RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (37) < 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... >   
  Topic: Daniel Smith's "Argument from Impossibility", in which assumptions are facts< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
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: 2780
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: 2780
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: 4265
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: 4265
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: 1692
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: 236
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: 236
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: 4265
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: 4265
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: 5786
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: 2780
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: 2780
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: 1961
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.

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
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: 4265
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?

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.

Denial don't flatter yourself.  

No one on the planet is going to take it up with you.  Your views on biology are meaningless and uninformed, driven solely by an a priori conclusion that Jesus whispered in your ear when you had a boner in the church pew.

You have 12 similar species forming in 80 years, not single species formed 12 times.  They may not be reproductively isolated from each other, yet, but as we have shown that is not difficult to achieve by drift or different selection regimes.

yet you, of the biblical 'kinds', why them thangs can't evolve god dun that, show me an atom, solipcist garden variety creationist, don't understand why they cannot be conspecifics under any rational and realistic species concept.  big fucking surprise.

science performed under morphological/typological species concepts gets published every day.  that doesn't always make it bullshit.  the point of the problem is to consider the implications of using different concepts.

The species concept used in this paper is fraught with error.  It doesn't allow for evolution, it is a morphological type concept.  I don't understand you to know that, nor do I care enough to inform your ignorant ass, as defined by those who study you most extensively.

ALL OF THIS IS LOST ON YOU SO FUCK OFF  at least until you show an inkling of understanding about the issue, and not "the premier paleontologist in Uzbekistan says different, who are you?"  or "these are the people who study this the most, surely theeeeeeeeey'd know" when you think scientists are all liars anyway.

--------------
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. 24 2009,07:06   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 24 2009,12:37)
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

I was sexually assaulted when I was in the first grade, after a game of kiss chase, but I liked it. Hey, she was good looking for a second grader.

Wait, doesn't that count?*

Louis

*Standard disclaimer: I in no way wish to make light of the plight of people who have suffered genuine child abuse. I am using a deliberately humorous and vulgar parody of Denial's drivel to beat him over the head with.

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2009,07:13   

Oh wait time warp tard trap!  goody goody

Denial, despite much special pleading, has been unable to demonstrate that he does not molest children.  In fact, none of the evidence he has discussed could ever possibly disprove the fact that he is a child molester.  I say that it is a fact because it can never be disproven, until the end of time, because in fact he is a child molester.

If he is not, then let him prove it.  But with direct evidence, and not the appeals to authority and quoting men of straw standing on houses of cards beating dead horses with red herrings.

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

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2009,07:18   

It's like this:

If a father found out his 15 year old son was nailing his hot 24 year old female teacher, that'll be a "chip off of the old block".

If a father found out his 15 year old daughter was being repeatedly raped by her hunky 24 yer old male teacher, the mother f*cker's life would be measured in pain.

As a dad, I completely understand that sentiment.  But I ask myself, why are they different?

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

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2009,09:40   

I'm not going to grant Daniel whoever he is a civil reply.

He is a time wasting dead shit.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2009,10:31   

Quote (FrankH @ Feb. 24 2009,13:18)
It's like this:

If a father found out his 15 year old son was nailing his hot 24 year old female teacher, that'll be a "chip off of the old block".

If a father found out his 15 year old daughter was being repeatedly raped by her hunky 24 yer old male teacher, the mother f*cker's life would be measured in pain.

As a dad, I completely understand that sentiment.  But I ask myself, why are they different?

One of these things is not like the other.

Try this:

If a father found out his 15 year old son was being repeatedly raped by his hot 24 year old female teacher, that'll be a "chip off of the old block".

If a father found out his 15 year old daughter was being repeatedly, consensually nailed by her hunky 24 yer old male teacher, the mother f*cker's life would be measured in pain.

Whaddya think?

In all cases (both yours and my switched cases) the teachers are exploiting the kids. It's a major breach of trust and misuse of authority in each case. Serious censure is deserved in both cases (whether or not it involves pain).

People under the legal age of consent (16 here in the UK btw*) have sexual feelings and have sex (I know I did!). If they are being exploited/coerced/forced against their will by anyone (over or under the age of consent) then THAT is the time to break out the pain.

If they are not being exploited/coerced/forced against their will by anyone (over or under the age of consent) then THAT is the time to hold the pain in reserve until you make sure that ain't happening.

If the kid concerned is not being exploited/coerced/forced against their will by someone roughly their own age AND under the age of consent themselves, then it's time to break out the lengthy discussions, documentaries, contraception demonstrations, and all round general support. Sex positive =/= encouraging promiscuity. Kids = people. Kids =/= stupid.

This derail is infinitely more interesting than Denial's bullshit. At least there's a chance it'll end in something productive.

Louis

*I love the fact that in the USA you can be in charge of a potentially lethal weapon (a car) before you can be in charge of your own genitals, and that you can go to war but not have a beer to celebrate survival! Also, what the fuck (literally) do people think that under age kids are doing in those cars? They drive off and fuck. Silver ring or not. The second I got my driver's licence (17 in the UK) my sex life took a turn for the better more frequent.

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

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2009,11:33   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 24 2009,10:31)
Quote (FrankH @ Feb. 24 2009,13:18)
It's like this:

If a father found out his 15 year old son was nailing his hot 24 year old female teacher, that'll be a "chip off of the old block".

If a father found out his 15 year old daughter was being repeatedly raped by her hunky 24 yer old male teacher, the mother f*cker's life would be measured in pain.

As a dad, I completely understand that sentiment.  But I ask myself, why are they different?

One of these things is not like the other.

Try this:

If a father found out his 15 year old son was being repeatedly raped by his hot 24 year old female teacher, that'll be a "chip off of the old block".

If a father found out his 15 year old daughter was being repeatedly, consensually nailed by her hunky 24 yer old male teacher, the mother f*cker's life would be measured in pain.

Whaddya think?

In all cases (both yours and my switched cases) the teachers are exploiting the kids. It's a major breach of trust and misuse of authority in each case. Serious censure is deserved in both cases (whether or not it involves pain).

People under the legal age of consent (16 here in the UK btw*) have sexual feelings and have sex (I know I did!). If they are being exploited/coerced/forced against their will by anyone (over or under the age of consent) then THAT is the time to break out the pain.

If they are not being exploited/coerced/forced against their will by anyone (over or under the age of consent) then THAT is the time to hold the pain in reserve until you make sure that ain't happening.

If the kid concerned is not being exploited/coerced/forced against their will by someone roughly their own age AND under the age of consent themselves, then it's time to break out the lengthy discussions, documentaries, contraception demonstrations, and all round general support. Sex positive =/= encouraging promiscuity. Kids = people. Kids =/= stupid.

This derail is infinitely more interesting than Denial's bullshit. At least there's a chance it'll end in something productive.

Louis

*I love the fact that in the USA you can be in charge of a potentially lethal weapon (a car) before you can be in charge of your own genitals, and that you can go to war but not have a beer to celebrate survival! Also, what the fuck (literally) do people think that under age kids are doing in those cars? They drive off and fuck. Silver ring or not. The second I got my driver's licence (17 in the UK) my sex life took a turn for the better more frequent.

You're correct on two accounts here.  This is much than Denial's stuff.  Secondly you are correct in the content of your post.  That's why I specifically worded it the way I did.

Even the late, great George Carlin remarked that he didn't want to call 14 year old boys who were nailing (where I got my terminology) the gorgeous blond 25 year old female teachers "victims".  He wanted to call them "lucky bastards".

You are also correct in pointing out that the abuse of authority is what is really at issue in a student-teacher relationship.  That is not the case if, and it happened to me and mine, where you're at a company gathering and a young coworker, say 25 but looks like he's still in High School, tries to pick up your 15 year old daughter.

Now I wasn't upset with him for these reasons:

1:  Despite being 15 my youngest looks, talks and acts much older.

2:  The kid had no idea she was my daughter.

3:  She was coy in her responses (she thought him cute) and didn't reveal her age.

4:  He had no clue she was 15.

5:  My daughter looks older than a few of the young ladies at my work.

When he found out he backed off.  He was disappointed to say the least but he was "not as interested".

What is the problem is when you have a person who only goes after young kids or is in a position of authority over them and knows who they are.

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

  
  1103 replies since Jan. 26 2009,15:45 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (37) < 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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