RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (37) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Daniel Smith's "Argument from Impossibility", in which assumptions are facts< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
JAM



Posts: 503
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 26 2009,15:45   

(feel free to move this to the Bathroom Wall, but I hope it's specific enough to stand alone)

On his blog, Daniel Smith offered a tasty slice of arrogance.

I'd like to go through it point by point, to show that what Dan is doing is (quite dishonestly) presenting his assumptions as facts. His bar is so high because it is supported with lies.

However, his assumptions are testable predictions of a scientific "Hypothesis of Impossibility."

So, will Dan test his inadvertent hypotheses or simply assert that he is right? Or will he simply assert that we are bad?

Passing by his initial red herrings for the hypotheses, here goes...
Quote
In E. coli, (one of the simplest unicellular lifeforms on the planet), the amino acids aspartic acid, asparagine, lysine, threonine, isoleucine, and methionine are synthesized from the compound oxaloacetate via a series of biochemical steps - each of which requires its own unique enzyme, (remember?).

No, Dan, I don't remember that.

The reality here is that your hypothesis simply predicts that each biochemical step REQUIRES its own UNIQUE enzyme.

Is this prediction empirically true? Please define "requires" and "unique" before responding, and when you respond, man up and cite DATA. No passing the buck with quotes.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4238
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 26 2009,16:51   

Quote (JAM @ Jan. 26 2009,16:45)
(feel free to move this to the Bathroom Wall, but I hope it's specific enough to stand alone)

On his blog, Daniel Smith offered a tasty slice of arrogance.

I'd like to go through it point by point, to show that what Dan is doing is (quite dishonestly) presenting his assumptions as facts. His bar is so high because it is supported with lies.

However, his assumptions are testable predictions of a scientific "Hypothesis of Impossibility."

So, will Dan test his inadvertent hypotheses or simply assert that he is right? Or will he simply assert that we are bad?

Passing by his initial red herrings for the hypotheses, here goes...
 
Quote
In E. coli, (one of the simplest unicellular lifeforms on the planet), the amino acids aspartic acid, asparagine, lysine, threonine, isoleucine, and methionine are synthesized from the compound oxaloacetate via a series of biochemical steps - each of which requires its own unique enzyme, (remember?).

No, Dan, I don't remember that.

The reality here is that your hypothesis simply predicts that each biochemical step REQUIRES its own UNIQUE enzyme.

Is this prediction empirically true? Please define "requires" and "unique" before responding, and when you respond, man up and cite DATA. No passing the buck with quotes.

After a long and tortuous discussion, Dan has unambiguously conceded that the predictions entailed in his "argument from impossibility" (predictions regarding necessary future failures of scientific efforts vis origins from within the framework of methodological naturalism) are not, and cannot be, scientific predictions.

To that extent he deserves credit.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
JAM



Posts: 503
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 26 2009,21:58   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 26 2009,16:51)
After a long and tortuous discussion, Dan has unambiguously conceded that the predictions entailed in his "argument from impossibility" (predictions regarding necessary future failures of scientific efforts vis origins from within the framework of methodological naturalism) are not, and cannot be, scientific predictions.

To that extent he deserves credit.

Bill,

I agree, but that's not my point, which is that he has accidentally specified predictions of a "hypothesis of impossibility," because his assumptions, which he falsely presented as facts, really are empirical predictions.

I'm not talking about his predictions of failure for others.

The point I'm trying to make to everyone is that one can test predictions of ID hypotheses after the onion of dishonesty is peeled back.

  
stevestory



Posts: 8865
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 26 2009,22:13   

I think Daniel's restricted to the Bathroom Wall. I'm not sure. Ask Lou. If he is, he can't comment in this thread. FYI.

   
hereoisreal



Posts: 745
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 26 2009,22:22   

Jam:
“The point I'm trying to make to everyone is that one can test predictions
of ID hypotheses after the onion of dishonesty is peeled back.”

Jam, what do you get when you cross an onion with a donkey?
Well, most of the time you get little onions, but once in a
while you get a piece of ass soo good, it brings tears to your eyes.

Zec 9:9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of
Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he [is] just, and having
salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.

Zero

--------------
360  miracles and more at:
http://www.hereoisreal.com/....eal.com

Great news. God’s wife is pregnant! (Rev. 12:5)

It's not over till the fat lady sings! (Isa. 54:1 & Zec 9:9)

   
hereoisreal



Posts: 745
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2009,21:05   

Quote (hereoisreal @ Jan. 26 2009,22:22)
Jam:
“The point I'm trying to make to everyone is that one can test predictions
of ID hypotheses after the onion of dishonesty is peeled back.”

Jam, what do you get when you cross an onion with a donkey?
Well, most of the time you get little onions, but once in a
while you get a piece of ass soo good, it brings tears to your eyes.

Zec 9:9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of
Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he [is] just, and having
salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.

Zero

"thy King cometh" is a  prediction unsubstantiated or verified until the event happens.
Only then does the verse take on meaning and relevance because, for one, it proves you have spoken the truth, and two... you have saved your own ass.


Mat 24:27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Eze 3:19 Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.

--------------
360  miracles and more at:
http://www.hereoisreal.com/....eal.com

Great news. God’s wife is pregnant! (Rev. 12:5)

It's not over till the fat lady sings! (Isa. 54:1 & Zec 9:9)

   
noncarborundum



Posts: 320
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2009,21:37   

Quote (hereoisreal @ Feb. 07 2009,21:05)
 
Quote (hereoisreal @ Jan. 26 2009,22:22)
Jam:
“The point I'm trying to make to everyone is that one can test predictions
of ID hypotheses after the onion of dishonesty is peeled back.”

Jam, what do you get when you cross an onion with a donkey?
Well, most of the time you get little onions, but once in a
while you get a piece of ass soo good, it brings tears to your eyes.

Zec 9:9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of
Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he [is] just, and having
salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.

Zero

"thy King cometh" is a  prediction unsubstantiated or verified until the event happens.
Only then does the verse take on meaning and relevance because, for one, it proves you have spoken the truth, and two... you have saved your own ass.


Mat 24:27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Eze 3:19 Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.

"Cthulhu fhtagn" is a  prediction unsubstantiated or verified until the stars once again come into proper alignment.
Only then does the verse take on meaning and relevance because, for one, it proves you have spoken the truth, and two... you're in deep shit.

--------------
"The . . . um . . . okay, I was genetically selected for blue eyes.  I know there are brown eyes, because I've observed them, but I can't do it.  Okay?  So . . . um . . . coz that's real genetic selection, not the nonsense Giberson and the others are talking about." - DO'L

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2009,04:02   

Quote (noncarborundum @ Feb. 07 2009,21:37)
Quote (hereoisreal @ Feb. 07 2009,21:05)
 
Quote (hereoisreal @ Jan. 26 2009,22:22)
Jam:
“The point I'm trying to make to everyone is that one can test predictions
of ID hypotheses after the onion of dishonesty is peeled back.”

Jam, what do you get when you cross an onion with a donkey?
Well, most of the time you get little onions, but once in a
while you get a piece of ass soo good, it brings tears to your eyes.

Zec 9:9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of
Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he [is] just, and having
salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.

Zero

"thy King cometh" is a  prediction unsubstantiated or verified until the event happens.
Only then does the verse take on meaning and relevance because, for one, it proves you have spoken the truth, and two... you have saved your own ass.


Mat 24:27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Eze 3:19 Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.

"Cthulhu fhtagn" is a  prediction unsubstantiated or verified until the stars once again come into proper alignment.
Only then does the verse take on meaning and relevance because, for one, it proves you have spoken the truth, and two... you're in deep shit.

On the other hand, "Hastur, Hastur, Hastur" can possibly be considered a practical experiment, albeit one that ends up similarily to your second point...:)

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
hereoisreal



Posts: 745
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2009,06:06   

Schroedinger's Dog:
>On the other hand, "Hastur, Hastur, Hastur" can possibly be considered a practical experiment, albeit one that ends up similarily to your second point...:) <

Hastur - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hastur (The Unspeakable One, Him Who Is Not to be Named, Assatur....)


Hey, you could be right!  

Ass/at/ur

See my last post on my thread, Zero res.

Feb. 07 2009,13:04

Similarily, yes.

Zero

--------------
360  miracles and more at:
http://www.hereoisreal.com/....eal.com

Great news. God’s wife is pregnant! (Rev. 12:5)

It's not over till the fat lady sings! (Isa. 54:1 & Zec 9:9)

   
Lou FCD



Posts: 5377
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2009,07:06   

Yes, Daniel is restricted to the Wall at the moment. There may be some future effort to restrict a troll each to his own thread, but that's up to Wesley and his priority list.

I'm leaving the thread open for the moment, but if it begins to stray too far off topic (Daniel's nonsense), I'll lock it until the guest of honor arrives.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
mitschlag



Posts: 235
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2009,15:45   

I don't think Daniel wants to leave the comfort of tile walls, ceramic appliances, and odor control wafers.

--------------
"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. 13 2009,19:24   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 12 2009,16:56)
                   
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 12 2009,17:51)
If I cross a red flower with a white flower, I may get a red flower, I may get a white flower, or I may - in some instances - get a pink flower.  Pink colored petals is a morphological feature not present in either parent.  Does this meet my challenge too?
My wife and I are both right-handed.  Our children are both left-handed.  Left-handedness is a morphological feature not present in both parents.  Does this also meet my challenge?
Your argument is so absurd, quite frankly I'm surprised that you are even putting it out there.
If this is the best you can do - you've lost.
I've admitted when I was wrong throughout this discussion.  This is not one of those times.  Maybe it's time for you to admit that you're wrong.

Daniel

Well, if you want to think that your red/white flower system meets your challenge, that's up to you. It's frankly idiotic, since we know that in most situations, if the pink  flower color is determined by a single pair of incompletely dominant alleles (as is the case in snapdragons), the F2 generation from a cross of pink x pink flowered F1 plants will yield some red and white flowers again. Simple Mendelian genetics; maybe you can read about it someday.

That is not the case with these new species of Tragopogon. The novel plants breed true; the flowers remain the same as in the F1 plants. It is a novel complex (and stable) morphogenetic system where we know the immediate precursors. It fulfills your criteria, you know it, and we all know it. In addition, it is an example of speciation within the past few decades.

Merely asserting that an argument is absurd is not an argument. You need to tell us why it is absurd, and so far you haven't managed to do that. All of your arguments have been shot down, and yet you still can't bring yourself to take that first toddler step toward scientific thinking and admit that you are wrong.

Albatrossity,

Let's take a look at this and see what we actually have here.

Polyploidy is common in the plant world:                  
Quote
Polyploidy is an important evolutionary force. Recent estimates suggest that 70% of all angiosperms have experienced one or more episodes of polyploidization. The frequency of polyploidy in pteridophytes could be as high as 95%

The polyploid production of these Tragopogon varieties is a repeatable and frequent occurence:                  
Quote
Tragopogon mirus Ownbey and T. miscellus Ownbey are allopolyploids that formed repeatedly during the past 80 years following the introduction of three diploids (T. dubius Scop., T. pratensis L. and T. porrifolius L.) from Europe to western North America.
                   
Quote
Tragopogon miscellus and T. mirus, two allopolyploid species of goatsbeard, may have formed as many as 20 and 12 times, respectively, in eastern Washington and adjacent Idaho (USA) in only the past 60–70 years; multiple polyploidizations have even occurred within single small towns. Studies of recent allopolyploidy in Tragopogon indicate that multiple origins can occur frequently over a short timespan and in a small area.

In polyploid varieties, the genetic distance between parents determines the amount of change in the resultant progeny:                    
Quote
Therefore, Brassica provides two important suggestions regarding genomic change after polyploidization: (1) the more divergent the parents, the greater the subsequent genomic change in the polyploid; and (2) the nuclear genome of maternal origin experiences less change than the paternal contribution.
                 
Quote
Analyses of rDNA ITS (internal transcribed spacer) + ETS (external transcribed spacer) sequence data indicate that the parental diploids are phylogenetically well separated within Tragopogon (a genus of perhaps 150 species), in agreement with isozymic and cpDNA data.
link and link

So what we have here is the normal product of polyploid reproduction in plants that are hybridized from two distantly related parents.  It works like recombination only with two (or more) copies of the genome.

(BTW, the term "speciation" is a term largely without meaning - since the term "species" is essentially undefined.)

Now you want to suggest this as an answer to my challenge for a new biological system with known precursors.  OK, let's assume you're correct.  This is the evolution of an entirely new morphological feature in one step.  All the enzymes are pre-positioned and pre-regulated.  The biochemical pathways are functional and intact - in one step.  If this is evolution (and technically it is), it's much more like the saltational evolution predicted by Berg, Schindewolf, Davison, Goldshmidt et al, than that predicted by Darwin.  

In fact, the Soltis, Soltis paper on multiple origins reads a lot more like Berg's Nomogenesis, than Darwin's Origin:                  
Quote
From Nomogenesis:

"Evolution bears a sweeping character, and is not due to single, accidentally favourable variations." (pg. 400)  

"...evolution is... an unfolding or manifestation of pre-existing rudiments." (pg. 403)

"The evolutionary process should be imagined in the following manner. A considerable quantity... of primitive organisms have developed on parallel lines, convergently experiencing approximately the same transformations and effecting that process at various rates" (pg. 404)

"Species arising through mutations are sharply distinguished one from another." (pg. 406)

"...evolution was chiefly convergent (partly divergent)... based upon laws... affecting a vast number of individuals throughout an extensive territory... by leaps, paroxysms, mutations" (pg. 406)

It also presents strong evidence in favor of Goldschmidt's hypothesis that the unit of evolution is the chromosome rather than the gene.

It's also strangely reminiscent of prediction I made way back when...
       
Quote
Phylogenetic trees will produce results that will increasingly rely on gene swapping and other mechanisms that cause large scale genetic changes.
link

Are you sure you want to cite this example Albatrossity?

--------------
"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. 13 2009,19:31   

Quote (JAM @ Jan. 26 2009,13:45)
(feel free to move this to the Bathroom Wall, but I hope it's specific enough to stand alone)

On his blog, Daniel Smith offered a tasty slice of arrogance.

I'd like to go through it point by point, to show that what Dan is doing is (quite dishonestly) presenting his assumptions as facts. His bar is so high because it is supported with lies.

However, his assumptions are testable predictions of a scientific "Hypothesis of Impossibility."

So, will Dan test his inadvertent hypotheses or simply assert that he is right? Or will he simply assert that we are bad?

Passing by his initial red herrings for the hypotheses, here goes...
   
Quote
In E. coli, (one of the simplest unicellular lifeforms on the planet), the amino acids aspartic acid, asparagine, lysine, threonine, isoleucine, and methionine are synthesized from the compound oxaloacetate via a series of biochemical steps - each of which requires its own unique enzyme, (remember?).

No, Dan, I don't remember that.

The reality here is that your hypothesis simply predicts that each biochemical step REQUIRES its own UNIQUE enzyme.

Is this prediction empirically true? Please define "requires" and "unique" before responding, and when you respond, man up and cite DATA. No passing the buck with quotes.

I got my information from my Biochemistry textbook JAM.  It states in the text that each step in this biochemical pathway is catalyzed by its own unique enzyme.  I used the term "requires" because the present system requires those enzymes to work.  If you're going to quibble about minutia, forget it.  You know what I mean, you're just being petty.

--------------
"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. 13 2009,19:40   

Quote (Quack @ Feb. 13 2009,02:06)
Daniel, whether you have been less than respectful and polite or not towards RB, Louis and the rest here, maybe you should consider the fact that your entire approach, with lengthy quotes, sermons and some rather dubious/irrelevant statements are by themselves a gross insult that expose ignorance not only about evolution but also a confusion stemming from your expressed goal: To have your faith and religious beliefs confirmed.

If you had faith you would not need confirmation from science. something like 'Doubting Thomas' comes to mind.

You are reaching for the moon but it still is 300.000 km away.

Have you listened to suggestions about what you should read?

The first thing you should know and understand, if you want to  engage scientists in debate is to leave your god out of it. Is that too much to ask?

I know they couldn't care less, nor is it relevant. Nor are your motives, the only thing that counts is: Do you want to learn? Do you want to understand? You ought to know by now that you won't get the answer you desperately are seeking here.

You have been treated with much more respect and patience than I think you deserve, even more than you have shown yourself. Your entire collection of postings is an insult to science and its representatives.

See, all you ever might obtain is an understanding of what science knows, what it says - but that would not solve your problem.

As a Gnostic, I can only laugh at your problem, I don't even feel sorry for you. Humility is not one of your Christian virtues, is it? Reminds me of Ray Martinez. Had English been my language I might have taught you a real lesson.

But words are wasted on you.

In his preface to "The Wisdom of Insecurity" (1954), Alan Watts wrote:

   
Quote
This book is written in the spirit of the Chinese sage Lao-tzu, that master of the law of reversed effort, who declared
that those who justify themselves do not convince, that to know truth one must get rid of knowledge, and that nothing is more powerful and creative than emptiness - from which men shrink. Here, then, my aim is to show - backwards fashion - that those essential realities of religion and metaphysics are vindicated in doing without them, and manifest in being destroyed.

I'm not here to have my faith confirmed.

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

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2009,19:47   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 13 2009,19:40)
I'm not here to have my faith confirmed.

Anything contrary to your idiosyncratic notions of faith = dismissed in whatever way you deem necessary, no matter how illogical or fallacious those dismissals may be.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2009,20:27   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 13 2009,19:24)
Albatrossity,

Let's take a look at this and see what we actually have here.

Polyploidy is common in the plant world:                        
Quote
Polyploidy is an important evolutionary force. Recent estimates suggest that 70% of all angiosperms have experienced one or more episodes of polyploidization. The frequency of polyploidy in pteridophytes could be as high as 95%

The polyploid production of these Tragopogon varieties is a repeatable and frequent occurence:                        
Quote
Tragopogon mirus Ownbey and T. miscellus Ownbey are allopolyploids that formed repeatedly during the past 80 years following the introduction of three diploids (T. dubius Scop., T. pratensis L. and T. porrifolius L.) from Europe to western North America.
                         
Quote
Tragopogon miscellus and T. mirus, two allopolyploid species of goatsbeard, may have formed as many as 20 and 12 times, respectively, in eastern Washington and adjacent Idaho (USA) in only the past 60–70 years; multiple polyploidizations have even occurred within single small towns. Studies of recent allopolyploidy in Tragopogon indicate that multiple origins can occur frequently over a short timespan and in a small area.

In polyploid varieties, the genetic distance between parents determines the amount of change in the resultant progeny:                          
Quote
Therefore, Brassica provides two important suggestions regarding genomic change after polyploidization: (1) the more divergent the parents, the greater the subsequent genomic change in the polyploid; and (2) the nuclear genome of maternal origin experiences less change than the paternal contribution.
                       
Quote
Analyses of rDNA ITS (internal transcribed spacer) + ETS (external transcribed spacer) sequence data indicate that the parental diploids are phylogenetically well separated within Tragopogon (a genus of perhaps 150 species), in agreement with isozymic and cpDNA data.
link and link

So what we have here is the normal product of polyploid reproduction in plants that are hybridized from two distantly related parents.  It works like recombination only with two (or more) copies of the genome.

(BTW, the term "speciation" is a term largely without meaning - since the term "species" is essentially undefined.)

Now you want to suggest this as an answer to my challenge for a new biological system with known precursors.  OK, let's assume you're correct.  This is the evolution of an entirely new morphological feature in one step.  All the enzymes are pre-positioned and pre-regulated.  The biochemical pathways are functional and intact - in one step.  If this is evolution (and technically it is), it's much more like the saltational evolution predicted by Berg, Schindewolf, Davison, Goldshmidt et al, than that predicted by Darwin.  

In fact, the Soltis, Soltis paper on multiple origins reads a lot more like Berg's Nomogenesis, than Darwin's Origin:                        
Quote
From Nomogenesis:

"Evolution bears a sweeping character, and is not due to single, accidentally favourable variations." (pg. 400)  

"...evolution is... an unfolding or manifestation of pre-existing rudiments." (pg. 403)

"The evolutionary process should be imagined in the following manner. A considerable quantity... of primitive organisms have developed on parallel lines, convergently experiencing approximately the same transformations and effecting that process at various rates" (pg. 404)

"Species arising through mutations are sharply distinguished one from another." (pg. 406)

"...evolution was chiefly convergent (partly divergent)... based upon laws... affecting a vast number of individuals throughout an extensive territory... by leaps, paroxysms, mutations" (pg. 406)

It also presents strong evidence in favor of Goldschmidt's hypothesis that the unit of evolution is the chromosome rather than the gene.

It's also strangely reminiscent of prediction I made way back when...
             
Quote
Phylogenetic trees will produce results that will increasingly rely on gene swapping and other mechanisms that cause large scale genetic changes.
link

Are you sure you want to cite this example Albatrossity?

Quit handwaving.

The fact that this is "normal", or "common" is an argument for my side. You are the fellow who claims that there are no examples of complex systems for which we know the immediate precursors. The fact that there are lots of them, including this one, is NOT an argument in your favor in any rational universe.

So, yeah, I'm sure that I want to cite this example, or any of a few dozen other examples, because it proves my point, rather than yours.

I assume, from your convoluted yet totally irrelevant comment, that you finally agree that this is an actual example of a complex system for which we know the immediate precursors.

If so, thanks for playing.  If not, tell me your latest argument for why this is not the case.

eta - First rule of holes: When you are in one, stop digging. When will Daniel stop digging?  When will he understand the contradiction in simultaneously asserting that this example is something that he claims never happens, and yet it is also cleverly predicted by the theories of his scientific heroes? The mental contortions engendered by a conclusion-first approach to science will never cease to amuse me!

eta II - Daniel, do you understand that you were hilariously wrong when you said that this was an example of "recombination"? Will you admit that you were wrong? Or were you hoping I would forget that great moment in the history of hubris?

--------------
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

   
Quack



Posts: 1751
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2009,09:39   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 13 2009,19:40)
I'm not here to have my faith confirmed.

Allright, I got it wrong then? I borrow from Pauli:"Your ideas are so confused I cannot tell whether they are nonsense or not."

In any case, you have written so much that you have made me confused.

If it is not too much to ask, what exactly is it that you hope to achieve here?

--------------
YEC creationists denigrate science without an inkling of what their lives would be without it. YEC creationism is an enrageous, abominable insult to the the human intellect.
                                                         Me.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2009,13:36   

Quote
(BTW, the term "speciation" is a term largely without meaning - since the term "species" is essentially undefined.)


ORLY, pompous ass?

undefined by you?  very likely.

undefined by the biologist community at large?  Wrong.

user defined?  perhaps.  the fact that there are no sharp clean boundaries in nature doesn't argue for your position, fool.  It destroys it.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2009,14:10   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Feb. 14 2009,11:36)
Quote
(BTW, the term "speciation" is a term largely without meaning - since the term "species" is essentially undefined.)


ORLY, pompous ass?

undefined by you?  very likely.

undefined by the biologist community at large?  Wrong.

user defined?  perhaps.  the fact that there are no sharp clean boundaries in nature doesn't argue for your position, fool.  It destroys it.

So what is the currently accepted definition?

--------------
"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. 14 2009,14:12   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 13 2009,18:27)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 13 2009,19:24)
Albatrossity,

Let's take a look at this and see what we actually have here.

Polyploidy is common in the plant world:                          
Quote
Polyploidy is an important evolutionary force. Recent estimates suggest that 70% of all angiosperms have experienced one or more episodes of polyploidization. The frequency of polyploidy in pteridophytes could be as high as 95%

The polyploid production of these Tragopogon varieties is a repeatable and frequent occurence:                          
Quote
Tragopogon mirus Ownbey and T. miscellus Ownbey are allopolyploids that formed repeatedly during the past 80 years following the introduction of three diploids (T. dubius Scop., T. pratensis L. and T. porrifolius L.) from Europe to western North America.
                         
Quote
Tragopogon miscellus and T. mirus, two allopolyploid species of goatsbeard, may have formed as many as 20 and 12 times, respectively, in eastern Washington and adjacent Idaho (USA) in only the past 60–70 years; multiple polyploidizations have even occurred within single small towns. Studies of recent allopolyploidy in Tragopogon indicate that multiple origins can occur frequently over a short timespan and in a small area.

In polyploid varieties, the genetic distance between parents determines the amount of change in the resultant progeny:                          
Quote
Therefore, Brassica provides two important suggestions regarding genomic change after polyploidization: (1) the more divergent the parents, the greater the subsequent genomic change in the polyploid; and (2) the nuclear genome of maternal origin experiences less change than the paternal contribution.
                         
Quote
Analyses of rDNA ITS (internal transcribed spacer) + ETS (external transcribed spacer) sequence data indicate that the parental diploids are phylogenetically well separated within Tragopogon (a genus of perhaps 150 species), in agreement with isozymic and cpDNA data.
link and link

So what we have here is the normal product of polyploid reproduction in plants that are hybridized from two distantly related parents.  It works like recombination only with two (or more) copies of the genome.

(BTW, the term "speciation" is a term largely without meaning - since the term "species" is essentially undefined.)

Now you want to suggest this as an answer to my challenge for a new biological system with known precursors.  OK, let's assume you're correct.  This is the evolution of an entirely new morphological feature in one step.  All the enzymes are pre-positioned and pre-regulated.  The biochemical pathways are functional and intact - in one step.  If this is evolution (and technically it is), it's much more like the saltational evolution predicted by Berg, Schindewolf, Davison, Goldshmidt et al, than that predicted by Darwin.  

In fact, the Soltis, Soltis paper on multiple origins reads a lot more like Berg's Nomogenesis, than Darwin's Origin:                          
Quote
From Nomogenesis:

"Evolution bears a sweeping character, and is not due to single, accidentally favourable variations." (pg. 400)  

"...evolution is... an unfolding or manifestation of pre-existing rudiments." (pg. 403)

"The evolutionary process should be imagined in the following manner. A considerable quantity... of primitive organisms have developed on parallel lines, convergently experiencing approximately the same transformations and effecting that process at various rates" (pg. 404)

"Species arising through mutations are sharply distinguished one from another." (pg. 406)

"...evolution was chiefly convergent (partly divergent)... based upon laws... affecting a vast number of individuals throughout an extensive territory... by leaps, paroxysms, mutations" (pg. 406)

It also presents strong evidence in favor of Goldschmidt's hypothesis that the unit of evolution is the chromosome rather than the gene.

It's also strangely reminiscent of prediction I made way back when...
               
Quote
Phylogenetic trees will produce results that will increasingly rely on gene swapping and other mechanisms that cause large scale genetic changes.
link

Are you sure you want to cite this example Albatrossity?

Quit handwaving.

The fact that this is "normal", or "common" is an argument for my side. You are the fellow who claims that there are no examples of complex systems for which we know the immediate precursors. The fact that there are lots of them, including this one, is NOT an argument in your favor in any rational universe.

So, yeah, I'm sure that I want to cite this example, or any of a few dozen other examples, because it proves my point, rather than yours.

I assume, from your convoluted yet totally irrelevant comment, that you finally agree that this is an actual example of a complex system for which we know the immediate precursors.

If so, thanks for playing.  If not, tell me your latest argument for why this is not the case.

eta - First rule of holes: When you are in one, stop digging. When will Daniel stop digging?  When will he understand the contradiction in simultaneously asserting that this example is something that he claims never happens, and yet it is also cleverly predicted by the theories of his scientific heroes? The mental contortions engendered by a conclusion-first approach to science will never cease to amuse me!

eta II - Daniel, do you understand that you were hilariously wrong when you said that this was an example of "recombination"? Will you admit that you were wrong? Or were you hoping I would forget that great moment in the history of hubris?

So what is the mechanism by which this evolution (of a new morphological feature in one step) was accomplished?

--------------
"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. 14 2009,14:14   

Quote (Quack @ Feb. 14 2009,07:39)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 13 2009,19:40)
I'm not here to have my faith confirmed.

Allright, I got it wrong then? I borrow from Pauli:"Your ideas are so confused I cannot tell whether they are nonsense or not."

In any case, you have written so much that you have made me confused.

If it is not too much to ask, what exactly is it that you hope to achieve here?

I've said it several times:  I came here to challenge and to be challenged.

I'm finding that most of you don't like to be challenged 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

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2009,15:15   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 14 2009,14:12)
So what is the mechanism by which this evolution (of a new morphological feature in one step) was accomplished?

You tell me, recombination-boy. You're the one that says Berg and Schindewolf and all those other fellows discussed this ad nauseam. What's the matter, did you run out of hubris?

PS - I notice you won't admit you were wrong, you just keep on stringing this out with new questions and the pretense that you "like to be challenged".

--------------
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

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2009,15:44   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 14 2009,20:14)
Quote (Quack @ Feb. 14 2009,07:39)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 13 2009,19:40)
I'm not here to have my faith confirmed.

Allright, I got it wrong then? I borrow from Pauli:"Your ideas are so confused I cannot tell whether they are nonsense or not."

In any case, you have written so much that you have made me confused.

If it is not too much to ask, what exactly is it that you hope to achieve here?

I've said it several times:  I came here to challenge and to be challenged.

I'm finding that most of you don't like to be challenged though.

Intelligent, well informed, good faith, intellectually honest challenge is welcomed.

Pig ignorant, pseudo-profound, nonsensical, arrogantly stupid, bad faith, intellectually dishonest challenge is not welcomed.

Spot the difference.

Quote
“They laughed at Galileo. They laughed at Newton. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.” Carl Sagan


Hint: you aren't Galileo or Newton, you're the other one.

You clearly haven't come here to be challenged because when your drivel is exposed you habitually to retreat to unreasonable positions like "I personally don't find X convincing!" (appeal to personal incredulity) and "But it's all so complicated!" (appeal to prejudice/mystery). Desire to be challenged requires effort to effect that challenge. Effort that has been suggested you put in (yet seem suspiciously unwilling to do). Do you really expect that everyone here should act as personal tutor to you? And don't complain that you have admitted when you are wrong, you've made grudging admissions and then merely repeated your original erroneous claims.

Let's be blunt Denial. The reason you are here is to try to gainsay someone you consider to be on the "opposite team" in order to receive a feeling of validation for yourself and your views. You've been sold a line about evolution contradicting your faith and so you've set out to slay the dragon. Unfortunately you've set out unarmed.

Another one for you:

Quote
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them." Thomas Jefferson


Science: Ur not doin it at all, Denial.

Take the hint, get some minimal education in a subject BEFORE you bloviate about it. It will a) help you and b) help any interaction you have with anyone. I may have mentioned before that your ignorance doesn't equate to someone else's knowledge. I know you don't like this, and consider it talking down to you, but it's something ALL of us have to do, you're not special.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2009,16:08   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 14 2009,14:12)
So what is the mechanism by which this evolution (of a new morphological feature in one step) was accomplished?

Er,

God did it?

Oh, right, sorry.....

--------------
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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2009,16:16   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 14 2009,14:10)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 14 2009,11:36)
Quote
(BTW, the term "speciation" is a term largely without meaning - since the term "species" is essentially undefined.)


ORLY, pompous ass?

undefined by you?  very likely.

undefined by the biologist community at large?  Wrong.

user defined?  perhaps.  the fact that there are no sharp clean boundaries in nature doesn't argue for your position, fool.  It destroys it.

So what is the currently accepted definition?

currently accepted by who?

bacteriologists?

mammalogists?

botanists?

entomologists?

why don't we, for the sake of this discussion (if that is truly what it is, and I have my doubts), just use the biological species concept definition.  

let us consider reproductive isolation as the criterion for where species demarcation begins and ends.  

let us leave aside stupid notions like "I am reproductively isolated from Inuits because I find them unattractive".  I'll give you a bonus point if you know which IDCist has used this argument, just for shits and giggles.  It'll show you have been paying attention.  No using teh google.

in the case of Albie's example, we have instantaneous reproductive isolation that is accompanied by major shifts in flower morphology.    in other words, it fits the criteria you demanded.

Do you understand that asking for an atom-by-atom account for the change in the molecular pathways that determine flower structure is simply moving the goalposts?

Do you understand that these examples are rare in the animal world and not-so-rare in the plant world (in other words, it doesn't support the argument for saltational evolution you claim that it does)?

Do you understand Zeno's Paradox, the misunderstanding of which  allows you to claim any event as a saltational event no matter what sort of historical or biological processes were in play?  For a hint, note that one polyploid is going to die where it grows.

Did you read the citation I posted yesterday about reproductive isolation due to Dobzhansky-Mueller effects in duplicate gene complexes within the model system Arabidopsis?  Again, this speaks directly to your misunderstandings.

I'm with Loose.  there is no point in attempting to hold your hand through this because you often give the impression of a petulant child, laying down in the floor and saying "No!".  The simple fact is that in all probable estimations, you are wrong.  You have been misled.  When you claim conspiracies and godless blinders, everyone is going to tell you to Fuck Off.  I have, and I will.  Because that nonsense is trite and tiresome.  Read the damn books, son.

Especially get a copy of the Mike Arnold book I posted, that is, if you really give a shit about any of this.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2009,16:46   

This is interesting too
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species
 
Quote
In biology, a ring species is a connected series of neighboring populations that can interbreed with relatively closely related populations, but for which there exist at least two "end" populations in the series that are too distantly related to interbreed. Often such non-breeding-though-genetically-connected populations co-exist in the same region thus creating a "ring". Ring species provide important evidence of evolution in that they illustrate what happens over time as populations genetically diverge, and are special because they represent in living populations what normally happens over time between long deceased ancestor populations and living populations.

Ring species also present an interesting problem for those who seek to divide the living world into discrete species, as well as for those who believe that evolution does not create new species. After all, all that distinguishes a ring species from two separate species is the existence of the connecting populations - if enough of the connecting populations within the ring perish to sever the breeding connection, the ring species becomes two distinct species.


--------------
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. 14 2009,19:24   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 14 2009,13:15)
         
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 14 2009,14:12)
So what is the mechanism by which this evolution (of a new morphological feature in one step) was accomplished?

You tell me, recombination-boy. You're the one that says Berg and Schindewolf and all those other fellows discussed this ad nauseam. What's the matter, did you run out of hubris?

PS - I notice you won't admit you were wrong, you just keep on stringing this out with new questions and the pretense that you "like to be challenged".

As near as I can tell, the evolution of this new feature began when there was some kind of genetic rearrangement due to polyploidy.  As you know however, that's just the beginning.  I don't know the exact genetic rearrangements, nor do I know which genes were expressed and why, nor do I know the makeup of the genes and the epigenetic factors involved in the production of the new feature, nor any of the metabolic factors involved, the biochemical pathways, their enzymes and their regulation.  I know none of this.  I know one thing however - all of this worked itself out in one single evolutionary step.  That's a lot!  The fact that this is a repeatable phenomenon where the above factors work themselves out every time leads me to believe that this is a either a normal reproductive event for plants, or, an evolutionary event with no random element whatsoever.  Care to choose?

I called it "recombination" but I was wrong.  I should have likened it to recombination - since it works in a similar manner - except for the number of chromosomes.  

This is all pretty neat and tidy - don't you think?  A new morphological feature with all of its many complex biochemical processes just falling into place.  So, do you think evolution normally works this way?  It sure seems a lot more like the "unfolding of pre-existing rudiments" than "selection acting on random variation" - wouldn't you say?

(Now which part of this will you snip and ignore?)

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

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4361
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2009,19:24   

As god-less evil scientists, why can't we just improve the world by breeding Daniel with his soul-mate RFJE, and just have ONE wierd rambling non-responsive thread?

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
khan



Posts: 1479
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2009,19:42   

Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 14 2009,20:24)
As god-less evil scientists, why can't we just improve the world by breeding Daniel with his soul-mate RFJE, and just have ONE wierd rambling non-responsive thread?

Will combining two halfwits yield a whole wit?

Or a quarter wit?

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5377
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2009,19:53   

As I look at Danny's new avatar, I have to wonder if he's bumped into AFDave lately.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4238
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2009,20:13   

Lest we forget:
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 12 2009,19:07)
Bill, I'll admit that I'm prejudiced when it comes to human ancestry.  I don't want us to be descended from apes, so I need extra convincing when it comes to that.  It's my bias.  I'm not sure how we fit into the picture re: evolution.  I'd like to believe we are a special creation of God, but I'm not wed to the idea.

Wishing something not to be true is NOT a basis for concluding that it is not true, or even unlikely to be true. I gather from your response that you have no basis for doubting that human beings and other great apes share a common ancestor other than your wishes and biases. The science is absolutely clear, however: human beings share common ancestry with the great apes (most recently with chimps and bonobos).
               
Quote
As for your other questions:  Common ancestry is compatible with front-loaded evolution.

My point is that front-loading is irrelevant to the emergence of humanity IF human beings did not descend from SOME ancestor species or other.
                   
Quote
As for the "immediate precursor", I don't think you understand what I mean by that.  I'm asking for the immediate precursor to an extant biological system - with the evolutionary path between them.

I don't think you understand what you have already conceded. If you agree that there is no basis for reasonable doubt that bonobos and chimpanzees (which surely themselves meet the definition of "complex biological systems") share a common ancestor, then you are stating that there is no reasonable doubt that a) there was such a precursor, and b) both populations progressed from that ancestral form to the organisms we see today by means of an unbroken succession of individuals reproducing over the intervening 2.5 million years, culminating in the organisms we know today.
           
Quote
 It's not enough to just point to something and say that it's the immediate precursor.  The two must be connected by a real pathway.

Not enough for what? Your statement that there can be no reasonable doubt of chimp-bonobo common ancestry does all the work that needs to be done. You've already conceded everything important in this discussion, as above. Of course we would like to know more about both that precursor and those intermediates, but the soundness of this inference (of precursor and intermediates progressing to the systems we observe today) depends in no way upon those additional findings.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2009,20:14   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 14 2009,19:24)
As near as I can tell, the evolution of this new feature began when there was some kind of genetic rearrangement due to polyploidy.  As you know however, that's just the beginning.  I don't know the exact genetic rearrangements, nor do I know which genes were expressed and why, nor do I know the makeup of the genes and the epigenetic factors involved in the production of the new feature, nor any of the metabolic factors involved, the biochemical pathways, their enzymes and their regulation.  I know none of this.  I know one thing however - all of this worked itself out in one single evolutionary step.  That's a lot!  The fact that this is a repeatable phenomenon where the above factors work themselves out every time leads me to believe that this is a either a normal reproductive event for plants, or, an evolutionary event with no random element whatsoever.  Care to choose?

I called it "recombination" but I was wrong.  I should have likened it to recombination - since it works in a similar manner - except for the number of chromosomes.  

This is all pretty neat and tidy - don't you think?  A new morphological feature with all of its many complex biochemical processes just falling into place.  So, do you think evolution normally works this way?  It sure seems a lot more like the "unfolding of pre-existing rudiments" than "selection acting on random variation" - wouldn't you say?

(Now which part of this will you snip and ignore?)

I won't snip and ignore any of it except for the irrelevant bits. Which would be almost all of it.

Your challenge was to show you a novel biological system where the immediate precursors are known. I did that. Note that this challenge does not include any stipulations about mechanism, so I will ignore that. Nor did you stipulate if this had to be "normal", or "common", so I can ignore that. Nor did you say that I had to prove that "evolution normally works that way", or not. You asked for a single example; that is the goal post we should be concentrating on. Why don't you try harder to do that?

Furthermore, if you had actually READ those papers rather than comb through them for something to hang your dunce cap on, you would know that there is absolutely NO evidence for "some kind of genetic rearrangement due to polypoloidy". if you actually understood any biology, you would be able to deduce that from the reading. Since you know absolutely no biology, you are pulling (again) strawmen out of your rectum.

So, back to the original question which you are avoiding.

Please tell me WHY this is not an example of a novel biological system where we know the immediate precursors. Don't hand-wave about mechanisms, or hormalcy, or repeatability, or any of those other idiotic parameters that you have erected post facto. Tell me WHY this is not an answer to your challenge.

If you can't do that, perhaps you should just shut up about it.

--------------
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

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2009,20:43   

man this is one dense dude.  almost as if by design.  who are you anyway, Denial?  you have an essence of old-school troll about you.  

anyway...

Denial, speciation by ploidy is a lot more common in plants than in animals.  it's not unknown in animals but it is apparently much less frequent.

none of that is rescuing you from your demand that we demonstrate a complex biological system and the precursors.  the frequency of speciation by ploidy is irrelevant.  and a fascinating subject but you are apparently too willfully self-deluded to investigate.  cest' la tard.

no random element whatosever?  well fuck me.  

i suppose you know exactly what causes this sort of event in plants then.  because, to the rest of us that don't have God Shades 2.0 or Satan Blockers or whatever lens you are privy to that the entirety of modern biological investigation is lacking, it sure as hell seems to be random.  

it may be more prevalent in certain phylogenetic groups but that's not helping you any here, we have theoretical explanations for that that have an evolutionary basis and not anything based on your misunderstanding or mangling of Schindewolf et al

I'm not helping you out here on that one, until you drop this stupid goal post moving game and start acting like a man and admit that your demand has been met.  i've got a bagful of these examples, O Petulant One, but I'm going to enjoy slapping you with them one at a time.  and I'm not done with this one yet.  what makes this non-random?

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2009,05:04   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 14 2009,19:24)
(Now which part of this will you snip and ignore?)

Lets face it, the entire post is you saying what you don't know.

It could have gone on for alot longer then that, no?

Congratulations for keeping it so short.

So, Daniel, the evolution of the ability to digest Citrate in the Lenski study appears to answer your challenge.

Are you so afraid of being wrong that you can't say why it does not?

--------------
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

  
JLT



Posts: 740
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2009,06:46   

Just to recap:
     
Quote
Daniel: Show me a novel biological system where the immediate precursors are known.
<subtext> Ha, he won't be able to do that, because it's impossible for a novel biological system to evolve (without woo woo from God)</subtext>

Albatrossity: Here's your example of a novel biological system where the immediate precursors are known.
<subtext>Take that, moron*</subtext>

Daniel: No, that can't be an example of an evolved novel biological system because it's impossible for a novel biological system to evolve. So it isn't a novel biological system and the evolutionary event leading to this novel biological system happens so frequently that it can't be an evolutionary event, so it's either normal reproduction or made by God!!!1!!11

That's really brilliant reasoning right there, congrats.
Oh and BTW:
         
Quote
This is all pretty neat and tidy - don't you think?  A new morphological feature with all of its many complex biochemical processes just falling into place.  


You are aware that if the the "biochemical processes" weren't working properly in the new species there wouldn't be any new species, aren't you. It might be a novel concept to you, but there is this thing that is called "natural selection". It just means that any new variants in which the biochemical processes weren't working properly WOULDN'T SURVIVE (long enough to produce offspring)**.



* Sorry, if I assumed wrongly that you thought something like that. Couldn't resist.

** or be sterile or produce significantly less offspring than the parent species, ALL of which probably happened and happens way more often than that it works out.

--------------
"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]
Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2009,08:34   

Quote (JLT @ Feb. 15 2009,06:46)
Just to recap:
         
Quote
Daniel: Show me a novel biological system where the immediate precursors are known.
<subtext> Ha, he won't be able to do that, because it's impossible for a novel biological system to evolve (without woo woo from God)</subtext>

Albatrossity: Here's your example of a novel biological system where the immediate precursors are known.
<subtext>Take that, moron*</subtext>

Daniel: No, that can't be an example of an evolved novel biological system because it's impossible for a novel biological system to evolve. So it isn't a novel biological system and the evolutionary event leading to this novel biological system happens so frequently that it can't be an evolutionary event, so it's either normal reproduction or made by God!!!1!!11

That's really brilliant reasoning right there, congrats.
Oh and BTW:
             
Quote
This is all pretty neat and tidy - don't you think?  A new morphological feature with all of its many complex biochemical processes just falling into place.  


You are aware that if the the "biochemical processes" weren't working properly in the new species there wouldn't be any new species, aren't you. It might be a novel concept to you, but there is this thing that is called "natural selection". It just means that any new variants in which the biochemical processes weren't working properly WOULDN'T SURVIVE (long enough to produce offspring)**.



* Sorry, if I assumed wrongly that you thought something like that. Couldn't resist.

** or be sterile or produce significantly less offspring than the parent species, ALL of which probably happened and happens way more often than that it works out.

No, that works for me.

Just another example of conclusion-first reasoning on Daniel's part - "there are no examples like the one I am demanding because it is impossible for those examples to exist in the tiny basement where my imagination lives". Conclusion-first reasoners will always have to go to great lengths to deny or ignore actual evidence that deflates their conclusions.

And, along with OldMan's citrate example, as erasmus said, there are plenty of examples in the plant world that Daniel still hasn't heard about. This could go on for a while if he wants to continue to get kicked around here.

--------------
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

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2009,08:38   

Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
The mulberry bush, the mulberry bush.
Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
So early in the morning.

This is the way we do some science,
Do some science, do some science.
This is the way we do some science,
So early Monday morning.

This is when Dan denies the facts,
Denies the facts, denies the facts.
This is when Dan denies the facts,
So early Tuesday morning.

This is how flowers evolve new things,
Evolve new things, evolve new things.
This is how flowers evolve new things,
So early Wednesday morning.

This is when Dan tries ignorance,
Ignorance, ignorance.
This is when Dan tries ignorance,
So early Thursday morning.

Here are some citrate eating bugs,
Eating bugs, eating bugs.
Here are some citrate eating bugs,
So early Friday morning.

This is when Dan appeals to faith,
Appeals to faith, appeals to faith.
This is when Dan appeals to faith,
So early Saturday morning.

This is the way we get pissed off,
Get pissed off, get pissed off.
This is the way we get pissed off,
So early Sunday morning.


With apologies to scansion, verse, doggerel and poetry everywhere

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2009,10:05   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 15 2009,15:38)
Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
The mulberry bush, the mulberry bush.
Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
So early in the morning.

This is the way we do some science,
Do some science, do some science.
This is the way we do some science,
So early Monday morning.

This is when Dan denies the facts,
Denies the facts, denies the facts.
This is when Dan denies the facts,
So early Tuesday morning.

This is how flowers evolve new things,
Evolve new things, evolve new things.
This is how flowers evolve new things,
So early Wednesday morning.

This is when Dan tries ignorance,
Ignorance, ignorance.
This is when Dan tries ignorance,
So early Thursday morning.

Here are some citrate eating bugs,
Eating bugs, eating bugs.
Here are some citrate eating bugs,
So early Friday morning.

This is when Dan appeals to faith,
Appeals to faith, appeals to faith.
This is when Dan appeals to faith,
So early Saturday morning.

This is the way we get pissed off,
Get pissed off, get pissed off.
This is the way we get pissed off,
So early Sunday morning.


With apologies to scansion, verse, doggerel and poetry everywhere

Louis

Beautiful, just beautiful! *dabs eyes*

But we don't care 'cos Dan's at church,
Dan's at church, Dan's at church.
But we don't care 'cos Dan's at church,
So early Sunday morning.


Sorry, I had to bring that verse...

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2009,10:13   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Feb. 15 2009,16:05)
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 15 2009,15:38)
Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
The mulberry bush, the mulberry bush.
Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
So early in the morning.

This is the way we do some science,
Do some science, do some science.
This is the way we do some science,
So early Monday morning.

This is when Dan denies the facts,
Denies the facts, denies the facts.
This is when Dan denies the facts,
So early Tuesday morning.

This is how flowers evolve new things,
Evolve new things, evolve new things.
This is how flowers evolve new things,
So early Wednesday morning.

This is when Dan tries ignorance,
Ignorance, ignorance.
This is when Dan tries ignorance,
So early Thursday morning.

Here are some citrate eating bugs,
Eating bugs, eating bugs.
Here are some citrate eating bugs,
So early Friday morning.

This is when Dan appeals to faith,
Appeals to faith, appeals to faith.
This is when Dan appeals to faith,
So early Saturday morning.

This is the way we get pissed off,
Get pissed off, get pissed off.
This is the way we get pissed off,
So early Sunday morning.


With apologies to scansion, verse, doggerel and poetry everywhere

Louis

Beautiful, just beautiful! *dabs eyes*

But we don't care 'cos Dan's at church,
Dan's at church, Dan's at church.
But we don't care 'cos Dan's at church,
So early Sunday morning.


Sorry, I had to bring that verse...

Nice!

I avoided bringing in "church" in the last verse, deliberately removing it in fact. Denial's church attendance is almost irrelevant. What isn't irrelevant is how Denial defends what he learns at church: appeals to prejudice, personal incredulity, common prejudice, ignorance, mystery etc. It's the same shit, just a different day.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2009,10:25   

I would probably have avoided the allusion as well, but the simple fact that his ideas and reactions here come from "church", it somewhat becomes relevant, at least I think.

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2009,11:23   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Feb. 15 2009,16:25)
I would probably have avoided the allusion as well, but the simple fact that his ideas and reactions here come from "church", it somewhat becomes relevant, at least I think.

I would agree, but church attendance is a necessary, not sufficient, prerequisite. ;-)

Louis

P.S. I think this is rather relevant to Denial's issues.

--------------
Bye.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2009,18:44   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 14 2009,17:53)
As I look at Danny's new avatar, I have to wonder if he's bumped into AFDave lately.

HA HA THIS IS DANIEL:



--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2009,19:11   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 14 2009,18:14)
         
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 14 2009,19:24)
As near as I can tell, the evolution of this new feature began when there was some kind of genetic rearrangement due to polyploidy.  As you know however, that's just the beginning.  I don't know the exact genetic rearrangements, nor do I know which genes were expressed and why, nor do I know the makeup of the genes and the epigenetic factors involved in the production of the new feature, nor any of the metabolic factors involved, the biochemical pathways, their enzymes and their regulation.  I know none of this.  I know one thing however - all of this worked itself out in one single evolutionary step.  That's a lot!  The fact that this is a repeatable phenomenon where the above factors work themselves out every time leads me to believe that this is a either a normal reproductive event for plants, or, an evolutionary event with no random element whatsoever.  Care to choose?

I called it "recombination" but I was wrong.  I should have likened it to recombination - since it works in a similar manner - except for the number of chromosomes.  

This is all pretty neat and tidy - don't you think?  A new morphological feature with all of its many complex biochemical processes just falling into place.  So, do you think evolution normally works this way?  It sure seems a lot more like the "unfolding of pre-existing rudiments" than "selection acting on random variation" - wouldn't you say?

(Now which part of this will you snip and ignore?)

I won't snip and ignore any of it except for the irrelevant bits. Which would be almost all of it.

Your challenge was to show you a novel biological system where the immediate precursors are known. I did that. Note that this challenge does not include any stipulations about mechanism, so I will ignore that. Nor did you stipulate if this had to be "normal", or "common", so I can ignore that. Nor did you say that I had to prove that "evolution normally works that way", or not. You asked for a single example; that is the goal post we should be concentrating on. Why don't you try harder to do that?

Furthermore, if you had actually READ those papers rather than comb through them for something to hang your dunce cap on, you would know that there is absolutely NO evidence for "some kind of genetic rearrangement due to polypoloidy". if you actually understood any biology, you would be able to deduce that from the reading. Since you know absolutely no biology, you are pulling (again) strawmen out of your rectum.

So, back to the original question which you are avoiding.

Please tell me WHY this is not an example of a novel biological system where we know the immediate precursors. Don't hand-wave about mechanisms, or hormalcy, or repeatability, or any of those other idiotic parameters that you have erected post facto. Tell me WHY this is not an answer to your challenge.

If you can't do that, perhaps you should just shut up about it.

It is a novel biological system where the immediate precursors are known.  If that's all you want from me, then there it is.  If you read back through my posts however, I never said that it wasn't.  What I was disputing was whether this novel feature was a normal result of plant crosses or if it was the "evolution" of a new feature.  I was not disputing the "novelness" of the feature, nor was I disputing the fact that the parents are known, I was only concerned with the mechanisms by which such novel features are born.  You don't want to discuss mechanisms or anything else related to this.  All you want to do is say you met one of my challenges.  Well hooray for you!  You met one of my challenges.  (Don't stop reading here or snip the rest!)  If you remember though, the specific challenge involved an evolutionary pathway for a novel biological feature.  The challenge was to find the immediate precursor, then go back one more step - so that we can build an agreed upon evolutionary pathway.  The challenge assumed there would be many steps.  You all whined endlessly about how it would be impossible to retrace the specific steps for the evolution of a new feature because it takes millions of years, involves countless mutations, and other assorted excuses.  Now you cite an example that requires only one step!  Geez.  I guess evolutionary pathways are remarkably easy to trace after all!  You guys should be able to knock out the E. coli aminosynthesis pathway before dinner!  Unless of course, this is not a typical example of the kind of evolution you claim built most biological features.  If that's the case, I can only assume you're just trying to pull a fast one to show off for your friends.

--------------
"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. 15 2009,19:22   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 14 2009,18:13)
Lest we forget:
 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 12 2009,19:07)
Bill, I'll admit that I'm prejudiced when it comes to human ancestry.  I don't want us to be descended from apes, so I need extra convincing when it comes to that.  It's my bias.  I'm not sure how we fit into the picture re: evolution.  I'd like to believe we are a special creation of God, but I'm not wed to the idea.

Wishing something not to be true is NOT a basis for concluding that it is not true, or even unlikely to be true. I gather from your response that you have no basis for doubting that human beings and other great apes share a common ancestor other than your wishes and biases. The science is absolutely clear, however: human beings share common ancestry with the great apes (most recently with chimps and bonobos).
                   
Quote
As for your other questions:  Common ancestry is compatible with front-loaded evolution.

My point is that front-loading is irrelevant to the emergence of humanity IF human beings did not descend from SOME ancestor species or other.
                     
Quote
As for the "immediate precursor", I don't think you understand what I mean by that.  I'm asking for the immediate precursor to an extant biological system - with the evolutionary path between them.

I don't think you understand what you have already conceded. If you agree that there is no basis for reasonable doubt that bonobos and chimpanzees (which surely themselves meet the definition of "complex biological systems") share a common ancestor, then you are stating that there is no reasonable doubt that a) there was such a precursor, and b) both populations progressed from that ancestral form to the organisms we see today by means of an unbroken succession of individuals reproducing over the intervening 2.5 million years, culminating in the organisms we know today.
             
Quote
 It's not enough to just point to something and say that it's the immediate precursor.  The two must be connected by a real pathway.

Not enough for what? Your statement that there can be no reasonable doubt of chimp-bonobo common ancestry does all the work that needs to be done. You've already conceded everything important in this discussion, as above. Of course we would like to know more about both that precursor and those intermediates, but the soundness of this inference (of precursor and intermediates progressing to the systems we observe today) depends in no way upon those additional findings.

Bill,

The only question worthy of discussion regarding this issue is the question of MECHANISM.  You seem to be missing that point.  Let's say I accept common ancestry in total.  That does not change the fact that science can't tell me HOW we - or any other species - evolved from their common ancestors.  

Take Albatrossity's example.  If that's typical evolution, then novel features can evolve in one step - pre-regulated, all biosynthetic and metabolic pathways and cycles in place.  Is that the mechanism of evolution?  If so, I've won the debate on how evolution works.  I picked "saltational with big changes in one step", you guys all picked "many untraceable steps".

Do I win?  Or do we have some more 'cipherin' to do?

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

  
jeffox



Posts: 531
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2009,19:29   

I may only be a fox, but methinks the following:

Daniel Smith's challenge = goalpost on wheels, new and improved*.

My 2c.




* now with variable height adjusters.

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2009,19:35   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 15 2009,19:22)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 14 2009,18:13)
Lest we forget:
   
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 12 2009,19:07)
Bill, I'll admit that I'm prejudiced when it comes to human ancestry.  I don't want us to be descended from apes, so I need extra convincing when it comes to that.  It's my bias.  I'm not sure how we fit into the picture re: evolution.  I'd like to believe we are a special creation of God, but I'm not wed to the idea.

Wishing something not to be true is NOT a basis for concluding that it is not true, or even unlikely to be true. I gather from your response that you have no basis for doubting that human beings and other great apes share a common ancestor other than your wishes and biases. The science is absolutely clear, however: human beings share common ancestry with the great apes (most recently with chimps and bonobos).
                   
Quote
As for your other questions:  Common ancestry is compatible with front-loaded evolution.

My point is that front-loading is irrelevant to the emergence of humanity IF human beings did not descend from SOME ancestor species or other.
                       
Quote
As for the "immediate precursor", I don't think you understand what I mean by that.  I'm asking for the immediate precursor to an extant biological system - with the evolutionary path between them.

I don't think you understand what you have already conceded. If you agree that there is no basis for reasonable doubt that bonobos and chimpanzees (which surely themselves meet the definition of "complex biological systems") share a common ancestor, then you are stating that there is no reasonable doubt that a) there was such a precursor, and b) both populations progressed from that ancestral form to the organisms we see today by means of an unbroken succession of individuals reproducing over the intervening 2.5 million years, culminating in the organisms we know today.
               
Quote
 It's not enough to just point to something and say that it's the immediate precursor.  The two must be connected by a real pathway.

Not enough for what? Your statement that there can be no reasonable doubt of chimp-bonobo common ancestry does all the work that needs to be done. You've already conceded everything important in this discussion, as above. Of course we would like to know more about both that precursor and those intermediates, but the soundness of this inference (of precursor and intermediates progressing to the systems we observe today) depends in no way upon those additional findings.

Bill,

The only question worthy of discussion regarding this issue is the question of MECHANISM.  You seem to be missing that point.  Let's say I accept common ancestry in total.  That does not change the fact that science can't tell me HOW we - or any other species - evolved from their common ancestors.  

Take Albatrossity's example.  If that's typical evolution, then novel features can evolve in one step - pre-regulated, all biosynthetic and metabolic pathways and cycles in place.  Is that the mechanism of evolution?  If so, I've won the debate on how evolution works.  I picked "saltational with big changes in one step", you guys all picked "many untraceable steps".

Do I win?  Or do we have some more 'cipherin' to do?

I'm interested in hearing why you think that evolution, ie the change of allele frequency over time, can't be decided by:

1: genetic drift

2: errors in duplication

3: selection of traits that allow those with the mutation to pass them on, etc.

On a side note, you postulate a designer, correct?

Could there be more than one designer?  What do you know about the designer?  I am interested as if an archeologist were to discover the remnants of some hereto unknown civilization via the artifacts they've left behind, they try and piece together the society that made them.

Why is ID so quiet on that point?

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4238
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2009,20:10   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 15 2009,20:22)
The only question worthy of discussion regarding this issue is the question of MECHANISM.

No, your request was thus:

"It's easy to point to something that works, and works well, and postulate that such a system would be advantageous and selected for...The hard part is finding the precursors - those systems that necessarily didn't work as well in the environment - and finding the path from there to the existing, refined system."*

"What I am asking for is the immediate precursor to an extant biological system - with the evolutionary path between them."

There is nothing in these particular requests vis mechanisms. When you state that there is no basis for reasonable doubt of common ancestry between chimps and bonobos, you state that there is no reasonable doubt regarding the fact that 1) there once existed a precursor to these species and 2) an unbroken evolutionary pathway from that precursor to two novel species (chimps and bonobos) must have existed. For the purposes of this discussion you have conceded your request, above.
           
Quote
Let's say I accept common ancestry in total.  That does not change the fact that science can't tell me HOW we - or any other species - evolved from their common ancestors.

Science tells you that variation and selection, reflecting countless contingent events, account for those pathways of descent, including the pathway culminating in Homo sapiens sapiens. Science speaks, but your biases and wishes render you unwilling to listen due to your overvalued attachment to human exceptionalism, as you stated above. Suit yourself.

You did not respond to my other questions:

What basis do you have for excluding human beings from otherwise universal common descent other than your wishes and biases?

In what way is frontloading relevant to the emergence of Homo sapiens sapiens absent human descent from an ancestor species ("special creation")?

* ETA: "those systems that necessarily didn't work as well in the environment" expresses a misbegotten understanding of natural selection. It does not follow that precursor organisms "worked less well in the environment." Selection pressures often arise from changing environments; organisms once beautifully adapted to their environments becomes less so as a result of those changes, resulting in increased selection pressures. Successor species are not "superior" or better adapted in some absolute sense; rather, they are better adapted to their later, modified environments.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2009,22:00   

no explanation will be considered that does not describe the entire process, including the xyz coordinates of all states of matter interacting during the process, along with an ontological narrative for the existence of said units of matter that summarily proves that atheists are wrong because Jehovah exists.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2009,06:25   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 15 2009,19:11)
It is a novel biological system where the immediate precursors are known.  If that's all you want from me, then there it is.  If you read back through my posts however, I never said that it wasn't.  What I was disputing was whether this novel feature was a normal result of plant crosses or if it was the "evolution" of a new feature.  I was not disputing the "novelness" of the feature, nor was I disputing the fact that the parents are known, I was only concerned with the mechanisms by which such novel features are born.  You don't want to discuss mechanisms or anything else related to this.  All you want to do is say you met one of my challenges.  Well hooray for you!  You met one of my challenges.  (Don't stop reading here or snip the rest!)  If you remember though, the specific challenge involved an evolutionary pathway for a novel biological feature.  The challenge was to find the immediate precursor, then go back one more step - so that we can build an agreed upon evolutionary pathway.  The challenge assumed there would be many steps.  You all whined endlessly about how it would be impossible to retrace the specific steps for the evolution of a new feature because it takes millions of years, involves countless mutations, and other assorted excuses.  Now you cite an example that requires only one step!  Geez.  I guess evolutionary pathways are remarkably easy to trace after all!  You guys should be able to knock out the E. coli aminosynthesis pathway before dinner!  Unless of course, this is not a typical example of the kind of evolution you claim built most biological features.  If that's the case, I can only assume you're just trying to pull a fast one to show off for your friends.

No, Daniel. This is what you said.

"What I am asking for is the immediate precursor to an extant biological system - with the evolutionary path between them."

And you got it.

Game, set, match.

Oh, BTW, there is more than one step in this pathway. As you would know if you actually read those papers. The F1 crosses made in the lab have different flower morphologies, and are mostly sterile. That single step isn't enough; the final products (two new species) are not just mere collections of both sets of genes. That single step is part of the process, but not the only part, as you seem to think in your simple-minded approach to all things biological. The Soltis group has spent a fair bit of time working out how these plants came to be. Too bad you can't be bothered to read about that before you spout off and move your goalposts again.

Finally, if you are "only concerned about mechanisms", why have you consistently failed to give us the mechanisms behind your "god theory"? How many steps does it take, using think-poof, to get from Lucy to you? Since you admit that I've "met one of your challenges", how about meeting this one for me?

Quit wasting electrons here, hypocrite.

--------------
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

   
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2009,06:33   

As the  would say, Bloodhound Gang "you can't teach an old god new tricks".

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2009,06:34   

Damn! Missed my edit! I can has edit buttun?

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2009,06:39   

Of course, I meant "as the Bloodhound gang would say"...

Edit buttun? Pleeease?  :D

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1237
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2009,11:30   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Feb. 16 2009,06:39)
Of course, I meant "as the Bloodhound gang would say"...

Edit buttun? Pleeease?  :D

No.  Bad Dog!  :angry:

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2009,11:41   

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Feb. 16 2009,18:30)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Feb. 16 2009,06:39)
Of course, I meant "as the Bloodhound gang would say"...

Edit buttun? Pleeease?  :D

No.  Bad Dog!  :angry:

:p

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2009,17:45   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 14 2009,18:43)
no random element whatosever?  well fuck me.  

i suppose you know exactly what causes this sort of event in plants then.  because, to the rest of us that don't have God Shades 2.0 or Satan Blockers or whatever lens you are privy to that the entirety of modern biological investigation is lacking, it sure as hell seems to be random.  

it may be more prevalent in certain phylogenetic groups but that's not helping you any here, we have theoretical explanations for that that have an evolutionary basis and not anything based on your misunderstanding or mangling of Schindewolf et al

I'm not helping you out here on that one, until you drop this stupid goal post moving game and start acting like a man and admit that your demand has been met.  i've got a bagful of these examples, O Petulant One, but I'm going to enjoy slapping you with them one at a time.  and I'm not done with this one yet.  what makes this non-random?

If it's a truly random event, would it be repeatable at the frequency we're seeing?

Tragopogon miscellus has formed as many as 20 times and T. mirus,  12 times, in eastern Washington and Idaho in only the past 60–70 years.

These speciation events are recurrent: the same species is forming the same way, numerous times.  Does this fit any definition of "random"?

--------------
"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. 16 2009,18:09   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 15 2009,18:10)
 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 15 2009,20:22)
The only question worthy of discussion regarding this issue is the question of MECHANISM.

No, your request was thus:

"It's easy to point to something that works, and works well, and postulate that such a system would be advantageous and selected for...The hard part is finding the precursors - those systems that necessarily didn't work as well in the environment - and finding the path from there to the existing, refined system."*

"What I am asking for is the immediate precursor to an extant biological system - with the evolutionary path between them."

There is nothing in these particular requests vis mechanisms. When you state that there is no basis for reasonable doubt of common ancestry between chimps and bonobos, you state that there is no reasonable doubt regarding the fact that 1) there once existed a precursor to these species and 2) an unbroken evolutionary pathway from that precursor to two novel species (chimps and bonobos) must have existed. For the purposes of this discussion you have conceded your request, above.

Except the part about the evolutionary path.  I want to know what it is (that involves mechanism).  You're still just pointing to two creatures and saying "connect the dots".               
Quote
Quote
Let's say I accept common ancestry in total.  That does not change the fact that science can't tell me HOW we - or any other species - evolved from their common ancestors.

Science tells you that variation and selection, reflecting countless contingent events, account for those pathways of descent, including the pathway culminating in Homo sapiens sapiens. Science speaks, but your biases and wishes render you unwilling to listen due to your overvalued attachment to human exceptionalism, as you stated above. Suit yourself.

Science "speaks".  Science "tells me" that "variation and selection, reflecting countless contingent events, account for those pathways of descent".  Handwaving anyone?  Science has none of these pathways worked out.  Science does not know whether "variation and selection" or "saltational evolution" produced one species from another.  Science can not know the specific mechanism that caused these evolutionary events until science knows exactly what the changes were and when and how they occurred.

Take Albatrossity's flowers for example.  If they were discovered centuries from now - when the exact number of "contingent events" necessary to produce the morphological feature in question was unknown - do you think science would be able to tell whether it was one event or many?

Quote
You did not respond to my other questions:

What basis do you have for excluding human beings from otherwise universal common descent other than your wishes and biases?

Things such as speech, language, culture, design, learning potential - in short the things that set us apart from apes.

Quote
In what way is frontloading relevant to the emergence of Homo sapiens sapiens absent human descent from an ancestor species ("special creation")?

It wouldn't be if we were a special creation.  If we are not, then it is relevant.

Quote
* ETA: "those systems that necessarily didn't work as well in the environment" expresses a misbegotten understanding of natural selection. It does not follow that precursor organisms "worked less well in the environment." Selection pressures often arise from changing environments; organisms once beautifully adapted to their environments becomes less so as a result of those changes, resulting in increased selection pressures. Successor species are not "superior" or better adapted in some absolute sense; rather, they are better adapted to their later, modified environments.


Those are nice stories Bill, got any data to back them up?

--------------
"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. 16 2009,18:50   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 14 2009,18:14)
Furthermore, if you had actually READ those papers rather than comb through them for something to hang your dunce cap on, you would know that there is absolutely NO evidence for "some kind of genetic rearrangement due to polypoloidy".

I'm not sure you read the papers Albatrossity.  If you had, you'd also know that they are positing genetic rearrangement as part of the polyploid process.

Look at Fig 2 in this paper: "Polyploidy: recurrent formation and genome evolution", by Douglas E. Soltis and Pamela S. Soltis.

It is a diagram contrasting the traditional view of polyploidy with the revised view.  Notice how often they refer to genetic rearrangements?  (It helps to look at the picture, but here's the caption):
       
Quote
Fig. 2. Comparison of (a) traditional view of genomic evolution subsequent to polyploid formation with (b) new or revised view. The classic view of genome evolution suggested that interactions between the parental genomes of an allopolyploid were minimal. Recently, it has become apparent that both intra- as well as intergenomic rearrangements occur. (b) In this example, arrows indicate genomic rearrangementsintragenomic rearrangements are represented by hatched areas on chromosomes from ‘diploid B’; intergenomic rearrangements are represented by translocation of ‘black’ or ‘white’ chromosomal segments between the genomes of ‘diploid A’ and ‘diploid B’. The degree of genomic change can also be influenced by cytoplasmic–nuclear interactions. In a newly formed allopolyploid, there are adverse interactions between the nuclear genome contributed by the male parental diploid and both the nuclear and cytoplasmic genomes of the female parental diploid; genome adjustments must occur to restore nuclear– cytoplasmic compatibility. Available data suggest that the nuclear genome of maternal origin experiences less change than does the paternal nuclear genome. Other evidence implicates transposable elements in the genome reorganization that has been detected in polyploids.


So you see Albatrossity - you were wrong about that.  It would seem that you are working from the traditional view of polyploidy rather than the revised view that Soltis and Soltis now champion.

--------------
"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: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2009,19:06   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 16 2009,18:50)
   
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 14 2009,18:14)
Furthermore, if you had actually READ those papers rather than comb through them for something to hang your dunce cap on, you would know that there is absolutely NO evidence for "some kind of genetic rearrangement due to polypoloidy".

I'm not sure you read the papers Albatrossity.  If you had, you'd also know that they are positing genetic rearrangement as part of the polyploid process.

Nice try, dipshit. Read your words again, and this time pretend that you are a scientist. What part of what they report is "due to polyploidy"? In common parlance, "due to" implies a causal relationship. How does polyploidy cause rearrangements? What mechanism (your favorite word!) is involved in this causality?  Did SchindewolfBergDavison or one of their many acolytes predict this?

Point #2 involves your hypocrisy. In your reply to R. Bill, you wrote      
Quote
Except the part about the evolutionary path.  I want to know what it is (that involves mechanism).

Yet you can't give us a mechanism for think-poof.

Point #3. Answer the question that you ignored from my last comment

How many steps does it take, using think-poof, to get from Lucy to you? Since you admit that I've "met one of your challenges", how about meeting this one for me?

--------------
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

   
khan



Posts: 1479
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2009,19:13   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 16 2009,19:50)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 14 2009,18:14)
Furthermore, if you had actually READ those papers rather than comb through them for something to hang your dunce cap on, you would know that there is absolutely NO evidence for "some kind of genetic rearrangement due to polypoloidy".

I'm not sure you read the papers Albatrossity.  If you had, you'd also know that they are positing genetic rearrangement as part of the polyploid process.

Look at Fig 2 in this paper: "Polyploidy: recurrent formation and genome evolution", by Douglas E. Soltis and Pamela S. Soltis.

It is a diagram contrasting the traditional view of polyploidy with the revised view.  Notice how often they refer to genetic rearrangements?  (It helps to look at the picture, but here's the caption):
       
Quote
Fig. 2. Comparison of (a) traditional view of genomic evolution subsequent to polyploid formation with (b) new or revised view. The classic view of genome evolution suggested that interactions between the parental genomes of an allopolyploid were minimal. Recently, it has become apparent that both intra- as well as intergenomic rearrangements occur. (b) In this example, arrows indicate genomic rearrangementsintragenomic rearrangements are represented by hatched areas on chromosomes from ‘diploid B’; intergenomic rearrangements are represented by translocation of ‘black’ or ‘white’ chromosomal segments between the genomes of ‘diploid A’ and ‘diploid B’. The degree of genomic change can also be influenced by cytoplasmic–nuclear interactions. In a newly formed allopolyploid, there are adverse interactions between the nuclear genome contributed by the male parental diploid and both the nuclear and cytoplasmic genomes of the female parental diploid; genome adjustments must occur to restore nuclear– cytoplasmic compatibility. Available data suggest that the nuclear genome of maternal origin experiences less change than does the paternal nuclear genome. Other evidence implicates transposable elements in the genome reorganization that has been detected in polyploids.


So you see Albatrossity - you were wrong about that.  It would seem that you are working from the traditional view of polyploidy rather than the revised view that Soltis and Soltis now champion.

It's so cute when the tards 'explain' science to the scientists.

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2009,19:18   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 16 2009,17:45)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 14 2009,18:43)
no random element whatosever?  well fuck me.  

i suppose you know exactly what causes this sort of event in plants then.  because, to the rest of us that don't have God Shades 2.0 or Satan Blockers or whatever lens you are privy to that the entirety of modern biological investigation is lacking, it sure as hell seems to be random.  

it may be more prevalent in certain phylogenetic groups but that's not helping you any here, we have theoretical explanations for that that have an evolutionary basis and not anything based on your misunderstanding or mangling of Schindewolf et al

I'm not helping you out here on that one, until you drop this stupid goal post moving game and start acting like a man and admit that your demand has been met.  i've got a bagful of these examples, O Petulant One, but I'm going to enjoy slapping you with them one at a time.  and I'm not done with this one yet.  what makes this non-random?

If it's a truly random event, would it be repeatable at the frequency we're seeing?

Tragopogon miscellus has formed as many as 20 times and T. mirus,  12 times, in eastern Washington and Idaho in only the past 60–70 years.

These speciation events are recurrent: the same species is forming the same way, numerous times.  Does this fit any definition of "random"?

you really wanna fuck your brain go look up what a strict cladist will tell you about this.  phylogenetic species concept.

whether or not these speciation 'events' involve the same polyploid 'species' is certainly up for debate.  part of the quibble is in definitions.  most of it is in concept.

just to make a point, i'll argue that these are not the same species, but there are as many species as there are events.  so your claim that the same species is forming the same way, numerous times, would be wrong by definition.  of course that is not so interesting, better to delve into the details here.

your notion that this is the 'same species forming multiple independent times' could be sloppy formulation of your idea, or it could be a poor grasp of what the phylogenetic question is, or it could be a peek at your essentialist metaphysic.  i'd suggest the latter.

What makes you say 'this same species has formed the same way numerous times?'  Show us your slip, luv.  Peek at them knickers.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2009,19:33   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 16 2009,17:06)
     
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 16 2009,18:50)
           
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 14 2009,18:14)
Furthermore, if you had actually READ those papers rather than comb through them for something to hang your dunce cap on, you would know that there is absolutely NO evidence for "some kind of genetic rearrangement due to polypoloidy".

I'm not sure you read the papers Albatrossity.  If you had, you'd also know that they are positing genetic rearrangement as part of the polyploid process.

Nice try, dipshit. Read your words again, and this time pretend that you are a scientist. What part of what they report is "due to polyploidy"? In common parlance, "due to" implies a causal relationship. How does polyploidy cause rearrangements? What mechanism (your favorite word!) is involved in this causality?  Did SchindewolfBergDavison or one of their many acolytes predict this?


I guess you had to snip the part of the paper I posted to avoid the obvious faux pas you made.  Here's the relevant part:
Quote
In a newly formed allopolyploid, there are adverse interactions between the nuclear genome contributed by the male parental diploid and both the nuclear and cytoplasmic genomes of the female parental diploid; genome adjustments must occur to restore nuclear–cytoplasmic compatibility.


What are they talking about here?  "Compatibility" between what exactly?  Two distinct diploid genomes?  How does an organism end up that way?  How can there be adverse interactions between two diploid genomes if not for polyploidy?  What part of these genetic rearrangements are not caused by polyploidy?  

Why can't you admit you were wrong?

I snipped your other two points until we're finished with this one.

--------------
"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: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2009,20:04   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 16 2009,19:33)
 
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 16 2009,17:06)
         
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 16 2009,18:50)
               
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 14 2009,18:14)
Furthermore, if you had actually READ those papers rather than comb through them for something to hang your dunce cap on, you would know that there is absolutely NO evidence for "some kind of genetic rearrangement due to polypoloidy".

I'm not sure you read the papers Albatrossity.  If you had, you'd also know that they are positing genetic rearrangement as part of the polyploid process.

Nice try, dipshit. Read your words again, and this time pretend that you are a scientist. What part of what they report is "due to polyploidy"? In common parlance, "due to" implies a causal relationship. How does polyploidy cause rearrangements? What mechanism (your favorite word!) is involved in this causality?  Did SchindewolfBergDavison or one of their many acolytes predict this?


I guess you had to snip the part of the paper I posted to avoid the obvious faux pas you made.  Here's the relevant part:    
Quote
In a newly formed allopolyploid, there are adverse interactions between the nuclear genome contributed by the male parental diploid and both the nuclear and cytoplasmic genomes of the female parental diploid; genome adjustments must occur to restore nuclear–cytoplasmic compatibility.


What are they talking about here?  "Compatibility" between what exactly?  Two distinct diploid genomes?  How does an organism end up that way?  How can there be adverse interactions between two diploid genomes if not for polyploidy?  What part of these genetic rearrangements are not caused by polyploidy?  

Why can't you admit you were wrong?

I snipped your other two points until we're finished with this one.

From the abstract of the paper you cite, my bolding  
Quote
Extensive and rapid genome restructuring can occur after polyploidization. Such changes can be mediated by transposons. Polyploidization could represent a period of transilience, during which genomic changes occur, potentially producing new gene complexes and facilitating rapid evolution.

The Soltis team hypothesizes that this could be causal. That is, as I'm sure you understand, different from your bald-faced use of the unequivocal words "due to".

More interestingly, now we've come full circle. You are telling me the mechanisms involved in speciation in Tragopogon. Mechanisms that you previously claimed were not known, and never would be known. That's damned funny.

Just to get you on to the real questions, I'll concede that the evidence points toward genomic rearrangements as part of the mechanism of speciation in allopolyploids. You win. But what do you win?  You've conceded your original point, and actually defended a rebuttal of your original point, which clears the path to hearing you finally explain the mechanisms of think-poofery leading from Lucy to you.

We're all waiting.

Thanks

--------------
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

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4238
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2009,20:27   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 16 2009,19:09)
Except the part about the evolutionary path.  I want to know what it is (that involves mechanism).  You're still just pointing to two creatures and saying "connect the dots".

YOU established that the dots MUST have been connected in an unbroken chain of descent when you accepted common descent between these two species. Given common descent, that cannot be doubted. Are you recanting you statement vis common descent of chimps and bonobos?
   
Quote
Handwaving anyone?  Science has none of these pathways worked out.

The fact is that once one has has accepted common descent vis these two species, one has established that, whatever those pathways from precursor to descendant, such a pathway certainly exists. That establishes everything important vis your above recent demand.*
   
Quote
Science does not know whether "variation and selection" or "saltational evolution" produced one species from another.  Science can not know the specific mechanism that caused these evolutionary events until science knows exactly what the changes were and when and how they occurred.

As I said, suit yourself.
   
Quote
   
Quote
You did not respond to my other questions:

What basis do you have for excluding human beings from otherwise universal common descent other than your wishes and biases?

Things such as speech, language, culture, design, learning potential - in short the things that set us apart from apes.

Incredulity isn't an argument.
   
Quote
   
Quote
* ETA: "those systems that necessarily didn't work as well in the environment" expresses a misbegotten understanding of natural selection. It does not follow that precursor organisms "worked less well in the environment." Selection pressures often arise from changing environments; organisms once beautifully adapted to their environments becomes less so as a result of those changes, resulting in increased selection pressures. Successor species are not "superior" or better adapted in some absolute sense; rather, they are better adapted to their later, modified environments.


Those are nice stories Bill, got any data to back them up?

This is a conceptual issue, Daniel. You have incorrectly stated current evolutionary theory at a conceptual level.

*ETA: Unless you are actually interested in the natural history of these beautiful and significant animals. Which you demonstrably are not.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Henry J



Posts: 4041
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2009,22:11   

Daniel,

Quote
If it's a truly random event, would it be repeatable at the frequency we're seeing?


Considering the way physicists use "random", I would say there's no conflict between random and occurring repeatedly at some frequency.

Quote
These speciation events are recurrent: the same species is forming the same way, numerous times.  Does this fit any definition of "random"?


Yes, if the probability is high enough to get multiple occurrences. Especially in a case like the one under discussion here, if I'm following it correctly.

IMO, demanding an immediate precursor for a feature doesn't really make sense. For most features of much complexity, the current theory implies that there won't be one: a more recent ancestor would have a less evolved version of the same feature, and a more distant one would have precursors, but they wouldn't be immediate. A sudden boundary between having and not having a complicated feature would be rare. I'm not even sure that the case under discussion here qualifies as that, since presumably the new species doesn't have any specific abilities not present in its ancestor species, outside of being able to mate with others of its kind.

Quote
Science can not know the specific mechanism that caused these evolutionary events until science knows exactly what the changes were and when and how they occurred.


What makes you so sure of that? The current theory predicts patterns that are very unlikely to occur consistently by accident if the theory is wrong; that's why scientists regard it as established beyond reasonable doubt. Its acceptance is not because of reconstructions of exact prehistoric sequences of events; unless there's a still living species descended from each step of that series, such a reconstruction is rather unlikely to reach the level of detail you seem to be demanding. When partial reconstructions of that sort are possible, that's an application of the theory, not a prerequisite to accepting it.

On a side note, I wonder how hybridization compares to polyploidy as a generator of new species? More frequent, or less?

Henry

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2009,22:23   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 16 2009,18:09)
Science "speaks".  Science "tells me" that "variation and selection, reflecting countless contingent events, account for those pathways of descent".  Handwaving anyone?  Science has none of these pathways worked out. ?

Except the ones that are, whereupon you then proceed to move your goalposts back even to abiogenesis, if necessary, to maintain your delusional state in which your incredulity beats known, demonstrable evidence.  

 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 16 2009,18:09)
 
Quote
What basis do you have for excluding human beings from otherwise universal common descent other than your wishes and biases?

Things such as speech, language, culture, design, learning potential - in short the things that set us apart from apes.?

All the things you listed are found in chimps, in varying degrees of elaboration.

Some are well-developed in the wild, some are basic -- but ALL of them are found in chimps. Your next move is to express unwarranted incredulity when shown examples of each... despite

(1) the aspects you listed existing in chimps in at least rudimentary form, therefore not exclusive to humans,
(2) You having read virtually nothing on the topic, I'd wager.

Oh, and I'll also guess you'll try to split semantic hairs on what each consists of. Your goalposts will be flying around like crazy, per your usual tactic.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2009,10:22   

I'm still in awe over the absurdity of IDists who want the exact pathways of evolution but offer absolutely nothing on the identities of the designers.

Isn't ID doomed to fail as even if the life on planet Earth were conclusively shown to be a product of some designers, how did the designers come about?

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2009,10:23   

Daniel,


How many designers are there?  What are some of the characteristics of these designers?


Thanks in advance

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2009,12:50   

Quote
On a side note, I wonder how hybridization compares to polyploidy as a generator of new species? More frequent, or less?


great question.  apparently we are never going to get to that because of the timeouts while goalposts are shifted.

anyway answer depends on the question.  gene flow can break up adaptive gene complexes, so there is room for selection to reinforce divergence.  the opposite can also be true, gene flow can limit divergence if fitness effects are more or less neutral.  Mike Arnold's book is a good one for this stuff but he certainly is banging a drum for his POV.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5377
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2009,14:02   

Quote (FrankH @ Feb. 17 2009,11:22)
I'm still in awe over the absurdity of IDists who want the exact pathways of evolution but offer absolutely nothing on the identities of the designers.

Isn't ID doomed to fail as even if the life on planet Earth were conclusively shown to be a product of some designers, how did the designers come about?

I'd like to hear about the mechanism of The Great Unnamed Pooftard in the Sky.

How does *poof* TARD work, precisely?

At what point(s) in time and in what location was said *poof(s)*, TARD?

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2009,14:04   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 16 2009,19:33)
I snipped your other two points until we're finished with this one.

Citrate.

And hark at the Daniel.

Quote
until we're finished with this one.


How do you pick and choose the points you want to talk about Daniel? Straw poll? Random number generator?

Or do you do it in a different way?

What's next?

--------------
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

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 1010
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2009,18:25   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 16 2009,22:23)
 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 16 2009,18:09)
Science "speaks".  Science "tells me" that "variation and selection, reflecting countless contingent events, account for those pathways of descent".  Handwaving anyone?  Science has none of these pathways worked out. ?

Except the ones that are, whereupon you then proceed to move your goalposts back even to abiogenesis, if necessary, to maintain your delusional state in which your incredulity beats known, demonstrable evidence.  

     
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 16 2009,18:09)
     
Quote
What basis do you have for excluding human beings from otherwise universal common descent other than your wishes and biases?

Things such as speech, language, culture, design, learning potential - in short the things that set us apart from apes.?

All the things you listed are found in chimps, in varying degrees of elaboration.

Some are well-developed in the wild, some are basic -- but ALL of them are found in chimps. Your next move is to express unwarranted incredulity when shown examples of each... despite

(1) the aspects you listed existing in chimps in at least rudimentary form, therefore not exclusive to humans,
(2) You having read virtually nothing on the topic, I'd wager.

Oh, and I'll also guess you'll try to split semantic hairs on what each consists of. Your goalposts will be flying around like crazy, per your usual tactic.

I remember you and others having the same conversation with good old AFDave years ago.  What amazes me is how many people have no real knowledge of chimps at all.  My wife periodically teaches a primates class for her anthropology students and takes them out to a nearby retirement center for chimps.  For the students, spending even a small amount of time around the chimps makes it impossible not to see those qualities.

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2009,19:02   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 16 2009,17:18)
             
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 16 2009,17:45)
               
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 14 2009,18:43)
no random element whatosever?  well fuck me.  

i suppose you know exactly what causes this sort of event in plants then.  because, to the rest of us that don't have God Shades 2.0 or Satan Blockers or whatever lens you are privy to that the entirety of modern biological investigation is lacking, it sure as hell seems to be random.  

it may be more prevalent in certain phylogenetic groups but that's not helping you any here, we have theoretical explanations for that that have an evolutionary basis and not anything based on your misunderstanding or mangling of Schindewolf et al

I'm not helping you out here on that one, until you drop this stupid goal post moving game and start acting like a man and admit that your demand has been met.  i've got a bagful of these examples, O Petulant One, but I'm going to enjoy slapping you with them one at a time.  and I'm not done with this one yet.  what makes this non-random?

If it's a truly random event, would it be repeatable at the frequency we're seeing?

Tragopogon miscellus has formed as many as 20 times and T. mirus,  12 times, in eastern Washington and Idaho in only the past 60–70 years.

These speciation events are recurrent: the same species is forming the same way, numerous times.  Does this fit any definition of "random"?

you really wanna fuck your brain go look up what a strict cladist will tell you about this.  phylogenetic species concept.

whether or not these speciation 'events' involve the same polyploid 'species' is certainly up for debate.  part of the quibble is in definitions.  most of it is in concept.

just to make a point, i'll argue that these are not the same species, but there are as many species as there are events.  so your claim that the same species is forming the same way, numerous times, would be wrong by definition.  of course that is not so interesting, better to delve into the details here.

your notion that this is the 'same species forming multiple independent times' could be sloppy formulation of your idea, or it could be a poor grasp of what the phylogenetic question is, or it could be a peek at your essentialist metaphysic.  i'd suggest the latter.

What makes you say 'this same species has formed the same way numerous times?'  Show us your slip, luv.  Peek at them knickers.

Uh... the Soltis and Soltis papers I've read *.

What's even more interesting is that - not only does the same species form numerous times, but the various populations then experience concerted evolution *.  (I didn't know what that was, so I looked it up)              
Quote
Concerted evolution:

The ability of two related genes to evolve together as though constituting a single locus.

Synonym: coincidental evolution.

Source: Biology Online


     
Quote
Our data indicate that concerted evolution is typically operating in the same direction in the two allopolyploids, both of which share T. dubius as one diploid parent. In all but one population examined, T. dubius is the rDNA type that is partially lost and perhaps replaced by units from the other diploid genome (either T. porrifolius or T. pratensis). Given that we examined six allopolyploid populations (and multiple plants per population) that all represent independent polyploidization events (Soltis et al., 1995), our data indicate that molecular evolution of the rDNA cistron in these plants typically follows the same trajectory (i.e., is repeatable).  *

[Note: the one population that does not follow this trend is thought to be the most recently formed and it is postulated that it too will follow the same evolutionary path. - D.S.]


So these species not only have multiple recurrent origins, they also evolve concurrently afterward.  How much of this still sounds random to you?

I smell vindication for the likes of Schindewolf, Berg, Goldschmidt, Grasse, and Davison.

* Source

--------------
"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 2009,19:16   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 16 2009,18:04)
   
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 16 2009,19:33)
       
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 16 2009,17:06)
             
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 16 2009,18:50)
                   
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 14 2009,18:14)
Furthermore, if you had actually READ those papers rather than comb through them for something to hang your dunce cap on, you would know that there is absolutely NO evidence for "some kind of genetic rearrangement due to polypoloidy".

I'm not sure you read the papers Albatrossity.  If you had, you'd also know that they are positing genetic rearrangement as part of the polyploid process.

Nice try, dipshit. Read your words again, and this time pretend that you are a scientist. What part of what they report is "due to polyploidy"? In common parlance, "due to" implies a causal relationship. How does polyploidy cause rearrangements? What mechanism (your favorite word!) is involved in this causality?  Did SchindewolfBergDavison or one of their many acolytes predict this?


I guess you had to snip the part of the paper I posted to avoid the obvious faux pas you made.  Here's the relevant part:          
Quote
In a newly formed allopolyploid, there are adverse interactions between the nuclear genome contributed by the male parental diploid and both the nuclear and cytoplasmic genomes of the female parental diploid; genome adjustments must occur to restore nuclear–cytoplasmic compatibility.


What are they talking about here?  "Compatibility" between what exactly?  Two distinct diploid genomes?  How does an organism end up that way?  How can there be adverse interactions between two diploid genomes if not for polyploidy?  What part of these genetic rearrangements are not caused by polyploidy?  

Why can't you admit you were wrong?

I snipped your other two points until we're finished with this one.

From the abstract of the paper you cite, my bolding        
Quote
Extensive and rapid genome restructuring can occur after polyploidization. Such changes can be mediated by transposons. Polyploidization could represent a period of transilience, during which genomic changes occur, potentially producing new gene complexes and facilitating rapid evolution.

The Soltis team hypothesizes that this could be causal. That is, as I'm sure you understand, different from your bald-faced use of the unequivocal words "due to".

More interestingly, now we've come full circle. You are telling me the mechanisms involved in speciation in Tragopogon. Mechanisms that you previously claimed were not known, and never would be known. That's damned funny.

Just to get you on to the real questions, I'll concede that the evidence points toward genomic rearrangements as part of the mechanism of speciation in allopolyploids. You win. But what do you win?  You've conceded your original point, and actually defended a rebuttal of your original point, which clears the path to hearing you finally explain the mechanisms of think-poofery leading from Lucy to you.

We're all waiting.

Thanks

Actually, I have a mea culpa of my own.  You see, (gulp), it seems you were right after all.

Although genetic rearrangements are often a part of polyploidy speciation...    
Quote
there is no evidence of major chromosomal rearrangements in populations of either T. mirus or T. miscellus.
Source


As for your question, we know the precursor, we know the mechanism in a general sense, let's see if they ever figure out how the two genomes combined to make the new morphological feature.  I'm betting that it will be non-randomly.

--------------
"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 2009,19:26   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 16 2009,18:27)
   
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 16 2009,19:09)
Except the part about the evolutionary path.  I want to know what it is (that involves mechanism).  You're still just pointing to two creatures and saying "connect the dots".

YOU established that the dots MUST have been connected in an unbroken chain of descent when you accepted common descent between these two species. Given common descent, that cannot be doubted. Are you recanting you statement vis common descent of chimps and bonobos?
         
Quote
Handwaving anyone?  Science has none of these pathways worked out.

The fact is that once one has has accepted common descent vis these two species, one has established that, whatever those pathways from precursor to descendant, such a pathway certainly exists. That establishes everything important vis your above recent demand.*
         
Quote
Science does not know whether "variation and selection" or "saltational evolution" produced one species from another.  Science can not know the specific mechanism that caused these evolutionary events until science knows exactly what the changes were and when and how they occurred.

As I said, suit yourself.
         
Quote
         
Quote
You did not respond to my other questions:

What basis do you have for excluding human beings from otherwise universal common descent other than your wishes and biases?

Things such as speech, language, culture, design, learning potential - in short the things that set us apart from apes.

Incredulity isn't an argument.
         
Quote
         
Quote
* ETA: "those systems that necessarily didn't work as well in the environment" expresses a misbegotten understanding of natural selection. It does not follow that precursor organisms "worked less well in the environment." Selection pressures often arise from changing environments; organisms once beautifully adapted to their environments becomes less so as a result of those changes, resulting in increased selection pressures. Successor species are not "superior" or better adapted in some absolute sense; rather, they are better adapted to their later, modified environments.


Those are nice stories Bill, got any data to back them up?

This is a conceptual issue, Daniel. You have incorrectly stated current evolutionary theory at a conceptual level.

*ETA: Unless you are actually interested in the natural history of these beautiful and significant animals. Which you demonstrably are not.

Bill,

Have you ever read any of the books on evolution by the authors I cite?  They all support common descent (though not necessarily form a single common ancestor).  Other than my biases about humans, I have no problem with common descent.

However...

Common descent says nothing whatsoever about MECHANISM.

You seem to be of the opinion that 'Evolution = Selection acting upon random variation'.  It doesn't.

Evolution = Change over time - period.

The mechanism for said change is the unsettled point.

Read Schindewolf's Basic Questions in Paleontology for an eye opening experience.

--------------
"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 2009,19:29   

Quote (FrankH @ Feb. 17 2009,08:23)
Daniel,


How many designers are there?  What are some of the characteristics of these designers?


Thanks in advance

Go back and read my previous posts.

I don't try to hide the fact that my designer is the Christian God.

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

  
khan



Posts: 1479
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2009,19:35   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 17 2009,20:29)
Quote (FrankH @ Feb. 17 2009,08:23)
Daniel,


How many designers are there?  What are some of the characteristics of these designers?


Thanks in advance

Go back and read my previous posts.

I don't try to hide the fact that my designer is the Christian God.

Which one of the pantheon?

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2009,19:43   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 15 2009,15:38)
Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
The mulberry bush, the mulberry bush.
Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
So early in the morning.


[snip]

Louis,

I get it.  No one can understand these issues unless he has first read the books you've read.

I cannot learn about fossils from Otto Schindewolf because he was not a Darwinist.  The man Dr. Norman Newell once called the "world's greatest living paleontologist" is unfit to teach me anything about the fossil record because he did not toe the party line.

I cannot learn genetics from Richard Goldschmidt or William Bateson, nor can I learn about morphological biology from Leo Berg.  In spite of their excellent credentials, I must learn genetics and morphology from someone steeped in the same orthodoxy as you.  That is after all, the only way to get a complete understanding.

Of course, other than "Read a book", you have not contributed anything of substance to this discussion since your failed attempt to defend abiogenesis way back in the beginning.

You've got your Bathroom Wall back, why don't you go back there, enjoy a fart joke or two, and leave me alone.

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

  
khan



Posts: 1479
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2009,19:50   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 17 2009,20:43)
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 15 2009,15:38)
Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
The mulberry bush, the mulberry bush.
Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
So early in the morning.


[snip]

Louis,

I get it.  No one can understand these issues unless he has first read the books you've read.

I cannot learn about fossils from Otto Schindewolf because he was not a Darwinist.  The man Dr. Norman Newell once called the "world's greatest living paleontologist" is unfit to teach me anything about the fossil record because he did not toe the party line.

I cannot learn genetics from Richard Goldschmidt or William Bateson, nor can I learn about morphological biology from Leo Berg.  In spite of their excellent credentials, I must learn genetics and morphology from someone steeped in the same orthodoxy as you.  That is after all, the only way to get a complete understanding.

Of course, other than "Read a book", you have not contributed anything of substance to this discussion since your failed attempt to defend abiogenesis way back in the beginning.

You've got your Bathroom Wall back, why don't you go back there, enjoy a fart joke or two, and leave me alone.

You are beginning to blither, as do all fundie yahoos.

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4238
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2009,20:15   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 17 2009,20:26)
The mechanism for said change is the unsettled point.

Good. Time to describe your mechanism.

By the way, "saltation" isn't a mechanism. It is a proposed description of the rate of change (very rapid, even single step) in evolution. It calls for explanation in the form of a mechanism.

Describe your proposed mechanism for saltation. Provide us with an illustration of it operating in a specific instance. The example of chimps and bonobos emerging from a common ancestor will do as an example, although you may prefer another. Your proposed mechanism should offer an explanation for the timing of the saltational events, including divergence of a single population into separate species, the distribution of features among the daughter species, their progressive differentiation, the fact of their adaptation to changing environmental circumstances, and so forth.

Ready, set, GO!

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2009,20:18   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 17 2009,19:16)
As for your question, we know the precursor, we know the mechanism in a general sense, let's see if they ever figure out how the two genomes combined to make the new morphological feature.  I'm betting that it will be non-randomly.

That's not my question.

Here it is again.

If you are "only concerned about mechanisms", why have you consistently failed to give us the mechanisms behind your "god theory"? How many steps does it take, using think-poof, to get from Lucy to you? Since you admit that I've "met one of your challenges", how about meeting this one for me?

--------------
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

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4238
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2009,20:19   

Great minds think alike.

Daniel?

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2009,20:22   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 17 2009,20:19)
Great minds think alike.

Daniel?

Well, we do share a birthday, after all :-)

--------------
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

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4238
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2009,20:28   

Daniel, you owe us both gifts.

Your mechanism?

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
clamboy



Posts: 155
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2009,00:25   

Daniel Smith will not answer the question of mechanism, ever.
Creationists do not answer questions, ever.

The ginger vodka may be working its magic, but at least I know these two truths.

  
k.e..



Posts: 2867
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2009,01:55   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 18 2009,03:29)
Quote (FrankH @ Feb. 17 2009,08:23)
Daniel,


How many designers are there?  What are some of the characteristics of these designers?


Thanks in advance

Go back and read my previous posts.

I don't try to hide the fact that my designer is the Christian God.

So what the fuck are you doing here?

You should be in some bible class have a cluster whatever it is they do.

Oh wait......



Preachin'

carry on

You know BTW that it can be mathmatically proven god doesn't exist?


BWHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH

fundie loser

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"Abbie Smith (ERV) who's got to be the most obnoxious arrogant snot I've ever seen except for when I look in a mirror" DAVE TARD
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2009,03:12   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 17 2009,19:29)
I don't try to hide the fact that my designer is the Christian God.

It's a "fact" is it?

Tell me, how did you come to that determination? There are many hundreds of them out there, apparently.

How come you know for a fact that the "real" one, the one that did all the designing, is the one you happen to worship?

That's some coincidence yeah?

Citrate.

--------------
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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2009,04:17   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 18 2009,01:43)
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 15 2009,15:38)
Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
The mulberry bush, the mulberry bush.
Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
So early in the morning.


[snip]

Louis,

I get it.  No one can understand these issues unless he has first read the books you've read.

I cannot learn about fossils from Otto Schindewolf because he was not a Darwinist.  The man Dr. Norman Newell once called the "world's greatest living paleontologist" is unfit to teach me anything about the fossil record because he did not toe the party line.

I cannot learn genetics from Richard Goldschmidt or William Bateson, nor can I learn about morphological biology from Leo Berg.  In spite of their excellent credentials, I must learn genetics and morphology from someone steeped in the same orthodoxy as you.  That is after all, the only way to get a complete understanding.

Of course, other than "Read a book", you have not contributed anything of substance to this discussion since your failed attempt to defend abiogenesis way back in the beginning.

You've got your Bathroom Wall back, why don't you go back there, enjoy a fart joke or two, and leave me alone.

Nope, you don't get it. Shall I call you the WAAAAAAAAAHmbulance? Perhaps some cheese to go with that whine? No? Thought not.

You can learn all you want from Schindewolf, or anyone you like, up to and including Paley, Aristotle,  and the girls from Bananarama (all of whom have very different ideas about evolutionary biology). You'll find no complaint from me (in fact you'll find encouragement). I'll also encourage you to read MORE than these people's works. In fact I think I might have done so. One of the problems you have Denial is a common one: you project your own biases onto others. There is no orthodoxy for me, the fact that you misunderstand that is....well hilarious, but also telling.

Like I said regarding discussing abiogenesis, if I had the slightest notion that you were going to participate in a discussion in good faith I'd be all over it. Oh and BTW since I haven't tried to "defend" abiogenesis, how can I have failed? I simply haven't bothered because I consider you to be a dishonest creationist turd. Look at (for example) RFJE's (initial) claims: dealt with quickly and simply. I'd cheerfully do the same for you if you were for just one brief second intellectually honest.

My point with you is, was, and remains until proven otherwise that you are a) thoroughly confused, b) labouring under as series of religiously inspired misapprehensions, c) that you lack the BASIC knowledge to attempt what you are attempting, and d) at least currently incapable of forming an honest, basically logical, argument and dealing with such. Look how many electrons have been wasted (and no minor amount of vitriol) just getting you to admit you were wrong about Albatrossity's example only for you to, again, move the goalposts. Why the fuck should I waste my time (technical posts take longer than anything else) educating you when all this is for you is a matter of gainsaying "your enemies" and reinforcing your delusions. Claims to the contrary Denial are not supported by YOUR behaviour HERE.

Ask a question relevant to my area of expertise, make a claim relevant to my area of research and I'll answer it to the best of my ability. As you're talking about biology etc, I'm perfectly happy to leave it to expert biologists to correct you. I'll join in if and when I deem it appropriate. The reason I've said "read a book" and "read these papers" is because you are asking questions that are answered in those books and those papers. Do you really want me to reproduce for you page by page these thousands of documents? Is that a reasonable request do you think?

The problem is Denial, you are an intellectually dishonest little shit and it's plain for all to see. I'll engage you as an intellectually capable adult when you start behaving like one. How and when others waste their time with you is their decision, but I'm going to keep mocking you until you deliver just one tiny shred of intellectual honesty. Now go away and do the basics Denial, it'll help stop you looking like an utter shoulder-be-chipped moron.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2009,04:49   

To put a slight emphasis on the WAAAAAAmbulance:

Genesis with Ricky Gervais

Sorry, had to put that one somewhere. Bathroom Wall, here I cooooome!

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
mitschlag



Posts: 235
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2009,06:00   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 17 2009,19:26)
Read Schindewolf's Basic Questions in Paleontology for an eye opening experience.

It is a losing gambit for Daniel to play the Schindewolf card.

I have read Grundfragen, and I can testify that it was an eye-closing experience.

Schindewolf musters artificial selection of data and tortuous argumentation to support preconceived notions of front-loading (orthogenesis) in evolution.

Remember Daniel's thread arguing that the evolution of the horse was a problem for modern evolutionary theory, and how Daniel bailed out of the discussion when Schindewolf's errors and omissions were pointed out to him, as in George  Gaylord Simpson's  The Major Features of Evolution?

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

  
k.e..



Posts: 2867
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2009,06:30   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 18 2009,12:17)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 18 2009,01:43)
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 15 2009,15:38)
Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
The mulberry bush, the mulberry bush.
Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
So early in the morning.


[snip]

Louis,

I get it.  No one can understand these issues unless he has first read the books you've read.

I cannot learn about fossils from Otto Schindewolf because he was not a Darwinist.  The man Dr. Norman Newell once called the "world's greatest living paleontologist" is unfit to teach me anything about the fossil record because he did not toe the party line.

I cannot learn genetics from Richard Goldschmidt or William Bateson, nor can I learn about morphological biology from Leo Berg.  In spite of their excellent credentials, I must learn genetics and morphology from someone steeped in the same orthodoxy as you.  That is after all, the only way to get a complete understanding.

Of course, other than "Read a book", you have not contributed anything of substance to this discussion since your failed attempt to defend abiogenesis way back in the beginning.

You've got your Bathroom Wall back, why don't you go back there, enjoy a fart joke or two, and leave me alone.

Nope, you don't get it. Shall I call you the WAAAAAAAAAHmbulance? Perhaps some cheese to go with that whine? No? Thought not.

You can learn all you want from Schindewolf, or anyone you like, up to and including Paley, Aristotle,  and the girls from Bananarama (all of whom have very different ideas about evolutionary biology). You'll find no complaint from me (in fact you'll find encouragement). I'll also encourage you to read MORE than these people's works. In fact I think I might have done so. One of the problems you have Denial is a common one: you project your own biases onto others. There is no orthodoxy for me, the fact that you misunderstand that is....well hilarious, but also telling.

Like I said regarding discussing abiogenesis, if I had the slightest notion that you were going to participate in a discussion in good faith I'd be all over it. Oh and BTW since I haven't tried to "defend" abiogenesis, how can I have failed? I simply haven't bothered because I consider you to be a dishonest creationist turd. Look at (for example) RFJE's (initial) claims: dealt with quickly and simply. I'd cheerfully do the same for you if you were for just one brief second intellectually honest.

My point with you is, was, and remains until proven otherwise that you are a) thoroughly confused, b) labouring under as series of religiously inspired misapprehensions, c) that you lack the BASIC knowledge to attempt what you are attempting, and d) at least currently incapable of forming an honest, basically logical, argument and dealing with such. Look how many electrons have been wasted (and no minor amount of vitriol) just getting you to admit you were wrong about Albatrossity's example only for you to, again, move the goalposts. Why the fuck should I waste my time (technical posts take longer than anything else) educating you when all this is for you is a matter of gainsaying "your enemies" and reinforcing your delusions. Claims to the contrary Denial are not supported by YOUR behaviour HERE.

Ask a question relevant to my area of expertise, make a claim relevant to my area of research and I'll answer it to the best of my ability. As you're talking about biology etc, I'm perfectly happy to leave it to expert biologists to correct you. I'll join in if and when I deem it appropriate. The reason I've said "read a book" and "read these papers" is because you are asking questions that are answered in those books and those papers. Do you really want me to reproduce for you page by page these thousands of documents? Is that a reasonable request do you think?

The problem is Denial, you are an intellectually dishonest little shit and it's plain for all to see. I'll engage you as an intellectually capable adult when you start behaving like one. How and when others waste their time with you is their decision, but I'm going to keep mocking you until you deliver just one tiny shred of intellectual honesty. Now go away and do the basics Denial, it'll help stop you looking like an utter shoulder-be-chipped moron.

Louis

HE MIGHT BE ONE BUT YOU HAVE NO EXCUSE

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"Abbie Smith (ERV) who's got to be the most obnoxious arrogant snot I've ever seen except for when I look in a mirror" DAVE TARD
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2009,11:13   

Quote
[SNIP]

HE MIGHT BE ONE BUT YOU HAVE NO EXCUSE

What for this time? Have you been drinking exotic hallucinogens from penis gourds again?

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2009,19:15   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 17 2009,18:15)
     
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 17 2009,20:26)
The mechanism for said change is the unsettled point.

Good. Time to describe your mechanism.

By the way, "saltation" isn't a mechanism. It is a proposed description of the rate of change (very rapid, even single step) in evolution. It calls for explanation in the form of a mechanism.

Describe your proposed mechanism for saltation. Provide us with an illustration of it operating in a specific instance. The example of chimps and bonobos emerging from a common ancestor will do as an example, although you may prefer another. Your proposed mechanism should offer an explanation for the timing of the saltational events, including divergence of a single population into separate species, the distribution of features among the daughter species, their progressive differentiation, the fact of their adaptation to changing environmental circumstances, and so forth.

Ready, set, GO!

Here's one proposed mechanism.

Here's the one we've been discussing.

Another possibility.

Another.

Saltational evolution in Bark Beetles  
Quote
Our study provides, to our knowledge, the first phylogenetic-
based comparative support for saltational changes in the evolution of aggregation pheromones. It therefore raises the question of how these changes come about.


As for chimps/bonobos, that'll have to wait until I have more time.

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2009,19:31   

you moron you are just being dishonest.

why in the bloody hell would you expect gradual evolution of the constituents of pheromones?  You wouldn't.  You would have no expectation, if you were honest (you are not).

if you fucking READ that paper you will find that there is still a phylogenetic signal in pheromone constituents, but that minor changes to those physiological pathways produce large effects in the ultimate pheromone chemistry.  considering changes in pheromone ratios as equal weight to changes in chemistry doesn't seem very reasonable does it?

if you are honest (You Are Not) you will ask yourself what the null hypothesis would be.  Denial, in other words (I know your sorry preaching ass doesn't have a clue what a null hypothesis is) "What is the expected distribution of pheromones within a clade of insects?".  Answer:  Who Fucking Knows.

You win another Gross Misuse of The Concept of Gradualism award, to go with all the others.  Dumb bastard.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4238
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2009,19:34   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 18 2009,20:15)
Here's one proposed mechanism.

Here's the one we've been discussing.

Another possibility.

Another.

Saltational evolution in Bark Beetles      
Quote
Our study provides, to our knowledge, the first phylogenetic-
based comparative support for saltational changes in the evolution of aggregation pheromones. It therefore raises the question of how these changes come about.


As for chimps/bonobos, that'll have to wait until I have more time.

Oh brother.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2009,19:49   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 17 2009,19:29)
Quote (FrankH @ Feb. 17 2009,08:23)
Daniel,


How many designers are there?  What are some of the characteristics of these designers?


Thanks in advance

Go back and read my previous posts.

I don't try to hide the fact that my designer is the Christian God.

Good.  You admit it and that is what I'm looking for here.

So, what evidence do you have that it is the Xian god that did it?

Could there be more than one designer?

Could the designers be malicious, negligent, incompetent or worse?

How do you reconcile "less than optimal designs"?  The artery feeding the human heart, easily clogged, small and our eyes, blind spot, etc, come to mind.

Why did the designer have many different eye designs?

There are more but if you want to have ID taken seriously not only are you going to show what is designed and what is ad-hoc but you are going to have to answer all of those questions and more.

So how do you even know your god even exists and is not a projection of your own fears cobbled from bronze age superstitions?

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2009,19:51   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 18 2009,19:15)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 17 2009,18:15)
       
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 17 2009,20:26)
The mechanism for said change is the unsettled point.

Good. Time to describe your mechanism.

By the way, "saltation" isn't a mechanism. It is a proposed description of the rate of change (very rapid, even single step) in evolution. It calls for explanation in the form of a mechanism.

Describe your proposed mechanism for saltation. Provide us with an illustration of it operating in a specific instance. The example of chimps and bonobos emerging from a common ancestor will do as an example, although you may prefer another. Your proposed mechanism should offer an explanation for the timing of the saltational events, including divergence of a single population into separate species, the distribution of features among the daughter species, their progressive differentiation, the fact of their adaptation to changing environmental circumstances, and so forth.

Ready, set, GO!

Here's one proposed mechanism.

Here's the one we've been discussing.

Another possibility.

Another.

Saltational evolution in Bark Beetles    
Quote
Our study provides, to our knowledge, the first phylogenetic-
based comparative support for saltational changes in the evolution of aggregation pheromones. It therefore raises the question of how these changes come about.


As for chimps/bonobos, that'll have to wait until I have more time.

How do you reconcile gradual evolution with designed creation?

Where does your designers stop designing and allow for changes, what is "front loaded" and where does gradual evolution begin and end?

It seems that you invoke the idea that your designer can do anything without explaining itself which as we know means it really explains nothing at all.

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
khan



Posts: 1479
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2009,20:41   

Quote
Could the designers be malicious, negligent, incompetent or worse?


All of the above.

I refuse to worship anything that caused the frakkin pain.

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2009,21:08   

Daniel

Hope you hurry back; you missed your chance to answer this (again).

If you are "only concerned about mechanisms", why have you consistently failed to give us the mechanisms behind your "god theory"? How many steps does it take, using think-poof, to get from Lucy to you?

--------------
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

   
k.e..



Posts: 2867
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2009,21:24   

Quote (khan @ Feb. 19 2009,04:41)
Quote
Could the designers be malicious, negligent, incompetent or worse?


All of the above.

I refuse to worship anything that caused the frakkin pain.

Well you would wouldn't you?

That's why the old nomadic cattle rustlers who wrote out all the other gods in their hagiography of the one true cattle rustler and origin of the world made sure you were to blame for that pain!

By the way those old scoundrels could have as many wifes as they liked just so you lot couldn't get a leg up and biff them one unless you liked banishment and eating sand.

Monotheism is great if you have a dick.....especially the worshipping part.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"Abbie Smith (ERV) who's got to be the most obnoxious arrogant snot I've ever seen except for when I look in a mirror" DAVE TARD
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,07:26   

Quote (khan @ Feb. 18 2009,20:41)
Quote
Could the designers be malicious, negligent, incompetent or worse?


All of the above.

I refuse to worship anything that caused the frakkin pain.

What I can not understand is why their god needs to be worshiped.  So this god got lonely and needed to create petty beings so beneath it to worship it for why again?  Hell I got lonely so I just went to a bar!

My favorite of course is the negligent parent, this god of theirs, putting temptation in front of two people who were children and truly ignorant (hey they had no knowledge right so how in the hell can they know what is right and wrong?) and now because of the "fall" everything is going to hell.

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
Tom Ames



Posts: 238
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,11:24   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 18 2009,17:15)
   
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 17 2009,20:26)

Here's one proposed mechanism.

Here's the one we've been discussing.

Another possibility.

Another.

Saltational evolution in Bark Beetles

The Symonds and Elgar paper on bark beetle pheromone evolution describes an observed pattern (that is, a phylogenetic anticorrelation in pheromone blends), and does NOT specifically detail a mechanism for the evolution of same.

From the paper:
   
Quote
Our results, for Dendroctonus at least, suggest that sibling species may be more different from each other than would be expected even by chance. The trend is weak and, we caution, the standard errors are large, but within Dendroctonus the highest levels of phenotypic difference are between sibling species (phylogenetic distance of one).
In other words, there may be additional selective pressures at work during speciation events that force one pheromone blend to become substantially different from the other.


The authors do speculate about a mechanism to account for this observation. They suggest that the same mechanisms operating during allopatric speciation (which favors reinforcement of differences between similar species--see Coyne & Orr 1997) may be functioning here.

To the extent that this paper illustrates a mechanism for saltational evolution, it does so purely in the context of well-known selective mechanisms.

I haven't yet looked at the other papers you've offered as examples. Maybe you could double-check to make sure that you're not also misinterpreting them?

--------------
-Tom Ames

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,16:04   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Feb. 18 2009,19:31)
you moron you are just being dishonest.

why in the bloody hell would you expect gradual evolution of the constituents of pheromones?  You wouldn't.  You would have no expectation, if you were honest (you are not).

if you fucking READ that paper you will find that there is still a phylogenetic signal in pheromone constituents, but that minor changes to those physiological pathways produce large effects in the ultimate pheromone chemistry.  considering changes in pheromone ratios as equal weight to changes in chemistry doesn't seem very reasonable does it?

if you are honest (You Are Not) you will ask yourself what the null hypothesis would be.  Denial, in other words (I know your sorry preaching ass doesn't have a clue what a null hypothesis is) "What is the expected distribution of pheromones within a clade of insects?".  Answer:  Who Fucking Knows.

You win another Gross Misuse of The Concept of Gradualism award, to go with all the others.  Dumb bastard.

so it's been a while since I read this paper, but I was once excited by it also, just not for the fallacious reasons that Denial brought it up.  Pheromones are understudied in most insects and they must be crucial in speciation.

Having slept some since reading it, I note that they don't actually look at changes in blends, just presence or absence of some pheromone compounds.  so my comment above was off the mark.

BUT it's not clear from the paper whether or not the tree is ultrametric.  counting nodes for phylogenetic distance is a really shitty metric, particularly if there is not full taxon sampling (there doesn't seem to be).  if branch lengths are different, then there are different null expectations for the distribution of potential alternative states.

it's not clear to me why they chose the method they did, when there are better comparative methods out there.  lo, there is a veritable cottage industry of comparative methods, but they don't cite any of it

Quote
Bjorklund, M.  1997.  Are 'comparative methods' always necessary?.  Oikos 80:  707-612


haven't read that one, but I think the answer is brutally obvious to anyone who has been nailed by Felsenstein.

anyone out there clear this up for me?

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,16:05   

Quote (Tom Ames @ Feb. 19 2009,11:24)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 18 2009,17:15)
   
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 17 2009,20:26)

Here's one proposed mechanism.

Here's the one we've been discussing.

Another possibility.

Another.

Saltational evolution in Bark Beetles

The Symonds and Elgar paper on bark beetle pheromone evolution describes an observed pattern (that is, a phylogenetic anticorrelation in pheromone blends), and does NOT specifically detail a mechanism for the evolution of same.

From the paper:
   
Quote
Our results, for Dendroctonus at least, suggest that sibling species may be more different from each other than would be expected even by chance. The trend is weak and, we caution, the standard errors are large, but within Dendroctonus the highest levels of phenotypic difference are between sibling species (phylogenetic distance of one).
In other words, there may be additional selective pressures at work during speciation events that force one pheromone blend to become substantially different from the other.


The authors do speculate about a mechanism to account for this observation. They suggest that the same mechanisms operating during allopatric speciation (which favors reinforcement of differences between similar species--see Coyne & Orr 1997) may be functioning here.

To the extent that this paper illustrates a mechanism for saltational evolution, it does so purely in the context of well-known selective mechanisms.

I haven't yet looked at the other papers you've offered as examples. Maybe you could double-check to make sure that you're not also misinterpreting them?

Tom they even go on about pheromones being products of secondary metabolites that could shift with host plant preference.  This doesn't say what Denial thinks it does.

He sees "saltation" and gets his panties in a wad.  Read the damn papers, son.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,16:36   

Quote
 Phylogenetic analyses of the correlated evolution of continuous characters:  A simulation study.  EP Martins and T Garland Jr 1991.  Evolution 45(3) 534-557
 
Quote
A second conclusion from our simulations is that the minimum evolution method that uses only the changes between most recent nodes and tips... never performs better and often performs considerably worse than does [a model] which uses changes between inferred nodes as well as changes between nodes and tips.  We conclude that neither [non-phylogenetic methods] nor [the minimum evolution method] should be seriously considered for analyzing comparative data




 
Quote
The mode of evolution of aggregation pheromones in Drosophila species
Symonds MRE, Wertheim B.  2005. JOURNAL OF EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY 18(5): 1253-1263    
 
Quote
Abstract: Aggregation pheromones are used by fruit flies of the genus Drosophila to assemble on breeding substrates, where they feed, mate and oviposit communally. These pheromones consist of species-specific blends of chemicals. Here, using a phylogenetic framework, we examine how differences among species in these pheromone blends have evolved. Theoretical predictions, genetic evidence, and previous empirical analysis of bark beetle species, suggest that aggregation pheromones do not evolve gradually, but via major, saltational shifts in chemical composition. Using pheromone data for 28 species of Drosophila we show that, unlike with bark beetles, the distribution of chemical components among species is highly congruent with their phylogeny, with closely related species being more similar in their pheromone blends than are distantly related species. This pattern is also strong within the melanogaster species group, but less so within the virilis species group. Our analysis strongly suggests that the aggregation pheromones of Drosophila exhibit a gradual, not saltational, mode of evolution. We propose that these findings reflect the function of the pheromones in the ecology of Drosophila, which does not hinge on species specificity of aggregation pheromones as signals.


same authors.  haven't read it.  even if there is questionable method selection, it doesn't say what you want it to say.

STFU Denial

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,18:06   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 17 2009,18:18)
 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 17 2009,19:16)
As for your question, we know the precursor, we know the mechanism in a general sense, let's see if they ever figure out how the two genomes combined to make the new morphological feature.  I'm betting that it will be non-randomly.

That's not my question.

Here it is again.

If you are "only concerned about mechanisms", why have you consistently failed to give us the mechanisms behind your "god theory"? How many steps does it take, using think-poof, to get from Lucy to you? Since you admit that I've "met one of your challenges", how about meeting this one for me?

From my Argument from Impossibility:  
Quote
I propose that the ultimate origins of life on this planet will forever be impossible to fully explain. I propose that this impossibility is a consequence of the infinite intelligence of the creator of life: if a God of infinite intelligence created something, we will never be able to explain its origins by natural means. We may be able to hazard a guess, or propose a natural pathway, but when looked at closely, such explanations will always be found to be unsatisfactorily incomplete. The reason for this is simple: you cannot explain something that cannot happen. It's impossible to explain the impossible. What's more, even if we concede Intelligent Design, we will still be unable to fully explain most of these things. We will not be able to decipher all of the engineering, physics, mathematics or chemistry that went into the actual planning of such systems. It will be as far above our level of intelligence as the ends of the universe are above our heads. This "Argument from Impossibility" is a necessary consequence of the chasm between an infinite mind and our limited human understandings. In short - God's ways are unfathomable.


I'm just being consistent.

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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,18:13   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Feb. 19 2009,22:05)
[SNIP]

Tom they even go on about pheromones being products of secondary metabolites that could shift with host plant preference.  This doesn't say what Denial thinks it does.

He sees "saltation" and gets his panties in a wad.  Read the damn papers, son.

Bolding mine.

Whuuuu? Secondary metabolites? I'm gonna read me some paper dammit! That just piqued my interest.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,18:14   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 18 2009,02:17)
You can learn all you want from Schindewolf, or anyone you like, up to and including Paley, Aristotle,  and the girls from Bananarama (all of whom have very different ideas about evolutionary biology). You'll find no complaint from me (in fact you'll find encouragement). I'll also encourage you to read MORE than these people's works. In fact I think I might have done so. One of the problems you have Denial is a common one: you project your own biases onto others. There is no orthodoxy for me, the fact that you misunderstand that is....well hilarious, but also telling.

While the books I've read have mostly been written by skeptics of Darwinism (with a few exceptions), when it comes to papers, I almost exclusively read papers by "orthodox" evolutionists.

Have you read Berg, Schindewolf, Goldschmidt, Grasse, Bateson or any of the others who have not embraced Darwinist principles?

Or am I the only one who has to read the works of "others"?

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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,18:19   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 20 2009,00:14)
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 18 2009,02:17)
You can learn all you want from Schindewolf, or anyone you like, up to and including Paley, Aristotle,  and the girls from Bananarama (all of whom have very different ideas about evolutionary biology). You'll find no complaint from me (in fact you'll find encouragement). I'll also encourage you to read MORE than these people's works. In fact I think I might have done so. One of the problems you have Denial is a common one: you project your own biases onto others. There is no orthodoxy for me, the fact that you misunderstand that is....well hilarious, but also telling.

While the books I've read have mostly been written by skeptics of Darwinism (with a few exceptions), when it comes to papers, I almost exclusively read papers by "orthodox" evolutionists.

Have you read Berg, Schindewolf, Goldschmidt, Grasse, Bateson or any of the others who have not embraced Darwinist principles?

Or am I the only one who has to read the works of "others"?

1) There is no such thing as orthodox science

2) Reagarding you and reading anything, I've said it before, and I'll say it again.

3) You might be surprised at what I read/have read, but then since (as noted before) all you care about is dick waving and gainsaying your "enemies", I decline to play your infantile games with lists. Stop posturing and projecting.

Louis

Edits for clarity. Hey it's midnight here. I need sleepy time.

--------------
Bye.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,18:20   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 19 2009,18:13)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 19 2009,22:05)
[SNIP]

Tom they even go on about pheromones being products of secondary metabolites that could shift with host plant preference.  This doesn't say what Denial thinks it does.

He sees "saltation" and gets his panties in a wad.  Read the damn papers, son.

Bolding mine.

Whuuuu? Secondary metabolites? I'm gonna read me some paper dammit! That just piqued my interest.

Louis

it's just an offhand comment.  i think it cites some more pertinent work.  you can chemo-nerd all over it.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,18:25   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Feb. 20 2009,00:20)
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 19 2009,18:13)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 19 2009,22:05)
[SNIP]

Tom they even go on about pheromones being products of secondary metabolites that could shift with host plant preference.  This doesn't say what Denial thinks it does.

He sees "saltation" and gets his panties in a wad.  Read the damn papers, son.

Bolding mine.

Whuuuu? Secondary metabolites? I'm gonna read me some paper dammit! That just piqued my interest.

Louis

it's just an offhand comment.  i think it cites some more pertinent work.  you can chemo-nerd all over it.

But I wanted metabolites!!!! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH

I'm going to sulk in bed. So there!

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,18:28   

Quote (mitschlag @ Feb. 18 2009,04:00)
       
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 17 2009,19:26)
Read Schindewolf's Basic Questions in Paleontology for an eye opening experience.

It is a losing gambit for Daniel to play the Schindewolf card.

I have read Grundfragen, and I can testify that it was an eye-closing experience.

Schindewolf musters artificial selection of data and tortuous argumentation to support preconceived notions of front-loading (orthogenesis) in evolution.

Remember Daniel's thread arguing that the evolution of the horse was a problem for modern evolutionary theory, and how Daniel bailed out of the discussion when Schindewolf's errors and omissions were pointed out to him, as in George  Gaylord Simpson's  The Major Features of Evolution?

I don't remember it like you do.  Schindewolf's data was never impeached - only his interpretation - which is understandable given the makeup of this group.

I repeatedly reminded all of you that horse evolution was one of Schindewolf's examples of gradualism, in fact he called it one of the most well documented cases of gradual evolution in paleontology, (You must've missed that part when you "read" the book), yet you all kept arguing that because horse evolution was gradual - Schindewolf was wrong.

My reason for discussing horse evolution in the first place was because of the toes - that's it.  But you all read the thread title and jumped to unfounded conclusions, and then congratulated yourselves for "dismantling" them.

Classic strawman.

--------------
"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 2009,18:33   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 19 2009,14:05)
 
Quote (Tom Ames @ Feb. 19 2009,11:24)
 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 18 2009,17:15)
       
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 17 2009,20:26)

Here's one proposed mechanism.

Here's the one we've been discussing.

Another possibility.

Another.

Saltational evolution in Bark Beetles

The Symonds and Elgar paper on bark beetle pheromone evolution describes an observed pattern (that is, a phylogenetic anticorrelation in pheromone blends), and does NOT specifically detail a mechanism for the evolution of same.

From the paper:
       
Quote
Our results, for Dendroctonus at least, suggest that sibling species may be more different from each other than would be expected even by chance. The trend is weak and, we caution, the standard errors are large, but within Dendroctonus the highest levels of phenotypic difference are between sibling species (phylogenetic distance of one).
In other words, there may be additional selective pressures at work during speciation events that force one pheromone blend to become substantially different from the other.


The authors do speculate about a mechanism to account for this observation. They suggest that the same mechanisms operating during allopatric speciation (which favors reinforcement of differences between similar species--see Coyne & Orr 1997) may be functioning here.

To the extent that this paper illustrates a mechanism for saltational evolution, it does so purely in the context of well-known selective mechanisms.

I haven't yet looked at the other papers you've offered as examples. Maybe you could double-check to make sure that you're not also misinterpreting them?

Tom they even go on about pheromones being products of secondary metabolites that could shift with host plant preference.  This doesn't say what Denial thinks it does.

He sees "saltation" and gets his panties in a wad.  Read the damn papers, son.

You're right.

I posted the last few papers in that list in a rush.  I was in the process of making up a list of relevant papers and I stumbled upon those and browsed through them.  Then my daughter needed to use the computer so I just posted it.

I should have just deleted it instead.  I stand by Davison's semi-meiosis and the Soltis and Soltis paper.  The rest are not vetted.

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,18:38   

bwaha

you're a fraud denial.  there is interesting science in that paper but you wanna blather about crap

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,19:04   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 19 2009,18:06)
I'm just being consistent.

Maybe you can buy a dictionary someday as well. Being a hypocrite is not "being consistent".

Demanding detailed mechanisms, precursors and pathways from others. while allowing yourself to indulge in a mechanism-free, precursor-free and pathway-free exercise in goalpost tectonics is hypocrisy.

But you are, for certain, consistently hypocritical.

--------------
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

   
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,19:12   

Quote
goalpost tectonics


I LIKE that!

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4238
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,19:15   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 19 2009,19:33)
You're right.

I posted the last few papers in that list in a rush.  I was in the process of making up a list of relevant papers and I stumbled upon those and browsed through them.  Then my daughter needed to use the computer so I just posted it.

I should have just deleted it instead.  I stand by Davison's semi-meiosis and the Soltis and Soltis paper.  The rest are not vetted.

Your papers are ALL non-responsive to my (and Albatrossity's) question.

You said "mechanism is the unsettled point." You reject current mechanisms and claim an alternative. What I want to see is YOUR understanding of that alternative.

Don't point us to papers that present differing mechanisms that have nothing to do with each other nor anything to do with the example at hand (chimps and bonobos from a common ancestor). That's throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks. Write up YOUR understanding of the mechanism you are advancing as superior to current theory.

Your proposed mechanism should offer an explanation for the timing of saltational events, including divergence of a single population into separate species, the distribution of features among the daughter species, their progressive differentiation, the fact of their adaptation to changing environmental circumstances, and so forth.

Just a sketch.

So far as I am concerned, if you can't articulate an argument, you don't understand it.

With respect to human evolution, you have argued that properties like speech, language, redundancy, culture, powerful learning abilities and design are evidence that human beings arose through special creation. Why is that? After all, for months you have argued that complex biological systems cannot arise by means of selection and instead must have arisen through processes like the saltational triggering of supernaturally frontloaded design - processes that compel the conclusion of common descent.

Why does the emergence of human speech, culture, learning ability, etc. require an even greater leap (relative to the ancestor we share with chimps and bonobos), than, say, your favorite example of a complex system, the Krebs cycle? A leap that requires rejection of even those processes you have so tediously argued to date - e.g., supernatural frontloading, saltation, etc. - and demands a separate, superdupernatural special creation?

(Even more edits for clarity)

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,19:24   

Quote

You're right.


does this mean he can't be AfDave?

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
khan



Posts: 1479
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,20:38   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Feb. 19 2009,20:24)
Quote

You're right.


does this mean he can't be AfDave?

Are they not both lying creo shits?

Is there some way to distinguish?

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2009,09:53   

Quote (khan @ Feb. 19 2009,20:38)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 19 2009,20:24)
Quote

You're right.


does this mean he can't be AfDave?

Are they not both lying creo shits?

Is there some way to distinguish?

Maybe we could build/design a filter.....

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
American Saddlebred



Posts: 111
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2009,10:28   

Daniel maintains his composure, AFDave never even tried to.

I dun think they are the same person.

   
mitschlag



Posts: 235
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2009,13:38   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 19 2009,18:28)
My reason for discussing horse evolution in the first place was because of the toes - that's it.
....
Classic strawman.

Quote
Ah, but the strawberries!

That's where I had them. They laughed at me and made jokes,
but I proved beyond the shadow of a doubt, and with geometric logic,
that a duplicate key to the wardroom icebox did exist!


--------------
"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. 20 2009,18:13   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 19 2009,16:38)
bwaha

you're a fraud denial.  there is interesting science in that paper but you wanna blather about crap

I'm still waiting for you to answer this question:    
Quote
So these species [Tragopogon miscellus and T. mirus] not only have multiple recurrent origins, they also evolve concurrently afterward.  How much of this still sounds random to 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

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2009,18:16   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 19 2009,16:19)
   
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 20 2009,00:14)
Have you read Berg, Schindewolf, Goldschmidt, Grasse, Bateson or any of the others who have not embraced Darwinist principles?

You might be surprised at what I read/have read, but then since (as noted before) all you care about is dick waving and gainsaying your "enemies", I decline to play your infantile games with lists. Stop posturing and projecting.

I'm going to take that as a "No", Louis.

--------------
"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. 20 2009,18:30   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 19 2009,17:04)
   
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 19 2009,18:06)
I'm just being consistent.

Maybe you can buy a dictionary someday as well. Being a hypocrite is not "being consistent".

Demanding detailed mechanisms, precursors and pathways from others. while allowing yourself to indulge in a mechanism-free, precursor-free and pathway-free exercise in goalpost tectonics is hypocrisy.

But you are, for certain, consistently hypocritical.

My argument is based on life being created by an omniscient God.  My argument is that we mortals will never figure out how he did it.  You all say life is of natural, undirected origins.  You all say we should be able to figure out how it happened.  I'm not the one claiming accidental evolution can build complex living systems - you are.  That's the only reason I'm asking you for mechanisms.

I've consistently said that we'll never figure out how God did it.  What part of that is hypocritical?

Do you still want to talk about flowers?

--------------
"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. 20 2009,18:32   

Quote (mitschlag @ Feb. 20 2009,11:38)
 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 19 2009,18:28)
My reason for discussing horse evolution in the first place was because of the toes - that's it.
....
Classic strawman.

   
Quote
Ah, but the strawberries!

That's where I had them. They laughed at me and made jokes,
but I proved beyond the shadow of a doubt, and with geometric logic,
that a duplicate key to the wardroom icebox did exist!

Snip and ignore.  That's the M.O. around here when backed into a corner isn't it?

Do you still want to talk about Schindewolf?

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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2009,18:39   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 21 2009,00:16)
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 19 2009,16:19)
   
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 20 2009,00:14)
Have you read Berg, Schindewolf, Goldschmidt, Grasse, Bateson or any of the others who have not embraced Darwinist principles?

You might be surprised at what I read/have read, but then since (as noted before) all you care about is dick waving and gainsaying your "enemies", I decline to play your infantile games with lists. Stop posturing and projecting.

I'm going to take that as a "No", Louis.

Take it for whatever you want it to be. Your ill-informed opinion matters not.

As noted before, you are demonstrably not here to challenge or be challenged, you are here to gainsay "the opposition" and play silly oneupmanship games best left in the playground.

It's more than a little pathetic, Denial.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2009,19:05   

For Bill:



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

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4238
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2009,19:11   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 20 2009,20:05)
For Bill:


Come again?

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2009,21:12   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 20 2009,18:30)
What part of that is hypocritical?

The part where you are hypocritical. If you want to read that previous comment over again and see if you can figure it out, I'll wait.  Or I can highlight it again, like this:

Demanding detailed mechanisms, precursors and pathways from others. while allowing yourself to indulge in a mechanism-free, precursor-free and pathway-free exercise in goalpost tectonics is hypocrisy.

--------------
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

   
Henry J



Posts: 4041
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2009,23:04   

The problem (which should be obvious) with the prediction that we'll never figure it out, is that unanswered questions are expected regardless of which model is correct. Therefore the mere existence of unanswered questions can't distinguish between them.

Besides which, the position that "nature can't do that" directly implies that God would be unable to arrange for nature to do that, which contradicts the assumption that God is omnipotent.

Henry

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,01:03   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 20 2009,18:13)
 
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 19 2009,16:38)
bwaha

you're a fraud denial.  there is interesting science in that paper but you wanna blather about crap

I'm still waiting for you to answer this question:        
Quote
So these species [Tragopogon miscellus and T. mirus] not only have multiple recurrent origins, they also evolve concurrently afterward.  How much of this still sounds random to you?

As I said, you wish to blather about crap.

There is a strong argument to be made that, despite their apparent morphological similarity, individuals from separate polyploidy events in separate populations are not members of the 'same' species.  they have unique evolutionary histories and independent evolutionary trajectories.  Since your species concept involves whatever Noah carried off the ark, it is not surprising you have failed to grasp this point.  I'll play this stupid game with you IFF you explicate and defend your species concept. You won't do it because you are not genuinely interested in these arguments as anything but cover for We Don't Know Yet = goddidit.

what a fucking moron.  

if you think the formation of allopolyploids has some determinate component, by all means do share instead of pissing on the rug.  You have yet to formulate anything even remotely resembling a testable claim here, so here is your shot.  

Quote
So these species [Tragopogon miscellus and T. mirus] not only have multiple recurrent origins, they also evolve concurrently afterward.  How much of this still sounds random to you?


The answer to the question is  
Quote
That Doesn't Seem To Be Anything But Random To Me But Perhaps Jesus Teh Designer is whispering something in your ear that he is not whispering into mine, so why don't you share instead of braying like a fucking donkey about shit you know nothing about and aren't interested in learning, just using as an apologetic crutch for spreading your particular brand of stupid blinkered wankery?


Denial do you know how people evaluate the claim that X is random with respect to Y?  Not by stupid false equivalences, for one.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Quack



Posts: 1751
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,02:38   

Quote
I've consistently said that we'll never figure out how God did it.  What part of that is hypocritical?


OK, if that's what it is, the case is settled, so why are you still here?

To persuade science that your assumption is the one and only solution?

So therefore we should begin worshiping your God?

It is getting pretty boring, can't you at least let us (or at least me) know what; what exactly are you selling here? That you are not on a buying spree is obvious, but again: What is it that you want to sell to the world, or what is your gift to the world?

If it is just: Science cannot answer, never will - but I, Daniel knows: God did it (but I don't know how, I just know it in my heart because that's the way it's got to be! If it isn't, I have a huge problem!), we already know that. Is that all there is to it?

Be a Christian and offer your other ear, patience is a Christian virtue, isn't it? Walk another mile with me, won't you, like the Lord said you should?

--------------
YEC creationists denigrate science without an inkling of what their lives would be without it. YEC creationism is an enrageous, abominable insult to the the human intellect.
                                                         Me.

  
mitschlag



Posts: 235
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,04:51   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 20 2009,18:32)
 
Quote (mitschlag @ Feb. 20 2009,11:38)
     
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 19 2009,18:28)
My reason for discussing horse evolution in the first place was because of the toes - that's it.
....
Classic strawman.

       
Quote
Ah, but the strawberries!

That's where I had them. They laughed at me and made jokes,
but I proved beyond the shadow of a doubt, and with geometric logic,
that a duplicate key to the wardroom icebox did exist!

Snip and ignore.  That's the M.O. around here when backed into a corner isn't it?

Do you still want to talk about Schindewolf?

Possess thy soul in patience, Dear Boy.

I have dusted off my copy of Schindewolf and look forward to working with you on its exegesis when I have a spare moment.

(Sorry, but I couldn't resist the association of the quoted part of your comment with Queeg's rant. The Devil made me do it.)   :angry:

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,07:43   

mitschlag in particular simpson's account of schindewolf suggests that there are some serious issues with the domain of observations used by schindewolf to support his contentions.  i think SJG goes over this in more detail in "Structure" but I keep forgetting to bring my copy home.  I'll be paying close attention.  This narrative is a great antidote to Popper and Kuhn.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
mitschlag



Posts: 235
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2009,07:29   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 21 2009,07:43)
mitschlag in particular simpson's account of schindewolf suggests that there are some serious issues with the domain of observations used by schindewolf to support his contentions.  i think SJG goes over this in more detail in "Structure" but I keep forgetting to bring my copy home.  I'll be paying close attention.  This narrative is a great antidote to Popper and Kuhn.

Erasmus, whatever you care to provide from Structure will be welcome.

Your reference to Gould reminded me of his essay Life's Little Joke, which goes well beyond Simpson in demolishing the simplistic sequence portrayed by Schindewolf.  (Gould wrote in 1991 and had in hand much more data than either Schindewolf or Simpson commanded.)  The entire essay - too long to copy and post here - is provided in the link.  Daniel should read it and comprehend it.

--------------
"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. 22 2009,07:54   

Contra Schindewolf, Part 1 (Introduction)
   
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 19 2009,18:28)
         
Quote (mitschlag @ Feb. 18 2009,04:00)
                 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 17 2009,19:26)
Read Schindewolf's Basic Questions in Paleontology for an eye opening experience.

It is a losing gambit for Daniel to play the Schindewolf card.

I have read Grundfragen, and I can testify that it was an eye-closing experience.

Schindewolf musters artificial selection of data and tortuous argumentation to support preconceived notions of front-loading (orthogenesis) in evolution.

Remember Daniel's thread arguing that the evolution of the horse was a problem for modern evolutionary theory, and how Daniel bailed out of the discussion when Schindewolf's errors and omissions were pointed out to him, as in George  Gaylord Simpson's  The Major Features of Evolution?

I don't remember it like you do.  Schindewolf's data was never impeached - only his interpretation - which is understandable given the makeup of this group.


As we'll see from the record, we quoted Simpson, who accused Schindewolf of cherry-picking the data.  Does that qualify as "impeachment"?

(As an aside, you might consider avoiding ad hominems like "the makeup of this group" in the future. They add nothing to your argument.)
         
Quote
I repeatedly reminded all of you that horse evolution was one of Schindewolf's examples of gradualism, in fact he called it one of the most well documented cases of gradual evolution in paleontology, (You must've missed that part when you "read" the book), yet you all kept arguing that because horse evolution was gradual - Schindewolf was wrong.


I'm not clear about your point here.  Can you point me to one or more statements by Schindewolf that connect "horse" and "gradualism"?  What's the connection between gradualism and Schindewolf being "wrong"?  Wrong about what?

         
Quote
My reason for discussing horse evolution in the first place was because of the toes - that's it.  But you all read the thread title and jumped to unfounded conclusions, and then congratulated yourselves for "dismantling" them.


What were those "unfounded conclusions"?

Toes to follow...

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

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4238
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2009,08:31   

Quote (mitschlag @ Feb. 22 2009,08:29)
     
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 21 2009,07:43)
mitschlag in particular simpson's account of schindewolf suggests that there are some serious issues with the domain of observations used by schindewolf to support his contentions.  i think SJG goes over this in more detail in "Structure" but I keep forgetting to bring my copy home.  I'll be paying close attention.  This narrative is a great antidote to Popper and Kuhn.

Erasmus, whatever you care to provide from Structure will be welcome.

Your reference to Gould reminded me of his essay Life's Little Joke, which goes well beyond Simpson in demolishing the simplistic sequence portrayed by Schindewolf.  (Gould wrote in 1991 and had in hand much more data than either Schindewolf or Simpson commanded.)  The entire essay - too long to copy and post here - is provided in the link.  Daniel should read it and comprehend it.

Here is Gould's Structure comment on Schindewolfe. It arises in a discussion uniformitarianism versus catastrophism:

"Despite the uniformitarian consensus from Darwin's time until the late 20th century, occasional scholars of high reputation continued to float catastrophic proposals for the unresolved puzzle of mass extinctions...

"To cite the two most notable examples from the generation before Alvarez, Schindewolfe (1963), in an article entitled "Neokatastrophisimus," proposed bursts of cosmic radiation as the paroxysmal mechanism of mass extinction - with direct nuclear death (for the exterminations) and vast increases in mutation rates among survivors (for subsequent replacements by highly altered forms). But, to show the frustration (and scientific nonoperationality) of such proposals, Schindwolfe actually stated  - thus providing a favorite case that I have used for decades to illustrate the difference between science and speculation - that he had postulated cosmic radiation explicitly because such a cause would leave no empirical sign (then known to geologists) in the record of strata and fossils. (For Schindewolfe had to admit that the empirical record revealed no direct evidence at all for a catastrophic mechanism of mass extinction, and he therefore had to seek a potential cause that would leave no testable sign of its operation! Can one possibly imagine an unhappier situation for science? - to face the prospect of a plausible explanation that does not, in principle, leave evidence for its validation.)"

Reference was to:

Schindewolfe, O. H. 1963 Neokatastrophismus? Zeits. Deutsch. Geol. Res. 114:430-435

Of course, Gould continues with a discussion of Alvarez: "By contrast, the genesis of the [sic] Alvarez's hypothesis for the K-T mass extinction could not have been more different, or more exemplary for science. For the K-T bolide proposal began with an unanticipated empirical discovery - generated, ironically, during a test for an opposite hypothesis, and therefore surely not gathered under the aegis of any iconoclastic theoretical thoughts."

Gould goes on to discuss the initial, nearly universal rejection of Alvarez's hypothesized MECHANISM, followed by a description of the triumph of an EMPIRICALLY TESTABLE hypothesis over subsequent years. He identifies "several reasons to honor the conventional criteria used by scientists to judge the strength and importance of hypotheses - criteria based upon empirical affirmation, fruitful extension, and widening intellectual scope, rather than on such nonoperational notions as progress towards absolute truth." He goes on to note:

1. Alvarez proposed a theory that generated testable predictions: that, for example, the irridium layer would be detected globally. This was confirmed, capped by the discovery of the "smoking gun" of the Chicxulub structure off the Yucatan peninsula.

2. It sparked "a veritable orgy of exciting, and at lease intellectually fruitful, discussion and collaboration" across diverse disciplines,

3. "Most importantly, and diagnostically for scientific practice, the impact hypothesis proved its mettle (at least for me) in the explicit suggestions and prods that it provided for particular (and ultimately highly fruitful and exciting) paleontological research that would never even have been conceptualized without its nudge and encouragement.

From The Structure of Evolutionary Theory pages 1306-1307 and 1308-1309.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
mitschlag



Posts: 235
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2009,08:32   

Contra Schindewolf, Part 2 (On horse toes - dialog with George)

I believe that this is where toes were introduced into the discussion:
   
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 28 2007,03:31)
       
Quote (Alan Fox @ Sep. 27 2007,11:25)
If you recall, this thread was originally intended for you to show how the evolution of the horse is a problem for the current theory of evolution. I have not seen a great deal of evidence from you, yet.

You're right.  

In order to keep this thread on topic, I will try to keep my posts focused on the work of Schindewolf and Berg and (at least in the case of Schindewolf) also on the evolution of the horse.

Berg doesn't say a lot about horses other than this from section IV, "Convergence":
                         
Quote
"At the very time when in North America the Equidae were being evolved, forms of the order Litopterna were being elaborated in South America in the plains of the Argentine.  The latter are extinct ungulates, in many respects recalling horses: they had also lost the lateral digits of their limbs, and for progression made use of the median digit; their extremities and neck were likewise lengthened, and in the former, the ball-and-socket joints, by which movements in all directions could be accomplished, were being gradually supplanted by pulley joints, which restricted their limbs to being moved only backwards and forwards; their teeth lengthened and grew more complex (although no cement was present).  This group was extinct in South America before the arrival of horses. The Litopterna, or pseudo-horses, thus copied the horses in many ways.
The same course (as to limbs and teeth) as in horses was followed in the evolution of camels in the New World, and of deer, antelopes, sheep and oxen in the Old"
Nomogenesis, pg. 212.

As for Schindewolf's position, why don't I just start by using the same quote I provided for you over at Brainstorms:                  
Quote
To this extent,the one toed horse must be regarded as the ideal running animal of the plains. It's early Tertiary ancestors had four digits on the front feet and three on the hind feet, and low crowned cheek teeth. Since in the later Tertiary, an expansion of plains at the expense of forests has been observed, this change in environmental conditions and the consequent change in the mode of life has been represented as the cause of linear, progressive selection leading up to the modern horse.
However, in the formulation of this view, not enough consideration has been given to the fact that the evolutionary trend of reduction in the number of toes had already been introduced long before the plains were occupied in the early Tertiary by the precursors of the horse; these inhabited dense scrub, meaning that they lived in an environment where the reduction of the primitive five-toed protoungulate foot was not an advantage at all. In the descendants, then, the rest of the lateral toes degenerated and the teeth grew longer step by step... regardless of the mode of life, which... fluctuated repeatedly, with habitats switching around among forests, savannas, shrubby plains, tundra, and so on.
If selection alone were decisive in this specialization trend, we would have to ascribe to it a completely incomprehensible purposefulness...
Basic Questions in Paleontology pp. 358-359, (emphasis his)

Both of these men intently studied real examples from nature and the fossil record and came to the same conclusions:
1. That evolution of types happened suddenly - not gradually.
2. That subsequent evolution proceeded as if constrained by laws.
3. That natural selection had nothing to do with the formation of any organ.


George challenged Daniel on Schindewolf's claim that reduction in toes preceded the appearance of plains on the planet.  Daniel responded:
   
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 30 2007,16:56)
     
Quote (George @ Sep. 28 2007,07:44)
         
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 28 2007,03:31)
           
Quote
However, in the formulation of this view, not enough consideration has been given to the fact that the evolutionary trend of reduction in the number of toes had already been introduced long before the plains were occupied in the early Tertiary by the precursors of the horse; these inhabited dense scrub, meaning that they lived in an environment where the reduction of the primitive five-toed protoungulate foot was not an advantage at all. In the descendants, then, the rest of the lateral toes degenerated and the teeth grew longer step by step... regardless of the mode of life, which... fluctuated repeatedly, with habitats switching around among forests, savannas, shrubby plains, tundra, and so on.
If selection alone were decisive in this specialization trend, we would have to ascribe to it a completely incomprehensible purposefulness...
Basic Questions in Paleontology pp. 358-359, (emphasis his)

So basically Schindewolf is saying that horses developed single-toed hooves regardless of the selection pressures applied?  How does he know what those pressures were?  How does he know the scrub was dense?  Paleoecologists today can identify what species were present in the landscape at a point in time, but have much more difficulty in determining vegetation structure.  This has led to disagreements over what the European landscape of most of the Holocene was.  Yes there were lots of oak trees present, but was it closed forest?  Was it patches of scrub interspersed with grassy plains?  Was it widely spaced parkland-like trees?

In other words, what was the quality of his data and how far is he spreading it with rhetoric?

He doesn't go into any details (in this book at least - he may have in others or in one of his papers) about how he knew the environmental conditions were such as he described, so I can't tell you how he determined that.

I'm assuming that the man described in 1965 by Stephen Jay Gould's advisor, Dr. Norman Newell as "the greatest living paleontologist", used the scientific method and the accepted evidence of his day to determine these factors.

You might be in a position to show that he made a false claim, but you must base that on evidence from that time period.


And then:

 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 01 2007,19:37)
   
Quote (George @ Oct. 01 2007,07:22)
You misunderstand me.  I'm not saying he was lying.  I'm questioning how he knew what Tertiary environmental conditions were like and how good were the data he based his conclusions on.  As I said before, it is difficult enough for today's paleoecologists to reconstruct past vegetation.  It would have been much more difficult and imprecise for the ecologists of a century ago.  Palynology, one of the more powerful tools, was only in its infancy.

To summarise:  he may have based his theories on the understanding of the day, but if that understanding is wrong, his ideas crumble.

Schindewolf's book was published (originally - in German) in 1950.  While technically that was in the last century, (so was 1999), it wasn't "a century ago".  

This is what he said:
       
Quote
Since in the later Tertiary, an expansion of plains at the expense of forests has been observed, this change in environmental conditions and the consequent change in the mode of life has been represented as the cause of linear, progressive selection leading up to the modern horse.
(emphasis mine)

I assume "has been observed" means that it was well accepted.  Perhaps newer data has proved him wrong, I don't know.


And yet again:

 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 03 2007,02:22)
   
Quote (George @ Oct. 02 2007,07:57)
         
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 01 2007,19:37)
Schindewolf's book was published (originally - in German) in 1950.  While technically that was in the last century, (so was 1999), it wasn't "a century ago".
 

My mistake.  I thought you said he worked and wrote in the 1920s.

Perhaps you were thinking of Leo Berg?  He wrote Nomogenesis in 1922.          
Quote

I wasn't questioning this statement:

           
Quote
Since in the later Tertiary, an expansion of plains at the expense of forests has been observed, this change in environmental conditions and the consequent change in the mode of life has been represented as the cause of linear, progressive selection leading up to the modern horse.


I was questioning this one:

             
Quote
However, in the formulation of this view, not enough consideration has been given to the fact that the evolutionary trend of reduction in the number of toes had already been introduced long before the plains were occupied in the early Tertiary by the precursors of the horse; these inhabited dense scrub, meaning that they lived in an environment where the reduction of the primitive five-toed protoungulate foot was not an advantage at all.
(emphasis mine)

My question is how did he know the environment at the time was entirely comprised of dense scrub?  If I were to guess, this statement is based on finds of macrofossils or pollen of scrub species coupled with other proxy data that gave clues about climate.  This may have been the prevailing view at the time.  Don't know.  Doesn't matter.  But I suspect hand-waving.

So, after admitting that you "don't know" what evidence Schindewolf based his argument on, you say that it "doesn't matter", because you "suspect hand-waving".  Is this how science is done?
         
Quote
My point is that knowledge of what species were present at the time doesn't give an accurate picture of what the vegetation structure was at the time, especially over large areas.  I presume the ancestors of horses were widely distributed and not confined to a small isolated valley or two.

As you can see as you walk around in "the wild", vegetation structure varies considerably depending on climate, soil and other things, including the activities of grazing animals.  It is extremely unlikely that the landscape where the ancestors of horses evolved was completely dominated by "dense scrub".  It is extremely likely that there were some more open areas where having fewer toes increased fitness.

Schindewolf was overstating the case that the environment required to select for single-toedness was not present in the early Tertiary.  Because of this, he has no grounds for claiming that development of the trait preceeded selection pressure.

So based on your experience 'walking around in the wild', you've now decided that Schindewolf, one of the premier paleontologists in all of Europe, overstated his case? (a case which, I'm sure, was based on slightly more research than that!)

It's amazing to me how you can delude yourself into thinking you have actually refuted his arguments while presenting no evidence to the contrary from the Tertiary period at all!


At which point, George seems to have thrown in the towel.

More to come...

--------------
"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. 22 2009,08:41   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 22 2009,08:31)
(For Schindewolfe had to admit that the empirical record revealed no direct evidence at all for a catastrophic mechanism of mass extinction, and he therefore had to seek a potential cause that would leave no testable sign of its operation! Can one possibly imagine an unhappier situation for science? - to face the prospect of a plausible explanation that does not, in principle, leave evidence for its validation.)"

Indeed.

But if that fails, cherry-picking the data is worth trying.

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

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4238
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2009,09:05   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 20 2009,19:30)
My argument is based on life being created by an omniscient God.  My argument is that we mortals will never figure out how he did it.  You all say life is of natural, undirected origins.  You all say we should be able to figure out how it happened.  I'm not the one claiming accidental evolution can build complex living systems - you are.  That's the only reason I'm asking you for mechanisms.

I've consistently said that we'll never figure out how God did it.  What part of that is hypocritical?

Sorry Daniel, this don't fly.

You've postulated that God assembled cells like people assembling automobiles, and stuffed them with frontloaded information that has been unfolding ever since. And you've said we'll never figure out "how he did it." Indeed.

We are asking for your description of WHAT he did. You say he stuffed those cells with machinery like information-bearing DNA and the Krebs cycle, as well as the ability to appropriately deploy new adaptations and preprogrammed body plans. You claim that events such as speciation and the emergence of major biological features reflect the operation of the mechanisms he stuffed in to those cells.

THAT is what we are requesting from you. Describe the mechanisms that God stuffed into those primordial cells that account for these large scale phenomena spanning deep time. Describe how those mechanisms interact with changing environments to assure that adaptive features arise. Unless you are now claiming that God actively intervened at every such event (then why front load?), you still need to supply a description of that mechanism.

Your proposed mechanism should offer an explanation for the timing of saltational events, including divergence of single populations into separate species, the distribution of features among the daughter species, their progressive differentiation, the fact of their adaptation to changing environmental circumstances, and so forth.

Begging off into mysterian ignorance won't do.

[edits for clarity]

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2009,09:17   

wow mitch those little exchanges really made me remember how much of a dishonest petty little lying sophist Denial is.  

oh, so just because you have been outside before you know more than the premier paleontologist in Uzbekistan...

christ give me a break what a pile of shit

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2009,12:04   

Quote (Henry J @ Feb. 20 2009,21:04)
The problem (which should be obvious) with the prediction that we'll never figure it out, is that unanswered questions are expected regardless of which model is correct. Therefore the mere existence of unanswered questions can't distinguish between them.

So after 150+ years of study, science has explained the evolution of exactly zero biological systems.  That's a lot of unanswered questions!
 
Quote
Besides which, the position that "nature can't do that" directly implies that God would be unable to arrange for nature to do that, which contradicts the assumption that God is omnipotent.

Henry

Notice that I usually attach the term "undirected" to the term "natural".  I have no problem believing that God gave us both random and non-random evolutionary mechanisms, but I don't believe the random mechanisms caused any of the macroevolutionary events.

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

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2009,12:19   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 22 2009,19:04)
Quote (Henry J @ Feb. 20 2009,21:04)
The problem (which should be obvious) with the prediction that we'll never figure it out, is that unanswered questions are expected regardless of which model is correct. Therefore the mere existence of unanswered questions can't distinguish between them.

So after 150+ years of study, science has explained the evolution of exactly zero biological systems.  That's a lot of unanswered questions!
   
Quote
Besides which, the position that "nature can't do that" directly implies that God would be unable to arrange for nature to do that, which contradicts the assumption that God is omnipotent.

Henry

Notice that I usually attach the term "undirected" to the term "natural".  I have no problem believing that God gave us both random and non-random evolutionary mechanisms, but I don't believe the random mechanisms caused any of the macroevolutionary events.

You are flying high on bullshit now.



Quote
So after 150+ years of study, science has explained the evolution of exactly zero biological systems.  That's a lot of unanswered questions!


I think it has been done. Sadly, I am not familiar enough with the most recent studies. But if you need pathways that will stand the course of scrutiny, and be validated by evidence, you can always take a look at the evolutionary pathway of whales or horses. The thing is, although these pathways are not yet 100% complete, THEY WORK! They have confirmed predictions based on evolutionary theory, and more discoveries will probably validate it some more. If something doesn't, I think a lot of us here will have simultanious ejaculations due to the sheer prospect of a new view on these mechanisms.

Science isn't closed, far from it. But to be able to advance science, you have to offer science, not magic.



Quote
Notice that I usually attach the term "undirected" to the term "natural".  I have no problem believing that God gave us both random and non-random evolutionary mechanisms, but I don't believe the random mechanisms caused any of the macroevolutionary events.


This sentence, in and of itself, is totaly unconsistent. How can you ever prove that God had anything to do with "random/non-random" mechanisms? If you can, fine, sounds like science, then just state your case. If you can't, forget it, this is not science...

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2009,12:29   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 20 2009,23:03)
       
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 20 2009,18:13)
           
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 19 2009,16:38)
bwaha

you're a fraud denial.  there is interesting science in that paper but you wanna blather about crap

I'm still waiting for you to answer this question:                  
Quote
So these species [Tragopogon miscellus and T. mirus] not only have multiple recurrent origins, they also evolve concurrently afterward.  How much of this still sounds random to you?

As I said, you wish to blather about crap.

There is a strong argument to be made that, despite their apparent morphological similarity, individuals from separate polyploidy events in separate populations are not members of the 'same' species.  they have unique evolutionary histories and independent evolutionary trajectories.  Since your species concept involves whatever Noah carried off the ark, it is not surprising you have failed to grasp this point.  I'll play this stupid game with you IFF you explicate and defend your species concept. You won't do it because you are not genuinely interested in these arguments as anything but cover for We Don't Know Yet = goddidit.

what a fucking moron.  

if you think the formation of allopolyploids has some determinate component, by all means do share instead of pissing on the rug.  You have yet to formulate anything even remotely resembling a testable claim here, so here is your shot.  

         
Quote
So these species [Tragopogon miscellus and T. mirus] not only have multiple recurrent origins, they also evolve concurrently afterward.  How much of this still sounds random to you?


The answer to the question is          
Quote
That Doesn't Seem To Be Anything But Random To Me But Perhaps Jesus Teh Designer is whispering something in your ear that he is not whispering into mine, so why don't you share instead of braying like a fucking donkey about shit you know nothing about and aren't interested in learning, just using as an apologetic crutch for spreading your particular brand of stupid blinkered wankery?


Denial do you know how people evaluate the claim that X is random with respect to Y?  Not by stupid false equivalences, for one.

The evidence speaks for itself Erasmus:

The species Tragopogon miscellus (as defined by the scientists who have studied it the most extensively) formed 20 times in the past 80 years.  The species Tragopogon mirus (as defined by the scientists who have studied it the most extensively) formed 12 times in the past 80 years.  

One of the papers recounting this is entitled "Polyploidy: recurrent formation and genome evolution".  The section describing the above is entitled "Extent of multiple origins".  Source  

These two species (as defined by the scientists who have studied them the most extensively) are undergoing rapid concerted evolution.

The title of the paper documenting this fact is "RAPID CONCERTED EVOLUTION OF NUCLEAR RIBOSOMAL DNA IN TWO ALLOPOLYPLOIDS OF RECENT AND RECURRENT ORIGIN"  Source

I'm not making this stuff up Erasmus!  If you have a problem with their definition of "species", take it up with Soltis and Soltis or Kovarik et al - not 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. 22 2009,12:32   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 20 2009,17:11)
 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 20 2009,20:05)
For Bill:


Come again?

It's a mechanism for saltational evolution.

--------------
"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. 22 2009,12:36   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 20 2009,19:12)
 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 20 2009,18:30)
What part of that is hypocritical?

The part where you are hypocritical. If you want to read that previous comment over again and see if you can figure it out, I'll wait.  Or I can highlight it again, like this:

Demanding detailed mechanisms, precursors and pathways from others. while allowing yourself to indulge in a mechanism-free, precursor-free and pathway-free exercise in goalpost tectonics is hypocrisy.

If you keep snipping my reasoning for such then - yeah - it looks hypocritical.  If you actually look at my explanation, it then becomes crystal clear that it is consistent reasoning rather than hypocrisy.  I don't expect you to go that far.

Still want to talk about flowers?

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

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2009,12:51   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 22 2009,19:36)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 20 2009,19:12)
   
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 20 2009,18:30)
What part of that is hypocritical?

The part where you are hypocritical. If you want to read that previous comment over again and see if you can figure it out, I'll wait.  Or I can highlight it again, like this:

Demanding detailed mechanisms, precursors and pathways from others. while allowing yourself to indulge in a mechanism-free, precursor-free and pathway-free exercise in goalpost tectonics is hypocrisy.

If you keep snipping my reasoning for such then - yeah - it looks hypocritical.  If you actually look at my explanation, it then becomes crystal clear that it is consistent reasoning rather than hypocrisy.  I don't expect you to go that far.

Still want to talk about flowers?

Please, don't try to compete with biologists, you don't have the knowledge or the stamina. try to learn something instead, and let the people who have studied these things enlighten you.

I mean, I'm an atheist, but if there really is a life after death, I'd rather spend it in the flames of hell with the likes of Darwin, Caesar and all those who died before your christ came around than with a single one of you "rightful" christians.

Do the math, think for youself, and stop using strawmen.

And about the 10 commandments, I don't know who the hell is this guy "Thou", but his life sounds like shit!*

*General anti-religious offence intended. Blame me, I'm just human!

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2009,12:55   

Quote (mitschlag @ Feb. 22 2009,05:29)
   
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 21 2009,07:43)
mitschlag in particular simpson's account of schindewolf suggests that there are some serious issues with the domain of observations used by schindewolf to support his contentions.  i think SJG goes over this in more detail in "Structure" but I keep forgetting to bring my copy home.  I'll be paying close attention.  This narrative is a great antidote to Popper and Kuhn.

Erasmus, whatever you care to provide from Structure will be welcome.

Your reference to Gould reminded me of his essay Life's Little Joke, which goes well beyond Simpson in demolishing the simplistic sequence portrayed by Schindewolf.  (Gould wrote in 1991 and had in hand much more data than either Schindewolf or Simpson commanded.)  The entire essay - too long to copy and post here - is provided in the link.  Daniel should read it and comprehend it.

Schindewolf is not mentioned at all.  Gould seems to be "demolishing" every simplistic phylogenic tree here - including Simpson's.

One thing you repeatedly fail to mention is that Schindewolf's area of expertise and study was not horses - it was cephalopods and stony corals - for which he documented extensive patterns of evolution.  Horses were a periphery issue for him - one for which he probably accepted the commonly delineated pathway for his day.  

Thus I can understand why you'd want to focus on horses, since - as you've just documented - all Schindewolf's contemporaries missed the mark to a degree, but no discussion of Schindewolf is worth having if it's not about the area he excelled in - cephalopods and stony corals.

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

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2009,13:02   

Excuse me, honnest request. I am not familiar with Schindewolf's writings. But, does he get into Stromatolites?

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2009,13:06   

Quote (mitschlag @ Feb. 22 2009,06:41)
 
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 22 2009,08:31)
(For Schindewolfe had to admit that the empirical record revealed no direct evidence at all for a catastrophic mechanism of mass extinction, and he therefore had to seek a potential cause that would leave no testable sign of its operation! Can one possibly imagine an unhappier situation for science? - to face the prospect of a plausible explanation that does not, in principle, leave evidence for its validation.)"

Indeed.

But if that fails, cherry-picking the data is worth trying.

Schindewolf is often faulted (probably rightly so) for his "cosmic radiation" theory of extinction.  I must point out that this was late in his career, as he was advancing in age, and in no way represents Schindewolf in his prime.

Also (again), the horse toes were an example I cited to Alan Fox on Brainstorms.  He chose that example (unfortunately) as the title for the thread when he invited me here.  If you really want to discuss Schindewolf, let's talk about the bulk of the book devoted to cephalopods and stony corals rather than these periphery issues.

--------------
"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. 22 2009,13:29   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 22 2009,07:05)
 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 20 2009,19:30)
My argument is based on life being created by an omniscient God.  My argument is that we mortals will never figure out how he did it.  You all say life is of natural, undirected origins.  You all say we should be able to figure out how it happened.  I'm not the one claiming accidental evolution can build complex living systems - you are.  That's the only reason I'm asking you for mechanisms.

I've consistently said that we'll never figure out how God did it.  What part of that is hypocritical?

Sorry Daniel, this don't fly.

You've postulated that God assembled cells like people assembling automobiles, and stuffed them with frontloaded information that has been unfolding ever since. And you've said we'll never figure out "how he did it." Indeed.

We are asking for your description of WHAT he did. You say he stuffed those cells with machinery like information-bearing DNA and the Krebs cycle, as well as the ability to appropriately deploy new adaptations and preprogrammed body plans. You claim that events such as speciation and the emergence of major biological features reflect the operation of the mechanisms he stuffed in to those cells.

THAT is what we are requesting from you. Describe the mechanisms that God stuffed into those primordial cells that account for these large scale phenomena spanning deep time. Describe how those mechanisms interact with changing environments to assure that adaptive features arise. Unless you are now claiming that God actively intervened at every such event (then why front load?), you still need to supply a description of that mechanism.

Your proposed mechanism should offer an explanation for the timing of saltational events, including divergence of single populations into separate species, the distribution of features among the daughter species, their progressive differentiation, the fact of their adaptation to changing environmental circumstances, and so forth.

Begging off into mysterian ignorance won't do.

[edits for clarity]

I've got no idea what the actual mechanisms are.  I'm betting they'll be found to be non-random though.  

I've already given evidence for such an event in plants.  

One could also add the nylonase enzyme to the list.  

Then there's the curious case of weedy cress Arabidopsis thaliana:  
Quote
The weeds are somehow inheriting DNA sequences from their grandparents that neither of their parents possessed - which is supposed to be impossible.


 
Quote
It is possible that the phenomenon is limited to this one plant. But in Nature (vol 434, p 505), Pruitt's team speculates that it might be a more widespread mechanism that allows plants to "experiment" with new mutations while keeping RNA spares as a back-up.

If the mutations prove harmful, some plants in the next generation revert to their grandparents' DNA sequence with the help of the RNA. "It does make sense," Pruitt says.


Keeping genetic "backup copies"?  Sounds pre-planned to me.  Of course I'm sure science will eventually be able to explain this via random, undirected evolutionary mechanisms.

--------------
"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: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2009,13:36   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 22 2009,12:36)
If you keep snipping my reasoning for such then - yeah - it looks hypocritical.  If you actually look at my explanation, it then becomes crystal clear that it is consistent reasoning rather than hypocrisy.  I don't expect you to go that far.

I'm not "snipping your reasoning". I'm pointing out the things that you are omitting, i.e. your demands for detailed mechanisms and pathways from the opposite side while settling for a mechanism-free think-poof as your preferred explanation. Your "reasoning" is mere hand-waving and lying by omission; you are only explaining why your side can be mechanism-free, and not bothering to explain your demands of others.

The reason that it looks hypocritical, Daniel, is that it actually is hypocritical.

--------------
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

   
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2009,13:37   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 22 2009,12:04)
...science has explained the evolution of exactly zero biological systems.  That's a lot of unanswered questions!

Why do you repeat this assertion when it has been shown to be false?

--------------
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

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4238
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2009,14:09   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 22 2009,14:29)
I've got no idea what the actual mechanisms are.  

But you do not dispute that your argument that "God did it and mere mortals will never figure it out" fails to obviate my request, and Albatrossity's request, for a mechanism. It's an appropriate question. You simply don't have an answer. In short, in a debate in which you assert, "The mechanism for said change is the unsettled point," your "theory" offers no mechanism whatsoever.   

It follows that Albatrossity has correctly characterized you as "settling for a mechanism-free think-poof as your preferred explanation," while demanding of evolutionary biology an inherently unattainable cinematic level of detail.

And I agree: The reason that it looks hypocritical, Daniel, is that it actually is hypocritical.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2009,14:12   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 22 2009,13:29)
Of course I'm sure science will eventually be able to explain this via random, undirected evolutionary mechanisms.

If gog did it then you believe that humans will never find out how gog did it.

So, if humanity were to look for an answer you've already given yours.

Thanks.

Zero use.

But thanks anyway.

The best argument in this thread for the side of rationality is you Daniel. A great example of "look what can happen".

Do keep it up dear chap!

Daniel, re: mechanism. You've said you don't know. OK. Guess away. Why did gog wait so long before creating life on Earth? Big expanse of time there before life existed. Long time since the start of the universe. Plenty of other similar planets could have been created by gog long before earth was around.

So, Daniel, was the earth

A) Created (a la hitchhikers)
B) Formed from stuff in space like wot them in the white coats pretend it was, they don't know nuffink them scuentists

?

If
A) why the wait?
B) What, could gog not make it's own planet? Too weedy? Had to wait for one to form randomly?

Etc etc

--------------
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

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4238
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2009,14:15   

BTW Daniel, I'm still interested in your response to this:

With respect to human evolution, you have argued that properties like speech, language, redundancy, culture, powerful learning abilities and design are evidence that human beings arose through special creation. Why is that? After all, for months you have argued that complex biological systems cannot arise by means of selection and instead must have arisen through processes like the saltational triggering of supernaturally frontloaded design - processes that compel the conclusion of common descent.

Why does the emergence of human speech, culture, learning ability, etc. require an even greater leap (from the ancestor we share with chimps and bonobos), than, say, your favorite example of a complex system, the Krebs cycle? A leap that requires rejection of even those processes you have so tediously argued to date - e.g., supernatural frontloading, saltation, etc. - and demands a separate, superdupernatural special creation?

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2009,14:18   

Quote
B) Formed from stuff in space like wot them in the white coats pretend it was, they don't know nuffink them scuentists


Ohhh! pure Pratchett Troll talk. Me likes!

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
mitschlag



Posts: 235
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2009,11:14   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 22 2009,12:55)
         
Quote (mitschlag @ Feb. 22 2009,05:29)
             
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 21 2009,07:43)
mitschlag in particular simpson's account of schindewolf suggests that there are some serious issues with the domain of observations used by schindewolf to support his contentions.  i think SJG goes over this in more detail in "Structure" but I keep forgetting to bring my copy home.  I'll be paying close attention.  This narrative is a great antidote to Popper and Kuhn.

Erasmus, whatever you care to provide from Structure will be welcome.

Your reference to Gould reminded me of his essay Life's Little Joke, which goes well beyond Simpson in demolishing the simplistic sequence portrayed by Schindewolf.  (Gould wrote in 1991 and had in hand much more data than either Schindewolf or Simpson commanded.)  The entire essay - too long to copy and post here - is provided in the link.  Daniel should read it and comprehend it.

Schindewolf is not mentioned at all.  Gould seems to be "demolishing" every simplistic phylogenic tree here - including Simpson's.

Exactly!  Need I remind you that that's how SCIENCE works?  (But why the scarequotes around demolishing?  Gould brings evidence to bear on the subject.)
       
Quote
One thing you repeatedly fail to mention is that Schindewolf's area of expertise and study was not horses - it was cephalopods and stony corals - for which he documented extensive patterns of evolution.  Horses were a periphery issue for him - one for which he probably accepted the commonly delineated pathway for his day.  

Thus I can understand why you'd want to focus on horses, since - as you've just documented - all Schindewolf's contemporaries missed the mark to a degree, but no discussion of Schindewolf is worth having if it's not about the area he excelled in - cephalopods and stony corals.

It looks like you're conceding that Schindewolf was wrong about horse evolution being an example of orthogenesis*.  But isn't it significant that in his introduction of the concept, Orthogenesis (Chapter Three, pages 268-272), he cites as examples  ammonites, nautiloids, stony corals, and (drumroll) horses!

I sympathize with the burden you have in dealing with the several lines of inquiry that have been opened among your opponents here, and if you are indeed conceding the horse issue, I am willing to leave unexpressed my further researches into that issue.  But I submit to you that if Schindeowlf's orthogenetic thesis is unsupported by horse evolution, it casts grave doubt on the viability of the theory as an alternative to random mutation + natural selection.

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthogenesis
     
Quote
Orthogenesis, orthogenetic evolution, progressive evolution or autogenesis, is the hypothesis that life has an innate tendency to move in a unilinear fashion due to some internal or external "driving force". The hypothesis is based on essentialism and cosmic teleology and proposes an intrinsic drive which slowly transforms species. George Gaylord Simpson (1953) in an attack on orthogenesis called this mechanism "the mysterious inner force". Classic proponents of orthogenesis have rejected the theory of natural selection as the organising mechanism in evolution, and theories of speciation for a rectilinear model of guided evolution acting on discrete species with "essences"

(If you can find a better definition in Grundfragen, please provide it.)

--------------
"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. 23 2009,16:21   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 22 2009,12:55)

One thing you repeatedly fail to mention is that Schindewolf's area of expertise and study was not horses - it was cephalopods and stony corals - for which he documented extensive patterns of evolution.  Horses were a periphery issue for him - one for which he probably accepted the commonly delineated pathway for his day.  

Thus I can understand why you'd want to focus on horses, since - as you've just documented - all Schindewolf's contemporaries missed the mark to a degree, but no discussion of Schindewolf is worth having if it's not about the area he excelled in - cephalopods and stony corals.

Daniel, please, enough with the ad hominems.  I'm working here in good faith.  You want to discuss cephalopods and stony corals, we'll discuss them.

Here is what Schindewolf says on pages 269-270:
   
Quote
Examples of Orthogenesis
       
        In ammonites, after the frilling of the suture has been introduced as a fundamentally new process, it continues to develop step by step until the last tiny bit of lobe and saddle margin is broken up into extremely fine teeth and notches. Further, as soon as the principle of the differentiation of the suture line through saddle splitting has been acquired, it is unswervingly pursued, and one by one,one after another, new lobal elements are emplaced. This saddle splitting may affect different saddles, either the inner or the outer ones; at first, the choice was open. But after the decision was made in favor of one site or the other, further development was inevitable, preordained. The same is true for the increase in the number of lobal elements through lobe splitting. Once this mode had been “invented” by a particular form, its descendants carried it on; the mode prevailed, and there was no stopping it, no going back, and no breaking away from the evolutionary direction once it was established.

          In the nautiloids and the ammonoids, the coiling of the shell progressed in an orderly way. in the process, however, a decided difference appeared between the two groups, as we have seen (figs. 3.34 and 3.35): in the ammonoids, the axis of  coiling runs through the protoconch, located at the center of the shell; in the nautiloids, however, the protoconch is eccentric, lying next to the axis of the shell. Thus, the further course of evolution is dictated in advance by the respective initial forms: as the move toward ever tighter coiling progressed, the protoconch of the ammonoids had to participate in the process and acquired a spiral torsion; in contrast, in the nautiloids, in order to arrive at as tightly closed a spiral as possible, one with no perforation, the protoconch had to become increasingly smaller and assume a flat, cowled form. Once the preconditions were established, no other mechanical possibilities were open to the protoconch, and we then see evolution proceeding in a straight line along the path marked out for it.

          The unfolding of the stony corals is dominated by a progressive replacement of the original bilateral  arrangement of the septal apparatuses by a radial one (fig. 3.46). The direction of this course is determined ahead of time by the decidedly hexamerous stage of the six protosepta, which makes a temporary appearance early in the ontogeny of the pterocorals. Thus, the structural design of the lineage is laid down from the beginning and is executed as a complete, pure realization of this hexamerous emplacement by suppression and progressive dissolution of the bilateral features, which at first dominated the mature stages of the pterocorals. In those mature stages, as we recall, only four quadrants were completely developed, and remarkably, this peculiarity was also passed on to the heterocorals, which issued from the pterocorals, as a general morphological capability, although there, it was carried out in a completely different way.

I have bolded sections that trouble me.  Can you guess why I'm troubled?

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

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4238
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2009,17:08   

Quote (mitschlag @ Feb. 23 2009,17:21)
I have bolded sections that trouble me.  Can you guess why I'm troubled?

What I find interesting in these passages, and the above juxtaposition of Schindewolfe and Stephen Jay Gould, is that one of Gould's abiding interests was the impact of developmental constraints upon the course of evolution - as distinct from panadaptionists who attribute to natural selection the ability to sculpt any form. He argued that species do, in fact, sometimes become constrained to follow certain evolutionary pathways once committed to those pathways - not by dint of such a pathway being fore-ordained, but rather as a result of commitment to a developmental plan that limited the options for further evolution. He was one of the first to recognize the importance of evo-devo in providing both opportunities and constraints in the large scale patterns observed in evolution, a recognition displayed in his 1985 book Ontogeny and Phylogeny. This is certainly a major theme of The Brick.

Many of the patterns that Schindewolfe attributed to "planning" are much more elegantly explained by these ideas. Ironically, this is also the theme of his essay and book "The Panda's Thumb." Seems to me there is a blog that borrowed that title.

Daniel, if you weren't wedded to placing conclusion before evidence, and were really interested in understanding the history of life, particularly large scale patterns such as identified but misattributed by Schindewolfe, you would find Gould a very interesting read.

[developmentally constrained edits]

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2009,17:51   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 22 2009,11:36)
   
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 22 2009,12:36)
If you keep snipping my reasoning for such then - yeah - it looks hypocritical.  If you actually look at my explanation, it then becomes crystal clear that it is consistent reasoning rather than hypocrisy.  I don't expect you to go that far.

I'm not "snipping your reasoning". I'm pointing out the things that you are omitting, i.e. your demands for detailed mechanisms and pathways from the opposite side while settling for a mechanism-free think-poof as your preferred explanation. Your "reasoning" is mere hand-waving and lying by omission; you are only explaining why your side can be mechanism-free, and not bothering to explain your demands of others.

The reason that it looks hypocritical, Daniel, is that it actually is hypocritical.


I'm not the one claiming that life's organizational complexity came about via a series of knowable steps.  I'm the one claiming that the origins of life's complex organization are unknowable.  Does this help you understand why I'm asking you for the mechanism for these knowable steps while I don't demand the same from myself?

If not, then re-read the first two sentences until it sinks in.

--------------
"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. 23 2009,17:59   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 22 2009,11:37)
   
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 22 2009,12:04)
...science has explained the evolution of exactly zero biological systems.  That's a lot of unanswered questions!

Why do you repeat this assertion when it has been shown to be false?

It has not been shown to be false.

Explain to me the exact processes that produced the new complex organization in the Tragopogon species and then you'll show my assertion to be false.

So far, all we've got is allopolyploid speciation.
What genes were expressed/repressed?  What enzymes were involved and how were they created?  How are the biochemical pathways regulated and where did this regulation come from?  Is there really anything new here - or is this what you'll always get when you throw these two genomes together?

There are lots of questions to ask if you care to ask them.

--------------
"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. 23 2009,18:04   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 22 2009,12:15)
BTW Daniel, I'm still interested in your response to this:

With respect to human evolution, you have argued that properties like speech, language, redundancy, culture, powerful learning abilities and design are evidence that human beings arose through special creation. Why is that? After all, for months you have argued that complex biological systems cannot arise by means of selection and instead must have arisen through processes like the saltational triggering of supernaturally frontloaded design - processes that compel the conclusion of common descent.

Why does the emergence of human speech, culture, learning ability, etc. require an even greater leap (from the ancestor we share with chimps and bonobos), than, say, your favorite example of a complex system, the Krebs cycle? A leap that requires rejection of even those processes you have so tediously argued to date - e.g., supernatural frontloading, saltation, etc. - and demands a separate, superdupernatural special creation?

It may not "demand" it Bill.

Man may very well be the product of saltational evolution.

I've already said that it's my bias that leads me to doubt common descent when it comes to man.  The reasons I gave - speech, learning, etc - were my personal reasons for doubting common descent.  I (as you know) may be wrong.

--------------
"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. 23 2009,18:40   

Quote (mitschlag @ Feb. 23 2009,14:21)
       
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 22 2009,12:55)

One thing you repeatedly fail to mention is that Schindewolf's area of expertise and study was not horses - it was cephalopods and stony corals - for which he documented extensive patterns of evolution.  Horses were a periphery issue for him - one for which he probably accepted the commonly delineated pathway for his day.  

Thus I can understand why you'd want to focus on horses, since - as you've just documented - all Schindewolf's contemporaries missed the mark to a degree, but no discussion of Schindewolf is worth having if it's not about the area he excelled in - cephalopods and stony corals.

Daniel, please, enough with the ad hominems.  I'm working here in good faith.  You want to discuss cephalopods and stony corals, we'll discuss them.

Here is what Schindewolf says on pages 269-270:
             
Quote
Examples of Orthogenesis
       
        In ammonites, after the frilling of the suture has been introduced as a fundamentally new process, it continues to develop step by step until the last tiny bit of lobe and saddle margin is broken up into extremely fine teeth and notches. Further, as soon as the principle of the differentiation of the suture line through saddle splitting has been acquired, it is unswervingly pursued, and one by one,one after another, new lobal elements are emplaced. This saddle splitting may affect different saddles, either the inner or the outer ones; at first, the choice was open. But after the decision was made in favor of one site or the other, further development was inevitable, preordained. The same is true for the increase in the number of lobal elements through lobe splitting. Once this mode had been “invented” by a particular form, its descendants carried it on; the mode prevailed, and there was no stopping it, no going back, and no breaking away from the evolutionary direction once it was established.

          In the nautiloids and the ammonoids, the coiling of the shell progressed in an orderly way. in the process, however, a decided difference appeared between the two groups, as we have seen (figs. 3.34 and 3.35): in the ammonoids, the axis of  coiling runs through the protoconch, located at the center of the shell; in the nautiloids, however, the protoconch is eccentric, lying next to the axis of the shell. Thus, the further course of evolution is dictated in advance by the respective initial forms: as the move toward ever tighter coiling progressed, the protoconch of the ammonoids had to participate in the process and acquired a spiral torsion; in contrast, in the nautiloids, in order to arrive at as tightly closed a spiral as possible, one with no perforation, the protoconch had to become increasingly smaller and assume a flat, cowled form. Once the preconditions were established, no other mechanical possibilities were open to the protoconch, and we then see evolution proceeding in a straight line along the path marked out for it.

          The unfolding of the stony corals is dominated by a progressive replacement of the original bilateral  arrangement of the septal apparatuses by a radial one (fig. 3.46). The direction of this course is determined ahead of time by the decidedly hexamerous stage of the six protosepta, which makes a temporary appearance early in the ontogeny of the pterocorals. Thus, the structural design of the lineage is laid down from the beginning and is executed as a complete, pure realization of this hexamerous emplacement by suppression and progressive dissolution of the bilateral features, which at first dominated the mature stages of the pterocorals. In those mature stages, as we recall, only four quadrants were completely developed, and remarkably, this peculiarity was also passed on to the heterocorals, which issued from the pterocorals, as a general morphological capability, although there, it was carried out in a completely different way.

I have bolded sections that trouble me.  Can you guess why I'm troubled?

Probably because you stopped reading.

On page 272 he continues:
       
Quote
The unwary observer could easily form the impression that evolution is purposeful, that right from the beginning it is directed toward a predetermined goal and that the path it follows is determined by the goal.  Such a finalistic explanation, however cannot be seriously supported; there is no basis for it in natural science, and the observed facts do not warrant it in the least.

Rather things are just the opposite, in that it is not the conceptual final point but the concrete starting point that determines and brings about the orientation of evolution.  Such a view can be based on actual, causative mechanisms and does not take refuge in mystical principles of any kind.  The explanation lies in the fact that the set of rudiments in the first representatives of each lineage largely determines later evolution, and that subsequent differentiational steps entail a progressive narrowing of evolutionary creative potential
[italics his]

I don't agree with Schindewolf on this point, but he is basing his argument on "natural science", while I am basing mine on theology.

The question you are asking is whether the actual evidence supports orthogenesis or not.  As you know, Schindewolf cataloged volumes of evidence which he thought supported such an interpretation.  Others think differently.  I don't know that horse evolution proves or disproves either conclusion.  Gould seemed much more concerned with all the branches on the evolutionary tree while Schindewolf seemed intent on the specific lineage that led to the North American Horse.

Orthogenesis is not the main issue for me - although I'm inclined to believe it is a real phenomenon.  Schindewolf, as you know, felt that evolution could be divided into three phases.  He did not believe the first phase - the saltational typogenesis - to be constrained by orthogenetic forces.  That is the phase of evolution I am most concerned about - the saltational, creative phase.

--------------
"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. 23 2009,18:43   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 23 2009,15:08)
 
Quote (mitschlag @ Feb. 23 2009,17:21)
I have bolded sections that trouble me.  Can you guess why I'm troubled?

What I find interesting in these passages, and the above juxtaposition of Schindewolfe and Stephen Jay Gould, is that one of Gould's abiding interests was the impact of developmental constraints upon the course of evolution - as distinct from panadaptionists who attribute to natural selection the ability to sculpt any form. He argued that species do, in fact, sometimes become constrained to follow certain evolutionary pathways once committed to those pathways - not by dint of such a pathway being fore-ordained, but rather as a result of commitment to a developmental plan that limited the options for further evolution. He was one of the first to recognize the importance of evo-devo in providing both opportunities and constraints in the large scale patterns observed in evolution, a recognition displayed in his 1985 book Ontogeny and Phylogeny. This was certainly a major theme of The Brick.

Many of the patterns that Schindewolfe attributed to "planning" are much more elegantly explained by these ideas. Ironically, this is also the theme of his essay and book "The Panda's Thumb." Seems to me there is a blog that borrowed that title.

Daniel, if you weren't wedded to placing conclusion before evidence, and were really interested in understanding the history of life, particularly large scale patterns such as identified but misattributed by Schindewolfe, you would find Gould a very interesting read.

[developmentally constrained edits]

Bill,

Perhaps if you knew a bit more about Schindewolf, you'd appreciate where Gould got his ideas from (see above).

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

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4238
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2009,18:45   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 23 2009,18:51)
I'm not the one claiming that life's organizational complexity came about via a series of knowable steps.  I'm the one claiming that the origins of life's complex organization are unknowable.  Does this help you understand why I'm asking you for the mechanism for these knowable steps while I don't demand the same from myself?

Let's review.

- Your theory requires the supernatural.
- It is incapable of generating testable hypotheses.
- It is no help in guiding empirical research.
- It specifies the occurrence of particular material events - such as saltations driven by stored cellular mechanisms. These material events should be, at least in principle, explicable. Yet your theory has absolutely nothing to say about the causal basis for such events.  
- It explains absolutely nothing regarding patterns of evolutionary events observed and inferred in nature, such as the cause and timing of the emergence of species, the distribution of features, the fact of their adaptation to changing environmental circumstances, and so forth.
- It denies mountains of settled science.
- It has nothing to say about human origins other than, "It could be this, or it could be that."

In short, a you are entranced by a supernatural theory that has no scientific value, has no content, and explains nothing.

You can repeat your retreat into mysterian ignorance as often as you like Daniel. It still don't fly. Yours is a ridiculous double standard that deserves the scorn it has received.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Henry J



Posts: 4041
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2009,22:01   

Quote
(Daniel Smith @ Feb. 23 2009,18:51)
I'm not the one claiming that life's organizational complexity came about via a series of knowable steps.  I'm the one claiming that the origins of life's complex organization are unknowable.  Does this help you understand why I'm asking you for the mechanism for these knowable steps while I don't demand the same from myself?

I doubt there's anybody here who doesn't realize why you're doing that.

But still, your prediction is that there are some questions that will never be answered? Which ones? How can that be determined? More questions get answered by research all the time, but some stay unanswered for a long time after asking. So, if some of today's unanswered questions stay on that list tomorrow, there's nothing to flag that as unusual.

There's also a more fundamental problem: the assertion that life was deliberately engineered does not necessarily imply that the mechanisms used to do that can't be understood, or that there aren't other mechanisms that could produce similar results. You're arguing a conclusion that doesn't follow from your premise.

Henry

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2009,22:06   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 23 2009,17:51)
I'm not the one claiming that life's organizational complexity came about via a series of knowable steps.  I'm the one claiming that the origins of life's complex organization are unknowable.  Does this help you understand why I'm asking you for the mechanism for these knowable steps while I don't demand the same from myself?

If not, then re-read the first two sentences until it sinks in.

Knowable is not the same thing as known. You are demanding that someone show you ALL the steps, and demanding nothing at all from your "theory". That is why you are a hypocrite, and why you get no respect here.

Secondly, you really really really should not bring up the word "mechanism". The mechanisms (note the plural) that result in evolution are known AND knowable. Your "theory" has NO mechanism that you have bothered to explicate here. So you lose. Again. You are a hypocrite. Again.

Read that over again until it sinks in.

--------------
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

   
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2009,22:16   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 23 2009,17:59)
It has not been shown to be false.

Explain to me the exact processes that produced the new complex organization in the Tragopogon species and then you'll show my assertion to be false.

So far, all we've got is allopolyploid speciation.
What genes were expressed/repressed?  What enzymes were involved and how were they created?  How are the biochemical pathways regulated and where did this regulation come from?  Is there really anything new here - or is this what you'll always get when you throw these two genomes together?

There are lots of questions to ask if you care to ask them.

You have, in this very thread, conceded that the novel Tragopogon species meet your original criteria. I won't bother to document your inability to keep the goalposts in place.

The mechanisms have yet to be worked out in the detail that you demand (for others, but not for yourself), but there is no reason (other than your blinders) to assume that natural processes, known to science, can explain it. You do not need to invoke anything special, nor anything supernatural, to get there. Furthermore it matters not a bit if this is what you "always get", or if it happens once and never again. That is another goalpost on the move.

And the only question that needs to be asked are the ones you have avoided all along. What mechanisms would you use to explain these observations, and what is the evidence for your position? You clearly have issues with the way the Soltis team is trying to explain the observations, but you don't have anything positive to add to the discussion at all.

--------------
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

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2009,03:10   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 23 2009,22:16)
   You clearly have issues with the way the Soltis team is trying to explain the observations, but you don't have anything positive to add to the discussion at all.

And there lies the rub eh Daniel?

Until you can write, publish and defend your own paper that explains the observations in hand from your perspective then you will be limited to flailing about here repeating "not enough detail, I still believe in gop" forever.

Amusing, no?

These questions
   
Quote

What genes were expressed/repressed?  What enzymes were involved and how were they created?  How are the biochemical pathways regulated and where did this regulation come from?

Are ones amenable to study. Why don't you apply for a grant from the DI? You might find, however, you are taking on more then you can deal with currently  ;)

--------------
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

  
Quack



Posts: 1751
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2009,03:35   

Quote
he is basing his argument on "natural science", while I am basing mine on theology.

That about settles it, doesn’t it? Next candidate, please.

But before you leave, is it too much to ask that you reply to my plea here?
I believe it was a honest question that deserve a honest answer; you are quite good at demanding answers yourself.

Seems you have plenty of time for your wild crusade here, you could give me five minutes too? Maybe we should discuss theology, you and me? Isn’t that a subject much closer to your heart than evolutionary science? Which besides also, if I have understood you right, is a much more important and relevant issue? Albright, you have got theology sorted out beyond any doubt; but you ought to be aware that just as you never will be able to admit that science may be right because that would mean the death of your God; there are just as valid, yeah, even more valid reasons for serious doubts about your theology – and those doubts have been researched and documented at large by researchers that I consider more reliable and much more knowledgeable on the subject than you.

Let’s start with the bible – to begin with its origins, like who wrote what, for what reasons.

Has it never occurred to you that theology is about the poorest thinkable foundation for scientific enquiry?

But I know you are unable to answer, just as I never get any replies from Ray Martinez at t.o.; his arguments are transparent to me.

--------------
YEC creationists denigrate science without an inkling of what their lives would be without it. YEC creationism is an enrageous, abominable insult to the the human intellect.
                                                         Me.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2009,04:13   

Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
The mulberry bush, the mulberry bush.
Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
So early in the morning.

This is the way we do some science,
Do some science, do some science.
This is the way we do some science,
So early Monday morning.

This is when Dan denies the facts,
Denies the facts, denies the facts.
This is when Dan denies the facts,
So early Tuesday morning.

This is how flowers evolve new things,
Evolve new things, evolve new things.
This is how flowers evolve new things,
So early Wednesday morning.

This is when Dan tries mystery,
Mystery, mystery.
This is when Dan tries mystery,
So early Thursday morning.

Here are some citrate eating bugs,
Eating bugs, eating bugs.
Here are some citrate eating bugs,
So early Friday morning.

This is when Dan appeals to faith,
Appeals to faith, appeals to faith.
This is when Dan appeals to faith,
So early Saturday morning.

This is the way we get pissed off,
Get pissed off, get pissed off.
This is the way we get pissed off,
So early Sunday morning.

Apologies again! (ignorance swapped for mystery, it's more appropriatre this time)

Bill's summary is far more polite than mine, and worth repeating, a lot:

 
Quote
Let's review.

- Your theory requires the supernatural.
- It is incapable of generating testable hypotheses.
- It is no help in guiding empirical research.
- It specifies the occurrence of particular material events - such as saltations driven by stored cellular mechanisms. These material events should be, at least in principle, explicable. Yet your theory has absolutely nothing to say about the causal basis for such events.  
- It explains absolutely nothing regarding patterns of evolutionary events observed and inferred in nature, such as the cause and timing of the emergence of species, the distribution of features, the fact of their adaptation to changing environmental circumstances, and so forth.
- It denies mountains of settled science.
- It has nothing to say about human origins other than, "It could be this, or it could be that."

In short, a you are entranced by a supernatural theory that has no scientific value, has no content, and explains nothing.

You can repeat your retreat into mysterian ignorance as often as you like Daniel. It still don't fly. Yours is a ridiculous double standard that deserves the scorn it has received.


And this from Denial is as usual, very illuminating of his mind-fuck:

 
Quote
I'm not the one claiming that life's organizational complexity came about via a series of knowable steps.  I'm the one claiming that the origins of life's complex organization are unknowable.  Does this help you understand why I'm asking you for the mechanism for these knowable steps while I don't demand the same from myself?

If not, then re-read the first two sentences until it sinks in.


This is CLASSIC shifting of the burden of proof. The translation is simple and hilarious (to me at least):

"I don't like the consilient, well documented picture of the world presented by science and so I propose a different (incoherent) one that has no evidence to support it at all. I don't have to provide any evidence for my ideas, it's up to you to prove me wrong."

I have tired of this and therefore, Captain Louis is putting on his mean hat and we are going to MockCon 4. What's the betting the point of this sledgehammer subtle satire is missed?

{ahem}

Here is my theory, the theory that is mine, it is my theory, which I call my theory {ahem}, here we go, this is my theory:

I'm not the one claiming that Daniel Smith is not a child molester.  I'm the one claiming that Daniel Smith not being a child molester is unknowable.  Does this help you understand why I'm asking you for the photos showing that Daniel Smith is not a child molester while I don't demand the same from myself?

If not, then re-read the first two sentences until it sinks in.


Therefore I can calmly assert that it is not knowable that Daniel Smith is not a child molester, therefore because it's SO COMPLEX to get all the data together to show this (and I believe it cannot be done), and because my special book on Child Molesting via Numerology tells me that the name "Daniel Smith" actually means "Kiddy Fiddler" in Klingon, and because I look around me at the world and it is SO COMPLEX that it MUST be the case that Daniel Smith is a child molester.

I am disgusted to be sharing a message board with someone who so callously diddles kiddies. It's just horrible, and socially degrading dontcherknow. I DEMAND that Daniel Smith show me evidence that he is NOT a child molester right now, or I will be proven correct that it is not knowable that he is not a child molester and I shall call for his arrest.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4238
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2009,06:37   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 24 2009,05:13)
I'm not the one claiming that Daniel Smith is not a child molester.  I'm the one claiming that Daniel Smith not being a child molester is unknowable.  Does this help you understand why I'm asking you for the photos showing that Daniel Smith is not a child molester while I don't demand the same from myself?

If not, then re-read the first two sentences until it sinks in.

(Based on very special personal experiences that Louis isn't ready to discuss) :O

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2009,06:51   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 22 2009,12:29)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 20 2009,23:03)
         
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 20 2009,18:13)
             
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 19 2009,16:38)
bwaha

you're a fraud denial.  there is interesting science in that paper but you wanna blather about crap

I'm still waiting for you to answer this question:                    
Quote
So these species [Tragopogon miscellus and T. mirus] not only have multiple recurrent origins, they also evolve concurrently afterward.  How much of this still sounds random to you?