[_ Old Earth _] This one's for you, Bob.

[BobRyan]

^ I admire the rhetoric, but notice that it in no way answers the questions I asked of you.

How so -- since it deals with the very heart of the mechanism you claim to work the miracle needed while traveling "up mount improbable".

Your selected quotations from Professor Dawkins (and Dr Patterson) are not references from academic papers

BELIEVE them if they wrap the story in enough jargon - do NOT "believe them" if they simply lay it on the line in factual statements??

An odd defense if you ask me.

Abiogenesis is not relevant to my questions, while your labelling of serious, complex and difficult scientific research based on sound principles, learning and understanding as 'story telling'
trivialises any attempt at a meaningful discussion.

We leave it as an exercise for the reader to SEE IF Dawkins statement about "going from essentially nothing... to complex systems like Humans and Kangaroos" DOES NOT represent the upgward progression that we all SEE IT to reference.

We leave it as an exercise for the reader to SEE IF the "stories easy enough to make up.. about how one thing came from another" are in fact ESSENTIAL to the fossil-story-telling of Darwinists.

(BTW -- I am more than happy to have a discussion on the mono-chiral problem in abiogenesis -- I just can't believe you really want to start that fire with this current fossil-ship sinking as badly as it is).

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

It was a question I posed in the hope of a reasonable answer. As far as I understand, you have already indicated elsewhere* that you accept and agree that microevolution occurs. Some evidence must have convinced you of this. Ring species? Evolution of the AIDS virus? Selective host-viability of lice? Regardless of this evidence, however, this means that you already accept the validity of some part of evolutionary theory (so you are at least a little bit of a Darwinist after all).

I have not seen ANY evidence that Darwin was the first person to see that some people have red hair and some have brown hair.

I have not seen ANY evidence that Darwin was the first person to see that "dogs can be bred".

The gross equivocation of the form "Darwinism is the discovery that there is variation within a species" is often claimed AS IF it had actual historic meaning... it does not.

Darwin's point was the easter-bunny-on-dark-side-of-moon claim that changes go BEYOND that level such that birds come from reptiles and humans evolve from single celled life forms -- and it is up to Darwin to show that such an easter-bunny is alive and living on the dark side of the moon. Having made his wild unproven claim -- he or one of his followers needs to SHOW that it is true - that it has substance.

In which case, where does microevolution (which you appear to accept) end and macroevolution (which you obviously don't accept) begin? Do I understand you here to be saying that the only evidence that you would accept in support of evolution is a 'new' species being born

Please show how you get from SINGLE-CELL organism to "HUMANs and kangaroos" (as Dawkins claims) without any new species being born.

You may "begin".

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

^ So do you accept that microevolution occurs, if you do what evidence has persuaded you of this, and where, in your opinion, does microevolution stop and macroevolution hypothetically begin?

What is your opinion of ring species in regard to this watershed? Incidentally, what is your definition of a species in this respect?

Do you consider that the evolution of, for example, the AIDS virus has anything to contribute to our understanding of microevolution and/or macroevolution?

Does the selective host viability of lice tell us anything about microevolution and/or macroevolution?

Do you think the existence of transitional forms in the fossil record is relevant to our understanding of the argument from micro- to macroevolution?

Do you think that the fact that ABO polymorphism is present in both chimpanzees and human beings, for example, has any impact on our understanding or microevolution and macroevolution?

Do you think that the ability reliably to determine relationships amongst individual humans and populations by molecular genetics has any meaning for the ability to determine relationships between species?

Do you think it significant for our understanding of evolutionary theory that inserting the gene that controls mammalian eye development from a mouse to a fly-embryo will cause the fly to develop an eye with typical fly structure wherever the gene lands?

Have you considered the significance of the concept of the discontinuous mind yet?

As you will be aware, your examples of 'microevolution' are but faltering tiny steps on the path to macroevolution and wholly trivialise Darwin's contribution to our understanding. Ring species are a step further along that path from micro to macro. The evolution of the AIDS virus is yet another milestone on the route.

By the way, if descent with modification by natural selection was a recognized and understood phenomenon before Darwin gave expression to it, I would be interested in learning who so recognized and described it.

 

[BobRyan]

^ So do you accept that microevolution occurs

As I have repeatedly said -- "dogs-can-breed" and "hair-color-differs" arguments were made long before Darwin and are only called "evolution" by those trying to find a place to hide the speculative nature of darwinian evolutionism.

, if you do what evidence has persuaded you of this,

What evidence persuaded me that dogs can be bred for certain traits and that hair color differs within the same family for the same parents?

"Seeing it happen".

Hint: This goes to the same argument I have been making that the mechanism CLAIMED for some result must be SEEN to produce that result to be validated.

Do you think the existence of transitional forms in the fossil record is relevant to our understanding of the argument from micro- to macroevolution?

A BETTER question - what is a transitional form supposed to be Transitional FROM" and "transitional TO" IF you start out admitting that "STORIES about how one thing came from another are simply stories EASY enough to make up but they are not actually SCIENCE!?

You can not claim to have gone FROM "A-" to "B" without having something DO IT or a sequence of somethings in ancestor-descendant chain do it. Just looking at a dog then at an elelphant will not "suffice" to convince of some imaginary transitional sequence in that direction.

i.e. The point you have been dodging for the duration of this thread.

Do you think it significant for our understanding of evolutionary theory that inserting the gene that controls mammalian eye development from a mouse to a fly-embryo will cause the fly to develop an eye with typical fly structure wherever the gene lands?

A BETTER question -- do you SEE FLIES coming up with MOUSE eye genes as a result of flies breeding with flies??

Do you see MICE coming up with FLY eyes as a strict result of MICE breeding with MICE?

By the way, if descent with modification by natural selection was a recognized and understood phenomenon before Darwin gave expression to it, I would be interested in learning who so recognized and described it.

Is this your way of pretending not to know that dogs were being bred for certain traits long before Darwin?

Bob

 

[Rick W]

Do you consider that the evolution of, for example, the AIDS virus has anything to contribute to our understanding of microevolution and/or macroevolution?

Is that in reference to evolution toward drug resistance?

 

[lordkalvan]

Do you consider that the evolution of, for example, the AIDS virus has anything to contribute to our understanding of microevolution and/or macroevolution?

Is that in reference to evolution toward drug resistance?

I was thinking more of the fact that each of the eight or so modern sub-types of HIV is almost exclusive to the community it infects and is adapted to that community's sexual habits. That HIV-1 closely resembles a virus found in West African chimps while HIV-2 another found in sooty mangabeys also seems to have implications for the genetic links between humanity, other primates and monkeys.

 

[Jayls5]

Before I totally respond to your posts Bob, would you at least acknowledge that you are wrong/inaccurate in your assertion that evolution says there is genetic improvement.

Is it your argument that transition from single-celled life forms to humans "shows no genetic improvement"??

Is so -- you will be the first darwinist I have seen trying to make that case.

Did you not read my post entirely? I went out of my way to even possibly concede a possible wayfor you to justify the use of the phrase "improvement."

Improvement can only be used if you're talking about adapting to a current environment.

That means that traits can go back and forth depending on environmental changes, which we witness often. Improvement can mean a shorter beak on a bird, and improvement can mean a longer beak on the otherwise same bird if the environment calls for it.

Humans obviously have shown genetic improvement in the sense that they are way better suited for their environment than other species, which is why we are dominating the planet by comparison to a lot of other animals. That's the only way you can really use "improvement." You should have honestly got this the first time I said it. I was quite clear on this.

Bob
"If Darwinists can not scientifically argue from the fossil data that “this one thing came from that other one†and that B shows genetic improvement or “evolution†in it’s progress from “A†then – we have a problem Houston!"

In any case - I gave you both "improvement" and "evolution" as hooks to hang your hat on -- for the purpose of not getting sidetracked down a rabbit trail.

Dawkins goes even further than I did --

Sidetracked down a rabbit trail? No. I think it's fairly important that you know what evolution is when you're arguing against it. If "sidetracked" means understanding the theory you're arguing against, then yes, we need to get sidetracked.

Dawkins didn't go further than you did at all. He spoke NOTHING of improvement, only complexity. Now THAT is an example of getting sidetracked.

Well -- then there is reading what these Darwinists actually say.

Bob

I did read it. I've that quote before you showed it to me. It has nothing to do with what we were talking about.

 

[BobRyan]

Before I totally respond to your posts Bob, would you at least acknowledge that you are wrong/inaccurate in your assertion that evolution says there is genetic improvement.

Is it your argument that transition from single-celled life forms to humans "shows no genetic improvement"??

Is so -- you will be the first darwinist I have seen trying to make that case.

Note - Dawkins fine example pointing us to the contrast between simple single celled life forms and then the progression of improvement until we have "humans and kangaroos" in Dawkins' terms.

Did you not read my post entirely? I went out of my way to even possibly concede a possible wayfor you to justify the use of the phrase "improvement."

I believe Dawkins has given us that fine exampl of "improvement" that we can all see.

Humans obviously have shown genetic improvement in the sense that they are way better suited for their environment than other species,

I see... so an example of "some other species without that improvement" giving birth to a human would be the fine example of the evolutionary progress claimed in darwinism as single-celled life forms eventually give rise to humans and kangaroos (given and generous application of "billions and billions" of course).

The point remains.

Bob
"If Darwinists can not scientifically argue from the fossil data that “this one thing came from that other one†and that B shows genetic improvement or “evolution†in it’s progress from “A†then – we have a problem Houston!"

In any case - I gave you both "improvement" and "evolution" as hooks to hang your hat on -- for the purpose of not getting sidetracked down a rabbit trail.

Dawkins goes even further than I did --

Jayls5

Dawkins didn't go further than you did at all. He spoke NOTHING of improvement, only complexity.

I am fine with you claiming that a human shows no improvement over a single-celled life form.

Better you making that kind of argument than me or the objective unbiased reader.

As I said - Dawkins has already provided the perfect scope of transition for darwinism for all the readers to see on this thread.

Jayls5 - It has nothing to do with what we were talking about.

Dawkins argues that it IS the scope of evolution itself -- by contrast to your argument.

DAWKINS said -

But the other point is it's a superfluous part of the explanation. The whole point -- the whole beauty of the Darwinian explanation for life is that it's self-sufficient. [/color]

You start with essentially nothing -- you start with something very, very simple -- the origin of the Earth. And from that, by slow gradual degrees, as I put it "climbing mount improbable" -- by slow gradual degree you build up from simple beginnings and simple needs easy to understand, up to complicated endings like ourselves and kangaroos.

Now, the beauty of that is that it works. Every stage is explained, every stage is understood. Nothing extra, nothing extraneous needs to be smuggled in. It all works and it all -- it's a satisfying explanation.

Well said mr Dawkins! That is exactly the wild claim that we have seen darwinists making from the start! (Of course that is also the way Dawkins got stuck in that 11 second time loop seeking a good example of Darwinism actually working -- The link was provided in this post

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33123&st=0&sk=t&sd=a#p394566
)



The trick is to SHOW that it is anything other than "stories easy enough to make up" about "how one thing came from another".

Remember?

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

Bob,

You omitted to respond to these questions which relate directly to your rather naive and simplistic understanding of what consitutes microevolution, the evidence for it and where microevolution may or may not become macroevolution:

What is your opinion of ring species in regard to this watershed? Incidentally, what is your definition of a species in this respect?

Do you consider that the evolution of, for example, the AIDS virus has anything to contribute to our understanding of microevolution and/or macroevolution?

Does the selective host viability of lice tell us anything about microevolution and/or macroevolution?

And these:

Do you think that the fact that ABO polymorphism is present in both chimpanzees and human beings, for example, has any impact on our understanding or microevolution and macroevolution?

Do you think that the ability reliably to determine relationships amongst individual humans and populations by molecular genetics has any meaning for the ability to determine relationships between species?

And your answer to this question wholly (and deliberately?) avoids and misunderstands the significance of the common genetic inheritance that this experiment implies:

Do you think it significant for our understanding of evolutionary theory that inserting the gene that controls mammalian eye development from a mouse to a fly-embryo will cause the fly to develop an eye with typical fly structure wherever the gene lands?

I remain interested in your response to this question as well:

Have you considered the significance of the concept of the discontinuous mind yet?

ETA: Oh, and your reply to this inquiry was just more prevarication which avoided the crux of the profound contribution that Darwin made to the understanding of how species develop:

By the way, if descent with modification by natural selection was a recognized and understood phenomenon before Darwin gave expression to it, I would be interested in learning who so recognized and described it.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob,

You omitted to respond to these questions which relate directly to your rather naive and simplistic understanding of what consitutes microevolution, the evidence for it and where microevolution may or may not become macroevolution:

I see that once again you have ignored the point that "variation within a species" as demonstrated in dog breeding centuries before Darwin is NOT something "discovered by Darwin".

This means that your "darwinism's evolution is everything" argument where you tried to hide evolutionism behind every-day variation with a species - failed at the very start.

Surely you noticed that.

Do you think that the fact that ABO polymorphism is present in both chimpanzees and human beings, for example, has any impact on our understanding or microevolution and macroevolution?

Both humans and Apes had 10 fingers and toes long before Darwin came along. What Darwin did not know was that humans have 46 chromosomes (as does the hare) but Apes have 48 chromosomes as does Tobacco.

So is "now" a good time to start "telling stories about how one thing came from another"?? you know "Stories easy enough to make up"??

Do you think it significant for our understanding of evolutionary theory that inserting the gene that controls mammalian eye development from a mouse to a fly-embryo will cause the fly to develop an eye with typical fly structure wherever the gene lands?

No. I think that evolutionism is mythology for atheists composed primarily of "stories easy enough to make up" about "how one thing came from another" -- stories that are "not science" according to Patterson.

I think evoutionism is junk-science propped up by a series of frauds like Earnst Haeckles' confirmed fraud regarding his display supposedly showing that that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny AND Piltdown man fraud and the recently exposed fraud of Neanderthal dating clams AND the previous frauds such as Simpson's re-display of Marsh's fraudulent horse sequence.

Again -just stating the obvious.

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

^ Bob, I note your reluctance to engage in any way substantitively with any of the questions I asked, preferring instead to make rhetorical points and blanket assertions that the understanding of and evidence for the theory of evolution is entirely fraudulent.

I ask again, if some earlier understanding of descent with modification through natural selection was realized and understood 'centuries before Darwin', who so realized and understood it? Your repeated example of dogbreeding is trivial and naive in any discussion concerning microevolution and the interface between it and macroevolution, which you seem also to wish to avoid.

I remain interested in your definition of what constitutes a species and your awareness of how ring species impact on an understanding of miscroevolution and macroevolution.

Your point about the simple number of chromosomes amongst chimps/tobacco and humans/hares is a red herring, as you are no doubt aware. Apart from the fusion of chromosome 2 in humans, the visible chromosomal differences between humans and chimps are small. The genome variation between human and chimp is in the order of a few per cent and the ABO polymorphism in both species is highly suggestive of shared ancestry. That it existed 'long before Darwin came along' is not evidence against this shared ancestry, no matter how much you dislike the work of Darwin and his successors that points unequivocally twards this shared ancestry.

Why do you not think it in any way significant that the gene that controls the development of a mammalian eye in a mouse will bring about the development of an insect eye in a fly? What do you think would be a reasonable conclusion to draw from such an observation?

You also omitted responses to these questions:

Do you consider that the evolution of, for example, the AIDS virus has anything to contribute to our understanding of microevolution and/or macroevolution?

Does the selective host viability of lice tell us anything about microevolution and/or macroevolution?

Do you think that the ability reliably to determine relationships amongst individual humans and populations by molecular genetics has any meaning for the ability to determine relationships between species?

Have you considered the significance of the concept of the discontinuous mind yet?

 

[BobRyan]

^ Bob, I note your reluctance to engage in any way substantitively with any of the questions I asked,

I noticed you are not answering my questions.

I noticed that your questions were of the form of "more instances" of variation within a species -- I simply point to longstanding examples of "variation within a species" to point out that "more of the same" is not helping your argument AND to show that the concept of "variation within a species" even to the point of "manipulating and BREEDING for those variations" was being done long before Darwin.

Another "inconvenient detail" you choose to ignore.

I ask again, if some earlier understanding of descent with modification through natural selection was realized

descent with modification in the form of dog breeding had been done for centuries "obviously".

You keep wanting to ignore that point. But remember it was YOU who first claimed that ANY variation within a species is "neodarwinism" AS IF Darwin discovered dog breeding and all other examples of variation within a species.

I never made such a sweeping claim about Darwinism -- you did!

Your repeated example of dogbreeding is trivial and naive in any discussion concerning microevolution and the interface between it and macroevolution,

I admit that it is "an inconvenient details" for your argument -- that you choose to ignore due to the glaringly obvious point that it makes.

Not sure why you think the objective unbiased reader - or I - would want to join you in ignoring this prime example of variation within a species - in fact descent with modification seen at it's best!!

I remain interested in your definition of what constitutes a species

Keeping with the prime example --- dogs and wolves are the same species.

Your point about the simple number of chromosomes amongst chimps/tobacco and humans/hares is a red herring,

As are the same kinds of speculative arguments darwinists made on that point. I simply point to the existence of the number of chromosomes. HINT even your own darwinist friends tried genetic linking of the banana to the dog in that video we all watched!

the ABO polymorphism in both species is highly suggestive of shared ancestry.

How so?

Your use of "highly suggestive" appears to be a paraphrase of "stories easy enough to make up" I suppose you already noticed that.

how much you dislike the work of Darwin and his successors that points unequivocally twards this shared ancestry.

"unequivocally points toward shared ancestory" is simply "making stuff up" unless you can show with actually SCIENCE that species B comes from species A -- in real life.

Why do you not think it in any way significant that the gene that controls the development of a mammalian eye in a mouse will bring about the development of an insect eye in a fly? What do you think would be a reasonable conclusion to draw from such an observation?

That you are a bush-native dealing with two very different computers and when you slap a MUX board from one on to the other you notice that it "works". (A "hint" to everyone else that the designers were using standardized interfaces to some extent)

Such efforts at "toying" with the technology that someone else created and which you have no clue how to make yourself -- does not prove that machine A evolved from Machine B.

Again - I am just stating the glaringly obvious here.

Do you consider that the evolution of, for example, the AIDS virus has anything to contribute to our understanding of microevolution and/or macroevolution?

No more than breeding dogs. Why do you run away so devotedly from that easy example?

Recall that you are the one that wanted to equivocate beween variation within a species (breeding dogs) vs darwinian macro-evolution (reptiles producing birds).

Does the selective host viability of lice tell us anything about microevolution and/or macroevolution?

No more than breeding dogs. Why do you run from that example of variation?

Do you think that the ability reliably to determine relationships amongst individual humans and populations by molecular genetics has any meaning for the ability to determine relationships between species?

Because as we both saw in the video below - the same argument goes all the way back to trying to argue that "bananas are related to dogs" - in that entertaining rabbit trail of "stories easy enough to make up".

Evols Contradicting their own storytelling AND relating bananas to Dogs!
AND claiming there is no difference between breeding dogs (micro-variation within a species) and reptiles breeding birds (macro-evolution) -- given enough application of "billions" and imaginary fossil sequences of course.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=0Fmh8PCmrlk

Colin Patterson
It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test.

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

^ Bob, I will do my best to reply to your lengthy post tomorrow, but I am afraid I am out of time for now. I will only comment that the part of Dr Patterson's statement that you have quoted has no evidential worth in respect of the points I have been making. As you are aware, I do not even agree that it supports the point that you think it supports with regard to the fossil record, but I do not see how even you can think that his opinion on the inability to identify specific fossils as unequivocally ancestral to specific living species bears at all on questions of molecular genetics, shared polymorphism and ring species (which I note you as still avoiding, as you are, indeed, a definition of what, in your opinion, constitutes a species).

 

[BobRyan]

Same Genome set of Chromosomes such that as is often admitted with all dogs and wolves -- there is no scientific test on the DNA that reveals them to be anything but compatible with each other as the same kind. So yes -- wolf and poodle -- same species with TONS of variation!!

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

^ So is it reasonable to say that you agree with this definition of a species taken from Wiki?

In biology, a species is one of the basic units of biological classification and a taxonomic rank. A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

 

[lordkalvan]

I noticed you are not answering my questions.

I noticed that your questions were of the form of "more instances" of variation within a species -- I simply point to longstanding examples of "variation within a species" to point out that "more of the same" is not helping your argument AND to show that the concept of "variation within a species" even to the point of "manipulating and BREEDING for those variations" was being done long before Darwin.

Another "inconvenient detail" you choose to ignore.

And the crux of the matter is what is the mechanism that brings about that variation within species and what are the long-term implications of continued variation. Claiming that variation occurred before Darwin ventured an explanation of the mechanism for that variation and its consequences in the theory of evolution is meant to show what exactly? That you don't understand the concept of descent with modification by natural selection?

[quote:2g2xvl83]I ask again, if some earlier understanding of descent with modification through natural selection was realized

descent with modification in the form of dog breeding had been done for centuries "obviously".[/quote:2g2xvl83]
Why have you quoted only part of my paragraph - and indeed even ignored the rest of this opening sentence? To avoid the question I asked you? I ask again that, if you believe that dogs bred through artificial selection in some way demonstrate that the concept of descent with modification by natural selection was understood and expressed before Darwin, who so understood it and expressed it?

You keep wanting to ignore that point. But remember it was YOU who first claimed that ANY variation within a species is "neodarwinism" AS IF Darwin discovered dog breeding and all other examples of variation within a species.

I do not recall ever mentioning neodarwinism. You again make stuff up about what I have said. In the church I was brought up in, this constitutes a lie and is a sin. Variation within species is indicative of a mechanism at work causing that variation. Ring species - which you have still not addressed - are evidence of this mechanism in operation, as are several of the other examples I gave you. Darwin identfied such a mechanism and gave expression to its long-term consequences in the theory of evolution. If you have a different theoy with supporting references for what causes descent with modification, I for one am anxious to hear what it is. I am interested that you have previously admitted to accepting microevolution, yet have no explanation for the mechanism that brings it about and have not yet elaborated what constitutes the watershed that blocks the transitioin from micro- to macroevolution.

I never made such a sweeping claim about Darwinism -- you did!

You make stuff up again. I made no claim that 'Darwin discovered dog breeding and all other examples of variation within a species.' Your argument is unfounded, fallacious, trivial and appears directed towards libelling Darwin's contribution to knowledge and understanding

[quote:2g2xvl83] Your repeated example of dogbreeding is trivial and naive in any discussion concerning microevolution and the interface between it and macroevolution,

I admit that it is "an inconvenient details" for your argument -- that you choose to ignore due to the glaringly obvious point that it makes.[/quote:2g2xvl83]
Perhaps if you expressed the 'glaringly obvious point' more cogently and carefully, it would be more easy to recognize and understand what you mean. it seems to me that the only 'inconvenient details' are the ones you wish to gloss over that tend to support the theory of evolution.

Not sure why you think the objective unbiased reader - or I - would want to join you in ignoring this prime example of variation within a species - in fact descent with modification seen at it's best!!

Observing something - in this case something artificial - in action is not the same as understanding and describing the mechanism that brings it about in nature and its consequences for the evolution of species.

[quote:2g2xvl83]Your point about the simple number of chromosomes amongst chimps/tobacco and humans/hares is a red herring,

As are the same kinds of speculative arguments darwinists made on that point. I simply point to the existence of the number of chromosomes. HINT even your own darwinist friends tried genetic linking of the banana to the dog in that video we all watched![/quote:2g2xvl83]
If you are responding to a point I am making, please consider responding to the whole of that point. Your arguments do not address that point in any sensible or intelligent manner. '[P]oint[ing] to the existence of the number of chromosomes' is supposed to establish what exactly? That different species have different numbers of chromosomes?

[quote:2g2xvl83]the ABO polymorphism in both species is highly suggestive of shared ancestry.

How so?

Your use of "highly suggestive" appears to be a paraphrase of "stories easy enough to make up" I suppose you already noticed that.[/quote:2g2xvl83]
ABO polymorphism exists in species that are closely related in taxonomic groups organized in a nested hiearchy that owes nothing to blood-group analysis. Equally, molecular genetic analysis suggests that closely related taxonomic groups are equally closely related through their DNA, each metric for determining this relationship being independent of the other. Thus we have three lines of evidence that suggest relationships amongst groups - and species within those groups. That DNA testing can be used reliably to determine relationships between individuals and amongst groups within a species is also indicative of the fact that, when similar relationships can be determined amongst different species (another point you have not yet addressed), that determination is also reliable.

[quote:2g2xvl83]how much you dislike the work of Darwin and his successors that points unequivocally twards this shared ancestry.

"unequivocally points toward shared ancestory" is simply "making stuff up" unless you can show with actually SCIENCE that species B comes from species A -- in real life.[/quote:2g2xvl83]
No. See the arguments above.

[quote:2g2xvl83]Why do you not think it in any way significant that the gene that controls the development of a mammalian eye in a mouse will bring about the development of an insect eye in a fly? What do you think would be a reasonable conclusion to draw from such an observation?

That you are a bush-native dealing with two very different computers and when you slap a MUX board from one on to the other you notice that it "works". (A "hint" to everyone else that the designers were using standardized interfaces to some extent)[/quote:2g2xvl83]

Argument by analogy is not evidential and yet even this analogy is faulty. Your analogy seems to be implying that God created flies out of one box of bits and then mice out of pretty much the same box of bits but with a few different pieces thrown in for good measure (or vice versa, I'm not sure which). Are you implying that God made humanity, chimps, gorillas and the other primates out of the same box of bits, with a tweak here and a tweak there? Sounds a bit like evolution to me.

You also seem to be suggesting that putting a component into a computer that works is in some way the same as causing that component to grow within (or on) the computer as a result of placing a tiny piece of the component on the computer, even if that tiny piece is from an entirely different computer.

Such efforts at "toying" with the technology that someone else created and which you have no clue how to make yourself -- does not prove that machine A evolved from Machine B.

Assuming your conclusion, I'm afraid. You must also be aware that science is rarely a quest for proof (which admits of no doubt), but rather for evidence with which to support or falsify a particular hypothesis. You will have long since noted that evolution is widely understood by the scientific community to be so evidentially well-supported that it is considered to enjoy the status of a scientific theory.

Again - I am just stating the glaringly obvious here.

So am I.

[quote:2g2xvl83]Do you consider that the evolution of, for example, the AIDS virus has anything to contribute to our understanding of microevolution and/or macroevolution?

No more than breeding dogs. Why do you run away so devotedly from that easy example?[/quote:2g2xvl83]

I am glad that you realize that the artificial selection of desirable traits by dog-breeders is compelling evidence for the mechanism of descent with modification by natural selection. As far as HIV is concerned, you must surely be aware that the rapid evolution of viruses such as HIV is compelling evidence for descent with modification by natural selection from a common ancestor? Dogs are bred by artificial selection; HIV is not.

Recall that you are the one that wanted to equivocate beween variation within a species (breeding dogs) vs darwinian macro-evolution (reptiles producing birds).

I recall asking you where you think the watershed between microevolution and macroevolution lies. I do not recall you answering this question.

[quote:2g2xvl83]Does the selective host viability of lice tell us anything about microevolution and/or macroevolution?

No more than breeding dogs. Why do you run from that example of variation?[/quote:2g2xvl83]

See my comments above.

[quote:2g2xvl83]Do you think that the ability reliably to determine relationships amongst individual humans and populations by molecular genetics has any meaning for the ability to determine relationships between species?

Because as we both saw in the video below - the same argument goes all the way back to trying to argue that "bananas are related to dogs" - in that entertaining rabbit trail of "stories easy enough to make up".[/quote:2g2xvl83]

I see you did endeavour to answer this question after all; my apologies. Sadly you wholly miss (or deliberately avoid?) the point of the question. See my previous comments in this respect.

 

[BobRyan]

Same Genome set of Chromosomes such that as is often admitted with all dogs and wolves -- there is no scientific test on the DNA that reveals them to be anything but compatible with each other as the same kind. So yes -- wolf and poodle -- same species with TONS of variation!!

Bob

This is my definition for species in the context of Genesis.

Recall that you are the one that wanted to equivocate beween variation within a species (breeding dogs) vs darwinian macro-evolution (reptiles producing birds).

So your equivocation argument "should" have no problem with the dog example.

L.K
I recall asking you where you think the watershed between microevolution and macroevolution lies. I do not recall you answering this question.

In fact I already gave you reptiles-to-birds wild claims of darwinists vs the dog-breeding example of "real life" in my posts above..


Bob

 

[BobRyan]

As for "flies corrupted with mouse-eye genes" by scientists "playing with someone else's technology"

Bob said
Such efforts at "toying" with the technology that someone else created and which you have no clue how to make yourself -- does not prove that machine A evolved from Machine B.

Assuming your conclusion, I'm afraid. You must also be aware that science is rarely a quest for proof (which admits of no doubt), but rather for evidence with which to support or falsify a particular hypothesis. You will have long since noted that evolution is widely understood by the scientific community to be so evidentially well-supported that it is considered to enjoy the status of a scientific theory.

Indeed as Patterson points out they seem to be happy with "Stories easy enough to make up but they are NOT science".

No wonder he complains about "being duped by evolutionism" for so many decades "AS IF it were REVEALED truth".

No wonder his challenge "Can you tell me even ONE THING you know about evolutionism" meets with dead silence when addressed to fellow scientists - except for the comment "I DO know one thing -- I know it should NOT be taught to high-school students"!

Soooo many "inconvenient details" to be ignored in the myths and story telling of evolutionism -- no wonder Patterson accuses it of "antiknowledge"!

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

As promised -- Patterson's letter to Sunderland --


On April 10, 1979, Patterson replied to the author (Sunderland) in a most candid letter as follows:

“ I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them.
You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?

I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record.

You say that I should at least show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived. I will lay it on the line- there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test. So, much as I should like to oblige you by jumping to the defence of gradualism, and fleshing out the transitions between the major types of animals and plants, I find myself a bit short of the intellectual justification necessary for the job “

[Ref: Patterson, personal communication. Documented in Darwin’s Enigma, Luther Sunderland, Master Books, El Cajon, CA, 1988, pp. 88-90.]

Patterson was dealing with the fallacious philisophical tautology among the evolutionist when they define “transitional form†vs actual SCIENCE supporting evolutionism in the fossil record itself –

 

[lordkalvan]

^ Bob, are you incapable of taking part in a discussion without lapsing into irrelevant rhetoric and waving your arms about with cries of 'myths' and 'story-telling' whenever anyone mentions evolution or Charles Darwin? It would be helpful if you tried addressing questions and arguments directly and dealt with the specific points that they raise rather than indulging in polemics and simply repasting your favourite quotations from Dr Patterson yet again.