[_ Old Earth _] Is ID science?

[Barbarian]

It is like randomly screwing up a million house blueprints and then discovering that ONE of them has "a better bathroom".

No. That would be just one incremental improvement. The key is that at each step, the best one gets to survive, and that becomes the basis for the next generation of changes.

This is why ID/creationists get befuddled by the process. They can't get the idea that such a process efficiently produces fitness. And as you see, no designer. The guys running the experiment don't know how it works, or even what kind of phenomenon it is.

That repertoire turns out to be more intriguing than Thompson could
have imagined. Although the configuration program specified tasks for
all 100 cells, it transpired that only 32 were essential to the
circuit's operation. Thompson could bypass the other cells without
affecting it. A further five cells appeared to serve no logical
purpose at all--there was no route of connections by which they could
influence the output. And yet if he disconnected them, the circuit
stopped working.

It appears that evolution made use of some physical property of these
cells--possibly a capacitive effect or electromagnetic inductance--to
influence a signal passing nearby. Somehow, it seized on this subtle
effect and incorporated it into the solution.

GREAT results if the guys working on that problem are all hamsters. HORRIBLE result if the guys are architects using super computers.

Think so? Consider this...

Thompson realised that he could use a standard genetic algorithm to
evolve a configuration program for an FPGA and then test each new
circuit design immediately on the chip. He set the system a task that
appeared impossible for a human designer.

But natural selection did it. This is why engineers have started using evolutionary processes for difficult problems. Works better than design. Why wouldn't God know this, Bob? He knows what He's doing.

hint - you need to go back to programming and architecture 101 you are simply displaying your ignorance of the topic.

Looks like you've put your foot in it again, Bob. You should have read the article. BTW, I can do a simple example for you, if you'd like to verify that it works. Since you've been unable to identify any one who designed this circuit, we will have to conclude it has no designer, having evolved.

And yes, Patterson did claim he was misrepresented, and you know it, Bob. He gets to decide what he meant.

Feel free to spam your doctored "quote" all you like; it's a good thing for us.

 

[lordkalvan]

Bob, here are some questions for you:

1. Do you think that Dr Patterson did or did not believe in the principles of evolutionary theory?
2. Do you think Dr Patterson subsequently disagreed with the interpretation put on his words? I draw your attention to his use of the expression 'as far as it goes' (which you yourself have highlighted, although I am not sure that you understand its implications here).
3. Even if every one of your conclusions about the implications of Dr Patterson's word is correct (and for the purposes of this question only) I concede that they are, do you think the majority of other scientists engaged in the various disciplines that engage evolutionary theory directly agree or disagree with those implications?
4. If your answer to (3) is that the majority agree, can you provide citations and references?
5. If your answer to (3) is that the majority disagree, do you think that this disagreement may have anything to do with the preponderance of observed evidence?
6. If your answer to (5) is that they disagree for some reason(s) other than the evidence, what would those reason(s) be?
7. Regardless of anything else, do you think that understanding of evolutionary theory may have progressed at all in the decades since Dr Patterson's spoken and written remarks? I am thinking particularly of research in molecular biology, molecular genetics, phylogenetics and population genetics, but please feel free to include other fields in your answer.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob, here are some questions for you:

1. Do you think that Dr Patterson did or did not believe in the principles of evolutionary theory?

I keep repeating the fact that he REMAINED an atheist darwinist to the day he died EVEN though HE freely ADMITTED to some of the gaps and flaws in that "religion" to the point that Niles Eldredge' lament is a reasonable reasponse for a fellow atheist darwinist.

No "gloss over of the details" in Patterson's remarks can "change that history".

2. Do you think Dr Patterson subsequently disagreed with the interpretation put on his words? I draw your attention to his use of the expression 'as far as it goes' (which you yourself have highlighted, although I am not sure that you understand its implications here).

"ACCURATE as far as it goes" is Pattersons AFFIRMATION of the quote -- then Patterson ADDS another part of the quote that he feels would give his more complete view -- one that says "inconveniently for atheist darwinsts" the following

"STORIES ABOUT HOW ONE thing came from another .. are EASY ENOUGH to MAKE UP but they are NOT SCIENCE"

This is the part Patterson claims was MISSING from the ACCURATE QUOTE that was truly "ACCURATE as far as it went".

Now "your job" is to point out why that EMPHASIZED point by Patterson was truly " a GOOD thing" for your darwinist orthodoxy RATHER than simply EXPOSING ANOTHER problem in that religious argument.

It is "instructive" that you NEVER actually ADDRESS the Words that Patterson said should have been CORRECTED or ADDED in the Sunderland quote -- because obviously you find those "details" to be "inconvenient".

Question for you -- How in the world did you expect this point to be missed by the reader?

3. Even if every one of your conclusions about the implications of Dr Patterson's word is correct (and for the purposes of this question only) I concede that they are, do you think the majority of other scientists engaged in the various disciplines that engage evolutionary theory directly agree or disagree with those implications?

IF Darwinists can render "STORIES about how one thing came from another are STORIES easy enough to TELL but they are NOT science" into a "And I mean that in a GOOD way for Darwinist story tellers" -- then HAVE AT IT!

So far the ONLY solution offerred on this thread is to IGNORE the text entirely... snippet out one part from the end of the letter and IGNORE the rest. Such pick-and-choose slicing of Patterson's letter by darwinists simply CONFIRMS the problem they appear to have with his remarks.

Leaves very little for me to "conclude" or "implicate".

As Niles Edlredge stated in his LAMENT -- there ARE atheist darwinists that SEE the problem for Darwinism in what Patterson stated and would have loved dearly if Patterson's words were never spoken!!

Obviously.

BTW - I find your "majority atheist darwinists" argument entertaining as if history can be "revised" based on a "vote" or Patterson can be "ignored" based on a vote by atheist darwinists who do not find Patterson's remarks to be in their best interest any more than Niles did.

7. Regardless of anything else, do you think that understanding of evolutionary theory may have progressed at all in the decades since Dr Patterson's spoken and written remarks? I am thinking particularly of research in molecular biology, molecular genetics, phylogenetics and population genetics, but please feel free to include other fields in your answer.

Is it your argument that Patterson was correct in making these frank statements about the flaws in atheist darwinism that existed during his life time -- but since his death in 1999 "Darwinism changed" ?

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

It is like randomly screwing up a million house blueprints and then discovering that ONE of them has "a better bathroom".

No. That would be just one incremental improvement. The key is that at each step, the best one gets to survive, and that becomes the basis for the next generation of changes.

Good story telling - horrible rendering of the FACTS.

In the link YOU posted we have HUMAN designers creating programs running on COMPLEX computers and then inefficiently yielding zillions of errors and failures -- plus a working diode!

For your argument above to have HAD merit the LINK YOU posted would have had to have yielded "a better human programmer" and or a "better computer".

Instead what you SHOWED was MORE advanced and complex systems yielding a LESS advanced product --- "innefficiently" over time.

The only part you seem to grasp is that in the randomization logic used -- the programmer can always claim "I did not design that exact result... I would have to study the result to map it out".

Failure to note "inconvenient details" is WHY atheist darwinist devotees get so befuddled in their OWN examples!


They IMAGINE that zillions of errors accompanied by one modest diode IS "a solution".

when the PROGRAMMERS DESIGN a program capable of creating circuit specs using 100 cells then randomly add or delete them one does not get to hat-trick claim "I did not design".

YOU IMAGINE that God DESIGNED a program for life with a randomizer DESIGNED INTO IT such that that resulting complex PROGRAM would produce the much-anticipated DIODE?

Then you argue that your IMAGINATION is "proof" that "It appears that evolution made use of some physical property of these cells?

How in the world can you continually ASSUME the central point of your argument rather than demonstrating it's validity.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

let's indulge Barbarian's "no designer" suggestion for the steps needed.

1. First NOT-DESIGN a FPGA Field Programmable Gate Array
2. NOT-DESIGN a computer to run it
3. NOT-Design a configration program for the FPGA
4. NOt-DESIGN a way to load DIFFERENT configuration programs into the FPGA randomly over time.
5. NOT-DESIGN a way to PATTERN those configuration programs to load a
a standard genetic algorithm
6. NOT-DESIGN a way to conduct the test using a complex non-designed computer over time.
7. NOT -DESIGN a way to ignore the zillions of failing circuit results -- and make lots of noise if you find one that actually works.


ANd PRESTO! you get a diode that is NOT-DESIGNED just like Barbarian SAID!!

WOW!!

Bob

 

[Barbarian]

It is like randomly screwing up a million house blueprints and then discovering that ONE of them has "a better bathroom".

Barbarian observes:
No. That would be just one incremental improvement. The key is that at each step, the best one gets to survive, and that becomes the basis for the next generation of changes.

Good story telling - horrible rendering of the FACTS.

Nope. It's an accurate description of what has been observed. Dr. Hall's experiments with E. Coli showed that when he gave a culture of bacteria a substrate that was mostly a substance that they could not metabolize, a series of mutations that made a different enzyme more and more effective at metabolizing the substrate became fixed in the culture. Each one was an incremental improvement , and over time, the best ones survived to the next generation. Eventually, a complete regulated system evolved; it became irreducibly complex, with the substrate, regulator, and enyzme all needing to be present for the system to work.

In the link YOU posted we have HUMAN designers creating programs running on COMPLEX computers and then inefficiently yielding zillions of errors and failures -- plus a working diode!

Cool. Now see if you can tell us who designed the circuit. We know who designed the lab and the light bulbs in it, and all that. We want you to tell us who designed the circuit.

Instead what you SHOWED was MORE advanced and complex systems yielding a LESS advanced product --- "innefficiently" over time.

That's the point. Evolution produced a solution that was simpler and used fewer components than any designer has been able to do.

The only part you seem to grasp is that in the randomization logic used -- the programmer can always claim "I did not design that exact result... I would have to study the result to map it out".

That's not what happened, is it? The guy who set up the experiment doesn't even know how it works. He doesn't even know the physical process that makes it possible. And yet you think he "designed" it. That's just crazy, Bob.

The argument is over as far as engineers are concerned. This is, as you might have noticed, old news. They've gone far beyond this simple experiment to use evolution in place of design:

To engineers, the silent machinery of a living cell is a humbling reminder of the crudeness of their own designs. Every cell is a tiny, elegant engine that converts chemical fuel to energy while emitting innocuous byproducts. By contrast, a diesel engine, the most efficient type of internal combustion engine, is a monument to waste.

So engineers have begun to imitate nature, by letting a computerized version of Darwinian natural selection guide their design processes. In this approach, known as genetic algorithms, a computer simulates the performance of a group of machines, each with a slightly different design. These machines compete against one another and, just as in evolution, the best performing, or fittest, survives, to serve as the basis for another generation of designs. This process is repeated until an evolutionary winner, whose performance is maximized, emerges.

Scientists at the University of Wisconsin have recently applied this approach to the design of a diesel engine that, while far from the biological ideal, is more efficient and produces less waste than others in its class.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... wanted=all

Reality has moved on and left you behind, Bob.

 

[BobRyan]

ID is assumed to be applied at the fundamental level of the environment. For example one of the four forces in nature or to a direct derivative of them – for example Chemistry.

As AM/FM CDMA is ID applied within the medium of EM –

So Biology is ID applied within the medium of Chemistry-

What we “call ID†today is more precisely “Detecting Intelligent Design†d-ID.

So when atheist Darwinist devotees attempt to " dupe" the public (to use one of Patterson's words) by rigging the question and START with biology “AS the medium “– they unwittingly demonstrate that they have missed the point entirely as they try to BYPASS the ID IN CHEMISTRY that Results in Biology (– since they themselves do not have the intelligence/technology to create that same result “using Chemistry as the medium†and their desire to pander to atheism does not allow them to admit that someone with better technology is needed to do it.)

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

In the link YOU posted we have HUMAN designers creating programs running on COMPLEX computers and then inefficiently yielding zillions of errors and failures -- plus a working diode!

Cool. Now see if you can tell us who designed the circuit.

Cool now see if you can tell us who designed that specific cartisian map.

as I said Barbarian -- pretending not to understand the point does not help your argument as much as you have imagined.

let's indulge Barbarian's "no designer" suggestion for the steps needed.

1. First NOT-DESIGN a FPGA Field Programmable Gate Array
2. NOT-DESIGN a computer to run it
3. NOT-Design a configration program for the FPGA
4. NOt-DESIGN a way to load DIFFERENT configuration programs into the FPGA randomly over time.
5. NOT-DESIGN a way to PATTERN those configuration programs to load a
a standard genetic algorithm
6. NOT-DESIGN a way to conduct the test using a complex non-designed computer over time.
7. NOT -DESIGN a way to ignore the zillions of failing circuit results -- and make lots of noise if you find one that actually works.


ANd PRESTO! you get a diode that is NOT-DESIGNED just like Barbarian SAID!!

WOW!!

Bob

 

[Barbarian]

Bob still won't tell us who designed the circuit. He would like to say the guys who designed the materials that were used in the experiment did, but he won't really say that, for the obvious reasons.

Most salient of which would be that such an argument would mean that people who make pencils and paper designed the Empire state building.

Here's the fact, as reported on the website:

Even though the circuit consists of only a
small number of basic components, the researcher, Adrian Thompson,
does not know how it works. He can't ask the designer because there
wasn't one. Instead, the circuit evolved from a "primordial soup" of
silicon components guided by the principles of genetic variation and
survival of the fittest.

Precisely what IC/creationists argue can't happen. And yet it did. And no one designed it.

"Yeah, but someone designed the pencil."

Sure, Bob.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

ID is assumed to be applied at the fundamental level of the environment. For example one of the four forces in nature or to a direct derivative of them – for example Chemistry.

As AM/FM CDMA is ID applied within the medium of EM –

So Biology is ID applied within the medium of Chemistry-

What we “call ID†today is more precisely “Detecting Intelligent Design†d-ID.

So when atheist Darwinist devotees attempt to " dupe" the public (to use one of Patterson's words) by rigging the question and START with biology “AS the medium “– they unwittingly demonstrate that they have missed the point entirely as they try to BYPASS the ID IN CHEMISTRY that Results in Biology (– since they themselves do not have the intelligence/technology to create that same result “using Chemistry as the medium†and their desire to pander to atheism does not allow them to admit that someone with better technology is needed to do it.)

Bob

If quote mining and baseless assertions were pennies, you'd be Bill Gates sugar daddy.

:

Why after all this time are you still avoiding evidence for your case? Is there any.....

:o

 

[lordkalvan]

Bob, here are some questions for you:

1. Do you think that Dr Patterson did or did not believe in the principles of evolutionary theory?

I keep repeating the fact that he REMAINED an atheist darwinist to the day he died EVEN though HE freely ADMITTED to some of the gaps and flaws in that "religion" to the point that Niles Eldredge' lament is a reasonable reasponse for a fellow atheist darwinist.

No "gloss over of the details" in Patterson's remarks can "change that history".

So the answer to my question is yes. By the way, the continued use of the expression 'atheist darwinist' to describe anyone who finds the evidence for evolution compelling is both irritating and false. 'Darwinist' is a made-up term that has no descriptive purpose, unless you believe that anyone who accepts the law of gravity should be a Newtonist and anyone who accepts General Relativity is an Einsteinist. As to the continual repetition of 'atheist' in conjunction with 'darwinist', I am sure you are fully aware that not only are there Christian scientists who are comfortable with evolutionary theory without feeling any threat to their faith, but also Christian ministers as well.

Also, are you using religion in the sense of believing in 'just so' stories without any supporting evidence to validate them?

[quote:14e5d]2. Do you think Dr Patterson subsequently disagreed with the interpretation put on his words? I draw your attention to his use of the expression 'as far as it goes' (which you yourself have highlighted, although I am not sure that you understand its implications here).

"ACCURATE as far as it goes" is Pattersons AFFIRMATION of the quote.....[/quote:14e5d]
I have snipped the bulk of your response as it appears to be yet another attempt to justify your conclusions despite Dr Patterson's obvious concern that he was being misunderstood and misrepresented by creationists, and an effort to shift the the emphasis away from Dr Patterson's own statements and to an argument that those parts of his comments that you choose to emphasize so forcefully are more significant than those parts you prefer to ignore or claim to have no relevance to your conclusions.

In summary, it appears to be the case that, in your opinion:

1. The context of Dr Patterson's comments is irrelevant.
2. Dr Patterson's subsequent clarifications of the intent and context of his remarks and his confidence in the basic soundness of evolutionary theory are irrelevant.

[quote:14e5d]3. Even if every one of your conclusions about the implications of Dr Patterson's word is correct (and for the purposes of this question only) I concede that they are, do you think the majority of other scientists engaged in the various disciplines that engage evolutionary theory directly agree or disagree with those implications?

IF Darwinists can render "STORIES about how one thing came from another are STORIES easy enough to TELL but they are NOT science" into a "And I mean that in a GOOD way for Darwinist story tellers" -- then HAVE AT IT![/quote:14e5d]
I truly do not understand this sentence. Evolutionary theory is not 'story telling'; it is founded on a multiple strands of supporting evidence. That you choose to take comment out of context to attack that theory only demonstrates the paucity of the argument you have against it.

So far the ONLY solution offerred on this thread is to IGNORE the text entirely... snippet out one part from the end of the letter and IGNORE the rest. Such pick-and-choose slicing of Patterson's letter by darwinists simply CONFIRMS the problem they appear to have with his remarks.

Leaves very little for me to "conclude" or "implicate".

And your only response to posts pointing out Dr Patterson's later remarks which quite clearly indicate the fact he was being both misrepresented and misunderstood by creationists is to repeat the claim that your snippets and pick-and-choose slicing of those later remarks in some way poses a problem for evolutionary theory.

As Niles Edlredge stated in his LAMENT -- there ARE atheist darwinists that SEE the problem for Darwinism in what Patterson stated and would have loved dearly if Patterson's words were never spoken!!

Obviously.

You place too much weight on your opinion of what that problem constitutes.

BTW - I find your "majority atheist darwinists" argument entertaining as if history can be "revised" based on a "vote" or Patterson can be "ignored" based on a vote by atheist darwinists who do not find Patterson's remarks to be in their best interest any more than Niles did.

I find your failure to understand my question entertaining.

[quote:14e5d]7. Regardless of anything else, do you think that understanding of evolutionary theory may have progressed at all in the decades since Dr Patterson's spoken and written remarks? I am thinking particularly of research in molecular biology, molecular genetics, phylogenetics and population genetics, but please feel free to include other fields in your answer.

Is it your argument that Patterson was correct in making these frank statements about the flaws in atheist darwinism that existed during his life time -- but since his death in 1999 "Darwinism changed" ?[/quote:14e5d]
It is evident from my question that this is not my argument. I am seeking to find out whether you think it possible that, even if your interpretation of Dr Patterson's comments was to be wholly conceded - i.e. that it is not possible to confirm direct relationships between living species today and ancestral species in the fossil record, thereby throwing the whole of evolutionary theory into a state of chaos and uncertainty - it is within the bounds of your understanding that further research in the field if of evolutionary theory might possibly have rendered those comments no longer valid? In other words, do you think that science progresses and knowledge and understanding increase, or do you hold to the view that any expression at any time of doubt about some aspect of a field of science by a scientist casts that field of science into disarray and doubt for all time?

By the way, I assume that you have no answers to my questions (4)-(6).

 

[VaultZero4Me]

The problem is Kelven, Bobby doesn't care that his arguments are complete failures at the basic level of logical debate. He likes to flame, quote mine, avoid evidence, ad hom, etc.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob, here are some questions for you:

1. Do you think that Dr Patterson did or did not believe in the principles of evolutionary theory?

I keep repeating the fact that he REMAINED an atheist darwinist to the day he died EVEN though HE freely ADMITTED to some of the gaps and flaws in that "religion" to the point that Niles Eldredge' lament is a reasonable reasponse for a fellow atheist darwinist.

No "gloss over of the details" in Patterson's remarks can "change that history".

So the answer to my question is yes.

indeed.

By the way, the continued use of the expression 'atheist darwinist' to describe anyone who finds the evidence for evolution compelling is both irritating and false.

I usually try to use the term "believer in atheist darwinism" to include both Christian and non-Christians.

I will try to remember to stick to that more rigorously -- although in some cases when referring to actual atheists -- I am talking about an atheist darwinist.

Patterson, Dawkins, Provine for example.

'Darwinist' is a made-up term that has no descriptive purpose

If you remember to pay attention to Pattersons argument about Darwinism being presented as "revealed TRUTH" in true religionist form and as being accepted more on a faith basis than on a fact and science basis -- then the point become clear.

Here we have Patterson "again" on that point.

Colin Patterson (Senior paleontologist at the British Natural History Museum and author of the Museum’s general text on evolution)

A 1981 lecture presented at New York City's American Museum of Natural History

Colin PATTERSON:

"...I'm speaking on two subjects, evolutionism and creationism, and I believe it's true to say that I know nothing whatever about either...One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view,well, let's call it non-evolutionary , was last year I had a sudden realization.

"For over twenty years I had thought that I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up, and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years, and there was not one thing I knew about it. "That was quite a shock that one could be misled for so long...

It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not to be taught in high school, and perhaps that's all we know about it...

about eighteen months ago...I woke up and I realized that all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth in some way."

Patterson - again quoting Gillespie accusing that those "'...holding creationist ideas could plead ignorance of the means and affirm only the fact,'" Patterson countered, "That seems to summarize the feeling I get in talking to evolutionists today. They plead ignorance of the means of transformation, but affirm only the fact: 'Yes it has...we know it has taken place.'"

"...Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you've experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that's true of me, and I think it's true of a good many of you in here...

"...Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge [/u], apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics..."

obviously all darwinists would like to quickly side-step the inconvenient statements in what Patterson was saying...

But how in the world can you expect a non-darwinist to simply IGNORE the truth of what Patterson is saying as if there was NO real "meaning" no "consequence" to such statements of fact?

It would not be rational to do such a thing.

, unless you believe that anyone who accepts the law of gravity should be a Newtonist and anyone who accepts General Relativity is an Einsteinist.

Again - your glossing over Patterson's statemetns leads you to equivocate in that way. No leading Physicist or mathmatician has gone out and argued that "there is not one thing we know about gravity" nor has any leading proponent argued that any of what you list is accepted more on "faith" than as a matter of science.

I see "why you need" to equivocate between such hard sciences and what we find by contrast in Darwinism -- but I don't see why you think it is an objective compelling argument to make that equivocation when the associated facts do not support the effort.

As to the continual repetition of 'atheist' in conjunction with 'darwinist', I am sure you are fully aware that not only are there Christian scientists who are comfortable with evolutionary theory without feeling any threat to their faith, but also Christian ministers as well.

I fully agree. My point in the identifying darwinism as distinctively atheist is based on two facts.

1. Darwin HIMSELF admits that it is not consistent with Christian Belief -- as do the leading darwinists such as Gould, Dawkins, Provine etc.

2. The so-called Christian in that group have been quick to attack the neutral SCIENCE efforts of ID that while falling far short of YEC -- are in 100% agreement with Romans 1 as it speaks to "what pagans know". When they willingly and unwittingly argue that they do not see what "pagans clearly see" and then attack evolutionists that DO SEE what pagans see -- they show themselves to have gone to the distinctively atheist 'step' without thinking.

Also, are you using religion in the sense of believing in 'just so' stories without any supporting evidence to validate them?

Indeed - "affirming the fact while pleading ignorance as to the means" which is the calim Patterson ALSO made about Darwinists.

[quote:dddb7]L.K

2. Do you think Dr Patterson subsequently disagreed with the interpretation put on his words? I draw your attention to his use of the expression 'as far as it goes' (which you yourself have highlighted, although I am not sure that you understand its implications here).

"ACCURATE as far as it goes" is Pattersons AFFIRMATION of the quote - his only complain (as we SEE in his response) was about the DETAIL regarding "key note" and primarily HOW it can be true that we HAVE NO true transitional and yet can still keep claiming something about them[/quote:dddb7]

L.K.
I have snipped the bulk of your response as it appears to be yet another attempt to justify your conclusions

Indeed the inconvenient details in my response are usually of a character that would prove my point.

feel free to delete them as you see the need to support your point in your responses.

despite Dr Patterson's obvious concern that he was being misunderstood and misrepresented by creationists, and an effort to shift the the emphasis away from Dr Patterson's own statements and to an argument that those parts of his comments that you choose to emphasize so forcefully are more significant than those parts you prefer to ignore or claim to have no relevance to your conclusions.

This is the totally irrational argument I have seen time after time -- without ANY appeal AT ALL to the text!!

Why in the world do darwinists keep doing that??

Why would they not RATHEr -- engage in a DETAILEd point by point of Patterson's quote to show me just HOW well their argument is established. After ALL this is Patterson trying to HELP Darwinists get out of that hole! Surely AVOIDING his every word in that letter to Theunissen can NOT be "good" for Darwinist!

Why is it I am the one who has to drag them BACK to what Patterson said time after time while they pretend "that is a bad thing"?????

This is the letter where Patterson is HeLPING Darwinist! Don't they get it???

Taking this in two posts -- for the sake of the reader.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

L.K
In summary, it appears to be the case that, in your opinion:

1. The context of Dr Patterson's comments is irrelevant.
2. Dr Patterson's subsequent clarifications of the intent and context of his remarks and his confidence in the basic soundness of evolutionary theory are irrelevant.

Wrong.

My opinion is that those who cling to darwinist orthodoxy are ignoring the context, ignoring almost everything Patterson said to Sunderland AND ignoring almost EVERY WORD he wrote to Theunissen -- and that they need to continuall NOT QUOTE Patterson in those two letters to make their case.

Their only "solution" is to lift HALF A SENTENCE out of the letter and then suppose that I or anyone else will simply "imagine the balance of the letter" AS IF it had made the Darwinist case while ignoring what the letters actually SAID.

If you will notice I KEEP POSTING LARGE SECTIONS (as well as the ENTIRE LETTERS) regarding the two letters that Patterson wrote to Sunderland and Theunissen.

I keep highlighting and underlining large sections of those letters THEN ADDING focused detailed commentary pouring over them very carefully. Highlighting "inconvenient detail after inconvenient detail".

The Darwinist response to this point has been to "ignore each detail raised"

But WHY DO THAT in a letter FROM Patterson that was DESIGNED as a defense of his views?

Why flee the details EVERY TIME??

Repeatedly my QUOTE of Patterson is spun back as "my conclusion" or "my implication" by those who can not bring themselves to quote that SAME statement from Patterson and SHOW IN THE TEXT OF THE LETTER - a more friendly-to-darwin angle.

L.K
3. Even if every one of your conclusions about the implications of Dr Patterson's word is correct (and for the purposes of this question only) I concede that they are, do you think the majority of other scientists engaged in the various disciplines that engage evolutionary theory directly agree or disagree with those implications?

My understanding is that many of Patterson's peers would respond as did Niles Eldredge that HIS WORDS were NOT helpful to their "cause".

INSTEAD of arguing "Patterson is really helping us and it is just those dirty rotten Christians that don't see the glorious benefit of what Patterson is saying" -- (As has been the attempt at fiction when some here read Patterson's letters) -- Niles simply said "My god why is he doing this to us"!!

Since you bring us to the question of Patterson's peers -- how would you characterize your OWN defense in "the details found in those letters" vs the way that Eldredge summarized Patterson's "confessions"??

To me the contrast between the two of you is "instructive".

Bob

 

[VaultZero4Me]

The Darwinist response to this point has been to "ignore each detail raised"

Another logical fallacy.

It may be that most are just ignoring your posts all together.

A 1981 lecture presented at New York City's American Museum of Natural History

Congrats stepping out of the 1950's!

Still though, you are using a lecture given by one man OVER 25 YEARS ago. Just a few more decades to go and your posts may even become relevant :

 

[BobRyan]

Bob said
IF Darwinists can render "STORIES about how one thing came from another are STORIES easy enough to TELL but they are NOT science" into a "And I mean that in a GOOD way for Darwinist story tellers" -- then HAVE AT IT!

L.K
I truly do not understand this sentence. Evolutionary theory is not 'story telling'; it is founded on a multiple strands of supporting evidence. That you choose to take comment out of context to attack that theory only demonstrates the paucity of the argument you have against it.

Is this the part where you DO remember what Patterson said in BOTH letters or you don't??

Recall that PATTERSON's argument that Darwinists were engaged in "stories easy enough to MAKE UP but NOT such stories are NOT SCIENCE" was in direct reference (in Pattersons words) about the topic of "HOW ONE THING CAME FROM ANOTHER".

Tell me you did not MISS that?

I notice that in your accusation that I am taking Patterson out of context - you make no effort at all to show "IN THE TEXT" (we are back to that exegesis thing again -- did you notice) that I have done anything of the kind??

Why simply assume the salient point of your response rather than showing it to actually BE true??

Seems like an odd way to carry your argument forward to me.

Bob said
So far the ONLY solution offerred on this thread is to IGNORE the text entirely... snippet out one part from the end of the letter and IGNORE the rest. Such pick-and-choose slicing of Patterson's letter by darwinists simply CONFIRMS the problem they appear to have with his remarks.

Leaves very little for me to "conclude" or "implicate".

This gets back to my point about the fact that I AM THE ONE repeatedly quoting BOTH Patterson's letters or else large portions of them -- The darwinists here NEVER bring it up! And when I do -- they try to reduce Patterson to half-a-sentence.

L.K
And your only response to posts pointing out Dr Patterson's later remarks which quite clearly indicate the fact he was being both misrepresented and misunderstood by creationists is to repeat the claim that your snippets and pick-and-choose slicing of those later remarks in some way poses a problem for evolutionary theory.

Ok "one more time" patiently....

Patterson's "subsequent remarks" to his letter to Sunderland ARE FOUND in his letter to Theunissen where Patterson REPEATS his argument about "Stories easy enough to make up".

NOT ONCE has ANY darwinist offerred to review the DETAILS in that "later remark" by Patterson!

All efforts have been to AVOID BOTH letters -- why keep doing that?

EVEN NOW you are not quoting Patterson's letter to fellow darwinist Theunissen -- short as that letter is!!

Why not show how "Stories easy enough to make up" as stated by Patterson is "A GOOD THING for Darwinists"???

Take the ACTUAL letter and make a case instead of avoiding it and then blaming me for spending so much time on HIS LATER REMARK as he framed it to Theunissen??

Where is the logic in that approach??

L.K
[quote:2652a]Bob said
As Niles Edlredge stated in his LAMENT -- there ARE atheist darwinists that SEE the problem for Darwinism in what Patterson stated and would have loved dearly if Patterson's words were never spoken!!

Obviously.

You place too much weight on your opinion of what that problem constitutes.
[/quote:2652a]

Again you provide an answer in the form of "no quotes from either Eldredge or Patterson" regarding the point/incident underdiscussion. Just more accusation without evidence.

How is that supposed to be compelling for me or any reader that does not start the post in devotion to darwinism???

L.K.

7. Regardless of anything else, do you think that understanding of evolutionary theory may have progressed at all in the decades since Dr Patterson's spoken and written remarks? I am thinking particularly of research in molecular biology, molecular genetics, phylogenetics and population genetics, but please feel free to include other fields in your answer.

Bob asks
Is it your argument that Patterson was correct in making these frank statements about the flaws in atheist darwinism that existed during his life time -- but since his death in 1999 "Darwinism changed" ?

you seem to "hope" that although Patterson reveals flaws in the Darwinist argument -- yet since that time those flaws have been addressed.

L.K
It is evident from my question that this is not my argument.

Then I missed your argument. Please explain.

L.K
I am seeking to find out whether you think it possible that, even if your interpretation of Dr Patterson's comments was to be wholly conceded - i.e. that it is not possible to confirm direct relationships between living species today and ancestral species in the fossil record, thereby throwing the whole of evolutionary theory into a state of chaos and uncertainty - it is within the bounds of your understanding that further research in the field if of evolutionary theory might possibly have rendered those comments no longer valid?

Again your question shows a lack of focus on what Patterson SAID in BOTH his letters.

Patterson argues that the SCIENCE itself is not able to tell from a given fossil whether it was ancestor to some other fossil or descendant to some other fossil. Theunissen AGREES and so have numberous darwinists on this board who look at the letters and then try to argue their way out of it.

Your question is "DO I think that SCIENCE has since SOLVED the problem" of looking at a fossil and NOT KNOWING what it is ancestor TO or descendant OF.

No - since 1999 I have not heard of any "breakthrough" that solves that problem. NO announcement "WE have finally figured out how to do that".

But given Patterson's recognition of the LIMIT I have no doubt that should they HAVE found a way to SOLVE it -- a lot of hoopla would surely have resulted.

no let me ask you a question --

IF the PROBLEM REMAINS -- does THAT change your faith in darwinist orthodoxy one iota?

L.K By the way, I assume that you have no answers to my questions (4)-(6).

[/quote]

It is more the case that I have about 20 threads active on this board -- and while I do try to get to yours first - as I find you to be a more objective thoughtful participant than most of the regular darwin supporting group - I am also prone to missing a thread topic.

In fact it is thanks to VZ4M commenting here and bumping this up to the top that I got to this. I was not aware that you had posted a response here until then.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The transparent "revisionist-history" smoke-and-mirrors ignore details and deny-all solution of some darwinists is "instructive" to the unbiased objective reader revealing their foxhole defense against "information" in their religionist zeal for darwinist orthodoxy.

Congrats stepping out of the 1950's!

Still though, you are using a lecture given by one man OVER 25 YEARS ago. Just a few more decades to go and your posts may even become relevant :

But sadly -- "the facts" are never in their favor.

There are THREE events.

A letter from Patterson to Sunderland - from 1979
A speach given by Patterson in 1981
A CONFIRMING letter (regarding the 1979 position) from Patterson in 1993 given to Theunissen.

Patterson never argues that he was misquoted -- rather he argues that conclusions/summations about his remarks made by Sunderland were not in agreement with his own views. However Sunderlands conclusions HAVE NEVER BEEN QUOTED in this discussion!!

Hint: so we don't HAVE the problem of "Quoting Sunderland's comments ABOUT Patterson only to find that Patterson does not agree with them" -- Because there are NO QUOTES of Sunderland's comments ABOUT PAtterson in the discussion.

Devotees to darwinism like VZ4M -- struggle with these details in their efforts to "make stuff up".

Sadly the "blinders-on" deny-all solution of VZ4M (also being attempted by some others) does not allow him to "deal with the facts".

Bob

 

[Guest]

There are THREE events.

A letter from Patterson to Sunderland - from 1979
A speach given by Patterson in 1981
A CONFIRMING letter (regarding the 1979 position) from Patterson in 1993 given to Theunissen.

Patterson never argues that he was misquoted -- rather he argues that conclusions/summations about his remarks made by Sunderland were not in agreement with his own views. However Sunderlands conclusions HAVE NEVER BEEN QUOTED in this discussion!!

Hint: so we don't HAVE the problem of "Quoting Sunderland's comments ABOUT Patterson only to find that Patterson does not agree with them" -- Because there are NO QUOTES of Sunderland's comments ABOUT PAtterson in the discussion.

Firstly, CONFIRMING letter? What part of:

I think the continuation of the passage shows clearly that your interpretation (at the end of your letter) is correct, and the creationists' is false

Do you not understand. You are wrong in your interpretation. Does Patterson need to come and beat you about the head with a stick with "You're wrong!" written on it before you'll realise it?

Anyhow, lets get to the bottom of this Patterson issue shall we?
First let me quote Mr Theunissen.

Patterson goes on to acknowledge that there are gaps in the fossil record, but points out that this is possibly due to the limitations of what fossils can tell us. He finishes the paragraph with:

". . .Fossils may tell us many things, but one thing they can never disclose is whether they were ancestors of anything else."

It is actually this statement which is the key to interpreting the Sunderland quote correctly; it is not possible to say for certain whether a fossil is in the direct ancestral line of a species group. Archaeopteryx, for example, is not necessarily directly ancestral to birds. It may have been a species on a side-branch. However, that in no way disqualifies it as a transitional form, or as evidence for evolution. Evolution predicts that such fossils will exist, and if there was no link between reptiles and birds then Archaeopteryx would not exist, whether it is directly ancestral or not. What Patterson was saying to Sunderland was that, of the transitional forms that are known, he could not make a watertight argument for any being directly ancestral to living species groups.

As confirmed in the letter to Mr Thunissen, Patterson agrees with this conclusion and disagrees with the Creationist conclusion that there are no transitional forms.
Patterson goes on in this letter as saying that his later comments in the speech were in regard to Biological Systematics only, where it is understandable that evolution would play merry hell with trying to put creatures known only from fossils into species groups by making things infinetly more complicated. This speech, which is the one you so often quote, was illegally taped without his consent by a creationist, who has since taken him out of context and spread his misquotings for people like you to use to bash evolution with.

Why not show how "Stories easy enough to make up" as stated by Patterson is "A GOOD THING for Darwinists"???

Ok gauntlet thrown, gauntlet picked up. I'm going to make the rather rich assumption that you actually know your way around the theory of evolution first however. Patterson's statement that stories easy enough to make up relate to the inaccuracy of the fossil record to demonstrate direct lineage to surviving species. The example Thunissen uses is the Apeteryx. Now is it the direct ancestor to birds? Well maybe, or was it an evolutionary dead end? Evolution is not linear, it has branches. For example, did humans evolve from Chimps? No. Humans evolved from some other prehistoric animal, which evolved from something else and so on. Somewhere back there, the animal in question also evolved into something else, which evolved to become the chimpanzee.

If we dig up a fossil that resembles either a human or a chimp, can we tell for sure that it's on our branch and not the chimps, if it's somewhere close to that divergence point? Nope. We can say it's likely related to one or the other, but we can't say for sure it's the ancestor of either. In fact, it needent be the ancestor of either. Suppose one evolutionary step up from the divide, that animal evolved into two species, one of which carried on to become human, the other of which died out. Who's to say the skull we found isn't that dead end, and therefore not on our direct lineage?

And that sir, is what Patterson meant by making up stories, and rightly so. We CAN make up stories and say that that skull eventually evolved into a chimp, but that wouldn't be correct. What we can say is that the skull belonged to something that shared a common ancestor with us. Is it a good thing for "Evolutionists" to use your inaccurate word? Not really, it's completely neutral.


I was going to carry on and give you the rest of the whole nine yards on the crushing physical evidence in support of ToE (Not quotes or subjective opinions, cold hard facts), but I think that's pretty much enough to answer everything you mentioned in your last few posts. Direct lineage cannot be traced with perfect accuracy, but that is a conceded part of the theory of evolution and detracts nothing from its validity. If there is anything more you wish to be clarified or explained with fewer syllables, do not hesitate to ask.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

The transparent "revisionist-history" smoke-and-mirrors ignore details and deny-all solution of some darwinists is "instructive" to the unbiased objective reader revealing their foxhole defense against "information" in their religionist zeal for darwinist orthodoxy.

Congrats stepping out of the 1950's!

Still though, you are using a lecture given by one man OVER 25 YEARS ago. Just a few more decades to go and your posts may even become relevant :

But sadly -- "the facts" are never in their favor.

There are THREE events.

A letter from Patterson to Sunderland - from 1979
A speach given by Patterson in 1981
A CONFIRMING letter (regarding the 1979 position) from Patterson in 1993 given to Theunissen.

Patterson never argues that he was misquoted -- rather he argues that conclusions/summations about his remarks made by Sunderland were not in agreement with his own views. However Sunderlands conclusions HAVE NEVER BEEN QUOTED in this discussion!!

Hint: so we don't HAVE the problem of "Quoting Sunderland's comments ABOUT Patterson only to find that Patterson does not agree with them" -- Because there are NO QUOTES of Sunderland's comments ABOUT PAtterson in the discussion.

Devotees to darwinism like VZ4M -- struggle with these details in their efforts to "make stuff up".

Sadly the "blinders-on" deny-all solution of VZ4M (also being attempted by some others) does not allow him to "deal with the facts".

Bob

I didn't make anything up your quote which you seem to be fascinated with is older than me :

Quotes are not factual evidence against any theory.....You still have yet to bring any real evidence. But, be sure I won't hold my breath for you to do it. I am sure you are just going to repost some more of the quotes after this is say some thing like "See the atheist evoloutionist blah blah...." with random quotation marks spread throughout indicating you have no idea how to use them properly.

But alas, you do not have anything but your little outdated quotes no one really cares about, not to mention your "facts" from Piltdown and the horse that are over 50 yrs old.

But I will give you that you have an uncanny knack for irony as illustrated:

Sadly the "blinders-on" deny-all solution of VZ4M (also being attempted by some others) does not allow him to "deal with the facts".

:

The day you actually bring some real evidence, will be that day you get taken seriously

 

[Guest]

But I will give you that you have an uncanny knack for irony as illustrated:

Sadly the "blinders-on" deny-all solution of VZ4M (also being attempted by some others) does not allow him to "deal with the facts".

:

The day you actually bring some real evidence, will be that day you get taken seriously

I lol'd, good call. xD