some destiny. That destiny is what brought forth living organisms. And allegedly that destiny is to be found in the limited number of protein folds observed in living organisms. IOW the reviewer doesn't know what he is talking about. But I have read his pap before and have come to expect that from him.Joseph_{April 11, 2009
April
04
Apr
11
11
2009
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT}

David Kellogg believes that I am unable to be reasoned with because he told me, without any support, that the few evolutionary scientists I disagree with pertaining to nested hierarchy and the theory of evolution, use a different definition of a nested hierarchy. Did you get that? They do not use the standard and accepted definition that I and the majority of people use, they have some ultra-secret version only they can understand. So how about Kellogg- can you produce the allegedly different version of nested hierarchy that those evolutionary scientists use? I promise I will do my best to understand but I first have to know what it is I am supposed to be understanding.Joseph_{April 11, 2009
April
04
Apr
11
11
2009
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT}

Joseph,
Ahh related by CHARACTERISTICS. That is what the tree shows.
The evolutionary tree indicates relations determined by descent.
Related by descent or having a common ancestor is just an assumption.
Now this is exactly what I've been saying: Denton (1998) assumes the patterns in characteristics allows one to draw conclusions about descent.madsen_{April 11, 2009
April
04
Apr
11
11
2009
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT}

Joseph, I have to commend you on your ability to find quotes from Denton's 1986 book which flatly contradict the thesis of Nature's Destiny. It's almost as if we were dealing with the work of two different authors. You might find this link interesting, if you haven't happened upon it yet: http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/kortho29.htm Here's an interesting quote from that page:
And that [biological evolution] is exactly what his previous book Evolution: A Theory in crisis attacked in the most thorough way. And biological evolution, that is the common descent of all life, is exactly what he defends now in Nature's Destiny. Not a limited version of evolution. No, complete naturalistic evolution from inorganic materials to the first cell to humans.
madsen_{April 11, 2009
April
04
Apr
11
11
2009
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT}

madsen, Seeing that in 2004 Denton stated his critique of the theory of evolution he presented in "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" was still convincing, I don't see how you have anything left to argue. His ONLY change from "Evolution" to "Nature's Destiny" (1998) was one of PHILOSOPHY- I provided his direct quote. You refuse to believe Denton on Denton. That is your problem.Joseph_{April 11, 2009
April
04
Apr
11
11
2009
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT}

madsen:
I’m referring to the tree which indicates that humans and chimps share a more recent common ancestor with each other than either does with gorillas.
Ahh related by CHARACTERISTICS. That is what the tree shows. Related by descent or having a common ancestor is just an assumption.
BTW, here’s a quote from an editorial by Roger Highfield that ran in the same issue of New Scientist as your quote
Strange. Your quote had nothing to do with what I quoted. Did you have a point?Joseph_{April 11, 2009
April
04
Apr
11
11
2009
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT}

jerry, I think I understand what you are saying, but remember the issue that started off this discussion was Denton's views on nested hierarchies and evolutionary trees. In 1998, he wrote that certain characteristics of primates can be used to place those primates on an evolutionary tree. I'm claiming that this only makes sense if Denton is assuming that the distribution of these characteristics among primates (in a nested hierarchy, of course) reflects their evolutionary history. I understand that you and Joseph would disagree with the validity of this reasoning, but the issue is Denton's logic (in 1998).madsen_{April 11, 2009
April
04
Apr
11
11
2009
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT}

It is possible to represent the logic of an ordered hierarchic classification scheme in the form of a branching diagram, or tree, where each node defines the fundamental characteristics of the category grouped by that node. Such a tree does not imply any sort of natural sequence to the pattern of relationships. The only sequence implied is a theoretical or abstract logical programme whereby a very general concept is successively subdivided into more specific categories. The nodes and branches of the tree signify concepts in the mind of the logician and not material entities in the real world. The tree has an ordered appearance with the most specific subcategories, the actual objects grouped by scheme, occupying peripheral positions as its circumference. Every ordered hierarchical classification system may be reduced to such a logic tree and in every case all particular objects grouped by the scheme will always be circumferentially arranged at the very periphery of the tree. Groups of objects identified in the scheme are related as sisters or cousins, but never in sequential terms. The tree makes explicit the fact that, where a pattern of relationship is reducible to a highly ordered hierarchic system, the underlying order is fundamentally discontinuous and non-sequential. -Denton “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis” pages 121-22
Joseph_{April 11, 2009
April
04
Apr
11
11
2009
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT}

David Kellogg, Joseph said he used to play hockey and if he is a true hockey player he still likes to play maybe only in the adult non checking leagues. My son was a hockey player and still yearns to get out and play. One of his coaches in youth hockey was a real neanderthal from Quebec who used to tell his players that hockey is a game of courage won in the corners. His teams never had any cowards. If you have never seen the movie Miracle, watch it to understand hockey players. It is as real life as a movie can get and notice all the incredible skills it take to win, not just the courage which is essential. All the actors were hockey players first before they did a screen test so the action is authentic. So my guess is that Joseph would rather get you in the corners as opposed to an alley. There are no cowards in the corners. By the way Boston University plays for the national title tonight and a lot of the players from Miracle from BU. Watch it and look at what happens in the corners.jerry_{April 11, 2009
April
04
Apr
11
11
2009
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT}

Madsen, The main evolutionary thrust is downward not upward and by downward we mean a gene pool that is continually constricted over time as various sub populations get isolated. You have used the concept of a set and this is a good analogy. A population gene pool contains a wide variety of alleles and other genetic elements many whose function is unknown. If we take a sub population the chances are that this sub population will not have all the genomic elements that the original population has. If it wanders off and meets a new environment the process of natural selection and genetic drift and the new environment will favor certain genetic combination so that the gene pool is now even less that when it split off. We have a subset of the original population and this is what nearly all evolution is. So is the subset a nested hierarchy with potential other subsets. Remember no new characteristics have appeared that were not there in the original population. If this is repeated over and over again we get a variety of sub species which have sub species etc but nothing new has evolved. It only has devolved. There may be characteristics that distinguish each sub set but they are trivial differences. Now all these gene pools may be extended somewhat with mutations to current genomic elements but the experience is that these are minor additions to the gene pools. A bear develops white fur and can then survive in the arctic. Polar bears and grizzly bears can mate so are originally from the same gene pool. Now if this were all there was to evolution and by the way this is most of evolution then we would all go home and call it a day. But the key is that somewhere along the way a gene pool is expanded with genetic elements that were not in the original gene pool and represent novel complex functional capabilities not just a fur color change. Think echolocation in a bat. How did this happen. This gene pool is now substantively different from the original gene pool and the question is how did this happen. This is a completely different process from the common evolution described above. This gene pool can act just like the other gene pool and devolve downward into sub sets. But there is a fundamental difference between each group of subsets. One group of subsets will likely have the new functional characteristic and the other won't. That is why there are two theories of evolution and one is trivial and explains most of what you see but in terms of the debate it is of no importance. The second theory is the one that produces the novel functional characteristics and it is the focus of the debate. Since we have no evidence that any theory of evolution has produced these novel functional capabilities, we can not say that any hierarchies you might theorize exist are due to it. It is all just an arbitrary selection and placement into various groups. More than likely there is a strong correlation between adjacent or contiguous groups but is this due to process 1 or process 2. As I said above front loading predicts these hierarchies and is more consistent with the data than Darwinian theories. So why make a point that Darwinian theories predict the hierarchies when it has never been able to show how it could create all of them. It is pure speculation that it could and nothing less. And by the way you do not need to be a scientist to know this. Most biologists don't understand it because they are too lazy are haven't been presented with it. They mostly accept the stuff they read in textbooks and assume it works. After all micro evolution works which ID agrees with and they automatically think this can be extended to all changes as I did till 10 years ago when I started to read about it. I am not a scientist either but have a background in physics and math and am an avid reader and taker of video courses on science. You do not have to be a scientist to understand this.jerry_{April 11, 2009
April
04
Apr
11
11
2009
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 11 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply