[_ Old Earth _] Evolution: Belly Up in the Pacific?

[Rhea]

Rhea

Are you paying attention?

You will have noticed that I have replied in detailed fashion to LK's quoted article, and to his responses.

Can you see that the points I have made completely refute the author's wild guesswork?

If not, why not?

Yes, I'm still reading. Welcome back. Hope you were away on fun and not toil!

I read you responses and they seem to be just personal claims that you can't believe it, while his are examples that are seen elsewhere and demonstrated. So I don't see how your rebuttal of, "that seems impossible" is an adequate refutation.

I think of many observations and conclusions thusly; if we don't understand how something can happen, we cast about for things like it that can show a possible mechanism or viable path. We then look at whether such a thing can be scaled up, whether there is anything that will stop it from achieving the same result on a larger (or more distant) scale.

Most of these examples that you have given (All?) strike me as things that very easily have well studied analogs. So I find your statements that "It is impossible" to be completely unconvincing.

So I see that you have answered in detail, but I see the answer is "I can't picture it, so it's impossible". Whereas my engineer's mind says, almost every day, "I can't picture that, I wonder how it works" and I ponder a thing and try to seek out evidence that will give a clue as to how or an analog that I can imagine scaling up.

Scaling up is a big thing in nature. Tiny little patterns can repeat themselves, whether they are developmental, migrational, phisiological. They can repeat themselves over and over and over.

I really have no trouble at all picturing a migration starting out as a small trip to a neighboring meadow, and generations pass and the migration gets longer and longer, with perhaps the ones that migrate only partway not surviving well, thus creating a separation between the mirgrators and not. And this repeating for thousands of years. Tens of thousands of generations.

It's a long time. Little drip drops of change adding up over millenia. Pretty soon you're talking real money.

You, conversely, claim that you cannot picture and you stop in your tracks, no further curiosity on how it might work.

So we see things differently. And no I don't see that you've answered his points. I see that you have just rejected them with only your claim of whether something is possible or not.

 

[lordkalvan]

Another Gish Gallop?

Yes, another Gish Gallop because it's not the first we have seen from you.

I have taken the time and trouble to refute the nonsense written by your author.

Umm, that 'author' would be me. Did you see any quotation marks? I gave the principle citation for the information that my post contained, but the words are my own. I have taken the time and trouble to respond to many of your posts here and elsewhere, raising questions, making appropriate comments, posing arguments and pointing to misunderstandings and misrepresentations on your part, only to see you ignore, trivialize or simply deny what I have posted. So maybe you should climb down off that high horse.

I have included NO NEW MATERIAL BESIDES THAT WHICH IS ALREADY AVAILABLE in the articles I have posted. So Gish Gallop? Hardly.

The Gish Gallop is an informal name for a debating technique that involves drowning the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood that has been raised.

Source: Gish Gallop - RationalWiki

Please note that I do not myself accuse you of deliberately lying, but several of your many assertions are demonstrably false and yet you either continue to make them after this has been pointed out or else you simply ignore the correction as if it has never been made, as in your remark (the error of which was pointed out before) that the swallows of Capistrano make 'a journey of 7,000 miles with no navigation system'. Apparently this is 'a virtual guarantee of species extinction' and yet the swallows make the journey and they aren't extinct, so one is left to suppose that you propose God guides them individually on their way each year. Do you think God similarly guides animals that migrate much shorter distances or in some way tells those animals that do not migrate from species that engage in partial migration not to migrate?

If believing in evolution so atrophies your critical faculties, that you are unable to criticise the content of your author who is clearly writing nonsense and making unsupported and hopelessly wild guesses, then that is too bad.

Your assertions that what was posted is 'nonsense...unsupported and wild guesses' is simply handwaving denialism. The 'nonsense' you allude to is the result of decades of study, observation and research by academics, field-workers and enthusiastic amateurs that, if you bothered to do some proper research around your subject, you would quickly find out.

I thought better of you, but then again, we all make mistakes.

As your posts continue to demonstrate.

Too bad.

Indeed.

Your author either didn't know this fact, or chose to ignore it completely. Will you do the same, and retreat behind the smokescreen once more?

Another misunderstanding or misrepresentation: as even a few minutes' research on the swallows of Capistrano makes abundantly clear, for example, not all the swallows arrive on exactly the same date. Even if they did, a naturalistic explanation for such an arrival would point to the simple fact that there are precise environmental cues that can trigger particular behaviour at specific times of the year. Very simply, and for example, because of Earth's axial tilt each day is either a little bit shorter or a little bit longer than the one before it and birds can respond to this diurnal fluctuation.

I have previously pointed to the changes in behaviour of the swallows of Capistrano and asked you whether you consider these changes in their instinctive behaviour to be the result of divine intervention or naturalistic factors, what evidence supports either conclusion and, if naturalistic factors seem most likely, why you suppose that a supernaturalistic explanation is required for the origins of the instinct at all, but you have chosen to ignore this question.

ETA Plus what Rhea said.

 

[lordkalvan]

Asyncritus: Apologies for being away for so long.

That’s okay, we all have other things in our lives. You complained about my failure to respond in detail to this post, well here you are.

Much of your answers to my points seem to be: why aren’t you answering our questions. That, let me point out, is not an answer to any of the points being made.

That wasn’t the thrust of the post you are actually responding too; however, it remains the case that you do not appear to respond to questions, points and arguments that arise from and address your various claims, assumptions, questions and assertions.

On the contrary, it all does [require a supernatural intervention to bring it about].

I see, so then will you please explain what supernatural intervention is required for birds to follow the source of food? Can you also explain what supernatural intervention is required to bring about observed changes in migratory behaviour and how this is a better explanation that naturalistic ones? I would be interested in the evidence that supports these claims.

With specific reference to the swallows of Capistrano, and even more pointedly, the Golden Plover, not a single one of his ridiculous ‘explanations’ holds a drop of water.

Why not? Simply declaring this to be so is not a reasoned, evidenced rebuttal.

He either doesn’t know about these instances (in which case the whole paper is nonsensical and of no worth), or is unable to apply intelligence to the facts, as I shall now demonstrate.

Please do.

Note, in the case of the swallows, there are 2 extraordinary facts:

1 The navigation to a specific point

2 The exact dating of their arrival and departure

Why are either of these facts ‘extraordinary’? You seem to think you have simply to declare them to be so to prove that a divine intervention is necessary to account for them.

Well! What need is there to migrate 7000 miles to Capistrano? Or 2,800 miles to Alaska?

Because breeding and feeding grounds are different. Why do you migrate from your dining-room to eat to your study to type out your responses on this thread? Isn’t this extraordinary behaviour?

It is clear that the swallows do not migrate for reproductive purposes…

Eh, yes they do:

The Mission's location near two rivers made it an ideal location for the swallows to nest, as there was a constant supply of the insects on which they feed, and the young birds are well-protected inside the ruins of the old stone church.

Source: en. wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_San_Juan_Capistrano#The_Return_of_the_Swallows

…in fact, a journey of 7,000 miles with no navigation system, is a virtual guarantee of species extinction.

Except that they do have a ‘navigation system’: research indicates that birds have up to three internal ‘compasses’ – sun, magnetic and star – as well as the ability to use visual and environmental cues – coastlines, valleys, passes, prevailing winds, etc.

It is equally clear, that a flight of 2,800 miles across the open ocean without a built in navigation system is also, or even more so, a guarantee of species extinction.

See above.

In both cases, the above ‘explanations’ are useless.

Which explanations specifically are ‘useless’ and why? What better explanation can you provide that has some evidence attached to it?

When I ask, as I do, how did the instinct originate, and how did it enter the genome, there is no answer. If there is in the quoted passage, feel free to point it out to me.

Why do animals migrate at all? Why do you imagine that the instinct to pursue food sources and/or to find safe breeding-grounds requires anything other than a naturalistic explanation?

Those facts are entirely contrary to any evolutionary theory, and in accordance with Hawking's dictum, the theory should be abandoned.

Except that they are not, that you have not shown that they are and so your grand dismissal of them can simply be ignored.

Here is the attempted ‘food source’ explanation.

Attempted? So you don’t go the shops to find food? Given that behaviour of birds that follow exactly this pattern is observed, why do you find it so unlikely an explanation? The blackcap warbler breeds in Germany and used to over-winter in Iberia, but some of them have started overwintering in England to the extent that they now form a distinct and numerous population comparable to their Iberian cousins. Each population of blackcap warblers tends to breed only within its own set. Do you regard this change in migratory behaviour as completely unrelated to food provision (the English put out lots of bird-feeders in the winter)?

It is hopeless again.

Asyncritus has declared it, so it must be so.

It must be obvious to the meanest intellect, that somewhere else, much nearer in the whole of South America, MUST HAVE HAD FOOD SUITABLE FOR SWALLOWS?

The swallows migrate to breed, so your attempt to discredit naturalistic explanations for their behaviour using ‘food sources’ alone is misplaced, even if you use upper case and bolding. Which of course brings us back to the central question of why animals migrate at all, a question which you seem to prefer to dismiss out of hand as of no relevance.

Yet they do not go there. They go to Capistrano, deliberately, it seems. A JOURNEY OF 7000 MILES!!!

Not any more, they don’t. Why is that?

How could they possibly know that there was/is food in Capistrano, or in Alaska? And later, in Goya or Hawaii? They couldn’t, so that theory is belly up in the Pacific too.

Well, if they’re going for food, they ‘know’ because birds follow the food.

If birds were rational creatures, these would surely have said ‘this is a most irrational thing to do. I’m not going to do it’.

Nope, I’ll stay here and fail to breed successfully and maybe die in competition with other birds for scarce food resources.

But they’re NOT rational creatures.

This seems likely.

They are obeying a built-in instinct – and again I ask the questions: how did it arise, and how did it enter the genome?

Because birds that followed this kind of behaviour were more successful in producing more successful descendants than birds that didn’t. Like the overwintering English blackcap warblers have grown from few in numbers to rival their Iberian cousins.

Please note, I am not saying that birds don’t move in order to find alternative food sources, but these examples are something else altogether.

Why? This is just more assertion.

Here is further nonsense…Note the word ‘develop’. It is pure nonsense.

Your personal incredulity about something does not immediately endow that something with nonsensical qualities. Let’s see your counter-argument, evidence and better explanation for that evidence.

Bird A goes 400 miles let’s say, north, finds more and better food, then dies.

Why does it die? Its just found better food.

How does its descendant get back to the starting point?

Well, flocking behaviour would be one explanation. The Capistrano swallows appear to arrive and depart in flocks, after all.

And how does the said descendant transmit that information to its offspring?

In the genes? What other mechanism are you aware of that you could propose?

You may say, it follows the parent somehow. But that theory dies in the Pacific, because the offspring of the golden plovers follow their parents to Hawaii, SOME TWO WEEKS LATER! The parents have already gone.

See above. Birds also appear to be hormonally driven to migrate, as well as responding to environmental cues and the behaviour of other birds of their species.

Again the question: how did the instinct ever manage to arise, and how did it enter the genome?

Why do birds migrate at all? Answer this question and it tells you how the instinct arises. It ‘enter the genome’ in the same way as any other heritable trait. How did your hair- and eye-colour ‘enter your genome’?

There seem to be no further points worth discussing in your article. If you wish to point out any I’ve missed, then please do so.

Do you mean ‘discussing’ or ‘dismissing’? All you’ve ‘missed’ would appear to be pretty much the entire substance of the post, except to deny it on grounds of personal incredulity alone.

But we’re back to the old brick walls with a vengeance. How did those instincts arise, and how did they ever enter the genome?

The 'brick walls’ seem to be boundaries acting on your own ability to look at the phenomena in question in any way other than having already decided that they are impossible of anything other than divine explanation.

 

[Asyncritus]

It remains true; those who think they hate science, don't really know what it is.

And those who think they know, and know not that they know not...

But I missed your explanation of

a. the origin of the trans-Pacific migration

b. its entry into the genome.

Give up?

Strange, you keep abandoning the discussions at all the important points.

 

[Asyncritus]

I really have no trouble at all picturing a migration starting out as a small trip to a neighboring meadow, and generations pass and the migration gets longer and longer, with perhaps the ones that migrate only partway not surviving well, thus creating a separation between the mirgrators and not. And this repeating for thousands of years. Tens of thousands of generations.

Rhea

THERE ARE 2,800 MILES BETWEEN HAWAII AND ALASKA. No land in between.

Where are your 'meadows' etc in the Pacific? The cartographers (like me too) have missed them altogether.

Heck, a submarine could crash into one of them, since it's not on the map. Could cost the mapmakers some serious money for faulty map-making!

So the first plovers flew out 100 miles, crashed and drowned. All belly up.

Then the next lot went out 400 miles, crashed and drowned.

And so on, till they managed 2,800 miles.

Odd that - because they're all dead by now, floating belly up somewhere near Honolulu.

Is that how you chemists progress? By drowning your problems?

 

[Asyncritus]

... as in your remark (the error of which was pointed out before) that the swallows of Capistrano make 'a journey of 7,000 miles with no navigation system'. Apparently this is 'a virtual guarantee of species extinction' and yet the swallows make the journey and they aren't extinct, so one is left to suppose that you propose God guides them individually on their way each year.

You got a better explanation? Let's hear it - but please include your comments on the non-stop migrants.

Do you think God similarly guides animals that migrate much shorter distances or in some way tells those animals that do not migrate from species that engage in partial migration not to migrate?

I can't answer for Him - but the observations on these swallows cannot be dismissed or trivilaised as you're trying to do.

Your assertions that what was posted is 'nonsense...unsupported and wild guesses' is simply handwaving denialism. The 'nonsense' you allude to is the result of decades of study, observation and research by academics, field-workers and enthusiastic amateurs that, if you bothered to do some proper research around your subject, you would quickly find out.

There is no accounting for the facts of this migration specifically, and the hundreds of others in the Atlas of Bird Migration. None of the reasons you and they have given for why they migrate accounts for the HOW the instinct originated, and HOW it became implanted in the genome.

If you have no answer, why not say so and stop fudging the issue?

Another misunderstanding or misrepresentation: as even a few minutes' research on the swallows of Capistrano makes abundantly clear, for example, not all the swallows arrive on exactly the same date. Even if they did, a naturalistic explanation for such an arrival would point to the simple fact that there are precise environmental cues that can trigger particular behaviour at specific times of the year.

It is NOT a simple fact. That all the birds do not arrive on the same date is a matter of statistics. There is bound to be a little variation because of any number of reasons.

But the fact remains that people have gone there every year ON THE SAME DATE to watch them arrive is nothing short of remarkable - and you are being called upon to account evolutionarily for the way in which such an instinct arose, and how it entered their genome.

Very simply, and for example, because of Earth's axial tilt each day is either a little bit shorter or a little bit longer than the one before it and birds can respond to this diurnal fluctuation.

Simply indeed!

I have previously pointed to the changes in behaviour of the swallows of Capistrano and asked you whether you consider these changes in their instinctive behaviour to be the result of divine intervention or naturalistic factors, what evidence supports either conclusion and, if naturalistic factors seem most likely, why you suppose that a supernaturalistic explanation is required for the origins of the instinct at all, but you have chosen to ignore this question.

We've dealt with this before. Human intervention in the form of tourism can wreck anything. If they shot all the birds that arrived, would you still be asking the same question?

The supernatural explanation is the only viable one to account for the arising and implantation if the instinct.

ETA Plus what Rhea said.

Rhea has been dealt with previously.

 

[lordkalvan]

You got a better explanation? Let's hear it - but please include your comments on the non-stop migrants.

Yep, their evolutionarily-developed migratory instinct and associated navigational capabilities (sun, star and magnetic compasses, environmental and topographic cues, group behaviour, etc) enable them to pursue these breeding/feeding strategies. No magic required. Here are some questions on migratory behaviour that you have avoided answering at least twice before. Would you like to make it three times?

Do you regard migrations of 'a few hundred yards' as impossible of an explanation in terms of evolutionary theory? Do you regard the various reasons why animals migrate as impossible of an explanation in terms of evolutionary theory? Do you regard the reasons why some animals in a given population migrate and others don't as impossible of an explanation in terms of evolutionary theory? Do you regard the reasons why some animals cease migratory behaviour for periods of time and then begin it again as impossible of an explanation in terms of evolutionary theory? Do you regard observed changes in the migratory behaviour of certain animals over relatively short periods of time as impossible of an explanation in terms of evolutionary theory? If you answer 'yes' to any of these questions, can you then go on to explain why and to tell us what better explanation you can offer to account for this behaviour?

I can't answer for Him - but the observations on these swallows cannot be dismissed or trivilaised as you're trying to do.

I'm not asking you to answer for anyone but yourself, to whom the question was directed. Again it is instructive that you regard questions and arguments that go the heart of your own assertions, assumptions and questions as dismissive or trivializing. Why are you so reluctant to explore these matters in depth?

There is no accounting for the facts of this migration specifically, and the hundreds of others in the Atlas of Bird Migration.

Unsupported assertion. Why do you claim there is 'no accounting for the facts of...migration' when numerous research papers and even chapters in books specifically address these facts? Long-distance migratory birds display a whole suite of specialized physical traits that help them in their travels and all of these can be accounted for with evolutionary explanations. No God required.

None of the reasons you and they have given for why they migrate accounts for the HOW the instinct originated...

So you fail to see how moving to better food sources or safer breeding grounds confers a reproductive advantage and how this leads to repeated behaviour following the same patterns? That's an explanation of how the instinct originated. Perhaps you'd like to handwave it away?

...and HOW it became implanted in the genome.

Because birds that followed this behaviour were less successful and had fewer less successful descendants. In other words, they died.

If you have no answer, why not say so and stop fudging the issue?

Why keep pretending you haven't been given answers?

It is NOT a simple fact.

So there aren't environmental cues? What grounds do you have for this assertion? Ornithologists seem to think there are environmental cues in all sorts of avian behaviour.

That all the birds do not arrive on the same date is a matter of statistics.

So when you told us 'They arrive in Capistrano, after the 7000 mile flight, ON THE SAME DATE EVERY YEAR, on March 18th,' that wasn't correct?

There is bound to be a little variation because of any number of reasons.

You mean environmental factors that could influence their behaviour?

But the fact remains that people have gone there every year ON THE SAME DATE to watch them arrive is nothing short of remarkable ...

So because people go 'every year on the same date' this means what, other than that people go 'every year on the same date'?

...and you are being called upon to account evolutionarily for the way in which such an instinct arose, and how it entered their genome.

And you have been asked many questions that you have not answered.

Simply indeed!

So you don't think animals respond to diurnal fluctuations? There's a cockerel near us that crows a little bit later each morning. What extraordinary explanation could lie behind this behaviour? Does God wake it up a little bit later every day?

We've dealt with this before. Human intervention in the form of tourism can wreck anything. If they shot all the birds that arrived, would you still be asking the same question?

So you acknowledge that entirely naturalistic non-supernatural factors can influence the migratory behaviour of these birds?

The supernatural explanation is the only viable one to account for the arising and implantation if the instinct.

You continue to declare this, but you have quite failed to demonstrate it. Your argument amounts to:

X is extraordinary/impossible to account for with evolutionary theory -

Show me how evolutionary theory accounts for this extraordinary/impossible behaviour -

I have decided a priori that any explanations put forward will be inadequate (see first premise) -

Your explanations are inadequate and your questions, points and arguments are trivial and not worth responding to -

Evolutionary theory is therefore unable to explain X to my satisfaction -

Therefore God did it and I should be appointed to a University chair to explain this astounding piece of deductive reasoning. Where do I pick up my cheque?

Remind me, did you claim to be a scientist at some point?

Rhea has been dealt with previously.

With an entirely specious response.

 

[Asyncritus]

Yep, their evolutionarily-developed migratory instinct and associated navigational capabilities (sun, star and magnetic compasses, environmental and topographic cues, group behaviour, etc) enable them to pursue these breeding/feeding strategies. No magic required. Here are some questions on migratory behaviour that you have avoided answering at least twice before. Would you like to make it three times?

You must have heard of question-begging in your long and distiguished career.

Just in case you haven't, the word 'evolution' and its derivatives is not permitted in this discussion, as any kind of explanation.

Whether it did take place or not, is what we are trying to establish, and you may not blithely assume that it took place.

You did say you had some scientific background, didn't you?

Do you regard migrations of 'a few hundred yards' as impossible of an explanation in terms of evolutionary theory? Do you regard the various reasons why animals migrate as impossible of an explanation in terms of evolutionary theory? Do you regard the reasons why some animals in a given population migrate and others don't as impossible of an explanation in terms of evolutionary theory? Do you regard the reasons why some animals cease migratory behaviour for periods of time and then begin it again as impossible of an explanation in terms of evolutionary theory? Do you regard observed changes in the migratory behaviour of certain animals over relatively short periods of time as impossible of an explanation in terms of evolutionary theory? If you answer 'yes' to any of these questions, can you then go on to explain why and to tell us what better explanation you can offer to account for this behaviour?

From Goya to Capistrano is not 'a few hundred yards' LK. From Alaska to New Zealand or Hawaii isn't 'a few hundred yards' either. Ever noticed that little fact? Those are the kinds of migration we are discussing here.

I can walk a few hundred yards up the road and back. That does not mean that I can walk to Siberia and back. Such an extrapolation (the like of which evolutionists simply adore) is just plain stupid, not to mention unscientific.

As I do not think there is any truth in 'evolutionary theory' it is unreasonable of you to ask me to provide 'evolutionary' explanations of the sort you're seeking.

Individual animals which normally would migrate, may not do so for a huge variety of reasons - all of which don't bear on this question, which is about the migration of populations (remember that word?) over thousands of miles.

I'm not asking you to answer for anyone but yourself, to whom the question was directed. Again it is instructive that you regard questions and arguments that go the heart of your own assertions, assumptions and questions as dismissive or trivializing. Why are you so reluctant to explore these matters in depth?

Again, I claim priority by virtue of the fact that I raised the phenomena on the board.

None of your questions 'go to the heart' of my position. The questions you've listed above certainly don't.

What you're attempting to do is to trivialise the gigantic, for which there can be no evolutionary explanation.

I think you're trying to say that a 'migration' of a few hundred yards can be built up into the monumental ones I have mentioned. Rhea has that silly misconception too - but that is all that it is - silly.

I also note that the precision of the dating is not mentioned in your 'penetrating analyses'! Why is that?

Unsupported assertion. Why do you claim there is 'no accounting for the facts of...migration' when numerous research papers and even chapters in books specifically address these facts?

I don't recall saying that there is no accounting for the facts of migration. Those are mainly well established.

What I am saying is that there is 'no evolutionary accounting' for the existence of those facts: specifically the two questions which I have repeated ad nauseam.

Long-distance migratory birds display a whole suite of specialized physical traits that help them in their travels and all of these can be accounted for with evolutionary explanations.

Yes, they were designed that way - in order to make their journeys. They also have some invisible tools - and the 'desire' to go. That's where God is required.

So you fail to see how moving to better food sources or safer breeding grounds confers a reproductive advantage and how this leads to repeated behaviour following the same patterns? That's an explanation of how the instinct originated. Perhaps you'd like to handwave it away?

No, I won't. Lamarck will do it for you.

Is it impossible for you to see that if A goes to B, then that information CANNOT be handed down to offspring C?

Why keep pretending you haven't been given answers?

You have heard of a. irrelevant b. incorrect answers?

So there aren't environmental cues? What grounds do you have for this assertion? Ornithologists seem to think there are environmental cues in all sorts of avian behaviour.

There may well be - but those cues are just that. cues.

The birds have got the parts 'memorised/inbuilt' already, and set off 'on cue'. But Who decided the cues that cause the swallows to arrive and leave on the precise dates? And Who taught them their parts?

What guesses, sorry, theories/hypotheses/postulates have your ornithologist pals managed to generate?

So when you told us 'They arrive in Capistrano, after the 7000 mile flight, ON THE SAME DATE EVERY YEAR, on March 18th,' that wasn't correct?

Go look it up for yourself.

You mean environmental factors that could influence their behaviour?

Yes, like shotguns.

So because people go 'every year on the same date' this means what, other than that people go 'every year on the same date'?

It means the birds arrive on the same date. Go look it up, because you won't believe me. Try Google.

And you have been asked many questions that you have not answered.

So you don't think animals respond to diurnal fluctuations? There's a cockerel near us that crows a little bit later each morning. What extraordinary explanation could lie behind this behaviour? Does God wake it up a little bit later every day?

Irrelevant.

So you acknowledge that entirely naturalistic non-supernatural factors can influence the migratory behaviour of these birds?

Yes, like shotguns and tourists.

Remind me, did you claim to be a scientist at some point?

Yes.

 

[lordkalvan]

You must have heard of question-begging in your long and distiguished career.

You asked if I had a 'better explanation'. You did not specify that I could not mention evolution in this explanation. How much of a better explanation than this is 'God did it', just out of interest?

Just in case you haven't, the word 'evolution' and its derivatives is not permitted in this discussion, as any kind of explanation.

And you have been granted the authority to rule so when and by whom, exactly?

Whether it did take place or not, is what we are trying to establish, and you may not blithely assume that it took place.

I assume no such thing, unlike yourself who assumes that in the face of your personal increduity 'God did it' is a complete and well-rounded explanation of anything.

You did say you had some scientific background, didn't you?

Nope, you were the one who made this as yet unsubstantiated claim on your own behalf, modestly claiming to be a polymath and comparing yourself with J.S. Haldane from what I remember.

From Goya to Capistrano is not 'a few hundred yards' LK. From Alaska to New Zealand or Hawaii isn't 'a few hundred yards' either. Ever noticed that little fact? Those are the kinds of migration we are discussing here.

So at what point do migrations become qualitatively different? 10 miles? 100 miles? 500 miles? Why? And what explanation satisfies you as to the why and how of short migrations as opposed to long ones? Do you think naturaliustic explanations are adequate to describe short migrations and, if so, how short?

I can walk a few hundred yards up the road and back. That does not mean that I can walk to Siberia and back.

And yet you most certainly could. Read the memoirs of soldiers of the French Napoleonic Armies to see just how far people can walk if the circumstances demand it.

Such an extrapolation (the like of which evolutionists simply adore) is just plain stupid, not to mention unscientific.

If the extrapolation is unwarranted, perhaps you can tell us why? At what point might the extrapolation be warranted? For a self-proclaimed polymath scientist, your approach does not seem to be very rigorous, scientifically speaking.

As I do not think there is any truth in 'evolutionary theory' it is unreasonable of you to ask me to provide 'evolutionary' explanations of the sort you're seeking.

Try reading for comprehension. I didn't ask you to give an evolutionary explanation - you have admitted that your mind is already made up about this and you are only here to propagandize, after all - I asked you whether you thought explanations in terms of evolutionary theory are impossible in the examples given and, if so, to explain why and to tell us what better explanation you can offer to account for the referenced behaviour.

Individual animals which normally would migrate, may not do so for a huge variety of reasons - all of which don't bear on this question, which is about the migration of populations (remember that word?) over thousands of miles.

But significant populations of migrating animals don't migrate, whole populations cease migrating and then begin again, others engage in migrations at irregular intervals, some populations begin migrating to new locations and some species migrate while others of the same family don't migrate at all. Are you so incurious that you regard these behaviours as entirely irrelevant to the questions you have asked?

Again, I claim priority by virtue of the fact that I raised the phenomena on the board.

Claim what you like, there are no rules that say you are free of the common obligation to answer questions, arguments and comments that arise from posts you have made. If all you want to do is shout your self-satisfaction from the rooftops, you should stick to posting on your own blog where you can simply ban persistent offenders.

None of your questions 'go to the heart' of my position. The questions you've listed above certainly don't.

And why not? Assertion is not enough. And what about all the other questions you're passed over? Tell us why they aren't relevant as well?

What you're attempting to do is to trivialise the gigantic, for which there can be no evolutionary explanation.

Where have I 'trivialised the gigantic' and why can there 'be no evolutionary explanation' for these various phenomena? You keep asserting this, but you have singularly failed to demonstrate it.

I think you're trying to say that a 'migration' of a few hundred yards can be built up into the monumental ones I have mentioned. Rhea has that silly misconception too - but that is all that it is - silly.

Way to go with the reasoned refutation. What I'm actually trying to do is to get you to realize that migration is a multiply complex phenomenon that your gee-whizz this is incredible/unbelievable/impossible approach to is too simplistic and lacking in any signs of intellectual rigour.

I also note that the precision of the dating is not mentioned in your 'penetrating analyses'! Why is that?

I don't claim to have made any 'penetrating analyses'. Are you being sarcastic? I also have referred to various cues that lead birds to migrate on or around given dates each year. Perhaps you failed to read them?

I don't recall saying that there is no accounting for the facts of migration. Those are mainly well established.

Well, that's funny because those are your words. Here they are in full and on this very page: 'There is no accounting for the facts of this migration specifically, and the hundreds of others in the Atlas of Bird Migration.'

What I am saying is that there is 'no evolutionary accounting' for the existence of those facts...

But there is, you just refuse to accept it, as you have acknowledged.

...specifically the two questions which I have repeated ad nauseam.

And they have been responded to in one way or another ad nauseam.

Yes, they were designed that way - in order to make their journeys. They also have some invisible tools - and the 'desire' to go. That's where God is required.

Evidence? Beyond your personal incredulity and False Dilemma argument, that is.

No, I won't. Lamarck will do it for you.

Is it impossible for you to see that if A goes to B, then that information CANNOT be handed down to offspring C?

No one says that it is, not in this comic-strip way you suggest, anyway.

You have heard of a. irrelevant b. incorrect answers?

You have given no sign that you are capable of distinguishing what is relevant and what is correct, except that anything that contradicts what you assert or claim is a priori irrelevant and incorrect.

There may well be - but those cues are just that. cues.

And you regard these as entirely unimportant apparently. Why?

The birds have got the parts 'memorised/inbuilt' already, and set off 'on cue'.

If you are talking about the swallows of Capistrano, the information has long been genetically determined. If their migratory behaviour changes, as it has, is it your case that those changes must be brought about by supernatural intervention? I have asked you this question in one form or another several times, but you keep avoiding it. Why?

But Who decided the cues that cause the swallows to arrive and leave on the precise dates? And Who taught them their parts?

Nobody. It evolved. Sorry to disappoint you. Even if evolution is an inadequate explanation (it isn't), the only alternative is not a supernatural one.

What guesses, sorry, theories/hypotheses/postulates have your ornithologist pals managed to generate?

I thought you were already familiar with the inadequacies of evolutionary explanations? perhaps you can present some of those 'guesses' and explain why they are wrong and why your account is a better one. Don't forget to present and address relevant evidence.

Go look it up for yourself.

I looked it up. That's what you said, but you now seem to be changing your mind. Is that correct?

Yes, like shotguns.

Anything else you can think of? Try hard. Hint: England overwintering blackcap warblers. Either environmental factors influence migratory behaviour or they don't. Which is it and why?

It means the birds arrive on the same date. Go look it up, because you won't believe me. Try Google.

It may mean that some birds arrive on this date. Does it mean that all birds arrive on this date? You seem to be changing your mind backwards and forwards about this. And they don't appear to be arriving at all any more. Why is that?

Irrelevant.

Why is it irrelevant? Are you suggesting that birds aren't affected by changes in the length of the day?

Yes, like shotguns and tourists.

So if entirely naturalistic non-supernatural factors can influence the migratory behaviour of birds, why do you invoke supernatural explanations to account for migratory behaviour at all? You seem to be on the horns of a dilemma here.

Yes.

There's still not much evidence of it.

 

[theLords]

Then I owe an apology for the question on this thread about your OP. You have not answered about the OP of your other threads, where you posted comments that included references numbered at 74, which indicates some pasting from a longer article, and which gave rise to this question.

But I will acknowledge that THIS THREAD seems to be words that aren't from a longer source and apologize for that. Still waiting for your answers on the other threads.

And Async, you HAVE gotten answers. You need to address them.

What an apology

 

[jasoncran]

according to lk one is a scientist only if he or she agrees with naturalism?

i wonder. that wonder idea and invention called the mri was invented by a man who neither believed in the bbt or evolution. just a friendly reminder.

 

[lordkalvan]

according to lk one is a scientist only if he or she agrees with naturalism?

i wonder. that wonder idea and invention called the mri was invented by a man who neither believed in the bbt or evolution. just a friendly reminder.

You can be a scientist and believe in God, Shiva, Allah or whatever, but science is engaged in building up knowledge and understanding based on testable explanations and predictions of observed natural and physical phenomena.

 

[jasoncran]

You can be a scientist and believe in God, Shiva, Allah or whatever, but science is engaged in building up knowledge and understanding based on testable explanations and predictions of observed natural and physical phenomena.

and thats my point, the man who invented the mri would be here if he was and side with the yecers as that is what he is. and yet who claim that he would be wrong and obviously he knows the basics of what field he is in.

testable? who does one test and observe the formation of the universe? the first life that came to be on this earth and origins?you cant empiracally do that. its based on conjecture and a presumption from either side of what the earth was. creationism admits that your camp wont.

 

[lordkalvan]

and thats my point, the man who invented the mri would be here if he was and side with the yecers as that is what he is.

But would he have any science-based reason to do so? Or would it simply be a matter of faith?

and yet who claim that he would be wrong and obviously he knows the basics of what field he is in.

How does the invention of the MRI scanner support the idea that the inventor can scientifically justify belief in a 'young' Earth?

testable? who does one test and observe the formation of the universe? the first life that came to be on this earth and origins?you cant empiracally do that.

Why not? You can observe and analyse the evidence and test hypotheses based on that evidence by looking for data that either supports or falsifies your hypothesis.

its based on conjecture and a presumption from either side of what the earth was.

The 'conjecture and presumption' you refer to is based on our best understanding of the available evidence and the fact that hypotheses explaining this evidence can be supported or falsified.

creationism admits that your camp wont.

Creationism seems simply to try and retrofit evidence to support its claims scientifically, ignore or dismiss evidence that can't be so retrofitted or deny that its existence is relevant. I see no comparison between the two methodologies, if creationism can even be called a methodology.

 

[Asyncritus]

that answer is fairly straightforward: mutation + natural selection.

That 'answer' is just about the most foolish it is possible to produce as an explanation of the origin of anything significant.

Mutations have never been shown to produce a new species - far less any higher taxons.

So which gum tree do you want to choose?

Your ability to evaluate arguments seems totally lacking.

In this thread, for example, I asked 'how did the instinct which causes the Pacific Golden Plover to migrate from Alaska to Hawaii and back every year, and then causes it's offspring to do the same in the absence of the parents as guides' arise,

and b. how did it enter the genome?

What did I get in response? Pure nonsense.

But you're incapable of making that assessment.

Like, for example, an answer to the questions posed above:

a. How did the instinct arise and

b. How did it enter the genome?

Let's see if you know the difference between the 'why it might be a good idea to migrate 2,800 miles across the Pacific' and

'HOW did the instinct arise, and HOW did it enter the genome?'

Over to you.

 

[abrown9]

I don't claim to be a scientist, but I do have a degree in Biology and one article recently accepted (in the area of microbiology).

That 'answer' is just about the most foolish it is possible to produce as an explanation of the origin of anything significant.

Mutations have never been shown to produce a new species - far less any higher taxons.

Of course they haven't. The time frame for speciation (defining species as two animals that are unable to produce viable offspring) is ridiculously long. That can't possibly be reproduced in a lab. We can, however, demonstrate that descent with modification occurs in all living forms, and that natural selection can influence the genetic makeup of a population (why else would there be a high rate of HIV immunity in HIV endemic regions?).

If you are waiting for someone to take a bunch of monkeys, breed them for a few generations, and come out with a totally distinct animal, you will be waiting for a long time.

What we do have, however, is genetic and morphological evidence that agrees with the hypothesis common ancestry. For example, both humans and chimpanzees have endogenous retroviruses (viruses that have inserted themselves into a species germline, become incorporated, and then passed on) in precisely the same locations while other, more distantly related primates (their relationship being determined through other techniques eg. morphological) do not possess the same HRVs. Does this not seem to be compelling evidence that an ERV inserted itself into a common ancestor of humans and chimps after they diverged from all other primates?

(Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences
Welkin E. Johnson† and John M. Coffin‡).

In this thread, for example, I asked 'how did the instinct which causes the Pacific Golden Plover to migrate from Alaska to Hawaii and back every year, and then causes it's offspring to do the same in the absence of the parents as guides' arise,

I, and no one, can go back in time to observe the first migration, although there are plenty of studies that have looked at the genetics of migration and how they work into the phylogeny. One of the biggest problems with assigning an evolutionary history to migration was the simple classification of "migrating" as a trait. Obviously it is much more complex and regulated by genetics. A lot of results suggest that long distance migration arose independently in numerous lineages. This suggests a serious advantage in migrating! (Just google phylogeny + migration, and don't selectively sift through it).

and b. how did it enter the genome?

Just like everything else does... mutations!

Here is a neat quote: "Migratoriness and sedentariness in partial migrants have been shown to have a high potential for rapid evolution" - Genetic control of migratory behaviour in birds - Peter Berthold

So birds that are partial migrants can either revert back to sedentary, or go full-migrant with small genetic change. Seems pretty convincing for mutations leading to migratory behaviour.
What did I get in response? Pure nonsense.

seems incapable of distinguishing between the words HOW and WHY - and confines himself to the possible why's.

The why is the how. We know that natural selection occurs. We can demonstrate it in spades. One only needs to know the why to see how something did happen. If it's advantageous (they why), then it likely will enter the genome.

is unable to distinguish between COULD and DID. he proposes 'solutions' and 'inventions' - some plausible, and others ridiculous. He fondly imagines that a COULD necessarily means that it DID. He also avoids questions about the origin and genome-entry of instincts like the plague - and I don't blame him.

Just because we weren't around to see them first migrate doesn't mean it's not logical to surmise that mutation + nat selection was how it happened. We have seen behaviour change with mutation:

Genetics of Mouse Behavior: Interactions with Laboratory Environment
John C. Crabbe1,*, Douglas Wahlsten2 and Bruce C. Dudek3

So, why is it not plausible that mutations causing a beneficial change in behaviour (further migration) would be passed down?

Like, for example, an answer to the questions posed above:

a. How did the instinct arise and

b. How did it enter the genome?

Let's see if you know the difference between the 'why it might be a good idea to migrate 2,800 miles across the Pacific' and

'HOW did the instinct arise, and HOW did it enter the genome?'

Over to you.

We already know the why. The how, like I have said before, is easy. The mere fact that partial migrants can become sedentary or fully migratory with mutation seems to be VERY compelling evidence for the genetic control of migratory behaviour. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[theLords]

Address issues and not people. Anymore violation of the TOS will not only result in infractions, but loss of privileges to this forum.

 

[Asyncritus]

I don't claim to be a scientist, but I do have a degree in Biology and one article recently accepted (in the area of microbiology).

Well, congratulations.

I don't complain about theirs because they don't tend to fly in the face of scientific method while claiming to be a scientist.

Einstein flew in the face of Newtonian physics. Did you raise a voice?
Pasteur flew in the face of the spontaneous generationists. Did you raise a voice?

Galileo and Columbus did the same. So did Copernicus. Unscientific, were they?

Of course they haven't. The time frame for speciation (defining species as two animals that are unable to produce viable offspring) is ridiculously long.

Given that, there is not enough time for all the species that live and have lived on the planet to evolve. What is your answer to that point?

That can't possibly be reproduced in a lab. We can, however, demonstrate that descent with modification occurs in all living forms, and that natural selection can influence the genetic makeup of a population (why else would there be a high rate of HIV immunity in HIV endemic regions?).

I haven't heard of mutations producing new species. But you may have heard of some in your Biology degree course. Please let us know which ones, and how many there are as a percentage in relation to the number of extant species.

If you are waiting for someone to take a bunch of monkeys, breed them for a few generations, and come out with a totally distinct animal, you will be waiting for a long time.

Yet this is what evolution demands that you accept as truth.

What we do have, however, is genetic and morphological evidence that agrees with the hypothesis common ancestry. For example, both humans and chimpanzees have endogenous retroviruses (viruses that have inserted themselves into a species germline, become incorporated, and then passed on) in precisely the same locations while other, more distantly related primates (their relationship being determined through other techniques eg. morphological) do not possess the same HRVs. Does this not seem to be compelling evidence that an ERV inserted itself into a common ancestor of humans and chimps after they diverged from all other primates?

This has been shown to be nonsense. Try here:
(Andrew B. Conley, Jittima Piriyapongsa and I. King Jordan, "Retroviral promoters in the human genome," Bioinformatics, Vol. 24(14):1563–1567 (2008).)

I, and no one, can go back in time to observe the first migration, although there are plenty of studies that have looked at the genetics of migration and how they work into the phylogeny.

So you can't account for this phenomenon. Why not just say so?

One of the biggest problems with assigning an evolutionary history to migration was the simple classification of "migrating" as a trait. Obviously it is much more complex and regulated by genetics. A lot of results suggest that long distance migration arose independently in numerous lineages. This suggests a serious advantage in migrating! (Just google phylogeny + migration, and don't selectively sift through it).

What a poor explanation of a simple, multitudinously observed and observable fact!

Don't you think that a flight over the Pacific Ocean of 2,800 miles is a near guarantee of extinction: if the bird doesn't know where to go?

A flight from Alaska to New Zealand - some 7,200 miles - is also a near guarantee of extinction if the bird doesn't know where to go.

So question: How do the birds know where to go, and how did the information enter the genome?

Bird A (doesn't know how to get to Capistrano)---->
mutation------> Bird B (DOES know how to get to Capistrano).

That mutation represents a phenomenal input of NEW information.

But mutations do not create new information. They mainly destroy or maintain old information. So what happened?

Just like everything else does... mutations!

Mutations, I repeat, have never been shown to create a single new species. You must know of Muller and Dobzhansky's work with the fruit flies. NOT A SINGLE NEW SPECIES WAS EVER PRODUCED.

Further, you must know that the vast bulk of mutations are either neutral or deleterious.

Look up mutations on google, and let me know what you find out.

Here is a neat quote: "Migratoriness and sedentariness in partial migrants have been shown to have a high potential for rapid evolution" - Genetic control of migratory behaviour in birds - Peter Berthold

This is the same Berthold who described the annual migration of the shearwater - some 25,000 km, most of it over ocean. I would have said 'a high potential for rapid drowning' myself. I'm embarrassed to hear him say so.

So birds that are partial migrants can either revert back to sedentary, or go full-migrant with small genetic change. Seems pretty convincing for mutations leading to migratory behaviour.

Mutations may AFFECT migratory behaviour. Surely you can see that they do not CREATE migratory behaviour?

I have put up example after example of some of the most miraculous migrations in nature. And all I get in response is 'mutations + natural selection'.

That is pure nonsense.

What mutations + natural selection can get the eels to swim 3000 miles to the Sargasso, spawn and die there, and the offspring find their way with no guides back to where their parents came from, 3000 miles away? Underwater at that?

What mutations+natural selection can prioduce birds flying 2,800 miles in one case, and 7,200 miles in the other, across the Pacific Ocean where there are no landmarks or anything to guide them? Or fly 7,500 miles from Argentina to Capistrano in the US and arrive there on the SAME DATE every year?

You've got to find some other mantra. This one is hopeless.

The why is the how.

Would you like to rephrase that statement or withdraw it?

We know that natural selection occurs. We can demonstrate it in spades. One only needs to know the why to see how something did happen. If it's advantageous (they why), then it likely will enter the genome.

Ever heard of Lamarckism? That's what you're invoking - are forced to invoke - here. But you know that Lamarckism is long dead, so where do you go from there?

Just because we weren't around to see them first migrate doesn't mean it's not logical to surmise that mutation + nat selection was how it happened. We have seen behaviour change with mutation:

I ask you again, HOW did that behaviour arise, and HOW did it get into the genome in the first place?

So, why is it not plausible that mutations causing a beneficial change in behaviour (further migration) would be passed down?

Because mutations are mostly neutral or deleterious. THEY CANNOT CREATE ANYTHING.

We already know the why. The how, like I have said before, is easy.

That's it. Just wave a magic evolutionary wand, and all is easy. Well I have news for you. It's not.

The mere fact that partial migrants can become sedentary or fully migratory with mutation seems to be VERY compelling evidence for the genetic control of migratory behaviour. Wouldn't you agree?

That is the basis of my second question: how did the instinct enter the genome in the first place?

I assume it's there somewhere - though it has not been shown to do so.

 

[Barbarian]

Mutations, I repeat, have never been shown to create a single new species. You must know of Muller and Dobzhansky's work with the fruit flies. NOT A SINGLE NEW SPECIES WAS EVER PRODUCED.

DROSOPHILA MIRANDA, A NEW SPECIES
TH. DOBZHANSKY
California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California
Received January 30, 1935
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1208619/pdf/377.pdf

C'mon, Async. When are you going to start thinking for yourself? Or at least do a little research before you believe those stories.

 

[lordkalvan]

That 'answer' is just about the most foolish it is possible to produce as an explanation of the origin of anything significant.

Of course it is, but more importantly, can you show why it is with something more than the Victor Meldrew argument?

Mutations have never been shown to produce a new species - far less any higher taxons.

And you know this how, exactly? You have already told us that 'a bit' of speciation can take place. What causes this 'bit' of speciation?

So which gum tree do you want to choose?

You have yet to demonstrate that this metaphorical gum tree is warranted.

Your ability to evaluate arguments seems totally lacking.

No comment.

In this thread, for example, I asked 'how did the instinct which causes the Pacific Golden Plover to migrate from Alaska to Hawaii and back every year, and then causes it's offspring to do the same in the absence of the parents as guides' arise,

and b. how did it enter the genome?

Through descent with modification by natural selection.

What did I get in response? Pure nonsense.

You have yet to show that this is 'pure nonsense'.

But you're incapable of making that assessment.

You mean abrown9 doesn't agree with you that evolutionary theory is 'pure nonsense'. You continue to assert this, but in all the threads you have started (and mostly abandoned) you have quite failed to show that this is so and why it is so.

Like, for example, an answer to the questions posed above:

a. How did the instinct arise and

b. How did it enter the genome?

Let's see if you know the difference between the 'why it might be a good idea to migrate 2,800 miles across the Pacific' and

'HOW did the instinct arise, and HOW did it enter the genome?'

You have been given explanations of why it is a 'good idea to migrate.' Can I refresh your memory as to these questions still outstanding and arising from your various claims, assertions and arguments elsewhere:

Do you regard migrations of 'a few hundred yards' as impossible of an explanation in terms of evolutionary theory? Do you regard the various reasons why animals migrate as impossible of an explanation in terms of evolutionary theory? Do you regard the reasons why some animals in a given population migrate and others don't as impossible of an explanation in terms of evolutionary theory? Do you regard the reasons why some animals cease migratory behaviour for periods of time and then begin it again as impossible of an explanation in terms of evolutionary theory? Do you regard observed changes in the migratory behaviour of certain animals over relatively short periods of time as impossible of an explanation in terms of evolutionary theory? If you answer 'yes' to any of these questions, can you then go on to explain why and to tell us what better explanation you can offer to account for this behaviour?