RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (58) < ... 46 47 48 49 50 [51] 52 53 54 55 56 ... >   
  Topic: Evolution of the horse; a problem for Darwinism?, For Daniel Smith to present his argument< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
JAM



Posts: 503
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2008,09:33   

Quote (mitschlag @ Feb. 13 2008,06:31)
Quote (mitschlag @ Feb. 12 2008,15:58)
Would Schindewolf have recognized a transitional fossil if he saw one?

Apparently not:              
Quote
Even the initial joyous satisfaction that once greeted, for example, the discov­ery of the famous ancestral bird Archaeopteryx did not prove to be justified. Despite all its similarities to reptiles, Archaeopteryx is a true bird; the boundary between the reptile type and the bird type has not yet been bridged by a continu­ous, uninterrupted linking series.

In a book on paleontology comprising over 400 pages, it is revealing that the sole reference to Archaeopteryx is that short paragraph.

Two sentences that dismiss, without any analysis, one of the most important fossil finds in history.

And, to anticipate a dishonest attempt to regard Schindewolf's opinion as superior to actual evidence, numerous additional transitionals found since Schindewolf wrote his book do not support his airy dismissal.

There's also that pesky DNA evidence, which unequivocally demonstrates that birds and reptiles are monophyletic--in fact, birds are far more closely related to one group of reptiles than that group is to the remaining reptiles. What's funny is that another of Daniel's opinionated heroes, Denton, claims that this evidence somehow refutes evolution.

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2008,19:37   

Quote (mitschlag @ Feb. 12 2008,05:00)
           
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 11 2008,18:44)
As to your question of what a transitional ammonite might look like: To me (and you too apparently), they all look alike, but Schindewolf saw so many differences that he said he often could not envision what a transitional would look like between specific lineages.

Thanks for your reply, Daniel, but it was not responsive to my request for examples of the ammonites that Schindewolf was discussing in his chapter.

Regarding the quote above, where did Schindewolf say that?  How could that be true in every case where a transitional might be posited?  How could he find (or fail to find) a transitional if he didn't know what it might look like?

I hope you will understand my confusion.

Sorry for the delay mitschlag, but my time is limited.

I apologize also for not being able (yet) to find you a good example from Schindewolf's chapter on ammonites, (he doesn't give, very often, the specific names of the ammonites he speaks of, so it's hard to find the type of specific example you want), but I did find a pretty detailed example in one of Schindewolf's stony corals examples:  

It is found on pages 205 - 208 in the section entitled "The Origin Of Major Types".  Look at the figure on page 207, and read the corresponding description of it on the pages already outlined.  

What you are looking at here is Schindewolf's breakdown of the splitting off of the heterocorals from the pterocorals.  Like the suture line in ammonites, he uses the septal structure in the corals to retrace their evolution.

In this figure, 'e' is the mature Pterocorallia [Rugosa] with 'a-e' its ontogenetical developmental cycle.  'h' is the mature Heterophyllia with 'f-h' its ontogenetical developmental cycle.  'f' is also the most primitive heterocoral - Hexapyllia

Notice the transition from 'b to c' and 'b to f', about which Schindewolf says:            
Quote
Hexaphyllia (fig. 3.74f), the most primitive representative of the Heterocorallia, at first shows only a splitting of one lateral pair of protosepta (II) and holds to this very simple developmental stage throughout its life span.  The genus Heterophyllia, which follows it (fig. 3.74h), takes another large evolutionary step in the direction already established...
...As we determined earlier, these fundamental, qualitative character differences between the two structural designs make it appear to be completely impossible for the septal apparatus of the heterocorals to have arisen by gradual transformation from the differentiated septal apparatus of the pterocorals.  From the very beginning, their structural paths went in different directions.  Therefore, the breaking away of the heterocorals can only have come about during a developmental stage very early in ontogeny of the pterocorals, and we were able to pinpoint this stage precisely.  It occured in the early juvenile stage after the emplacement of protosepta pair II and before the appearance of protosepta pair III (fig. 3.74b).  At that point, immediately after the larva attached itself to the substrate and began to secrete its skeleton, the decisive switch to the new evolutionary direction occured, causing both the suppression of the heterocoral protoseptal pair III and the bifurcation of protoseptal pair II.
Gradual, smooth transitions between these two different developmental types are unknown and scarcely even imaginable.  It could be conceivable, of course, that the reduction of protoseptal pair III took place gradually; but with respect to either simple or bifurcate protoseptal pair II, there is a fundamental, dichotomous difference, which cannot be bridged by a gradual transformation.  The two characters are clearly correlated--perhaps owing to compensation of skeletal material; they are part of a coherent type-complex, which first appeared in or was produced by an early juvenile developmental stage of the ancestral type, suddenly, without any transition, in a single transformational step.
BQiP, pg. 206, emphasis his


While this is not exactly what you asked for, it does represent a pretty detailed account of one of the basic tenets of Schindewolf's theory - that the evolution of new types happens during an early ontogenetic stage and proceeds via a quite different developmental path to maturity.  

Remember that only 'e', 'h', and 'f' are mature corals, so when he says "Gradual, smooth transitions between these two different developmental types are unknown and scarcely even imaginable", he's talking about a gradual transition from 'e' (the mature Pterocorallia [Rugosa]) to 'f' (the mature Hexaphyllia).

He can't imagine that, but he can imagine a transition from 'b' (an early stage of ontogenetical development of  Pterocorallia [Rugosa]) to 'f' (the mature Hexaphyllia).

So this is what a saltational evolutionary event would look like to Schindewolf.

I'll continue to look for other specific examples for you, but I really think Schindewolf's book should be taken as a whole.  You should be able to read it for yourself and get a much better idea of his positions (given your background) than I can give you (given mine).

--------------
"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: 503
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2008,01:09   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 09 2008,11:02)
So, I try to limit my responses (mostly anyway) to the most important matters regarding the current discussion.  JAM is bringing up things that were said weeks ago on a whole different topic.  What relevance does that have now?

It is the very same topic, but you're either too dim, too deluded, and/or too dishonest to see it. It's all about your patently false assumption, unsupported by any evidence, about the way that development works (or more to the point, how life was "designed").

  
JAM



Posts: 503
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2008,01:22   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 13 2008,19:37)
...What you are looking at here is Schindewolf's breakdown of the splitting off of the heterocorals from the pterocorals.  Like the suture line in ammonites, he uses the septal structure in the corals to retrace their evolution.

But where's the EVIDENCE that the septal structure or suture lines are genetically determined?

Why do you think I keep asking you how many base changes are required to change the identity of a vertebra, a much more complex structure than either of these?
Quote
Notice the transition from 'b to c' and 'b to f',

So how many mutations are required for this transition? How many mutations are required for the transition between a cervical vertebra and a thoracic one with ribs?
Quote
about which Schindewolf says: ...

Who cares what he said? What about the evidence?
Quote
...As we determined earlier, these fundamental, qualitative character differences between the two structural designs make it appear to be completely impossible for the septal apparatus of the heterocorals to have arisen by gradual transformation from the differentiated septal apparatus of the pterocorals.

It doesn't appear that way at all. It didn't then, and it definitely doesn't today, given what educated people know about developmental genetics.
Quote
From the very beginning, their structural paths went in different directions.

Where's the evidence that demonstrates that these fundamental, qualitative character differences weren't entirely due to environment, Dan?
Quote
Therefore, the breaking away of the heterocorals can only have come about during a developmental stage very early in ontogeny of the pterocorals, and we were able to pinpoint this stage precisely.  It occured in the early juvenile stage after the emplacement of protosepta pair II and before the appearance of protosepta pair III (fig. 3.74b).

So, now you allegedly realize that your "hind limb genes" and "tail genes" were total BS, but you're going to contradict yourself and assume that coral have "protoseptal genes" anyway?
Quote
At that point, immediately after the larva attached itself to the substrate and began to secrete its skeleton, the decisive switch to the new evolutionary direction occured, causing both the suppression of the heterocoral protoseptal pair III and the bifurcation of protoseptal pair II.
Gradual, smooth transitions between these two different developmental types are unknown and scarcely even imaginable.

What was known about inheritance at the time Schindewolf wrote this steaming pile of BS, Dan?
Quote
It could be conceivable, of course, that the reduction of protoseptal pair III took place gradually; but with respect to either simple or bifurcate protoseptal pair II, there is a fundamental, dichotomous difference, which cannot be bridged by a gradual transformation.

Where's the evidence that shows that it cannot be bridged by a single base change?
Quote
While this is not exactly what you asked for, it does represent a pretty detailed account of one of the basic tenets of Schindewolf's theory - that the evolution of new types happens during an early ontogenetic stage and proceeds via a quite different developmental path to maturity.

But it's BS hand-waving without testing any of its predictions in the real world.  
Quote
Remember that only 'e', 'h', and 'f' are mature corals, so when he says "Gradual, smooth transitions between these two different developmental types are unknown and scarcely even imaginable", he's talking about a gradual transition from 'e' (the mature Pterocorallia [Rugosa]) to 'f' (the mature Hexaphyllia).

Why would single mutations yield "gradual, smooth transitions" anyway?
Quote
I'll continue to look for other specific examples for you, but I really think Schindewolf's book should be taken as a whole.

I think the evidence is more important. You clearly were lying when you claimed an interest in evidence upon your arrival here.

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2008,11:07   

Quote (JAM @ Feb. 13 2008,23:22)
     
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 13 2008,19:37)
...What you are looking at here is Schindewolf's breakdown of the splitting off of the heterocorals from the pterocorals.  Like the suture line in ammonites, he uses the septal structure in the corals to retrace their evolution.

But where's the EVIDENCE that the septal structure or suture lines are genetically determined?

Where's the evidence that they're not?  They're definitely inherited from generation to generation.
     
Quote
Why do you think I keep asking you how many base changes are required to change the identity of a vertebra, a much more complex structure than either of these?

To change the subject after your embarassing attempt to falsify Schindewolf by "evidence" you refused to back up.
       
Quote
     
Quote
Notice the transition from 'b to c' and 'b to f',

So how many mutations are required for this transition? How many mutations are required for the transition between a cervical vertebra and a thoracic one with ribs?

You tell me -- you're the expert.

 
Quote
given what educated people know about developmental genetics.
...
What was known about inheritance at the time Schindewolf wrote this ...
...
Where's the evidence that shows that it cannot be bridged by a single base change?
...
Why would single mutations yield "gradual, smooth transitions" anyway?

So you've found Schindewolf's mechanism.

Bully for you!

--------------
"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

  
mitschlag



Posts: 235
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2008,16:15   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 13 2008,19:37)
Sorry for the delay mitschlag, but my time is limited.

I apologize also for not being able (yet) to find you a good example from Schindewolf's chapter on ammonites, (he doesn't give, very often, the specific names of the ammonites he speaks of, so it's hard to find the type of specific example you want), but I did find a pretty detailed example in one of Schindewolf's stony corals examples:  

It is found on pages 205 - 208 in the section entitled "The Origin Of Major Types".  Look at the figure on page 207, and read the corresponding description of it on the pages already outlined.  

What you are looking at here is Schindewolf's breakdown of the splitting off of the heterocorals from the pterocorals.  Like the suture line in ammonites, he uses the septal structure in the corals to retrace their evolution.

I appreciate your diligence.  Regarding Ammonoid evolution, Schindwolf says on p 204,          
Quote
The examples cited of the transformation of type from the Triassic ceratites to the Jurassic ammonites or from the pterocorals to the cyclocorals show particularly well that each appearance of a new type signifies a radical break in the course of evolution.

I went back to pp 125-145, looking for his argument, but couldn't find a clear statement.  Such efforts are not helped by the author's reluctance to give page numbers for his backward- and forward-looking references and by a poor job of indexing by his translator-editors ("ceratite" isn't indexed, for example).

Anyway, regarding the corals, I grasp his point, and I agree that a gradualistic intervening sequence of adult forms between the heterocorals and the pterocorals is hard to envision.  His suggestion of an ontogenetic switch looks reasonable to me.

And that could have happened without divine intervention!

--------------
"You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

  
JAM



Posts: 503
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2008,16:19   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 14 2008,11:07)
   
Quote (JAM @ Feb. 13 2008,23:22)
           
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 13 2008,19:37)
...What you are looking at here is Schindewolf's breakdown of the splitting off of the heterocorals from the pterocorals.  Like the suture line in ammonites, he uses the septal structure in the corals to retrace their evolution.

But where's the EVIDENCE that the septal structure or suture lines are genetically determined?

Where's the evidence that they're not?

In the former case, in the primary literature on intraspecific (even intracolonial) variation in live corals, of course. Do you finally see what I mean about Schindewolf's hypothesis making testable empirical predictions?

How much variation is caused by environmental factors, BTW?
   
Quote
They're definitely inherited from generation to generation.

You are a compulsive liar, Dan. Only a profoundly dishonest person would label an aggressively ignorant guess with "definitely."

Besides, even if the differences are inherited, how much INTRAspecific genetic variation is known to exist in living corals?

If I'm wrong, I eagerly await your pointing me to the evidence that convinced you that these were "definitely" inherited.
   
Quote
   
Quote
Why do you think I keep asking you how many base changes are required to change the identity of a vertebra, a much more complex structure than either of these?

To change the subject after your embarassing attempt to falsify Schindewolf by "evidence" you refused to back up.

I did back it up, and I've been asking you the question long before that.

Do you see how your desperate claim that these matters I keep bringing up (your fantasy "hind limb genes," "tail genes," and the amount of genetic change required to produce complex phenotypic changes) aren't related to Schindewolf's BS hypothesis is completely false?

   
Quote
   
Quote
   
Quote
Notice the transition from 'b to c' and 'b to f',

So how many mutations are required for this transition? How many mutations are required for the transition between a cervical vertebra and a thoracic one with ribs?

You tell me -- you're the expert.

Zero.

Now tell me exactly how you know that the septal differences Schindewolf wrote about were "definitely inherited." It can't possibly be an innocent mistake when you emphasize it with "definitely;" it's a desperate attempt to lie to yourself while you are lying to others.

   
Quote
   
Quote

Why would single mutations yield "gradual, smooth transitions" anyway?

So you've found Schindewolf's mechanism.

Bully for you!

I didn't find the mechanism, it was known long before he wrote his book. That's why his hypothesis was DOA.

If this puzzles you, look at a junior-high-level biology textbook for a refresher, since your vapor-locked brain doesn't function well enough to get my joke about "brutha Greg."

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2008,20:01   

Quote (mitschlag @ Feb. 14 2008,14:15)
         
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 13 2008,19:37)
Sorry for the delay mitschlag, but my time is limited.

I apologize also for not being able (yet) to find you a good example from Schindewolf's chapter on ammonites, (he doesn't give, very often, the specific names of the ammonites he speaks of, so it's hard to find the type of specific example you want), but I did find a pretty detailed example in one of Schindewolf's stony corals examples:  

It is found on pages 205 - 208 in the section entitled "The Origin Of Major Types".  Look at the figure on page 207, and read the corresponding description of it on the pages already outlined.  

What you are looking at here is Schindewolf's breakdown of the splitting off of the heterocorals from the pterocorals.  Like the suture line in ammonites, he uses the septal structure in the corals to retrace their evolution.

I appreciate your diligence.  Regarding Ammonoid evolution, Schindwolf says on p 204,                      
Quote
The examples cited of the transformation of type from the Triassic ceratites to the Jurassic ammonites or from the pterocorals to the cyclocorals show particularly well that each appearance of a new type signifies a radical break in the course of evolution.

I went back to pp 125-145, looking for his argument, but couldn't find a clear statement.  Such efforts are not helped by the author's reluctance to give page numbers for his backward- and forward-looking references and by a poor job of indexing by his translator-editors ("ceratite" isn't indexed, for example).

Thanks mitschlag, for keeping this thread interesting, civil, and on-topic.  I really appreciate that!
I think what you're looking for is on page 140, in his section entitled "Mesozoic Ammonoids":          
Quote
This progressive evolution [Note: among Triassic ceratites - D.S.] from smooth shells to those with multibifurcate ribs takes place within a whole cluster of parallel lineages, not always absolutely simultaneously and in many conservative or prematurely extinct lines also not attaining the highest stage of sculpturing, but we can still speak, in general, of a directional, steady progression of sculpture.  All these lines then died off conspicuously, after having reached their highest degree of sculptural specialization, at the boundary between the Triassic and the Jurassic--all except one, which remained smooth and undifferentiated and survived this critical juncture to become the starting point of a new cycle of ammonoid evolution, of a renewed and profuse proliferation.
Exactly the same course of sculptural evolution that we see in the Triassic is repeated in the Jurassic-Cretaceous era in the Ammonitacea: at the beginning, there are once more smooth, unsculptured forms; these go on to develop simple ribs, then bifurcate ribs, then multibifurcate ribs (figs. 3.32 and 3.152).
BQiP, pg. 140, (my emphasis)


Does that help?
         
Quote
Anyway, regarding the corals, I grasp his point, and I agree that a gradualistic intervening sequence of adult forms between the heterocorals and the pterocorals is hard to envision.  His suggestion of an ontogenetic switch looks reasonable to me.

And that could have happened without divine intervention!
 
Perhaps, but I'd like to believe that--taken altogether--the sheer volume of such evolutionary steps lends itself more to a 'preprogrammed plan' explanation than to 'trial and error' and chance.  

That said, Schindewolf would agree with you, not me, about the need for 'divine intervention'.

--------------
"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. 15 2008,03:02   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 14 2008,20:01)
Perhaps, but I'd like to believe that--taken altogether--the sheer volume of such evolutionary steps lends itself more to a 'preprogrammed plan' explanation than to 'trial and error' and chance.  

That said, Schindewolf would agree with you, not me, about the need for 'divine intervention'.

Over what timescales are we talking about here Daniel?

And as 99%+ of everything that's ever lived is extinct it's not much of a plan is it really?

--------------
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: 235
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2008,09:54   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 14 2008,20:01)
I think what you're looking for is on page 140, in his section entitled "Mesozoic Ammonoids":                    
Quote
This progressive evolution [Note: among Triassic ceratites - D.S.] from smooth shells to those with multibifurcate ribs takes place within a whole cluster of parallel lineages, not always absolutely simultaneously and in many conservative or prematurely extinct lines also not attaining the highest stage of sculpturing, but we can still speak, in general, of a directional, steady progression of sculpture.  All these lines then died off conspicuously, after having reached their highest degree of sculptural specialization, at the boundary between the Triassic and the Jurassic--all except one, which remained smooth and undifferentiated and survived this critical juncture to become the starting point of a new cycle of ammonoid evolution, of a renewed and profuse proliferation.
Exactly the same course of sculptural evolution that we see in the Triassic is repeated in the Jurassic-Cretaceous era in the Ammonitacea: at the beginning, there are once more smooth, unsculptured forms; these go on to develop simple ribs, then bifurcate ribs, then multibifurcate ribs (figs. 3.32 and 3.152).
BQiP, pg. 140, (my emphasis)


Does that help?

Not really, though I appreciate the effort.  I hadn't picked up the reference to Fig 3.152 before, but neither the text nor that figure nor the other Ammonoid figures convey to me a level of discontinuity comparable to that shown in the corresponding text and figures on corals.  
Quote
...we can still speak, in general, of a directional, steady progression of sculpture.

Inasmuch as Schindewolf explicitly excluded teleological notions, he should have been more circumspect in making easily misconstrued pronouncements like this.  But he had another category of mysticism on his mind, unfortunately.

--------------
"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: 235
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2008,10:05   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 14 2008,20:01)
       
Quote (mitschlag @ Feb. 14 2008,14:15)

And that could have happened without divine intervention!
 
Perhaps, but I'd like to believe that--taken altogether--the sheer volume of such evolutionary steps lends itself more to a 'preprogrammed plan' explanation than to 'trial and error' and chance.

Believe whatever you'd like, dear boy.   :)

The scientific question remains: How was it accomplished?



Front-loaded?

Edited to add:  That is not a rat in the lower left-hand corner.

--------------
"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. 16 2008,21:45   

Quote (mitschlag @ Feb. 15 2008,07:54)
             
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 14 2008,20:01)
I think what you're looking for is on page 140, in his section entitled "Mesozoic Ammonoids":                                    
Quote
This progressive evolution [Note: among Triassic ceratites - D.S.] from smooth shells to those with multibifurcate ribs takes place within a whole cluster of parallel lineages, not always absolutely simultaneously and in many conservative or prematurely extinct lines also not attaining the highest stage of sculpturing, but we can still speak, in general, of a directional, steady progression of sculpture.  All these lines then died off conspicuously, after having reached their highest degree of sculptural specialization, at the boundary between the Triassic and the Jurassic--all except one, which remained smooth and undifferentiated and survived this critical juncture to become the starting point of a new cycle of ammonoid evolution, of a renewed and profuse proliferation.
Exactly the same course of sculptural evolution that we see in the Triassic is repeated in the Jurassic-Cretaceous era in the Ammonitacea: at the beginning, there are once more smooth, unsculptured forms; these go on to develop simple ribs, then bifurcate ribs, then multibifurcate ribs (figs. 3.32 and 3.152).
BQiP, pg. 140, (my emphasis)


Does that help?

Not really, though I appreciate the effort.  I hadn't picked up the reference to Fig 3.152 before, but neither the text nor that figure nor the other Ammonoid figures convey to me a level of discontinuity comparable to that shown in the corresponding text and figures on corals.

mitschlag,

I'm sure this is not exactly what you're looking for either, but figure 3.37 (on page 134), gives an example of how Schindewolf used suture lines to draw similar conclusions about ammonoids to those he drew from the corals.  

Each suture line depicted there represents 1) an ontogenetic developmental stage of two specific ammonoids, ('a' = the Permian adrianitid, and 'b' = the Permian stacheoceratid),  AND,  2) a mature phylogenetic stage for various other forms of ammonoids, (with 'a6' and 'b3' being the mature suture lines for the adrianitid and the stacheoceratid respectively).  He goes into some detail about this on the surrounding pages, (I also found the same figure repeated later in the book [pg. 209, fig. 3.75] with more explanation there.)

The arrow from 'a3' to 'b1' illustrates the ontogentic stage at which the stacheoceratid splits off from the adrianitid (they share the same first 3 stages -- 'a1-3').  It's not as obvious to the untrained eye as it is from his coral diagrams, but if you study it closely, you can see that the same principle applies.
           
Quote
           
Quote
...we can still speak, in general, of a directional, steady progression of sculpture.

Inasmuch as Schindewolf explicitly excluded teleological notions, he should have been more circumspect in making easily misconstrued pronouncements like this.  But he had another category of mysticism on his mind, unfortunately.

I don't know what "mysticism" you're talking about.  Schindewolf felt that the "direction" was entirely constrained by the original saltational event.

--------------
"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. 17 2008,04:40   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 16 2008,21:45)
Quote (mitschlag @ Feb. 15 2008,07:54)
             
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 14 2008,20:01)
I think what you're looking for is on page 140, in his section entitled "Mesozoic Ammonoids":                                    
Quote
This progressive evolution [Note: among Triassic ceratites - D.S.] from smooth shells to those with multibifurcate ribs takes place within a whole cluster of parallel lineages, not always absolutely simultaneously and in many conservative or prematurely extinct lines also not attaining the highest stage of sculpturing, but we can still speak, in general, of a directional, steady progression of sculpture.  All these lines then died off conspicuously, after having reached their highest degree of sculptural specialization, at the boundary between the Triassic and the Jurassic--all except one, which remained smooth and undifferentiated and survived this critical juncture to become the starting point of a new cycle of ammonoid evolution, of a renewed and profuse proliferation.
Exactly the same course of sculptural evolution that we see in the Triassic is repeated in the Jurassic-Cretaceous era in the Ammonitacea: at the beginning, there are once more smooth, unsculptured forms; these go on to develop simple ribs, then bifurcate ribs, then multibifurcate ribs (figs. 3.32 and 3.152).
BQiP, pg. 140, (my emphasis)


Does that help?

Not really, though I appreciate the effort.  I hadn't picked up the reference to Fig 3.152 before, but neither the text nor that figure nor the other Ammonoid figures convey to me a level of discontinuity comparable to that shown in the corresponding text and figures on corals.

mitschlag,

I'm sure this is not exactly what you're looking for either, but figure 3.37 (on page 134), gives an example of how Schindewolf used suture lines to draw similar conclusions about ammonoids to those he drew from the corals.  

Each suture line depicted there represents 1) an ontogenetic developmental stage of two specific ammonoids, ('a' = the Permian adrianitid, and 'b' = the Permian stacheoceratid),  AND,  2) a mature phylogenetic stage for various other forms of ammonoids, (with 'a6' and 'b3' being the mature suture lines for the adrianitid and the stacheoceratid respectively).  He goes into some detail about this on the surrounding pages, (I also found the same figure repeated later in the book [pg. 209, fig. 3.75] with more explanation there.)

The arrow from 'a3' to 'b1' illustrates the ontogentic stage at which the stacheoceratid splits off from the adrianitid (they share the same first 3 stages -- 'a1-3').  It's not as obvious to the untrained eye as it is from his coral diagrams, but if you study it closely, you can see that the same principle applies.
           
Quote
             
Quote
...we can still speak, in general, of a directional, steady progression of sculpture.

Inasmuch as Schindewolf explicitly excluded teleological notions, he should have been more circumspect in making easily misconstrued pronouncements like this.  But he had another category of mysticism on his mind, unfortunately.

I don't know what "mysticism" you're talking about.  Schindewolf felt that the "direction" was entirely constrained by the original saltational event.

And, Daniel, at exactly what point did supernatural intervention take place?

--------------
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: 235
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2008,07:08   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 16 2008,21:45)
mitschlag,

I'm sure this is not exactly what you're looking for either, but figure 3.37 (on page 134), gives an example of how Schindewolf used suture lines to draw similar conclusions about ammonoids to those he drew from the corals.  

Each suture line depicted there represents 1) an ontogenetic developmental stage of two specific ammonoids, ('a' = the Permian adrianitid, and 'b' = the Permian stacheoceratid),  AND,  2) a mature phylogenetic stage for various other forms of ammonoids, (with 'a6' and 'b3' being the mature suture lines for the adrianitid and the stacheoceratid respectively).  He goes into some detail about this on the surrounding pages, (I also found the same figure repeated later in the book [pg. 209, fig. 3.75] with more explanation there.)

The arrow from 'a3' to 'b1' illustrates the ontogentic stage at which the stacheoceratid splits off from the adrianitid (they share the same first 3 stages -- 'a1-3' ).  It's not as obvious to the untrained eye as it is from his coral diagrams, but if you study it closely, you can see that the same principle applies.

Excellent.  Now I get it!  :)

I think the issue of suture lines was tainted for me by the statement in Moyne and Neige:    
Quote
Suture line characters are not used in this analysis because of their high variability between the different species of each genus.

So, I now see the parallel in Schindewolf's claims for corals and ammonoids: an ontogenetic switch.

Is that the gist of his saltationist hypothesis?  It looks testable.  Are there any molecular-genetic-devolopmental data pertaining thereto in the literature?

--------------
"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: 235
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2008,08:05   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 16 2008,21:45)
 
Quote
   
Quote
...we can still speak, in general, of a directional, steady progression of sculpture.

Inasmuch as Schindewolf explicitly excluded teleological notions, he should have been more circumspect in making easily misconstrued pronouncements like this.  But he had another category of mysticism on his mind, unfortunately.

I don't know what "mysticism" you're talking about.  Schindewolf felt that the "direction" was entirely constrained by the original saltational event.

"Mysticism" was off the mark.  How about "metaphysics"?

I was trying to emphasize that it's too easy to read teleology into statements like this - and into his entire argument.  As you yourself have done.

--------------
"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: 235
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2008,08:14   

Regarding the picture of the  Chihuahua and the Great Dane...

Did the creator anticipate our need for Great Danes and Chihuahuas?

--------------
"You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

  
JAM



Posts: 503
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2008,13:58   

Quote (mitschlag @ Feb. 17 2008,07:08)
I think the issue of suture lines was tainted for me by the statement in Moyne and Neige:          
Quote
Suture line characters are not used in this analysis because of their high variability between the different species of each genus.

[Daniel Smith]But that sentence doesn't mention Schindewolf! Therefore it (and the classification generated by using characters other than suture lines) can't possibly falsify his assumptions![/Daniel Smith]
 
Quote
So, I now see the parallel in Schindewolf's claims for corals and ammonoids: an ontogenetic switch.

Except that Schindewolf merely assumes that the switches represent huge genetic differences, Daniel blinds himself to Schindewolf's arrogance, and treats Schindewolf's opinions as evidence.
 
Quote
Is that the gist of his saltationist hypothesis?  It looks testable.  Are there any molecular-genetic-devolopmental data pertaining thereto in the literature?

Only morphological data are needed, which is why I kept pointing out to Dan that Schindewolf couldn't be bothered to test his hypothesis. It makes crystal-clear predictions about the limits of variation we should find in both living and fossilized corals.

Click to enlarge, from:

Journal of Paleontology; January 1987; v. 61; no. 1; p. 21-31
Intraspecific morphological variations in a Pleistocene solitary coral, Caryophyllia (Premocyathus) compressa Yabe and Eguchi
Kei Mori

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2008,14:32   

Quote (mitschlag @ Feb. 17 2008,05:08)
   
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 16 2008,21:45)
mitschlag,

I'm sure this is not exactly what you're looking for either, but figure 3.37 (on page 134), gives an example of how Schindewolf used suture lines to draw similar conclusions about ammonoids to those he drew from the corals.  

Each suture line depicted there represents 1) an ontogenetic developmental stage of two specific ammonoids, ('a' = the Permian adrianitid, and 'b' = the Permian stacheoceratid),  AND,  2) a mature phylogenetic stage for various other forms of ammonoids, (with 'a6' and 'b3' being the mature suture lines for the adrianitid and the stacheoceratid respectively).  He goes into some detail about this on the surrounding pages, (I also found the same figure repeated later in the book [pg. 209, fig. 3.75] with more explanation there.)

The arrow from 'a3' to 'b1' illustrates the ontogentic stage at which the stacheoceratid splits off from the adrianitid (they share the same first 3 stages -- 'a1-3' ).  It's not as obvious to the untrained eye as it is from his coral diagrams, but if you study it closely, you can see that the same principle applies.

Excellent.  Now I get it!  :)

I think the issue of suture lines was tainted for me by the statement in Moyne and Neige:          
Quote
Suture line characters are not used in this analysis because of their high variability between the different species of each genus.

So, I now see the parallel in Schindewolf's claims for corals and ammonoids: an ontogenetic switch.

Is that the gist of his saltationist hypothesis?  It looks testable.  Are there any molecular-genetic-devolopmental data pertaining thereto in the literature?

Yes this is the gist of his saltational hypothesis (and one of the cornerstones of his theory).  I don't know if anyone has tested it or not.  A quick search on Google Scholar turns up many articles that are unavailable, except for the abstracts, without a subscription.

I did find one interesting article (for which the entire article is available) dealing with the subject of chromosomal rearrangements.
Here's the abstract:
Quote
There has been limited corroboration to date for McClintock’s vision
of gene regulation by transposable elements (TEs), although her proposition on the
origin of species by TE-induced complex chromosome reorganizations in combination
with gene mutations, i.e., the involvement of both factors in relatively sudden formations
of species in many plant and animal genera, has been more promising. Moreover,
resolution is in sight for several seemingly contradictory phenomena such as the endless
reshuffling of chromosome structures and gene sequences versus synteny and the
constancy of living fossils (or stasis in general). Recent wide-ranging investigations
have confirmed and enlarged the number of earlier cases of TE target site selection (hot
spots for TE integration), implying preestablished rather than accidental chromosome
rearrangements for nonhomologous recombination of host DNA. The possibility of
a partly predetermined generation of biodiversity and new species is discussed. The
views of several leading transposon experts on the rather abrupt origin of new species
have not been synthesized into the macroevolutionary theory of the punctuated equilibrium
school of paleontology inferred from thoroughly consistent features of the fossil
record.

As you know, Schindewolf favored Goldschmidt's theory of macromutations via chromosomal rearrangements.  Davison has expanded on this as well.  I personally don't know enough about it to know if this is the direction you would go in looking for whether or not Schindewolf's saltational mechanism has been tested.  What do you think mitschlag?

--------------
"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. 17 2008,14:34   

Quote (mitschlag @ Feb. 17 2008,06:05)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 16 2008,21:45)
   
Quote
     
Quote
...we can still speak, in general, of a directional, steady progression of sculpture.

Inasmuch as Schindewolf explicitly excluded teleological notions, he should have been more circumspect in making easily misconstrued pronouncements like this.  But he had another category of mysticism on his mind, unfortunately.

I don't know what "mysticism" you're talking about.  Schindewolf felt that the "direction" was entirely constrained by the original saltational event.

"Mysticism" was off the mark.  How about "metaphysics"?

I was trying to emphasize that it's too easy to read teleology into statements like this - and into his entire argument.  As you yourself have done.

I can't help it if the shoe fits!  :D

--------------
"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. 17 2008,14:37   

Quote (mitschlag @ Feb. 17 2008,06:14)
Regarding the picture of the  Chihuahua and the Great Dane...

Did the creator anticipate our need for Great Danes and Chihuahuas?

Apparently.

I thought you wanted to stick to science though!

--------------
"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. 17 2008,14:51   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 17 2008,14:37)
Quote (mitschlag @ Feb. 17 2008,06:14)
Regarding the picture of the  Chihuahua and the Great Dane...

Did the creator anticipate our need for Great Danes and Chihuahuas?

Apparently.

I thought you wanted to stick to science though!

Is there anything that could prove you are wrong?

Would you even be able to accept it if it were found?

--------------
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: 503
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2008,15:42   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 17 2008,14:32)
Yes this is the gist of his saltational hypothesis (and one of the cornerstones of his theory).  I don't know if anyone has tested it or not.

I just cited one in the post preceding yours. It failed miserably. Do you find that to be interesting?
Quote
A quick search on Google Scholar turns up many articles that are unavailable, except for the abstracts, without a subscription.

Dan, to serve as a test of his hypothesis, it doesn't need to be labeled as such. The question is, why didn't Schindewolf test the hypothesis that the morphological gaps he observed even represented inherited characters?
Quote
I did find one interesting article...

Why do you find opinion to more interesting than evidence, Dan?

  
mitschlag



Posts: 235
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2008,16:13   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 17 2008,14:37)
 
Quote (mitschlag @ Feb. 17 2008,06:14)
Regarding the picture of the  Chihuahua and the Great Dane...

Did the creator anticipate our need for Great Danes and Chihuahuas?

Apparently.

I thought you wanted to stick to science though!

Yes, I do.

What do you want to stick to?

--------------
"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: 235
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2008,06:55   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 17 2008,14:32)
     
Quote (mitschlag @ Feb. 17 2008,05:08)
So, I now see the parallel in Schindewolf's claims for corals and ammonoids: an ontogenetic switch.

Is that the gist of his saltationist hypothesis?  It looks testable.  Are there any molecular-genetic-devolopmental data pertaining thereto in the literature?

Yes this is the gist of his saltational hypothesis (and one of the cornerstones of his theory).  I don't know if anyone has tested it or not.  A quick search on Google Scholar turns up many articles that are unavailable, except for the abstracts, without a subscription.
<snip>
As you know, Schindewolf favored Goldschmidt's theory of macromutations via chromosomal rearrangements.  Davison has expanded on this as well.  I personally don't know enough about it to know if this is the direction you would go in looking for whether or not Schindewolf's saltational mechanism has been tested.  What do you think mitschlag?

I think a look at neoteny is a start:
     
Quote
Neoteny plays a role in evolution, as a means by which, over generations, a species can undergo a significant physical change. In such cases, a species’ neotenous form becomes its “normal” mature form, no longer dependent upon environmental triggers to inhibit maturity. The mechanism for this could be a mutation in or interactions between genes involved in maturation, changing their function to impede this process...


--------------
"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. 18 2008,19:37   

Quote (mitschlag @ Feb. 18 2008,04:55)
I think a look at neoteny is a start:
             
Quote
Neoteny plays a role in evolution, as a means by which, over generations, a species can undergo a significant physical change. In such cases, a species’ neotenous form becomes its “normal” mature form, no longer dependent upon environmental triggers to inhibit maturity. The mechanism for this could be a mutation in or interactions between genes involved in maturation, changing their function to impede this process...

     
Quote
"Neoteny is the retention, by adults in a species, of traits previously seen only in juveniles" (from your Wikipedia link).

Interesting.

I think that maybe Neoteny could apply to the coral example, but I don't see how it would apply to the ammonoid example - since both lineages continued in their respective development after the "switch" took effect.

It's food for thought.

What do you think of this?    
Quote
TE-induced and other gross chromosome rearrangements can lead to postzygotic isolating mechanisms that result in almost total cross-fertilization barriers between different lines of the same species in experimental organisms in a relatively short time period, as, for instance, in Pisum sativum (71).
CHROMOSOME REARRANGEMENTS AND TRANSPOSABLE ELEMENTS, Wolf-Ekkehard Lonnig and Heinz Saedler (my emphasis)


The footnote for 71 points to the following (unfortunately) German paper:
Lamprecht H. 1974. Monographie der Gattung Pisum. Graz: Steierm¨ark. Landesdruck. 655 pp.

--------------
"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. 19 2008,03:00   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 18 2008,19:37)
I think that maybe Neoteny could apply to the coral example

Calling all passengers. Your gap just got that bit smaller. Please note, all gods must now be re-sized to fit into the new, smaller gap. Mind the gap.

--------------
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: 235
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2008,06:42   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 18 2008,19:37)
I think that maybe Neoteny could apply to the coral example, but I don't see how it would apply to the ammonoid example - since both lineages continued in their respective development after the "switch" took effect.

Remember, you're dealing with enormous populations here, subject to differing environmental conditions (selective pressures) that vary over space and time.

There's no a priori reason to assume a global switchover independent of selective forces (despite Schindewolf's partiality to such notions).

--------------
"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: 235
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2008,06:52   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 18 2008,19:37)
What do you think of this?        
Quote
TE-induced and other gross chromosome rearrangements can lead to postzygotic isolating mechanisms that result in almost total cross-fertilization barriers between different lines of the same species in experimental organisms in a relatively short time period, as, for instance, in Pisum sativum (71).
CHROMOSOME REARRANGEMENTS AND TRANSPOSABLE ELEMENTS, Wolf-Ekkehard Lonnig and Heinz Saedler (my emphasis)


The footnote for 71 points to the following (unfortunately) German paper:
Lamprecht H. 1974. Monographie der Gattung Pisum. Graz: Steierm¨ark. Landesdruck. 655 pp.

Haven't read the paper yet, but the reference is probably moot.  Such a mechanism for speciation looks perfectly reasonable to my relatively inexpert understanding of such matters.

--------------
"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. 19 2008,18:11   

Quote (mitschlag @ Feb. 19 2008,04:52)
       
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 18 2008,19:37)
What do you think of this?                  
Quote
TE-induced and other gross chromosome rearrangements can lead to postzygotic isolating mechanisms that result in almost total cross-fertilization barriers between different lines of the same species in experimental organisms in a relatively short time period, as, for instance, in Pisum sativum (71).
CHROMOSOME REARRANGEMENTS AND TRANSPOSABLE ELEMENTS, Wolf-Ekkehard Lonnig and Heinz Saedler (my emphasis)


The footnote for 71 points to the following (unfortunately) German paper:
Lamprecht H. 1974. Monographie der Gattung Pisum. Graz: Steierm¨ark. Landesdruck. 655 pp.

Haven't read the paper yet, but the reference is probably moot.  Such a mechanism for speciation looks perfectly reasonable to my relatively inexpert understanding of such matters.

I think you should read the paper then, especially since they seem to be proposing this as a mechanism to explain the origin of higher categories ala Schindewolf:        
Quote
The question then centers on the extent to which TE-mediated chromosomal rearrangements can really explain the abrupt appearance not only of species but also of higher systematic categories in the face of the typical stasis of new life forms that so consistently characterizes the fossil record, i.e., the theory of punctuated equilibrium. Particularly apposite here are the following words of “so tough and influential a man” (52) as the German paleontologist Otto H. Schindewolf (116):
“According to Darwin’s theory, evolution takes place exclusively by way of slow, continuous formation and modification of species: the progressive addition of ever newer differences at the species level results in increasing divergence and leads to the formation of genera, families, and higher taxonomic and phylogenetic units. Our experience, gained from the observation of fossil material, directly contradicts this interpretation. We found that the organizing structure of a family or an order did not arise as the result of continuous modification in a long chain of species, but rather by means of a sudden, discontinuous direct refashioning of the type complex from family to family, from order to order, from class to class. The characters that account for the distinctions among species are completely different from those that distinguish one type from another.” (Italics by Schindewolf).
The existence in many animal groups such as foraminifers, brachiopods, corals, and others of an overwhelmingly rich fossil material consisting of literally millions (and generally in micropaleontology, billions) of individual exemplars led many paleontologists to emphasize that the objection most often raised against this view, i.e., the imperfection of the fossil record, is no longer valid [(15, 16, 37, 63, 116, 133, 139); see also discussion in (80, 85)]. Although Schindewolf’s causal explanations of evolution from inner compulsion are not accepted by most contemporary paleontologists, there is general agreement on his factual representation of the punctuated mode of appearance of new organisms in the fossil record. Given that Schindewolf’s description is phenotypically essentially correct, albeit with some exceptions (15, 56, 133), to what extent could TE-mediated small and gross chromosome rearrangements cope with the problem raised by the origin of families, orders, and classes?

CHROMOSOME REARRANGEMENTS AND TRANSPOSABLE ELEMENTS, pp 401–402, Wolf-Ekkehard Lonnig and Heinz Saedler, Annu. Rev. Genet. 2002. 36:389–410 (my emphasis)


--------------
"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. 19 2008,18:17   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 19 2008,01:00)
 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 18 2008,19:37)
I think that maybe Neoteny could apply to the coral example

Calling all passengers. Your gap just got that bit smaller. Please note, all gods must now be re-sized to fit into the new, smaller gap. Mind the gap.

If you'd spent more time paying attention and less time jumping to conclusions, you'd know that I don't advocate a "god of the gaps".  I've been clear on a number of occasions that I believe God planned it all - even the stuff that's already been explained.

--------------
"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

  
  1733 replies since Sep. 18 2007,15:27 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (58) < ... 46 47 48 49 50 [51] 52 53 54 55 56 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]