[_ Old Earth _] Just curious..

[zeke]

To the degree that perfection is not what we see in creation. Optimality is sometimes evolved, but no perfection. The point is in the part you removed, where Gould points out that the less optimal forms are more useful in understanding how evolution works.

Then we agree - Gould meant exactly what he stated in his statement - "perfection could be imposed by a wise creator or evolved by natural selection"?

As you see, Gould had it right. You just removed part of it. Or perhaps someone fooled you. But as you see, when the statement is restored, it's not what you presented it to be.

The context of his statement remains as posted - "perfection could be imposed by a wise creator or evolved by natural selection". What part do you perceive to be 'restored'. Please be specific - I think you may be confused again.

Again, it's quite possible someone did it to you, and you are entirely innocent in this attempted deception.

But there is no deception unless you have been self-deceived.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian, regarding Gee:
I hope he didn't use "proof", unless he was making the point that science is inductive, and never involves logical certainty. All scientists with any knowledge of epistemology would tell you that science proves nothing. It only shows things to be true beyond a reasonable doubt.

To which scientific 'theory of beyond truth' are your referring?

I wasn't.

Has science proven that the Earth is a sphere?

No, it hasn't. But we have enough evidence to conclude that it must be very close to a sphere.

Barbarian observes:
That is the point of cladistics. It uses the principle of parsimony to find the commonalities. This is what Linnaeus did, inadvertently. The point is that such nested hierarchies are only found in cases of common descent.

Nested hierarchies can also be evidences for a common designer.

Don't see how. We only see them in cases of common descent. Unless you suppose the "designer" to be deliberately deceptive, that wouldn't happen.

If not, why not?

Christians consider God to be truthful.

Barbarian observes:
I hope that was Gee's argument, in which case we agree. If he says that science can "prove" things, or that the investigations of biologists are somehow different than those of other scientists, I'd have to conclude he's stuffed with prunes. I suspect the former, since Gee seems to admit the fact of common descent.

You are still grossly misunderstanding Gee's point regarding fossil lineages.

Since Gee openly admits he realizes common descent is a fact, I don't think so.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
I don't buy the postmodern idea that reality is whatever we make of it.

And yet you accept Darwinian myth as reality

"Darwinian myth" seems to be your invention. But you won't tell us what it is. But you've made it pretty clear that Darwinian theory has nothing to do with it. But then you don't know what Darwinian theory is, either. Every time someone has asked you about it, you dodged the question.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
For example, Darwin was outlawed in the Soviet Union because it contradicted Marxist beliefs, and Stalin saw the industrialists in it's English origins.

Over simplification. Stalin outlawed almost everything and sent almost everyone to the gulags - or worse.

Nope. Engineers, metallurgists, chemists, meteorologists, none of them were persecuted for their theories. You just make this up as you go, don't you?

Vladimir Lenin loved Darwinism and it finally became the state religion after 1961.

Wrong again:
By late 1958, however, Lysenko had succeeded in solidifying his relationship with Nikita Khrushchev by appealing to their common Ukrainian rural background, embracing Khrushchev’s agricultural policy, and convincing him that its lack of success was due to the opposition of powerful bureaucrats in the academies and ministries. In subsequent years, Khrushchev’s agricultural program became linked with various Lysenkoist nostrums, and in 1961 and 1962 Lysenko briefly resumed the presidency of VASKhNIL.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Trofim_Denisovich_Lysenko.aspx

You just make this stuff up as you go, don't you?

 

[zeke]

No, it hasn't. But we have enough evidence to conclude that it must be very close to a sphere.

Has science proven the earth is not flat?

Don't see how We only see them in cases of common descent.

But you only assume universal common ancestry - you have not demonstrated it to be a fact. Where is your science? In your version of Darwinism when/how did our 'lower animal form' become a rational human soul? Was it a gradual process?

nless you suppose the "designer" to be deliberately deceptive, that wouldn't happen.

But God did create "in the beginning". What Bible version do you use? Do you think God has deceived you?

Since Gee openly admits he realizes common descent is a fact, I don't think so.

As noted earlier you grossly misunderstand Gee. We are not arguing his religious beliefs regarding universal common ancestry - he was a Darwinian and has no other options. We are discussing his concept that states a person cannot take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage - scientifically. You appear to think you can - Gee says you can't test such a notion. I will go with Gee - he is correct.

 

[Barbarian]

Has science proven the earth is not flat?

No. Science never deals in logical certainty. We merely have overwhelming evidence that the Earth is somewhat spherical.

Barbarian observes:
Don't see how We only see them in cases of common descent.

But you only assume universal common ancestry

No. We conclude that from other evidence.

you have not demonstrated it to be a fact.

We have. That's what Gould meant in "science as fact and theory."

Where is your science?

Genetics, fossils, geology, biochemistry, immuology, neurology, etc. Pick one and I'll show you some of it.

In your version of Darwinism when/how did our 'lower animal form' become a rational human soul?

Science can't show that kind of thing. The supernatural is out of its reach. However the Bible says God gives it directly to us.

Was it a gradual process?

Happens at once, by God.

Barbarian observes:
Unless you suppose the "designer" to be deliberately deceptive, that wouldn't happen.

But God did create "in the beginning".

Christians and creationists agree on that. The difference is, you don't like the way He did it.

What Bible version do you use?

I have three on my desk. Douay, KJV and the NIV. But I like to look over the others as well.

Do you think God has deceived you?

I think creationists have deceived themselves.

Barbarian observes:
Since Gee openly admits he realizes common descent is a fact, I don't think so.

As noted earlier you grossly misunderstand Gee.

It's pretty clear you don't get what Gee's message is:
In palaeoanthropology, this idea is seen in the view that only one species of hominid has existed at any one time, each one succeeding the next in a scheme of orderly replacement. This idea began to crumble in the 1970s, since when discoveries of ancient relatives of humans have revealed a marked diversity of form. Human evolution is like a bush, not a ladder.
Henry Gee
http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=1329

He seems to have gotten this right, anyway.

We are discussing his concept that states a person cannot take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage - scientifically.

I think we clarified this for you before. Fossilization is rare; it would be astounding if we found the exact individual that gave rise to the next step in any lineage. We can only show how populations, not individual organisms changed over time. But then evolution only happens to populations, not organisms, so it's not a problem.

You're conflating two different things. Tilting at windmills, while the real giants sit on the hill wondering what you think you're doing.

 

[zeke]

No. Science never deals in logical certainty. We merely have overwhelming evidence that the Earth is somewhat spherical.

So you have a small fear that you may fall off the edge of the earth if you set your sail west. I say science has proven the earth is not flat - some time back.

Genetics, fossils, geology, biochemistry, immuology, neurology, etc. Pick one and I'll show you some of it.

I have already given you the challenge - let me repeat it for you - present your alleged line of fossils that demonstrates a scientific lineage from tetrapods to humans or admit you have none. Gee says it can't be done - I agree with him. You're up.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
No. Science never deals in logical certainty. We merely have overwhelming evidence that the Earth is somewhat spherical.

So you have a small fear that you may fall off the edge of the earth if you set your sail west.

No more than I have a small fear that gravity may fail someday. Can't prove it won't happen, but I have pretty good evidence that it won't.

I say science has proven the earth is not flat - some time back.

You might want to tell us who the fellow was who proved it, then.

Barbarian, when asked how we know evolution happened:
Genetics, fossils, geology, biochemistry, immuology, neurology, etc. Pick one and I'll show you some of it.

I have already given you the challenge

Which reminds me, you have a load of questions you haven't yet answered. When are you going to answer some of them.

let me repeat it for you - present your alleged line of fossils that demonstrates a scientific lineage from tetrapods to humans or admit you have none. Gee says it can't be done

We already pointed out that it would be unbelievably unlikely to find every single organismhe lineage to humans since the first fish walked about on land. Evolutionary theory makes no such claims. It merely points out the fact that the predicted fossil intermediates for such a lineage have been repeatedly found, but there is never an intermediate where it should not be according to evolutionary theory. Your problem is to explain why that is so.

If you can't do it, just admit it, and we'll go on.

(Gee claims things can't be proven in evolutionary science)

I agree with him.

Me too. Nothing in science is proven. But notice that Gee does admit the lineage from other primates to humans.

You're up. Now explain to us about the transitionals. Why do we so frequently find them where predicted, but never where they are ruled out by the theory?

 

[zeke]

Which reminds me, you have a load of questions you haven't yet answered. When are you going to answer some of them.

Interpretation: Barbarian cannot complete the challenge. Barbarian cannot present his line of fossils that demonstrates a scientific lineage from tetrapods to humans because there is none.

 

[Barbarian]

If your argument requires you to make up a claim that evolutionary theory doesn't make, isn't that an important clue for you?

We already pointed out that it would be unbelievably unlikely to find every single organism in the lineage to humans since the first fish walked about on land. Evolutionary theory makes no such claims. It merely points out the fact that the predicted fossil intermediates for such a lineage have been repeatedly found, but there is never an intermediate where it should not be according to evolutionary theory. Your problem is to explain why that is so.

I see you dodged the question again. The creationist claim is that you have the same data we do, but put equally valid interpretations on it.

Here's your chance.

 

[zeke]

We already pointed out that it would be unbelievably unlikely to find every single organism in the lineage to humans since the first fish walked about on land. Evolutionary theory makes no such claims. It merely points out the fact that the predicted fossil intermediates for such a lineage have been repeatedly found, but there is never an intermediate where it should not be according to evolutionary theory.

LOL- then present your line of predicted still missing fossil intermediates that demonstrates a scientific lineage from tetrapods to humans. You can't do that either - can you? There is no such lineage - right? You've simply assumed what you propose to prove but you cannot prove what you assume. Typical of Darwinians - big talk no science.

Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so.~ Edmund Ronald Leach (anthropologist) (Still Missing After All These Years - Evolution is Dead...2008)​

 

[Barbarian]

We already pointed out that it would be unbelievably unlikely to find every single organism in the lineage to humans since the first fish walked about on land. Evolutionary theory makes no such claims. It merely points out the fact that the predicted fossil intermediates for such a lineage have been repeatedly found, but there is never an intermediate where it should not be according to evolutionary theory. Your problem is to explain why that is so.

I see you dodged the question again.

LOL- then present your line of predicted still missing fossil intermediates that demonstrates a scientific lineage from tetrapods to humans.

See above. Now how about answering the question? Why do we find transitionals only between lineages predicted to have them? Why are they never found where the theory doesn't predict them?

You've simply assumed what you propose to prove but you cannot prove what you assume.

As you see, it comes down to evidence. And as the people you cited point out, the evidence clearly shows common descent. Genetics, fossil record, molecular biology, etc. all show common descent.

Typical of Darwinians - big talk no science.

As you saw, there's a great deal of scientific evidence. I offered to show you more. Do you want to see more?

Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up

He was right, too. Since Darwin's time, we have found the transitionals between mammals and reptiles, dinosaurs and birds, ungulates and whales, lizards and snakes, salamanders and frogs, apes and humans, dogs and bears, wasps and ants, ... the list goes on for a very long time. Want to see some of those?

but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so.

~ Edmund Ronald Leach (anthropologist) (Still Missing After All These Years - Evolution is Dead...2008)

Poor old Ed must have lived in a cave to have missed all that. Want to see some of them?

 

[zeke]

As you see, it comes down to evidence. And as the people you cited point out, the evidence clearly shows common descent. Genetics, fossil record, molecular biology, etc. all show common descent.

Big talk, no action. Where is your evidence. The challenge still stands - present your line of fossils that demonstrates a scientific lineage from tetrapods to humans or admit you have none. Gee says it can't be done - I agree with him. You're up. Don't keep running...

To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.†― Henry Gee, In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life​

 

[lordkalvan]

Well, you are on the right track…

You mean unlike yourself, who has effectively ignored the post to which you are ostensibly replying, snipping all those parts that refer directly to your inability to support your assertion – adopted wholesale from Davis and Kenyon, although allegedly recollected by yourself as being exactly as they reported – that Gould has stated that homologies support common design as well as they do common ancestry?

…in Gould's attack on 'creation science' (Evolution as Fact and Theory, Discover2 - May 1981) he discusses his understanding of the perfection/imperfection in nature as it relates to evidence for evolution. In that essay he correctly admits that “perfection could be imposed by a wise creator or evolved by natural selection”.

Given your propensity to quotemine scientists – or, at least, to uncritically report others quotemines’ of those scientists without bothering to check the primary sources – can you explain why anyone should accept your carefully selected phrases as representing the context in which they were uttered? For example, given my knowledge of Gould’s understanding of the implications of the evidence, I would suggest that these words amount to a rhetorical literary tool intended to introduce the argument that the absence of any such hypothetical perfection in the natural world supports the conclusion of common ancestry. Can you show that I am wrong in this suggestion?

Also, as perfection is a quality demanding subjective assessment of what it amounts to, I rather doubt that Gould intends this as a serious argument at all as opposed to the rhetorical precursor to the argument he intends to make. Again, can you demonstrate otherwise?

This is the same idea noted by Davis and Kenyon where they relate Gould's admission that homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry.

This is quite priceless. In the very post that you have supposedly read in order to post your comments, I have demonstrated conclusively that Gould said no such thing in the paper Davis and Kenyon cite and that you supposedly recollect seeing on the Internet in the past. And yet here you are repeating exactly the same misrepresentation as if nothing has happened. I just wonder how stupid you imagine those reading these comments are that they will accept that, simply because you repeat the same misrepresentation over and over, this makes that misrepresentation something other than what it is?

…Do you agree with Gould – could perfection have been imposed by a “wise creator” as easily as it could have “evolved by natural selection”? If not, why not?

Please show that Gould intended this comparison as anything other than a rhetorical tool to introduce an argument that the very lack of any such alleged perfection in Nature counts more for the validity of common ancestry as an hypothesis than common design.

How about the related question - can homology support common design as well as it does common ancestry? You have yet to answer that question.

And despite numerous requests, you have failed to explain how and why homology supports common design, except to misleadingly try to suggest that Gould has argued this as well.

For the record – the statement presented by Davis and Kenyon regarding homology attributed to Gould was made during his lifetime and he never disputed it…

Really? So that makes their false reporting of what Gould allegedly said in an article that they cite and that you ostensibly recollect reading to the same effect, but that close examination shows contains no such statement, valid simply because you are unaware of Gould directly disputing that he made it? Just how many contortions are you determined to go through before you are prepared to admit that you have no support for the statement that you, Davis and Kenyon allege Gould made? Given the numerous examples I could cite where Gould argues quite the opposite (one of which I have referred you to already), I think we can safely conclude where Gould’s understanding of the evidence from homology actually leads.

…and the fact remains - homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry.

Claiming something as fact that you have quite failed to support by reasoned argument does not make it a fact.

Francis Collins agrees with this same concept when he admitted that genetic similarity "alone does not, of course, prove a common ancestor”…

And you keep forgetting the implications of that ‘alone’, even though you keep including it in your carefully selected, no doubt second-hand citation.

…why does he make this admission, because an intelligent designer might have “used successful design principles over and over again” (The Language of God).

In your mind - is it possible that an intelligent designer might have “used successful design principles over and over again"?

As you have offered no reason to infer such a conclusion, other than to repeat it by assertion and reference to doubtful authority (who also fail to offer reasons why this might be so), until you offer us some account of why this might be so so that it can be judged on its merits, I will simply note that, as you have offered nothing at all to support the assertion, it is impossible to determine on what basis it might or might not be possible.

 

[lordkalvan]

lineage -- Any continuous line of descent...

In which case, on what grounds would you expect the fossil record to show any such 'continuous line of descent' and on what grounds would you imagine any palaeontologist would argue that it should?

 

[lordkalvan]

Lol - aren't you the pot calling the kettle black? Your 'evidence' that proves genetic similarity only supports universal common ancestry thus far has been nothing more than your routine assertions and speculations. And where is your evidence that humans evolved from tetrapods? Do you have any science to support that silly notion?

You still seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that only your questions should be answered, that any assertion, claim or opinion you care to offer need only be made to stand as irrefutable fact, and that in order to refute anyone else's argument all you need to do is deny it and demand that others show your denial to be wrong.

You can find evidence that the bipedal ancestors of Homo sapiens evolved from tetrapods in morphology, atavisms, vestigial features, developmental embryology, the fossil record, molecular genetics, fossil evidence, etc. If you're interested, we can start discussing any of these evidences that you would like to focus on. If not, you can make a start on this informative site, which itself has links to other resources:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/lines_01

 

[zeke]

In which case, on what grounds would you expect the fossil record to show any such 'continuous line of descent' and on what grounds would you imagine any palaeontologist would argue that it should?

The fossil record does not show any such 'continuous line of descent' as Gee well noted. My point all along. You need to help our friend Barbarian wrap his head around this fact – he labors under the polyanna delusion of Darwinian myth – yes?

pol·ly·an·na - unreasonably or illogically optimistic​

 

[lordkalvan]

The fossil record does not show any such 'continuous line of descent' as Gee well noted. My point all along. You need to help our friend Barbarian wrap his head around this fact – he labors under the polyanna delusion of Darwinian myth – yes?

pol·ly·an·na - unreasonably or illogically optimistic​

Please show that Barbarian has anywhere supported the idea that a lineage as you have defined it can be found in the fossil record. Also, please show how what you continue to assert to be 'Darwinian myth' actually is myth, as your ability to C&P selected dictionary definitions does not add much to our knowledge of your understanding.

And while you're about it, please show us how homology supports common design and also where Gould agrees that it does.

 

[zeke]

You can find evidence that the bipedal ancestors of Homo sapiens evolved from tetrapods in morphology, atavisms, vestigial features, developmental embryology, the fossil record, molecular genetics, fossil evidence, etc. If you're interested, we can start discussing any of these evidences that you would like to focus on. If not, you can make a start on this informative site, which itself has links to other resources:

You can start anywhere you like my friend. All I have asked for is that you present the required evidences based on the scientific method ON THIS THREAD that prove you and I are descendants of tetrapods. That should be easy for any learned Darwinian. If for any reason you cannot support your assumption just admit that you cannot. We will understand.

Please – no hand-waing-in-the-air assumptions and speculations founded in myth. And please try to avoid the Darwinian circularity that says it is true because Darwinian scientists say it it true – that one gets old fast. Oh yeah, if you have to resort to evolution of the gaps please identify it as such. Thanks in advance.

It appears the only real hurdle for your odyssey will be finding that elusive and yet missing evidence from real science. You have failed before but maybe you will have better luck this time. Maybe the gods of Darwinism - Time, Chance and Mutation are on your side. Remember – morphology, vestigial features, developmental embryology, etc work as well for common design as they do for common ancestry and therefore they prove neither. If you want to be taken seriously you will have to do better than that - right?

The fruit fly has long been the favorite object of mutation experiments because of its fast gestation (twelve days). X rays have been used to increase the mutation rate in the fruit fly by 15,000 percent. All in all, scientists have been able to “catalyze the fruit fly evolutionary process such that what has been seen to occur in Drosophila (fruit fly) is the equivalent of many millions of years of normal mutations and evolution.” Even with this tremendous speedup of mutations, scientists have never been able to come up with anything other than a fruit fly. More important, what all these experiments demonstrate is that the fruit fly can vary within certain upper and lower limits but will never go beyond them. ~ Jeremy Rifkin,. Algeny. Viking Press.​

 

[Barbarian]

Big talk, no action. Where is your evidence.

Go back and look through the thread. Cites of evidence, diagrams, pictures, all sorts of data from the literature. You ignored it and the questions asked about it.

The challenge still stands

Indeed. Explain why numerous predicted transitional fossils have been found, but never one that is not predicted by the theory. That, and your inability to explain it is quite telling.

present your line of fossils that demonstrates a scientific lineage from tetrapods to humans

No one claims to be able to find the fossil of every organism in the line from the earliest tetrapods to humans. If you claimed to be descended from Adam and I told you to show me the name and height of every ancestor from Adam in order to prove it, you'd be rather put out. Zeke, do you really think people don't understand what you're trying to do?

To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story

It's not a claim of evolutionary theory. We can only say of any fossil that it is close to the actual lineage. The likelihood of it being a fossil of the actual organism that gave rise to the next step in the lineage would be quite tiny.

But as you see, it doesn't matter. We can trace the lineage by following the fossil evidence.

A case in point is Archaeopteryx. It was found a long time ago, and since it had characteristics of birds and dinosaurs, it was validation of Huxley's prediction that birds and dinosaurs were closely related. It was called "the first bird."

Subsequently found fossils showed that it was not the first bird, but was very close to the line that included the first bird. And it did show the way that birds evolved from archosaurs, most likely dinosaurs. That's the "instructive" part Gee was talking about. He was explaining how the fossil record validates evolution.

Just not the way you're demanding that it must do it.