Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Evolution of the horse; a problem for Darwinism?

Pages: (58) < ... 44 45 46 47 48 [49] 50 51 52 53 54 ... >

JAM Posts: 517 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2008,16:36    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 06 2008,14:03) No, I think that people are afraid of being ridiculed for wanting to test a saltational theory - so they dismiss it out of hand. But you don't dismiss it, so why are you afraid of offering predictions and testing them? If you're so sure you're right, you have nothing but fame ahead of you. I can only conclude that you are lying about your faith in your position. Also, aren't IDers and creationists ridiculed because they REFUSE to test any of their own hypotheses? Isn't that refusal the very reason why they (and you) are pseudoscientific frauds?

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2008,17:42    Quote (JAM @ Feb. 06 2008,14:27)         Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 06 2008,13:58)   Where, specifically, is the evidence... In the figures and tables, Dan. Which figure, and which table, and what exactly do they show that falsifies (but apparently doesn't destroy) Schindewolf's theory?  Try to be specific about how the data in "the figures and tables" falsifies Schindewolf.  If you say "it fills his gaps" - explain which gaps you are talking about and cite the quotation where Schindewolf made the claim that those specific gaps would never be filled.   Remember JAM, you're all about the evidence!         Quote Why did you search for "Schindewolf" in the text instead of looking at the evidence presented in those papers? I searched for Schindewolf's name before I read the paper just to see if they mentioned him, then I read the paper.  I did this before I responded to you the first time.  You accused me of searching for his name without reading the paper.  That was an untrue accusation on your part JAM.  You do understand that an accusation doesn't make something true -- don't you JAM? Then, after responding to you, I read it again.  So I've read it twice (so far).   Have you read it once yet? -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2008,19:00    With the caveat that I am an actor, not a scientist, let's see if I can give it a whack. Schindewolf claims that there must have been a number of saltational events in the history of the species of Earth.  He bases this, in part, on the fossil record.  He says that the fossil record is missing a great number transitional fossils.  He claims that this is so because no one has found them, and his take on this is that enough has been found to conclude that there will be no transitionals found (at least for a great many species). These areas of "no-transitionals" could be considered gaps.  This is because the ToE posits that Universal Common Descent would lead to a more or less steady diversification of life.  Schindewolf claims that this more or less steady action didn't occur.  Graphically: ToE (Common Descent) ----------------------------              A              /\            B   C           / \    \         D    E   F        / \    /   /\ \      G   H  I   J K L Schindewolf's Idea? ----------------------------            A           /         B       C                    \     D              F    /               / \  G   H     I    J    K          L Notice there are gaps, Like "E" never existed, but "I" got her somehow anyway.  "H" is around, but has no lineage, etc.... These are gaps. the claim is that some of these gaps have been filled.  They could be filled with fossil finds.  They could be filled with genetic data.  They could be filled with the stuff in those papers. Is that about right?  Come on, Dan!  I'm an actor and I can put together your biology argument for you, I think.  Please tell me if I got anything wrong or misrepresented your argument in any way. -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2008,19:23    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 06 2008,17:42) Which figure, and which table, and what exactly do they show that falsifies (but apparently doesn't destroy) Schindewolf's theory?  Try to be specific about how the data in "the figures and tables" falsifies Schindewolf.  If you say "it fills his gaps" - explain which gaps you are talking about and cite the quotation where Schindewolf made the claim that those specific gaps would never be filled.   Remember JAM, you're all about the evidence! This is just too hilarious. Recall that Daniel said, on the very first page of this thread   Quote I decided what I needed was just to see the evidence for myself. But now he can't see it, he needs a guide dog... -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

JAM Posts: 517 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2008,20:58    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 06 2008,17:42)   Quote (JAM @ Feb. 06 2008,14:27)             Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 06 2008,13:58)   Where, specifically, is the evidence... In the figures and tables, Dan. Which figure, and which table, and what exactly do they show that falsifies (but apparently doesn't destroy) Schindewolf's theory? I was not referring to what you call "Schindewolf's theory." I was referring to the hypothesis (more of an assumption) on which it utterly depends: "The gaps that exist in the continuity of forms, which we always encounter at those very points, are not to be blamed on the fossil record; they are not illusions, but the expression of a natural, primary absence of transitional forms." I've already explained this to you. Why are you lying and pretending that the evidence is about anything but this assumption/hypothesis? Quote Try to be specific about how the data in "the figures and tables" falsifies Schindewolf. Why should I bother with someone as mendacious as you? Quote If you say "it fills his gaps" - explain which gaps you are talking about and cite the quotation where Schindewolf made the claim that those specific gaps would never be filled. I already did. You have dishonestly tried to pretend that I did not. Moreover, Schindewolf made a general, not a specific, claim. Quote Remember JAM, you're all about the evidence! And you lied when you claimed that you were!   Quote           Quote Why did you search for "Schindewolf" in the text instead of looking at the evidence presented in those papers? I searched for Schindewolf's name before I read the paper just to see if they mentioned him, then I read the paper. Did everyone see that goalpost move? I asked why he didn't look at the evidence, then Dan dodges my question completely, pretending I was asking whether he had read the paper or not. Quote I did this before I responded to you the first time. But you didn't look at the evidence--in fact, you still haven't. Quote You accused me of searching for his name without reading the paper. No, Dan, I accused you of searching for his name INSTEAD OF LOOKING AT THE EVIDENCE. Quote That was an untrue accusation on your part JAM. It is an untrue accusation, which is why you deliberately and dishonestly decided to falsely attribute it to me. Quote You do understand that an accusation doesn't make something true -- don't you JAM? I do. Do you realize that falsely attributing an accusation to someone doesn't mean that he made the accusation, Dan? Do you realize that it's a blatant violation of a Commandment? Quote Then, after responding to you, I read it again.  So I've read it twice (so far). But you have yet to look at the evidence. That's the big difference between the primary scientific literature and what you choose to quote-mine. Quote Have you read it once yet? Yes. More importantly, primarily I examined the evidence presented in the papers, which exists independently of my, your, Schindewolf's, or the authors' opinions, which is all you read and quoted. Have you grasped the essential distinction between evidence and opinion, and do you have the integrity to admit that you lack both the desire and curiosity to examine the evidence for yourself, which means that you opened up here with a laughably bald-faced lie?

Mark Iosim Posts: 27 Joined: Oct. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2008,04:50    Quote (Mark Iosim @ Feb. 05 2008,23:24) This is a typical application for GA, as an optimization TOOL by which potential solutions (changing geometry of wires) were RECOGNIZED as less or more effective by fitness function. Following landscape of more effective solutions the program eventually determines one of the optimum geometry of wire antenna. oldmanintheskydidntdoit And your point is what, exactly? My point is that GA is misleading respond to my question about existence of statistical analysis that able demonstrating random mutations able to support Evolutionary changes in biological systems. Instead GA is just a software application (like a bunch of other software tools science couldn’t be possible today). As a software application for engineering problem GA is nothing else but optimization tool that among other banal things can “brainstorms” a predefined SET OF POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS. Almost forget! GA is also is used as propagandistic and deceiving tool to cause impression that Neo-Darwinism is standing on the solid scientific methodology. The fact that you couldn’t find any better than GA argument in favor of random mutations as an engine of evolution, tells me about a lot about Neo-Darwinism theory. [quote]Mark Iosim I would like to use “Weasel program” to evaluate RM+NS mechanism in the development of drug resistance in bacteria.     Quote oldmanintheskydidntdoit It simply means you've learnt nothing from your period of study. To make “Weasel program” to evaluate RM+NS mechanism in the development of drug resistance I need to eliminates just the target that chooses “any line which, however slightly, most resembles the final target”. I expected to find a version of “Weasel program” that let me do this. But I didn’t find what I was looking for. However this shouldn’t stop me testing RM+NS mechanism in the development of drug resistance using other tool. Peace of paper and calculator should work. The idea of experiment I would like to propose is very simple: According to Neo-Darwinism the mechanism of drug resistance development in Bacteria and Viruses is an example of evolutionary change where random mutations transform the virus DNA into new form that enable resisting a drug. I am proposing to trace this transformations using existing experimental data for viruses that developed drug resistance and calculate the probability of the transformational steps, assuming that they caused by random mutations. It is critical for this experiment to choose initial form of virus that doesn’t have any precursor to drug resistance. My god-feeling is that a calculated probability of these events will be way too low to support observation. But I could be wrong and instead we may have an example of rigorous scientific method that proves beyond reasonable doubt that RM+NS is working. What do you think about this experiment?

Mark Iosim Posts: 27 Joined: Oct. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2008,04:58    Correction to my previous posting. [quote]Mark Iosim I would like to use “Weasel program” to evaluate RM+NS mechanism in the development of drug resistance in bacteria. ....means....       Quote Mark Iosim I would like to use “Weasel program” to evaluate RM+NS mechanism in the development of drug resistance in bacteria. Any body knows how to edit our own posts?

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2008,05:28    Quote (Mark Iosim @ Feb. 07 2008,04:50) As a software application for engineering problem GA is nothing else but optimization tool that among other banal things can “brainstorms” a predefined SET OF POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS. Much like the POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS for any problem "exist" out there, somewhere. The point is that just because a solution exists it does not make it accessible. You error is in thinking that the solutions are "predefined". If you mean "predefined" as in "the laws of physics determine which shapes will act as better antenna" then you are right. How else could it be? I don't see how that is a problem however? The point is that GA's allow us to reach solutions that otherwise remain inaccessible.   Quote Almost forget! GA is also is used as propagandistic and deceiving tool to cause impression that Neo-Darwinism is standing on the solid scientific methodology. You could prove that easily , if it were true. As you have not, but only claimed it is so, why should we listen to you?   Quote The fact that you couldn’t find any better than GA argument in favor of random mutations as an engine of evolution, tells me about a lot about Neo-Darwinism theory. You were given several examples. The fact you have not addressed them makes me thing you realize they cause your argument to fail and so you just ignore them. And in any case, you have not explained what is wrong with this example in any detail except for your opinions about why it is invalid.   Quote To make “Weasel program” to evaluate RM+NS mechanism in the development of drug resistance I need to eliminates just the target that chooses “any line which, however slightly, most resembles the final target”. I expected to find a version of “Weasel program” that let me do this. But I didn’t find what I was looking for. Then write one! The "Weasel" example is trivial to program. Like I said to Daniel, your options on these matters might start to matter if you provide proof. So learn to program and write some GA code. Then come back and show us.     Quote However this shouldn’t stop me testing RM+NS mechanism in the development of drug resistance using other tool. Peace of paper and calculator should work. Try using the computer you are sat at?   Quote What do you think about this experiment? I tihnk you should be applauded for wanting to test your ideas, unlike Daniel. Go ahead. I hear the Biologic people are looking for expirements to perform. EDIT: I befroe e or something. Dunno. Too drunk to care. -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2008,18:39    Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 06 2008,17:23)                     Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 06 2008,17:42) Which figure, and which table, and what exactly do they show that falsifies (but apparently doesn't destroy) Schindewolf's theory?  Try to be specific about how the data in "the figures and tables" falsifies Schindewolf.  If you say "it fills his gaps" - explain which gaps you are talking about and cite the quotation where Schindewolf made the claim that those specific gaps would never be filled.   Remember JAM, you're all about the evidence! This is just too hilarious. Recall that Daniel said, on the very first page of this thread                       Quote I decided what I needed was just to see the evidence for myself. But now he can't see it, he needs a guide dog... What's so "hilarious" about it.  I've been poring over the tables and figures in this paper and can find nothing that contradicts anything Schindewolf said.  Nothing.  Are you going to tell me there's evidence here that I can't see?  If so, what is it? If you can see it so well (I doubt you can), then tell me specifically - what in the figures and tables falsifies Schindewolf?  (I can't get JAM to break his silence about this, so I'll try you). Here's a list of the tables and figures in the paper:   Quote Figure 1. Phylogenetic relationships between the hammatoceratins (black bars) and their descendants (grey bars). (a) Single lineage hypothesis (e.g. Donovan, Callomon & Howarth, 1981): hammatoceratins are classified in a single group, named the Hammatoceratinae, and give rise to all Bajocian families. (b) Two-lineage hypothesis (e.g. Rulleau, Elmi & Th´evenard, 2001): hammatoceratins are classified into two groups named the Hammatoceratidae and Erycitidae (both members of the Hammatocerataceae), and each of two families has descendants. ... Table 1. List of characters used for cladistic analysis ... Table 2. Data matrix used for cladistic analysis ... Figure 2. The three most parsimonious cladograms with character state changes labelled. These trees share the same overall topology except for the connection of Abbasites, Riccardiceras, Docidoceras and Mollistephanus. ... Table 3. Consistency, retention and rescale consistency indices (ci, ri, rc) for the characters used in this analysis; values are identical for the three most parsimonious cladograms ... Figure 3. Strict consensus tree. ... Figure 4. Phylostratigraphy of the Hammatocerataceae and initial members of Bajocian groups. Cladistic analysis of the Middle Jurassic ammonite radiation S. MOYNE & P. NEIGE Follow the link, look at the data, and tell me what you see in this evidence that IYO falsifies Schindewolf.  I really doubt you will be able to do this because it would involve first learning what Schindewolf said about Jurassic ammonite evolution and his systems of classification -- something I just can't see you (or anyone else on this board) doing. One thing I will tell you:  Schindewolf extensively utilized shell suture lines in his classifications of ammonites - something these authors -- because of the scope of their study -- were unable to do:   Quote Suture line characters are not used in this analysis because of their high variability between the different species of each genus. Moreover, using suture line characters for such different taxa would involve establishing clear homologies between the different sutural elements via an ontogenetic approach. The wide scope of the present study precludes this. ibid. pg. 117 Schindewolf, on the other hand, extensively documented suture line evolution into the early ontogenetic stages.  You must realize that this was Schindewolf's area of expertise! The interesting thing is that these authors and Schindewolf arrived at the same "two lineage" conclusion via two different classification methods.  Does that count for anything with you?  Or are you so dead set against Schindewolf that you are willing to dismiss him without even looking at the evidence? Remember, this was a man about whom Stephen Jay Gould said:   Quote When I was a graduate student in 1965, I asked my advisor, Dr. Norman Newell: "who, in your opinion, is the world's greatest living paleontologist."  He replied, without hesitation, Otto H. Schindewolf. Foreword, Basic Questions in Paleontology So if you and JAM, (I'm lumping you two together because you're defending him), are going to just flippantly say that this paper somehow falsifies Schindewolf, you're not behaving at all like scientists. -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2008,02:58    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 07 2008,18:39) So if you and JAM, (I'm lumping you two together because you're defending him), are going to just flippantly say that this paper somehow falsifies Schindewolf, you're not behaving at all like scientists. And you are? In that case Daniel, do something sciency. -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

mitschlag Posts: 236 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2008,04:35    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 07 2008,18:39) Follow the link, look at the data, and tell me what you see in this evidence that IYO falsifies Schindewolf.  I really doubt you will be able to do this because it would involve first learning what Schindewolf said about Jurassic ammonite evolution and his systems of classification -- something I just can't see you (or anyone else on this board) doing. Thanks for the link to the Moyne & Neige paper. It would also be a kindness, and I hope not too much trouble, if you would either quote or give page citations to the relevant statements in Grundfragen that are in contention by JAM. Kudos for stepping up to the plate in this fashion. -------------- "You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2008,06:20    Quote (mitschlag @ Feb. 08 2008,04:35) Kudos for stepping up to the plate in this fashion. Agreed. It's all about the specifics. -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

JAM Posts: 517 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2008,09:21    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 07 2008,18:39) What's so "hilarious" about it.  I've been poring over the tables and figures in this paper and can find nothing that contradicts anything Schindewolf said. Let's not forget that you frantically moved the goalposts, when this paper is about contradicting his assumption, on which his "theory" depends: "The gaps that exist in the continuity of forms, which we always encounter at those very points, are not to be blamed on the fossil record; they are not illusions, but the expression of a natural, primary absence of transitional forms."   Quote Nothing. So, Dan, in the context of Schindewolf's claim above, tell me where in the nested hierarchy Schindewolf classified Riccardiceras.   Quote Are you going to tell me there's evidence here that I can't see? I'm telling you that you are afraid of evidence. I'm telling you that you fabricate evidence when your political positions are threatened by real evidence, as you did when you claimed that the isthmus of Panama isolated Atlantic and Pacific humpback whale populations, a claim that an 8-year-old can see is false by glancing at a globe. You also fabricated evidence when you made the inadvertent prediction (based on your hypothesis of how our bodies were designed by God) that "hind limb genes" even existed, a dishonest claim that you lack the integrity to either support or retract. Quote One thing I will tell you:  Schindewolf extensively utilized shell suture lines in his classifications of ammonites - something these authors -- because of the scope of their study -- were unable to do:         Quote Suture line characters are not used in this analysis because of their high variability between the different species of each genus. Moreover, using suture line characters for such different taxa would involve establishing clear homologies between the different sutural elements via an ontogenetic approach. The wide scope of the present study precludes this. ibid. pg. 117 Dan, you twist the most obvious things to fit your sick political views so that they are unrecognizable. Schindewolf's reliance on suture lines is the reason I keep asking you (and you keep ducking, because you know you are being dishonest) these questions: 1) How many nucleotide changes are required to change the number of mammalian vertebrae in an individual? 2) How many nucleotide changes are required to change the identity of a mammalian vertebra? Surely we can agree that the genetic complexity involved in constructing the different vertebral morphologies is far, far greater than the genetic complexity of a suture line in an ammonite's shell.   Quote Schindewolf, on the other hand, extensively documented suture line evolution into the early ontogenetic stages.  You must realize that this was Schindewolf's area of expertise! I realize that. I also realize that EVEN LIMITING CONSIDERATION TO SUTURE LINES, Schindewolf's gaps have been filled:   Quote Biological Reviews May 1973 - Vol. 48 Issue 2 Page 159-194 EVOLUTION OR REVOLUTION OF AMMONOIDS AT MESOZOIC SYSTEM BOUNDARIES JOST WIEDMANN This is a review, so the evidence contradicting Schindewolf's claim is in the primary literature cited by Wiedmann, not in his words.   Quote The interesting thing is that these authors and Schindewolf arrived at the same "two lineage" conclusion via two different classification methods.  Does that count for anything with you? Nothing, because the reason I cited the evidence in this paper is to contradict Schindewolf's assumption: "The gaps that exist in the continuity of forms, which we always encounter at those very points, are not to be blamed on the fossil record; they are not illusions, but the expression of a natural, primary absence of transitional forms." Why do you keep trying to move the goalposts to misrepresent my position as anything else, Dan?   Quote Or are you so dead set against Schindewolf that you are willing to dismiss him without even looking at the evidence? The issue here is that YOU have embraced Schindewolf's most arrogant, tenuous assumption without looking at ANY evidence. If you were all about the evidence, you would have undertaken a thorough review of the primary ammonite paleontology literature for the last half-century to determine if Schindewolf's assumption about gaps has held up. You didn't, which makes your statement above profoundly hypocritical. What does your Bible say about hypocrisy?   Quote Remember, this was a man about whom Stephen Jay Gould said:         Quote When I was a graduate student in 1965, I asked my advisor, Dr. Norman Newell: "who, in your opinion, is the world's greatest living paleontologist."  He replied, without hesitation, Otto H. Schindewolf. Foreword, Basic Questions in Paleontology My God, Dan, your ego has damaged your reading comprehension. Gould isn't touting Schindewolf in that quote!

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2008,11:16    Gould, later in the same foreword, specifically criticizes Schindewolf for paying attention only to confirming evidence, and ignoring disconfirming evidence. It seems that Schindewolf has found an apt pupil. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

mitschlag Posts: 236 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2008,11:38    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 08 2008,11:16) Gould, later in the same foreword, specifically criticizes Schindewolf for paying attention only to confirming evidence, and ignoring disconfirming evidence. It seems that Schindewolf has found an apt pupil. See, Dan, some of us have read Schindewolf's book. -------------- "You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2008,11:45    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 07 2008,18:39) So if you and JAM, (I'm lumping you two together because you're defending him), are going to just flippantly say that this paper somehow falsifies Schindewolf, you're not behaving at all like scientists. I'm not defending JAM so much as I am enjoying his systematic take-down of your ever-fluid goalposts; he doesn't need my assistance. As for pointing you to the exact line in the table or figure that indicates that Schindewolf is wrong, you have again putting words in my mouth. Read back through this thread and see if you can find where I said that this paper falsifies Schindewolf. You won't find it; I never said it. I don't claim to have read this paper; as noted before I am not a paleontologist. So I think that I am behaving like a scientist. I'm not pretending that I know about all fields of science; I've stuck with what I know something about. I'm not pretending to understand something that I don't understand. I'm not constructing strawmen, moving the goalposts, or putting words in other's mouths. I've admitted when I'm wrong, and clarified when it was pointed out to me that I was unclear. Maybe if you behaved more like that, I wouldn't find your statements (I'm all about the evidence, but when I am looking at primary evidence, I don't know how to figure it out) so hilarious. -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2008,13:44    Quote (mitschlag @ Feb. 08 2008,09:38)   Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 08 2008,11:16) Gould, later in the same foreword, specifically criticizes Schindewolf for paying attention only to confirming evidence, and ignoring disconfirming evidence. It seems that Schindewolf has found an apt pupil. See, Dan, some of us have read Schindewolf's book. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Wesley has only read the foreword, and you have just skimmed through it (the book that is).   Is that correct? (Wesley?) -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

JAM Posts: 517 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2008,13:56    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 08 2008,13:44) Quote (mitschlag @ Feb. 08 2008,09:38)   Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 08 2008,11:16) Gould, later in the same foreword, specifically criticizes Schindewolf for paying attention only to confirming evidence, and ignoring disconfirming evidence. It seems that Schindewolf has found an apt pupil. See, Dan, some of us have read Schindewolf's book. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Wesley has only read the foreword, and you have just skimmed through it (the book that is).   Why would that matter? If he's read the foreword and can easily show that you are misrepresenting Gould in such a basic matter from a tiny sample, why would your claim to have read the book, especially given your rank mendacity wrt your evidentophobia, have any weight with us? Where are those hind limb genes, btw?

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2008,15:35    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 08 2008,13:44) Quote (mitschlag @ Feb. 08 2008,09:38)   Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 08 2008,11:16) Gould, later in the same foreword, specifically criticizes Schindewolf for paying attention only to confirming evidence, and ignoring disconfirming evidence. It seems that Schindewolf has found an apt pupil. See, Dan, some of us have read Schindewolf's book. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Wesley has only read the foreword, and you have just skimmed through it (the book that is).   Is that correct? (Wesley?) I've not read the book, but I have read other books--and some of them have even had forwards (though most of those didn't have pictures)  :angry: If you are completely misrepresenting Gould once in what--a foreward is probably about  pages long?--3 pages, just think of the amount of lies you could tell over the whole book! I'm guessing the number could run into the hundreds! -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

mitschlag Posts: 236 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2008,15:54    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 08 2008,13:44)   Quote (mitschlag @ Feb. 08 2008,09:38)       Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 08 2008,11:16) Gould, later in the same foreword, specifically criticizes Schindewolf for paying attention only to confirming evidence, and ignoring disconfirming evidence. It seems that Schindewolf has found an apt pupil. See, Dan, some of us have read Schindewolf's book. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Wesley has only read the foreword, and you have just skimmed through it (the book that is).   Is that correct? (Wesley?) My comment was intended in jest.  I guess I overestimate my comedic skills.  And my audience. -------------- "You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2008,18:44    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 08 2008,09:16) Gould, later in the same foreword, specifically criticizes Schindewolf for paying attention only to confirming evidence, and ignoring disconfirming evidence. I'm supposing you mean this:         Quote Schindewolf follows a conventional scientific conceit in claiming that he worked objectively, moving upward and outward from an empirical base in the groups he knew best--ammonites and corals.  In fact, this book represents the imposition of a worldview upon selected components of the empirical record.  Opposing views are scarcely discussed or even cited. Stephen Jay Gould, foreword, Basic questions in Paleontology pg. xi The interesting thing about that quote is that Schindewolf does speak often about opposing views in the book.  Gould specifically mentions George Gaylord Simpson later in the foreword as a "champion" of the Modern Synthesis, claiming that he has "laid to rest" Schindewolf's "ghosts", yet Schindewolf often speaks of Simpson's positions -- mentioning his name 9 times in his book.  So, I'm not sure exactly what Gould was getting at.   I wonder though, since he was so often accused of advocating a saltational hypothesis himself, (punctuated equilibrium), if Gould wasn't attempting to distance himself from all such theories.  I know I was certainly struck by the parallels with Schindewolf when I read the Gould & Eldredge paper "Punctuated equilibrium comes of age" ---quick, almost invisible (as far as the fossil record is concerned) "speciation events" followed by long periods of evolutionary "stasis" ---it's not too distant a cousin to typogenesis and typostasis if you ask me. -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2008,19:09    Quote (mitschlag @ Feb. 08 2008,02:35)         Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 07 2008,18:39) Follow the link, look at the data, and tell me what you see in this evidence that IYO falsifies Schindewolf.  I really doubt you will be able to do this because it would involve first learning what Schindewolf said about Jurassic ammonite evolution and his systems of classification -- something I just can't see you (or anyone else on this board) doing. Thanks for the link to the Moyne & Neige paper. It would also be a kindness, and I hope not too much trouble, if you would either quote or give page citations to the relevant statements in Grundfragen that are in contention by JAM. Kudos for stepping up to the plate in this fashion. Well, as to exactly what is in contention by JAM--you'll have to ask him.  He keeps talking about "gaps", but he doesn't seem to be able to recognize the context of Schindewolf's statements.  He then goes on to claim that there's "evidence" that Schindewolf said would never be found.  I don't know what that evidence is since he just says "it's in the figures and tables".  I've looked through the figures and tables and they list morphological characteristics of ammonite lineages that Schindewolf was probably well aware of - since most were discovered before Basic Questions was written.  JAM has specifically mentioned pages 105-106, and I quoted some from pages 102-103 in one of my responses.  I can't read his mind though.   As for me though, I would recommend reading pages 125-145 to start -- this is where Schindewolf first goes into some detail on the topic of Ammonoid evolution as an "Introductory Example" for his theory.  The time period under discussion (for this one paper at least) is the Middle Jurassic. Hope that helps! -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

JAM Posts: 517 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2008,19:18    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 08 2008,19:09) Well, as to exactly what is in contention by JAM--you'll have to ask him. BS. I've quoted Schindewolf at least three times, and you've still tried to pretend that I'm challenging something else. Quote  I don't know what that evidence is since he just says "it's in the figures and tables". IOW, you were lying when you claimed on the first page, "I decided what I needed was just to see the evidence for myself." You've never really looked at evidence. Quote I've looked through the figures and tables and they list morphological characteristics of ammonite lineages that Schindewolf was probably well aware of - since most were discovered before Basic Questions was written. What about the ones that were discovered after, doofus? Quote JAM has specifically mentioned pages 105-106, and I quoted some from pages 102-103 in one of my responses.  I can't read his mind though. That's odd, as you've claimed to be able to several times before. What a hypocrite.   Quote As for me though, I would recommend reading pages 125-145 to start -- this is where Schindewolf first goes into some detail on the topic of Ammonoid evolution as an "Introductory Example" for his theory. Why would someone interested in the evidence recommend the text over the limited amount of evidence in the book? For that matter, why would someone interested in the evidence recommend a 50-year-old book instead of the primary literature? You lie like a rug, Dan.

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2008,19:22    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 08 2008,09:16) Gould, later in the same foreword, specifically criticizes Schindewolf for paying attention only to confirming evidence, and ignoring disconfirming evidence. I also noticed Wesley, while browsing the table of contents, that Schindewolf has a section entitled "The Pros and Cons of Typostrophism" in which he chronicles "Six Objections and Their Refutations".  This section begins at page 224 and goes to page 255.  That's over 30 pages devoted to the discussion of "opposing views". So much for their "scarce discussion" I guess. -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2008,19:36    Quote (JAM @ Feb. 08 2008,07:21) I'm telling you that you are afraid of evidence. I'm telling you that you fabricate evidence when your political positions are threatened by real evidence, as you did when you claimed that the isthmus of Panama isolated Atlantic and Pacific humpback whale populations, a claim that an 8-year-old can see is false by glancing at a globe. You also fabricated evidence when you made the inadvertent prediction (based on your hypothesis of how our bodies were designed by God) that "hind limb genes" even existed, a dishonest claim that you lack the integrity to either support or retract. Yes, I was wrong (although I was being a bit facetious) when I spoke of the "hind-leg gene".  I do know that there is no such thing - I just don't bother responding to most of your posts or accusations.  I'm only responding to this now because you continually bring it up as if it somehow defines me. Also, I already explained the whale thing so let it go. And now I'm going to rephrase my position on the Moyne & Neige paper specifically for your anal-retentive benefit: I looked at their evidence and found that it supports Schindewolf's classifications of middle Jurassic ammonites. Now, it is up to you to show that it does not. -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2008,19:51    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 08 2008,19:36) Yes, I was wrong (although I was being a bit facetious) when I spoke of the "hind-leg gene".  I do know that there is no such thing - I just don't bother responding to most of your posts or accusations.  I'm only responding to this now because you continually bring it up as if it somehow defines me. Well, it does define you, unfortunately. I suspect that you had no idea of the ludicrousness of your position about "hind leg genes" when you first posted it. If you did, you would have said something at the time. But you didn't do that; you let it fester, hoping it would eventually subside. Now when you say you "know" that there is no such thing, it rings hollow. Why didn't you say that when it mattered, and admit that you were clueless about modern evo-devo evidence? Sorry, Daniel, but it doesn't matter now. You had a chance to prove that you were indeed sincere in this discussion, by admitting that you were mistaken. By acting as if you knew it all along, you have defined yourself fairly concretely as just another creationist poser. -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2008,04:05    Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 08 2008,19:51) Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 08 2008,19:36) Yes, I was wrong (although I was being a bit facetious) when I spoke of the "hind-leg gene".  I do know that there is no such thing - I just don't bother responding to most of your posts or accusations.  I'm only responding to this now because you continually bring it up as if it somehow defines me. Well, it does define you, unfortunately. I suspect that you had no idea of the ludicrousness of your position about "hind leg genes" when you first posted it. If you did, you would have said something at the time. But you didn't do that; you let it fester, hoping it would eventually subside. Now when you say you "know" that there is no such thing, it rings hollow. Why didn't you say that when it mattered, and admit that you were clueless about modern evo-devo evidence? Sorry, Daniel, but it doesn't matter now. You had a chance to prove that you were indeed sincere in this discussion, by admitting that you were mistaken. By acting as if you knew it all along, you have defined yourself fairly concretely as just another creationist poser. God hates you.  And your tiny bunny rabbits, too. -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

mitschlag Posts: 236 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2008,04:55    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 08 2008,19:09) JAM has specifically mentioned pages 105-106, and I quoted some from pages 102-103 in one of my responses.  I can't read his mind though.   As for me though, I would recommend reading pages 125-145 to start -- this is where Schindewolf first goes into some detail on the topic of Ammonoid evolution as an "Introductory Example" for his theory.  The time period under discussion (for this one paper at least) is the Middle Jurassic. Hope that helps! Thanks, I'll work on it! In the meantime, I've read the Moyne & Neige paper, and I see that their cladistic analyses (which certainly took a large number of morphologic characters into account) led to the conclusion that  there were two middle Jurassic ammonite lineages.  It seems reasonable that later work would have refined the product of Schindewolf's labors.  So, like Daniel, I don't see anything in the paper that bears on the issue of orthogenesis vs natural selection. And, like Daniel, I need HELP! in understanding JAM's points. -------------- "You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

mitschlag Posts: 236 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2008,05:07    Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 08 2008,19:51) Sorry, Daniel, but it doesn't matter now. You had a chance to prove that you were indeed sincere in this discussion, by admitting that you were mistaken. By acting as if you knew it all along, you have defined yourself fairly concretely as just another creationist poser. All of that notwithstanding, isn't it more interesting to focus on his arguments? It's not easy for many of us to admit error. -------------- "You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2008,07:36    Quote (mitschlag @ Feb. 09 2008,05:07)   Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 08 2008,19:51) Sorry, Daniel, but it doesn't matter now. You had a chance to prove that you were indeed sincere in this discussion, by admitting that you were mistaken. By acting as if you knew it all along, you have defined yourself fairly concretely as just another creationist poser. All of that notwithstanding, isn't it more interesting to focus on his arguments? Sure it is. However, it would be a lot easier to focus on the arguments if they didn't change shape, or disappear altogether, when contradicting evidence is brought into his view. His teleological definition of natural selection is a perfect example of this problem... -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

Pages: (58) < ... 44 45 46 47 48 [49] 50 51 52 53 54 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard