Mark Twain questions the Intelligent Design (I.D.) hypothesis

Religions > Atheism > Mark Twain questions the Intelligent Design (I.D.) hypothesis

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 4

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"Sharon"
Date:	18 Dec 2004 05:35:16 PM
Object:	Mark Twain questions the Intelligent Design (I.D.) hypothesis

I was transferring some more of Ed's "to be put on web" articles tonight,
and thought some of you might find this article of interest like I did.
Sharon
-------------
Mark Twain questions the Intelligent Design (I.D.) hypothesis
by Edward T. Babinski
Not many people know that Mark Twain wrote an article in 1903 that
questioned the "I.D."-like hypothesis of Alfred Russell Wallace, who appears
to have argued for an early version of the "anthropic principle." Twain's
depiction of evolution below, with the evolution of life taking place in a
mere "hundred million years" and with both men and birds evolving from the
Pterodactyl, is intentionally farcical. Twain deliberately wants to appear
bumpkinish in his ideas of evolution (and in the silly names he invents for
species) to make the essays final "I Dunno" all the more poignant.
Following Twain's essay is another titled, "Little Bessie" from an
uncompleted work, The Myth of Providence, that fits in with the theme in the
essay below.
I do NOT present these essays as the last word in the I.D. / Darwinism
debate, though I do think that whomever reads them may gain a firmer grasp
of the fact that the present dispute is not likely to be "settled" any time
soon. (My own middle of the road "Divine Tinkerer" hypothesis does not
appeal to many though I find it hopeful without being unrealistic.)
Best, Edward T. Babinski
-----
"WAS THE WORLD MADE FOR MAN?" [1903]
"Alfred Russell Wallace's revival of the theory that this earth is at the
center of the stellar universe, and is the only habitable globe, has aroused
great interest in the world." -- Literary Digest
"For ourselves we do thoroughly believe that man, as he lives just here on
this tiny earth, is in essence and possibilities the most sublime existence
in all the range of non-divine being -- the chief love and delight of
God." -- Chicago "Interior" (Presb.)
I seem to be the only scientist and theologian still remaining to be heard
from on this important matter of whether the world was made for man or not.
I feel that it is time for me to speak.
I stand almost with the others. They believe the world was made for man, I
believe it likely that it was made for man; they think there is proof,
astronomical mainly, that it was made for man, I think there is evidence
only, not proof, that it was made for him. It is too early, yet, to arrange
the verdict, the returns are not all in. When they are all in, I think they
will show that the world was made for man; but we must not hurry, we must
patiently wait till they are all in.
Now as far as we have got, astronomy is on our side. Mr. Wallace has clearly
shown this. He has clearly shown two things: that the world was made for
man, and that the universe was made for the world -- to steady it, you know.
The astronomy part is settled, and cannot be challenged.
We come now to the geological part. This is the one where the evidence is
not all in, yet. It is coming in, hourly, daily, coming in all the time, but
naturally it comes with geological carefulness and deliberation, and we must
not be impatient, we must not get excited, we must be calm, and wait. To
lose our tranquillity will not hurry geology; nothing hurries geology.
It takes a long time to prepare a world for man, such a thing is not done in
a day. Some of the great scientists, carefully deciphering the evidences
furnished by geology, have arrived at the conviction that our world is
prodigiously old, and they may be right, but Lord Kelvin is not of their
opinion. He takes a cautious, conservative view, in order to be on the safe
side, and feels sure it is not so old as they think. As Lord Kelvin is the
highest authority in science now living, I think we must yield to him and
accept his view. He does not concede that the world is more than a hundred
million years old. He believes it is that old, but not older. Lyell believed
that our race was introduced into the world 31,000 years ago, Herbert
Spencer makes it 32,000. Lord Kelvin agrees with Spencer.
Very well. According to Kelvin's figures it took 99,968,000 years to prepare
the world for man, impatient as the Creator doubtless was to see him and
admire him. But a large enterprise like this has to be conducted warily,
painstakingly, logically. It was foreseen that man would have to have the
oyster. Therefore the first preparation was made for the oyster. Very well,
you cannot make an oyster out of whole cloth, you must make the oyster's
ancestor first. This is not done in a day. You must make a vast variety of
invertebrates, to start with -- belemnites, trilobites, jebusites,
amalekites, and that sort of fry, and put them to soak in a primary sea, and
wait and see what will happen. Some will be a disappointments - the
belemnites, the ammonites and such; they will be failures, they will die out
and become extinct, in the course of the 19,000,000 years covered by the
experiment, but all is not lost, for the amalekites will fetch the
home-stake; they will develop gradually into encrinites, and stalactites,
and blatherskites, and one thing and another as the mighty ages creep on and
the Archaean and the Cambrian Periods pile their lofty crags in the
primordial seas, and at last the first grand stage in the preparation of the
world for man stands completed, the Oyster is done. An oyster has hardly any
more reasoning power than a scientist has; and so it is reason ably certain
that this one jumped to the conclusion that the nineteen-million years was a
preparation for him; but that would be just like an oyster, which is the
most conceited animal there is, except man. And anyway, this one could not
know, at that early date, that he was only an incident in a scheme, and that
there was some more to the scheme, yet.
The oyster being achieved, the next thing to be arranged for in the
preparation of the world for man, was fish. Fish, and coal to fry it with.
So the Old Silurian seas were opened up to breed the fish in, and at the
same time the great work of building Old Red Sandstone mountains 80,000 feet
high to cold-storage their fossils in was begun. This latter was quite
indispensable, for there would be no end of failures again, no end of
extinctions -- millions of them -- and it would be cheaper and less trouble
to can them in the rocks than keep tally of them in a book. One does not
build the coal beds and 80,000 feet of perpendicular Old Red Sandstone in a
brief time -- no, it took twenty million years. In the first place, a coal
bed is a slow and troublesome and tiresome thing to construct. You have to
grow prodigious forests of tree-ferns and reeds and calamites and such
things in a marshy region; then you have, to sink them under out of sight
and let them rot; then you have to turn the streams on them, so as to bury
them under several feet of sediment, and the sediment must have time to
harden and turn to rock; next you must grow another forest on top, then sink
it and put on another layer of sediment and harden it; then more forest and
more rock, layer upon layer, three miles deep -- ah, indeed it is a
sickening slow job to build a coal- measure and do it right!
So the millions of years drag on; and meantime the fish-culture is lazying
along and frazzling out in a way to make a person tired. You have developed
ten thousand kinds of fishes from the oyster; and come to look, you have
raised nothing but fossils, nothing but extinctions. There is nothing left
alive and progressive but a ganoid or two and perhaps half a dozen
asteroids. Even the cat wouldn't eat such. Still, it is no great matter;
there is plenty of time, yet, and they will develop into something tasty
before man is ready for them. Even a ganoid can be depended on for that,
when he is not going to be called on for sixty million years.
The Palaeozoic time-limit having now been reached, it was necessary to begin
the next stage in the preparation of the world for man, by opening up the
Mesozoic Age and instituting some reptiles. For man would need reptiles. Not
to eat, but to develop himself from. This being the most important detail of
the scheme, a spacious liberality of time was set apart for it -- thirty
million years. What wonders followed! From the remaining ganoids and
asteroids and alkaloids were developed by slow and steady and pains-taking
culture those stupendous saurians that used to prowl about the steamy world
in those remote ages, with their snaky heads reared forty feet in the air
and sixty feet of body and tail racing and thrashing after. All gone, now,
alas -- all extinct, except the little handful of Arkansawrians left
stranded and lonely with us here upon this far- flung verge and fringe of
time.
Yes, it took thirty million years and twenty million reptiles to get one
that would stick long enough to develop into something else and let the
scheme proceed to the next step.
Then the Pterodactyl burst upon the world in all his impressive solemnity
and grandeur, and all Nature recognized that the Cainozoic threshold was
crossed and a new Period open for business, a new stage begun in the
preparation of the globe for man. It may be that the Pterodactyl thought the
thirty million years had been intended as a preparation for himself, for
there was nothing too foolish for a Pterodactyl to imagine, but he was in
error, the preparation was for man, Without doubt the Pterodactyl attracted
great attention, for even the least observant could see that there was the
making of a bird in him. And so it turned out. Also the makings of a mammal,
in time. One thing we have to say to his credit, that in the matter of
picturesqueness he was the triumph of his Period; he wore wings and had
teeth, and was a starchy and wonderful mixture altogether, a kind of
long-distance premonitory symptom of Kipling's marine:
'E isn't one O'the reg'lar Line,
nor 'e isn't one of the crew,
'E's a kind of a giddy harumfrodite [hermaphrodite] --
soldier an' sailor too!
From this time onward for nearly another thirty million years the
preparation moved briskly. From the Pterodactyl was developed the bird; from
the bird the kangaroo, from the kangaroo the other marsupials; from these
the mastodon, the megatherium, the giant sloth, the Irish elk, and all that
crowd that you make useful and instructive fossils out of -- then came the
first great Ice Sheet, and they all retreated before it and crossed over the
bridge at Behring's strait and wandered around over Europe and Asia and
died. All except a few, to carry on the preparation with. Six Glacial
Periods with two million years between Periods chased these poor orphans up
and down and about the earth, from weather to weather -- from tropic swelter
at the poles to Arctic frost at the equator and back again and to and fro,
they never knowing what kind of weather was going to turn up next; and if
ever they settled down anywhere the whole continent suddenly sank under them
without the least notice and they had to trade places with the fishes and
scramble off to where the seas had been, and scarcely a dry rag on them; and
when there was nothing else doing a volcano would let go and fire them out
from wherever they had located. They led this unsettled and irritating life
for twenty-five million years, half the time afloat, half the time aground,
and always wondering what it was all for, they never suspecting, of course,
that it was a preparation for man and had to be done just so or it wouldn't
be any proper and harmonious place for him when he arrived.
And at last came the monkey, and anybody could see that man wasn't far off,
now. And in truth that was so. The monkey went on developing for close upon
5,000,000 years, and then turned into a man - to all appearances.
Such is the history of it. Man has been here 32,000 years. That it took a
hundred million years to prepare the world for him is proof that that is
what it was done for. I suppose it is. I dunno. If the Eiffel tower were now
representing the world's age, the skin of paint on the pinnacle-knob at its
summit would represent man's share of that age; and anybody would perceive
that that skin was what the tower was built for. I reckon they would, I
dunno.
------------------
Also by Mark Twain, "Little Bessie," The Myth of Providence
"In His wisdom and mercy the Lord sends us afflictions to discipline us and
make us better�All of them. None of them comes by accident; He alone sends
them, and always out of love for us, and to make us better, my child."
"Did He give Billy Norris the typhus, mamma?"
"Yes."
"What for?"
"Why, to discipline him and make him good."
"But he died, mamma, and so it couldn't make him good."
"Well, then, I suppose it was for some other reason. We know it was a good
reason, whatever it was."
After a pause: "Did He make the roof fall on the stranger that was trying to
save the crippled old woman from the fire, mamma?"
"Yes, my child. Wait! Don't ask me why, because I don't know. I only know it
was to discipline some one, or be a judgment upon somebody, or to show His
power."
"That drunken man that stuck a pitchfork into Mrs. Welch's baby when�"
"Never mind about it, you needn't go into particulars; it was to discipline
the child - that much is certain, anyway."
"Mamma, Mr. Burgess said in his sermon that billions of little creatures are
sent into us to give us cholera, and typhoid, and lockjaw, and more than a
thousand other sicknesses and, mamma, does He send them?"
"Oh, certainly, child, certainly. Of course."
"What for?"
"Oh, to discipline us! Haven't I told you so, over and over again?"
"It's awful cruel, mamma! And silly! And if I�"
"Hush, oh hush! Do you want to bring the lightning?"
"You know the lightning did come last week, mamma, and struck the new
church, and burnt it down. Was it to discipline the church?"
(Wearily) "Oh, I suppose so."
"But it killed a hog that wasn't doing anything. Was it to discipline the
hog, mamma?"
"Dear child, don't you want to run out and play a while? If you would like
to�"
"Mamma, Mr. Hollister says there isn't a bird or fish or reptile or any
other animal that hasn't got an enemy that Providence has sent to bite it
and chase it and pester it, and kill it, and suck its blood and discipline
it and make it good and religious. Is that true, mamma, because if it is
true, why did Mr. Hollister laugh at it?"
"That Hollister is a scandalous person, and I don't want you to listen to
anything he says."
"Why, mamma, he is very interesting, and I think he tries to be good. He
says the wasps catch spiders and cram them down their nests in the ground -
alive, mama! - and there they live and suffer days and days and days, and
hungry little baby wasps chew the spider's legs and gnaw into their bellies
all the time, to make them good and religious and praise God for His
infinite mercies. I think Mr. Hollister is just lovely, and ever so kind;
for when I asked him if he would treat a spider like that, he said he hoped
to be damned if he would; and then he�"
"My child! oh, do for goodness' sake�"
"And mamma, he says the spider is appointed to catch the fly, and drive her
fangs into his bowels, and sucks and sucks and sucks his blood, to
discipline him and make him a Christian; and whenever the fly buzzes his
wings with the pain and misery of it, you can see by the spider's grateful
eye that she is thanking the Giver of All Good for�well, she's saying grace,
as he says; and also, he�"
"Oh, aren't you ever going to get tired chattering! If you want to go out
and play�"
"Mamma, he says himself that all troubles and pains and miseries and rotten
diseases and horrors and villainies are sent to us in mercy and kindness to
discipline us; and he says it is the duty of every father and mother to help
Providence, every way they can; and says they can't do it by just scolding
and whipping, for that won't answer, it is weak and no good - Providence's
invention for disciplining us and the animals is the very brightest idea
that ever was. Mamma, brother Eddie needs disciplining, right away; and I
know where you can get the smallpox for him, and the itch, and the
diphtheria, and bone-rot, and heart disease, and tuberculosis, and� Dear
mama, have you fainted?"
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/creationism/twain_creationism.html
.

User: "Pastor Dave"
Title: Re: Mark Twain questions the Intelligent Design (I.D.) hypothesis	19 Dec 2004 08:12:23 AM

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 23:35:16 +0000 (UTC), while scaling
the Mt. Everest, "Sharon"
<mail@creation-vs-evolution.us> pontificated:

Which should keep evolutionists from claiming they know
what happened, yet it doesn't.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditation." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
.

User: "Bob Pease"
Title: Re: Mark Twain questions the Intelligent Design (I.D.) hypothesis	19 Dec 2004 10:57:59 AM

"Pastor Dave" <newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message >
Mc Snip
Back to Plonk City wif ye!
Swoosh!!
Dr. S
.

User: "tinyurl.com/uh3t"
Title: Re: Mark Twain questions the Intelligent Design (I.D.) hypothesis	19 Dec 2004 04:24:28 PM

From: Pastor Dave <newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com>
Which should keep evolutionists from claiming they know what happened ...

We do know a lot about what happened from the last common ancestor to
present-day. We have ideas about what might have happened before that
last common ancestor, but no way to get direct data about what actually
did happen. Someday we may discover other places in our galaxy where
biology is just now going through those pre-life stages, in which case
we might someday learn what really does happen elsewhere, which would
give us a good idea what might have happened like that on Earth long
ago, but still that won't tell us what actually did for sure happen on
Earth. Maybe there is an advanced space alien society that has been
watching our planet since it first formed, who has been compiling a
history of our planet, which will someday reveal that history to us. If
not, maybe there's a supernatural being who will someday tell us the
whole truth about our past. If not, I guess we'll have to never know
for sure.
.

User: "Pastor Dave"
Title: Re: Mark Twain questions the Intelligent Design (I.D.) hypothesis	20 Dec 2004 09:18:46 AM

On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 22:24:28 +0000 (UTC), while scaling
the Mt. Everest,

(tinyurl.com/uh3t)
pontificated:

From: Pastor Dave <newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com>
Which should keep evolutionists from claiming they know what happened ...

We do know a lot about what happened from the last common ancestor to
present-day.

Stop pretending that you're making a factual statement.
You don't even know that there was a common ancestor.
You can't even produce said common ancestor, nor can
you prove that anything besides an ape evolved from it.

but no way to get direct data about what actually
did happen.

In other words, you have zero data and then think
everyone should believe it.
Yes folks, we have no evidence, but if you don't
believe it, there's something wrong with you.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditation." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
.

User: "Augray"
Title: Re: Mark Twain questions the Intelligent Design (I.D.) hypothesis	20 Dec 2004 01:15:51 PM

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 15:18:46 +0000 (UTC), Pastor Dave
<newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote in
news:<58sds05jm61ildhs8sa7cvq97k082lojrm@4ax.com>:

On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 22:24:28 +0000 (UTC), while scaling
the Mt. Everest,

(tinyurl.com/uh3t)
pontificated:

From: Pastor Dave <newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com>
Which should keep evolutionists from claiming they know what happened ...

We do know a lot about what happened from the last common ancestor to
present-day.

but no way to get direct data about what actually
did happen.

In other words, you have zero data and then think
everyone should believe it.

Yes folks, we have no evidence, but if you don't
believe it, there's something wrong with you.

Just because you ignore evidence doesn't meant that there isn't any. I
presented evidence for the evolution of birds in
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=tlhsb0dfh8ljrssacgd4jc3mtqr7qmjn4a@4ax.com
which you couldn't seem to address.
.

User: "Pastor Dave"
Title: Re: Mark Twain questions the Intelligent Design (I.D.) hypothesis	20 Dec 2004 01:37:47 PM

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 19:15:51 +0000 (UTC), while scaling
the Mt. Everest, Augray <augray@sympatico.ca>
pontificated:

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 15:18:46 +0000 (UTC), Pastor Dave
<newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote in
news:<58sds05jm61ildhs8sa7cvq97k082lojrm@4ax.com>:

On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 22:24:28 +0000 (UTC), while scaling
the Mt. Everest,

(tinyurl.com/uh3t)
pontificated:

From: Pastor Dave <newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com>
Which should keep evolutionists from claiming they know what happened ...

We do know a lot about what happened from the last common ancestor to
present-day.

but no way to get direct data about what actually
did happen.

In other words, you have zero data and then think
everyone should believe it.

Yes folks, we have no evidence, but if you don't
believe it, there's something wrong with you.

Couldn't seem to address? You presented claims about
various dinos. I did address it and in fact, your
claims are found wanting. First of all, similarities
do not prove what you believe. Second of all, you use
examples of what is known not to be a transitional.
Archy for example, was a modern perching bird. Not a
dino. Third, you have not and cannot explain how dino
lungs can evolve into avian lungs. You also failed to
address the other differences between them and you
failed to address the dating problem.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/dino_bird.asp
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditation." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
.

User: "tinyurl.com/uh3t"
Title: Re: Mark Twain questions the Intelligent Design (I.D.) hypothesis	21 Dec 2004 10:53:49 AM

From: Pastor Dave <newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com>
You [Augray] presented claims about various dinos.

No, he presented claims about various creatures which neither fit the
usual model as dinosaurs nor the usual model as birds. They are
somewhat in-between the two models, with some features very much like
one or the other model, and some features quite clearly not near either
model at all but some transitional feature. So it seems your method of
argument is to classify all the transitional fossils according to
whichever endpoint they are slightly nearest to, leaving a boundary
between them so small that it's logically impossible for any creature
to fit within that boundary? Any honest person wouldn't use that
dishonest method of argument.

Archy for example, was a modern perching bird. Not a dino.

Archy (Archaeopteryx) was neither a model dinosaur nor a model bird.
Archy was quite far from either. Jason Cortina posted a followup
showing many features where Archy was quite unlike a modern bird. I
suggest you try to refute his article by showing an example of a modern
bird which has almost exactly each of the features of Archy. They don't
have to all be the same bird. Just try to show that each transitional
feature in Archy is in fact a nearly exactly same modern-bird feature.
I bet you can't, because Jason is correct and you are grossly wrong.
.

User: "Pastor Dave"
Title: Re: Mark Twain questions the Intelligent Design (I.D.) hypothesis	21 Dec 2004 06:27:52 PM

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 16:53:49 +0000 (UTC), while scaling
the Mt. Everest,

(tinyurl.com/uh3t)
pontificated:

From: Pastor Dave <newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com>
You [Augray] presented claims about various dinos.

No, he presented claims about various creatures which neither fit the
usual model as dinosaurs nor the usual model as birds.

He presented dinos and birds, not intermediates.
Similarities do not prove evolution and there are many
things about them that he did not mention and he
miscategorized them.

Archy for example, was a modern perching bird. Not a dino.

Archy (Archaeopteryx) was neither a model dinosaur nor a model bird.

"Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into
an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it�s not. It
is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of
paleobabble is going to change that." - Alan Fedducia,
cited in V. Morell, �Archaeopteryx: Early Bird Catches
a Can of Worms�, Science 259(5096):764-65, 5 Feb, 1993.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditation." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
.

User: "tinyurl.com/uh3t"
Title: Re: Mark Twain questions the Intelligent Design (I.D.) hypothesis	23 Dec 2004 01:59:25 PM

From: Pastor Dave <newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com>
He presented dinos and birds, not intermediates.

The creatures he presented are not what would normally be thought of as
a real "bird" (the kind you see all around us), and not what would
normally be thought of as a real "dinosaur" (literally giant lizard,
i.e. large powerful lizard-like creatures). You seem to have broadened
the definition of "bird" to include everything from real birds to
Archy, and "dino" to include everything beyond that point. That's a
bogus method of argument, arbitrarily splitting forms which are even
the tiniest bit to one or the other side of some arbitrary line you've
drawn. For example, please see:
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=REM-2004dec22-002%40Yahoo.Com
Rather than arguing about your stupid definitions of those terms, how
about I ask you a different question, which is more what was intended
in the original quest to find intermediates: Do you consider those
creatures that were listed to be intermediate between modern flying
birds (excluding non-flying birds such as ostriches) and classical
dinosaurs (large ones that don't even come close to flying or gliding,
i.e. excluding pterosaurs, and land-based only, no ocean-dwelling
creatures)? If you say they aren't intermediaries, please say why not.
For example, list a bunch of characteristics that distinguish between
modern flying birds and classical large land-based non-flying
non-gliding dinosaurs, such as the features listed by somebody else
within the past list showing how Archy is different from birds, do you
remember that article? Also include whatever additional features you
choose to use, for which you know how each of the alleged transitional
forms would be rated per that feature. To keep this simple, weight each
factor the same, and define a metric (distance function) whereby the
distance between any two forms is the sum of all the differences per
each particular feature you've listed. If you do it right, all modern
birds should cluster tightly, and all classical dinosaurs should
cluster tightly, and there should be a huge gap between the two
clusters. Now compute the distance between each of the alleged
transitional form and the nearest member of the modern-bird cluster,
and likewise the distance from the alleged transitional form to the
nearest member of the classical-dinosaur cluster. Now lay these out
along a line, with dinosaurs at the left and birds at the right. If any
of the alleged transitional forms aren't on a direct path between
dinosaurs and birds, because the sum of distances to the two endpoints
is greater than the direct distance between the two endpoints, then set
them off from the main line, i.e. above or below it, so that the
triangle formed has the correct lengths. Now convert your diagram to an
ASCII-text diagram, and post it here so we can see it.
Alternately, if you have access to a program that can automatically
take in a feature matrix and compute an unrooted parsimony tree as an
ASCII text diagram, post for us both the feature matrix you used and
the resultant unrooted parsimony tree.

Similarities do not prove evolution

Evolution is science, not mathematics. It isn't the job of science to
prove anything. If you want proof instead of evidence, I suggest you
take up mathematics instead of science.

and there are many things about them that he did not mention

But are any of those things relevant to the question at hand?

and he miscategorized them.

Perhaps you should point out specific examples of such.
.

User: "Pastor Dave"
Title: Re: Mark Twain questions the Intelligent Design (I.D.) hypothesis	23 Dec 2004 06:04:58 PM

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 19:59:25 +0000 (UTC), while scaling
the Mt. Everest,

(tinyurl.com/uh3t)
pontificated:

From: Pastor Dave <newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com>
He presented dinos and birds, not intermediates.

Yea, sure.

Rather than arguing about your stupid definitions of those terms,

Yea, why bother with definitions? After all, it would
stop the evolutionists from being able to redefine as
they go.
Now where's that evidence of that evolution to avian
lungs?
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditation." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
.

User: "tinyurl.com/uh3t"
Title: Re: Mark Twain questions the Intelligent Design (I.D.) hypothesis	26 Dec 2004 03:03:27 PM

From: Pastor Dave <newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com>
Now where's that evidence of that evolution to avian lungs?

Are you aware of one of the really basic facts about fossils, that
only hard body parts (bone, shell, teeth, etc.) survive long enough
to have a reasonable chance of fossilization, all the soft body parts
decompose so quickly after death that they almost never fossilize?
So whereas we can get direct fossil evidence of the shape of hard body
parts, and whereas the outer shape of the creature might have left an
imprint in the mud or whatever that buried the corpse, it's extremely
rare to get any direct fossil evidence of the shapes of soft internal
body parts, including lungs?
So based on fossil evidence *only*, can we agree that anything that
leaves fossils or imprints seems to have evolved from classical large
dinosaurs to modern birds, but as to the soft parts we can't say for
sure on the basis of only fossil evidence?
In the future when our science has made further progress, we may be
able to understand the effects of the genome well enough to predict the
phenotype if all we know is the genotype. So then if we can campare the
genomes of lots of currently-living species, and build parsinomy trees
to infer the genome of the last common ancestor of various clades, we
would then know the phenotype of the last common ancestor, not just for
fossilizable parts but for soft parts as well. Then, given genotype
at start and end of some supposed evolutionary path, the start being
the last common ancestor of this path and some outgroup, and the end
being the last common ancestor within this single clade, we'd know
*all* the changes that happened between those two points, but not the
sequence of which change came first, second, third, etc. We might be
able to guess at which came first, based on plausability, i.e. change
FOO might be a useful adaption at the very start, whereas changes BAZ
and GAR might be totally usless unless FOO came first, so we can then
presume that FOO was the first. By emulating various sequences, and
discarding all sequences that don't make adaptive sense, we might come
to a conclusion as to the sequence. If adaptive sense includes both
hard and soft body parts, with constraints between them, we might be
able to align our presumed sequence of adaptions with the sequence of
fossils we have. This wouldn't be quite the proof that this particular
sequence was the one that actually happened, just a moderately
supported best guess. That may be the best we could do, unless some
space alien or supernatural being was keeping full records and will
someday reveal the true natural history.
Do you accept that some evolutionary paths are so well documented in
the fossil record that we can be really sure not just that evolution
happened but that it followed the specific path we've discovered,
whereas other evolutionary paths aren't so well documented, so either
we can show likelihood of evolution along that path but not the
details, or we can't show specific evidence of that path's evolution at
all? So in summary, we can show surely that evolution happened and is
still happening, we just can't show that specifically along some
particular paths. So you are free to pick either of these theories:
(1) Evolution happened along all paths of life.
(2) Evolution happened along most of the hard-body-parts paths, but
soft body parts didn't evolve.
Occam's razor would pick (1), would you agree?
Do you honestly believe (2), that the body parts that leave fossils
have been evolving but the soft body parts that don't leave fossils
have not been evolving? Do you have any decent theory to explain why
evolution would be depending on whether the body parts will leave
fossils or not?
Do you believe gravity works only when we're watching it, and the rest
of the time there's no such thing as gravity? Like when you go to sleep
at night, objects in your room float to the ceiling, but when you start
to wake up they drift down to the floor again and are peacibly sitting
there when you open your eyes to see them? Do you ever awaken to a loud
noise but don't know what it was? Do you believe that loud noise was
some object falling from the ceiling because gravity turned on suddenly
when you awoke too quickly?
.

User: "Sharon"
Title: Does Newton's Dishonesty discredit theory of Gravity?	26 Dec 2004 06:13:44 PM

"tinyurl.com/uh3t" <rem642b@Yahoo.Com> wrote in message
news:REM-2004dec26-002@Yahoo.Com...

From: Pastor Dave <newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com>
Now where's that evidence of that evolution to avian lungs?

Do you believe gravity works only when we're watching it, and the rest
of the time there's no such thing as gravity? Like when you go to sleep
at night, objects in your room float to the ceiling, but when you start
to wake up they drift down to the floor again and are peacibly sitting
there when you open your eyes to see them? Do you ever awaken to a loud
noise but don't know what it was? Do you believe that loud noise was
some object falling from the ceiling because gravity turned on suddenly
when you awoke too quickly?

Speaking of Gravity...
I just happened to have transferred an article by Ed today, where he and an
anti-Darwinist had a bit of a conversation about "Darwin's Dishonesty".
------
"All I claim is that evidence of Darwin's dishonesty
is just part of the evidence against
"the theory of evolution". "
What about Newton's dishonesty? Is that evidence against "the theory of
gravity?" See, BETRAYERS OF THE TRUTH by William Broad and Nicholas Wade,
Simon and Schuster, New York, p. 27-28 on Newton, or see Science, Feb. 23,
1973, "Newton and the Fudge Factor" by Richard S. Westfall, in which it is
proven that Newton fudged his figures to make them come out to an exactitude
and precision that "proved" this hypotheses correct, but such exactitude and
precision was absent from his original sources.
The authors of BETRAYERS OF THE TRUTH also pointed out that "Newton's
willingness to resort to sleight of hand is evident in more than just
falsification of data. He used his position as president of the Royal
Society, England's premier scientific club, to wage his battle with Leibniz
over who first invented calculus. What was shameful about Newton's behavior
was the hypocrisy with which he paid lip service to fair procedure but
followed the very opposite course. It would be an inquitious judge "who
would admit anyone was a witness in his own cause," announced the preface of
a Royal Society report of 1712 which examined the question of priority in
calculus. Ostensibly the work of a committee or impartial scientists, the
reports was a complete vindication of Newton's claims and even accused
Leibniz of plagiary. In fact, the whole report, sanctimonious preface
included, had been written by Newton himself. Historians now believe that
Leibniz' invention of calculus was made independantly of Newton."
See also the article "Newton's Debt to Cudworth" by Danton B. Sailor in
Journal of the History of Ideas, 1988, which proves that Newton borrowed a
theory of the origins of atomism from a Cambridge Platonist, Ralph Cudworth,
instead of turning to Nature for truth as Newton made people think he did.
Not to mention the fact that numerous works on Newton's life and religion,
including NEVER AT REST by Richard S. Westfall (Cambridge Univ. Press), LET
NEWTON BE! ed. by John Fauvel, et al. (Oxford Univ. Press), IN THE PRESENCE
OF THE CREATOR: ISSAC NEWTON AND HIS TIMES by Gale E. Christianson (The Free
Press), ISAAC NEWTON: THE LAST SORCERER by Michael White (Fourth Estate),
THE RELIGION OF ISAAC NEWTON by Frank E. Manuel (Oxford Univ. Press), ESSAYS
ON THE CONTEXT, NATURE, AND INFLUENCE OF ISAAC NEWTON'S THEOLOGY by James E.
Force and Richard H. Popkin (Kluwer Academic Pub.), all show that Newton was
not an orthodox Christian, shunned taking Holy Orders which was de riguer
for all other professors at the university where he taught, loved Arius /
hated Athanasius, and also that Newton shunned his family and their tightly
held Christian values, and also that he suffered manic-depression and had a
horrible personalty and was quite vindictive.
I imagine that geocentrist creationist Christians have quite a field day
with Newton, since geocentrists don't like gravity as it is currently
understood. To them science has been going down hill since the Copernican
Revolution.
-Edward T. Babinski
http://www.creation-science.us/creationism/newton.html

.

User: "Pastor Dave"
Title: Re: Mark Twain questions the Intelligent Design (I.D.) hypothesis	26 Dec 2004 06:36:09 PM

On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 21:03:27 +0000 (UTC), while scaling
the Mt. Everest,

(tinyurl.com/uh3t)
pontificated:

From: Pastor Dave <newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com>
Now where's that evidence of that evolution to avian lungs?

Now comes the excuses folks. The fact is, that I can
quotes experts who state clearly that with the hundreds
of millions of fossils that are in man's possession, we
should see many of the slightly modified transitionals
that you believe in. The fact is, they aren't found,
even though plenty of fossils are.

So whereas we can get direct fossil evidence of the shape of hard body
parts, and whereas the outer shape of the creature might have left an
imprint in the mud or whatever that buried the corpse, it's extremely
rare to get any direct fossil evidence of the shapes of soft internal
body parts, including lungs?

So now what you're saying, is that because you don't
believe you could ever get the evidence, that means I
should believe it.

So based on fossil evidence *only*, can we agree that anything that
leaves fossils or imprints seems to have evolved from classical large
dinosaurs to modern birds, but as to the soft parts we can't say for
sure on the basis of only fossil evidence?

You can't say birds came from dinos based on fossils.
In fact, the birds typically assigned as descendants of
dinos, are older than the dinos.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditation." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
.

User: "Sharon"
Title: Re: Mark Twain questions the Intelligent Design (I.D.) hypothesis	26 Dec 2004 07:14:17 PM

"Pastor Dave" <newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message

http://www.origins.tv/darwin/whaleears1.gif
Looks transitional enough for me.
As Stephen Gould concludes, "If you had given me a blank piece of paper and
a blank check, I could not have drawn you a theoretical intermediate any
better or more convincing than Ambulocetus. Those dogmatists who by verbal
trickery can make white black, and black white, will never be convinced of
anything, but Ambulocetus is the very animal that they proclaimed impossible
in theory."
Natural History magazine, May 1994.
http://www.origins.tv/darwin/landtosea.htm
.

User: "Pastor Dave"
Title: Re: Mark Twain questions the Intelligent Design (I.D.) hypothesis	27 Dec 2004 10:42:06 AM

On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 01:14:17 +0000 (UTC), while scaling
the Mt. Everest, "Sharon"
<mail-@-creation-vs-evolution.us> pontificated:

"Pastor Dave" <newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message

http://www.origins.tv/darwin/whaleears1.gif
Looks transitional enough for me.

As Stephen Gould concludes, "If you had given me a blank piece of paper and
a blank check, I could not have drawn you a theoretical intermediate any
better or more convincing than Ambulocetus. Those dogmatists who by verbal
trickery can make white black, and black white, will never be convinced of
anything, but Ambulocetus is the very animal that they proclaimed impossible
in theory."
Natural History magazine, May 1994.
http://www.origins.tv/darwin/landtosea.htm

Stephen Gould does not believe in gradual evolution,
which is why he said it was a "theoretical
intermediate" and it is why he said...
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil
record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.
The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have
data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the
rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence
of fossils... Most species exhibit no directional
change during their tenure on Earth... In any local
area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady
transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once
and fully formed." - Stephen J. Gould
And it is also why he said...
"New species almost always appeared suddenly in the
fossil record with no intermediate links to ancestors
in older rocks of the same region." - Stephen J. Gould
As for amby, again, he said it was a theoretical
intermediate and amby is not an ancestor of whales.
The supposed evolution of whales, shown in the four
creatures that they claim are ancestors of whales, is a
sham and they do not even have complete fossils and had
a lot less than they do now, when it was first claimed
to be true.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditation." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
.

User: "Steven J."
Title: Re: Mark Twain questions the Intelligent Design (I.D.) hypothesis	27 Dec 2004 05:50:21 PM

"Pastor Dave" <newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:tjf0t099e8sq8f1uu1flgi9m3qnv6d4i70@4ax.com...

On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 01:14:17 +0000 (UTC), while scaling
the Mt. Everest, "Sharon"
<mail-@-creation-vs-evolution.us> pontificated:

"Pastor Dave" <newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message

http://www.origins.tv/darwin/whaleears1.gif
Looks transitional enough for me.

As Stephen Gould concludes, "If you had given me a blank piece of paper
and
a blank check, I could not have drawn you a theoretical intermediate any
better or more convincing than Ambulocetus. Those dogmatists who by verbal
trickery can make white black, and black white, will never be convinced of
anything, but Ambulocetus is the very animal that they proclaimed
impossible
in theory."
Natural History magazine, May 1994.
http://www.origins.tv/darwin/landtosea.htm

Stephen Gould does not believe in gradual evolution,
which is why he said it was a "theoretical
intermediate" and it is why he said...

Actually, what Gould did not believe in was "phyletic gradualism," the idea
that entire species are constantly undergoing morphological and genetic
change at a slow, more or less constant rate, so that "species" did not
really exist over time. Gould, rather, held that species remained unchanged
(at least in appearance and behavior) over long periods, and that new
species and new adaptions emerged in isolated populations of a species that
evolved relatively rapidly when the environment changed (while the rest of
the species remained unchanged). Gould believed that this "relatively
rapid" evolution was still gradual (step by step, rather than by leaps --
entire new structures or species appearing at once). Note that Gould
described -- and held up as evidence of his theories -- the gradual
evolution of one species of the snail genus _Cerion_ into another over
thousands of years, as recorded in a series of fossil snail shells. So
clearly Gould "believed in gradual evolution" in the sense you have in mind.
Now, what Gould is saying in the nature article above is not that
_Ambulocetus_ is a "theoretical intermediate," but rather, if no fossils of
primitive whales existed, and Gould had had to invent what he *thought* a
"missing link" between land mammals and whales would look like, it would not
look any more intermediate than the real fossil _Ambulocetus_ does. In
other words, _Ambulocetus_ couldn't be a better "missing link" if Gould had
made it up. The word "theoretical" applies to Gould's imagined
intermediate, not to the very real _Ambulocetus_.

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil
record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.
The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have
data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the
rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence
of fossils... Most species exhibit no directional
change during their tenure on Earth... In any local
area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady
transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once
and fully formed." - Stephen J. Gould

Again, Gould is talking about evolution between species, within genera
(within "created kinds," if you will). Virtually all creationists allow for
the evolution of, say, one species of some trilobite genus into another, or
for horses and donkeys (two species of the genus _Equus_) to be descended
from a single equine "kind," yet this is exactly the sort of evolution we
*don't* find much evidence of in the fossil record (although, again, there
are those _Cerion_ fossils, and several other fossil series).

And it is also why he said...

"New species almost always appeared suddenly in the
fossil record with no intermediate links to ancestors
in older rocks of the same region." - Stephen J. Gould

See my points above/

As for amby, again, he said it was a theoretical
intermediate and amby is not an ancestor of whales.
The supposed evolution of whales, shown in the four
creatures that they claim are ancestors of whales, is a
sham and they do not even have complete fossils and had
a lot less than they do now, when it was first claimed
to be true.

Your expertise on the subject is underwhelming, but your arrogance is, as
always, breathtaking.

--

Pastor Dave Raymond

-- [snip]

-- Steven J.
.

User: "Pastor Dave"
Title: Re: Mark Twain questions the Intelligent Design (I.D.) hypothesis	27 Dec 2004 07:41:27 PM

On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 23:50:21 +0000 (UTC), while scaling
the Mt. Everest, "Steven J."
<sjt1957NOSPAM@nts.link.net.INVALID> pontificated:

"Pastor Dave" <newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:tjf0t099e8sq8f1uu1flgi9m3qnv6d4i70@4ax.com...

On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 01:14:17 +0000 (UTC), while scaling
the Mt. Everest, "Sharon"
<mail-@-creation-vs-evolution.us> pontificated:

"Pastor Dave" <newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message

http://www.origins.tv/darwin/whaleears1.gif
Looks transitional enough for me.

As Stephen Gould concludes, "If you had given me a blank piece of paper
and
a blank check, I could not have drawn you a theoretical intermediate any
better or more convincing than Ambulocetus. Those dogmatists who by verbal
trickery can make white black, and black white, will never be convinced of
anything, but Ambulocetus is the very animal that they proclaimed
impossible
in theory."
Natural History magazine, May 1994.
http://www.origins.tv/darwin/landtosea.htm

Stephen Gould does not believe in gradual evolution,
which is why he said it was a "theoretical
intermediate" and it is why he said...

I'm sorry, try again. You were so close.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditation." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
.

User: "Steven J."
Title: Re: Mark Twain questions the Intelligent Design (I.D.) hypothesis	28 Dec 2004 09:11:36 PM

"Pastor Dave" <newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:pmd1t05j66u0ljmlesjl5hm6ch8bnfhosk@4ax.com...

On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 23:50:21 +0000 (UTC), while scaling
the Mt. Everest, "Steven J."
<sjt1957NOSPAM@nts.link.net.INVALID> pontificated:

-- [snip]

I'm sorry, try again. You were so close.

Okay, I'll bite. What did you mean by "gradual evolution" when you stated
that Gould did not believe in it? What theory or model of evolution, in
your understanding, did Gould advocate in place of what you call "gradual
evolution?" What *was* Gould's position?

--

Pastor Dave Raymond

-- [snip]

-- Steven J.
.

User: "steve"
Title: Re: Mark Twain questions the Intelligent Design (I.D.) hypothesis	27 Dec 2004 12:10:24 PM

"Pastor Dave" <newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:tjf0t099e8sq8f1uu1flgi9m3qnv6d4i70@4ax.com...
| On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 01:14:17 +0000 (UTC), while scaling
| the Mt. Everest, "Sharon"
| <mail-@-creation-vs-evolution.us> pontificated:
|
| >
| >"Pastor Dave" <newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
| >> Now comes the excuses folks. The fact is, that I can
| >> quotes experts who state clearly that with the hundreds
| >> of millions of fossils that are in man's possession, we
| >> should see many of the slightly modified transitionals
| >> that you believe in. The fact is, they aren't found,
| >> even though plenty of fossils are.
| >
| >http://www.origins.tv/darwin/whaleears1.gif
| >Looks transitional enough for me.
| >
| >As Stephen Gould concludes, "If you had given me a blank piece of paper
and
| >a blank check, I could not have drawn you a theoretical intermediate any
| >better or more convincing than Ambulocetus. Those dogmatists who by
verbal
| >trickery can make white black, and black white, will never be convinced
of
| >anything, but Ambulocetus is the very animal that they proclaimed
impossible
| >in theory."
| >Natural History magazine, May 1994.
| >http://www.origins.tv/darwin/landtosea.htm
|
| Stephen Gould does not believe in gradual evolution,
| which is why he said it was a "theoretical
| intermediate" and it is why he said...
you misrepresent what you read, dave. he need not be given a blank check
from which *his theoretical intermediate* would be drawn...since we already
find it in reality in the form of ambulocetus. as for gradual or non-gradual
evolution, scientists believe evolution sufficiently answers how animals
adapt to survive over time - time only being an interesting contraint by
which evolutionary mechanisms work. there are plenty of scientists who are
currently answering the mysteries of evolution in light of time
constraints...and evolution remains unbroken.
simply...gould believes evolution. id support is wholly lacking, illogical,
and unsubstanciated dave.
| "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil
| record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.
| The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have
| data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the
| rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence
| of fossils... Most species exhibit no directional
| change during their tenure on Earth... In any local
| area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady
| transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once
| and fully formed." - Stephen J. Gould
yet, he still holds evolution as the means by which animals adapt to
survive.
| And it is also why he said...
|
| "New species almost always appeared suddenly in the
| fossil record with no intermediate links to ancestors
| in older rocks of the same region." - Stephen J. Gould
yet, he still holds evolution as the means by which animals adapt to
survive.
| As for amby, again, he said it was a theoretical
| intermediate and amby is not an ancestor of whales.
| The supposed evolution of whales, shown in the four
| creatures that they claim are ancestors of whales, is a
| sham and they do not even have complete fossils and had
| a lot less than they do now, when it was first claimed
| to be true.
"Those dogmatists who by verbal trickery can make white black, and black
white, will never be convinced of anything..." - s. gould.
.

User: "Pastor Dave"
Title: Re: Mark Twain questions the Intelligent Design (I.D.) hypothesis	27 Dec 2004 04:20:29 PM

On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 18:10:24 +0000 (UTC), while scaling
the Mt. Everest, "steve"
<a@b.com.lga.highwinds-media.com> pontificated:

I repeated what he said and I am very familiar with
what he believes happened and where he got his idea
from.

simply...gould believes evolution. id support is wholly lacking, illogical,
and unsubstanciated dave.

That is your opinion. The fact is, Gould does not
believe in gradual evolution. He knows it's a sham.
You dishonestly keep leaving that part out.

| "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil
| record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.
| The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have
| data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the
| rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence
| of fossils... Most species exhibit no directional
| change during their tenure on Earth... In any local
| area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady
| transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once
| and fully formed." - Stephen J. Gould

yet, he still holds evolution as the means by which animals adapt to
survive.

See above. He doesn't believe what you do, buddy. :)

| And it is also why he said...
|
| "New species almost always appeared suddenly in the
| fossil record with no intermediate links to ancestors
| in older rocks of the same region." - Stephen J. Gould

yet, he still holds evolution as the means by which animals adapt to
survive.

He doesn't believe in what you do.

| As for amby, again, he said it was a theoretical
| intermediate and amby is not an ancestor of whales.
| The supposed evolution of whales, shown in the four
| creatures that they claim are ancestors of whales, is a
| sham and they do not even have complete fossils and had
| a lot less than they do now, when it was first claimed
| to be true.

"Those dogmatists who by verbal trickery can make white black, and black
white, will never be convinced of anything..." - s. gould.

That's an interesting claim from a man who used just
that to support his idea of how evolution happens.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditation." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
.

User: "steve"
Title: Re: Mark Twain questions the Intelligent Design (I.D.) hypothesis	27 Dec 2004 05:52:31 PM

| >you misrepresent what you read, dave.
|
| I repeated what he said and I am very familiar with
| what he believes happened and where he got his idea
| from.
so enlighten me, dave. what can you quote of gould that tells what he
believes that both supports what you believe *and* shows he thinks evolution
is a sham. since he still holds to evolution, what dissent of his would
constitute a hypocracy like that?
| >simply...gould believes evolution. id support is wholly lacking,
illogical,
| >and unsubstanciated dave.
|
| That is your opinion. The fact is, Gould does not
| believe in gradual evolution. He knows it's a sham.
| You dishonestly keep leaving that part out.
not leaving anything out. scientists have differing oppinions of evolution
in one context or another. his problems with it (as noted in your previous
post) have not been sufficient for him to throw the entire constructs of
evolution out the window. so then, what does that mean? are you claiming
he's in the id camp now? that would be quite something indeed.
|
| >| "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil
| >| record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.
| >| The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have
| >| data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the
| >| rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence
| >| of fossils... Most species exhibit no directional
| >| change during their tenure on Earth... In any local
| >| area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady
| >| transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once
| >| and fully formed." - Stephen J. Gould
| >
| >yet, he still holds evolution as the means by which animals adapt to
| >survive.
|
| See above. He doesn't believe what you do, buddy. :)
you mean he doesn't believe what *you* think i believe. that's quite an
assumption on your part...even for you, dave.
you mind telling me at this point what you think i believe about evolution?
lol.
| >| And it is also why he said...
| >|
| >| "New species almost always appeared suddenly in the
| >| fossil record with no intermediate links to ancestors
| >| in older rocks of the same region." - Stephen J. Gould
| >
| >yet, he still holds evolution as the means by which animals adapt to
| >survive.
|
| He doesn't believe in what you do.
again with assumptions. i guess i should see by now that you are quite
comfortable in making them...gawd, id, what steve believes about evolution,
etc....all while having no special knowledge or evidence from which to infer
a moderately close answer of support for what *you* think.
| >"Those dogmatists who by verbal trickery can make white black, and black
| >white, will never be convinced of anything..." - s. gould.
|
| That's an interesting claim from a man who used just
| that to support his idea of how evolution happens.
you're funny! i guess that is you demonstating the claim...since i've
expounded no idea or postulate about how evolution happens according to
steve...only that if the null hypothesis has evolution as one alternative
and id as the other, there is no doubt which should be chosen as to the
explanation of how life happens - in whatever form it takes.
.

User: "Pastor Dave"
Title: Re: Mark Twain questions the Intelligent Design (I.D.) hypothesis	27 Dec 2004 07:41:18 PM

On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 23:52:31 +0000 (UTC), while scaling
the Mt. Everest, "steve"
<a@b.com.lga.highwinds-media.com> pontificated:

I didn't say he thinks evolution is a sham. I said
that he believes that gradual evolution is a sham.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditation." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
.

User: "steve"
Title: Re: Mark Twain questions the Intelligent Design (I.D.) hypothesis	27 Dec 2004 09:46:59 PM

| I didn't say he thinks evolution is a sham. I said
| that he believes that gradual evolution is a sham.
glad to see you make that distinction, dave. now given that admission, how
does gradual or non-gradual evolution help you case? neither veins of
thought discredit evolution and neither likewise support id. i fail to see
the strength in your posted remarks that summarize gould's comment that you
quoted...lest it was to insinuate that evolution was a sham.
what was your point, dave?
.

User: "Pastor Dave"
Title: Re: Mark Twain questions the Intelligent Design (I.D.) hypothesis	28 Dec 2004 07:52:06 AM

On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 03:46:59 +0000 (UTC), while scaling
the Mt. Everest, "steve"
<a@b.com.lga.highwinds-media.com> pontificated:

The fact is, that neither helps your case.

neither veins of
thought discredit evolution and neither likewise support id.

Gould demonstrates that gradual evolution never took
place.
Most evolutionists believe in gradual evolution and
demonstrate the reasons why P.E. isn't realistic.
I'd say they discredit each other.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditation." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
.

User: "Augray"
Title: Re: Mark Twain questions the Intelligent Design (I.D.) hypothesis	28 Dec 2004 07:23:38 PM

On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 13:52:06 +0000 (UTC), Pastor Dave
<newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote in
news:<a8q2t01pm0dfabsc7rbmsfo9hd9gu0ml5i@4ax.com>:

On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 03:46:59 +0000 (UTC), while scaling
the Mt. Everest, "steve"
<a@b.com.lga.highwinds-media.com> pontificated:

The fact is, that neither helps your case.

neither veins of
thought discredit evolution and neither likewise support id.

Gould demonstrates that gradual evolution never took
place.

This is a lie.

Most evolutionists believe in gradual evolution and
demonstrate the reasons why P.E. isn't realistic.

This is also a lie.

I'd say they discredit each other.

I'd say that lying just discredits the person who tells the lie.
.

User: "steve"
Title: Re: Mark Twain questions the Intelligent Design (I.D.) hypothesis	28 Dec 2004 09:13:40 AM

| >glad to see you make that distinction, dave. now given that admission,
how
| >does gradual or non-gradual evolution help you case?
|
| The fact is, that neither helps your case.
gradual evolution (p.g) does in fact take place. the fact that non-gradual
(p.e) evolution takes place as well does not supplant the mechanisms of
evolution. in fact, it is believed that major key events (disasters,
disease, extinction of one species, etc.) present opportunities for change
and that those events catalyze evolution. it is not unreasonable to think
that as all we observe in nature seeks homeostasis and that that state is
actively sought, that the idea of a more rapid evolution, under the same
mechanisms as p.g. in that the time to an endpoint, is accelerated the more
out of balance an environment is. this could demonstrate quite well p.e.
seems like a non-competative issue and more an interesting play between
environment, time, and life forms.
i still see no need for a designer in that scenario.
| Gould demonstrates that gradual evolution never took
| place.
interesting...cite his work on this so i can read it for myself - given your
propensity to make quotes and ideas mean what *you* intend them to mean.
| Most evolutionists believe in gradual evolution and
| demonstrate the reasons why P.E. isn't realistic.
|
| I'd say they discredit each other.
darwin himself only believed evolution was slow but did not believe it was,
in fact, even...nor did he define some magical constant rate of change that
should be seen in any fossil record. his writings lack three of the four
main tenents that make up p.g. so, what you'd say about p.g. and p.e only
shows you know little about either.
.

User: "Pastor Dave"
Title: Re: Mark Twain questions the Intelligent Design (I.D.) hypothesis	28 Dec 2004 10:36:59 AM

On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 15:13:40 +0000 (UTC), while scaling
the Mt. Everest, "steve"
<a@b.com.lga.highwinds-media.com> pontificated:

Not according to Gould.

| Gould demonstrates that gradual evolution never took
| place.

interesting...cite his work on this so i can read it for myself - given your
propensity to make quotes and ideas mean what *you* intend them to mean.

You mean an evolutionist isn't aware of what Gould has
stated?

| Most evolutionists believe in gradual evolution and
| demonstrate the reasons why P.E. isn't realistic.
|
| I'd say they discredit each other.

darwin himself only believed evolution was slow but did not believe it was,
in fact, even...nor did he define some magical constant rate of change that
should be seen in any fossil record. his writings lack three of the four
main tenents that make up p.g. so, what you'd say about p.g. and p.e only
shows you know little about either.

Basically, you haven't taken any position here.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditation." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
.

User: "steve"
Title: Re: Mark Twain questions the Intelligent Design (I.D.) hypothesis	28 Dec 2004 10:55:11 AM

| >gradual evolution (p.g) does in fact take place.
|
| Not according to Gould.
depends on the relativity of time and the assignment of "gradual". i believe
that it is sporatically demonstrated in the fossil record but can be
simulated. granted, one must view simulatio