Re: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex

Religions > Atheism > Re: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 1

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"david ford"
Date:	05 Apr 2004 12:31:24 AM
Object:	Re: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex

Kizhé/ Lieutenant Kizhe Katson <lt_kizhe@yahoo.ca> on 31 Mar 2004:
david ford:
Kizhé <lt_kizhe@yahoo.ca> (Lieutenant Kizhe Katson) wrote in message news:<47b867ea.0403260646.6c62abe2@posting.google.com>...

dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0403251936.77caa903@posting.google.com>...

lt_kizhe@yahoo.ca (Lieutenant Kizhe Katson) wrote in message news:<47b867ea.0403251312.6fdb9449@posting.google.com>...

dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0403241803.65120a76@posting.google.com>...

steven_j@altavista.com (Steven J.) on 24 Mar 2004:
david ford:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<slrnc5up07.3fk.mightymartianca@alder.alberni.net>...

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 21:01:57 +0000 (UTC),
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:

quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<MPG.1ac8ab919196d28a989764@news.individual.de>...

[snip]

"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins

What is Dawkins's faith?

He doesn't have one. He's an atheist. And why is that important,
David?

According to the quotation of Dawkins, [Dawkins]"faith is one of the
world's great evils," and if Dawkins had a faith, then by his
statement he would be in possession of a great evil. Assuredly, he
must have some sort of faith. (Are you sure that atheism is not a
faith?) How about this:
Dawkins has a great faith in What Science Will Do Some Day, for
example, demonstrate how it is that life can come from non-life apart
from the input of any intelligence.

Do you have any evidence that Dawkins, in fact, has any such
conviction? He may, in fact, casually assume such a thing -- but is
he committed to this assumption? Is it not possible that he would
concede that we may *never* known how life originated.

I don't recall coming across any such concession. If you're aware of
one, please do share.
I have, though, read Dawkins saying that the thesis of his _Blind
Watchmaker_ book is that the postulation of an intelligent designer
isn't needed to account for either life's first appearance or for
later organisms.(page 147)

Now, you seem to incorrigibly assume that gaps in current scientific
understanding are properly stuffed with the god of your choice -- that
there is no burden of proof on creationists to provide an actual
theory and actual evidence for that particular theory.

I leave it to other creationists to develop a creationist theory and
evidence for the theory. For myself, I am presently having way too

Bad news, dude: the "other creationists" are falling down on the job.

Julie T. has done a marvelous start.

Julie Thomas on biological design
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.44L.01.0307231113280.765971-100000%40irix2.gl.umbc.edu

And (in the one thread I checked) Larry Moran sends her back to square
one to do her homework over.

What thread was that?

Who cares?

If you mentioned the thread you checked out, I'll locate and possibly
bring up for discussion here some material originally appearing within
it.

Larry has already weighted in with his assessment of the
debate. I note that you do not address his point, other than with
sarcasm and misdirection.

Larry is entitled his opinion. I personally prefer chocolate ice
cream.

much fun critiquing the theory of natural selection to participate in
that development and assembling of evidence.

Great, have yourself a ball.

Glad you approve.

We're having lots of fun ourselves --
laughing at you.

Nice cop-out, david. Typical.

Does popularity or unpopularity of a position or idea have anything to
do with the truth or falsity or reasonableness or unreasonableness of
that position or idea?

Non sequitur. "Cop-out" has nothing to do with popularity -- I have
no idea where you got that from. It refers to the laziness and/or
hypocrisy implicit in your comment about leaving the development of a
Creationist theory to others (and the blatant admission that you have
no alternative to present -- but we already knew that, didn't we?).

I got the concept of popularity from the sentence preceding the
"cop-out" sentence. What is your answer to my question about
popularity?

No, of course popularity has nothing to do with the rightness of a
position. I never said or implied otherwise, and I don't know why
you're even asking (and I don't care either).

Your selectivity in wishing to know or reveal or speculate about my
motivations is noted.

Is Yockey being lazy and/or hypocritical in critiquing existing origin
of life speculations, even as he has no theory to offer in place of
the theories he criticizes?

Wouldn't know, haven't read him, and I'm not playing your game of
"follow the links".

Fine. I'll bring the Yockey item in question directly to you.
Yockey, Hubert P. 1992. _Information Theory and
Molecular Biology_ (GB: Cambridge University Press), 385
or more pages. From the Epilogue on 336:
Furthermore, as I showed in Chapters 9 and 10, the
paradigm does not perform the task its advocates claim.
Although at the beginning the paradigm was worth
consideration, now the entire effort in the primeval soup
paradigm is self-deception based on the ideology of its
champions.
The history of the 'life on Mars' effort which played a
primary role in the Mariner and Viking space craft
missions shows an _intemperate wish to believe_ by
leading scientists who saw in their data what they
wished to see (Horowitz, 1986, 1990). The usual
creative skepticism of scientists did not play a role until
the enormous weight of evidence showed that belief that
there is or was life on Mars is based on faith ('Now faith
is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of
things unseen'; Hebrews 11:1). This has not yet
manifested itself with regard to the belief in chemical
evolution and the primeval soup paradigm.
The history of science shows that a paradigm, once it
has achieved the status of acceptance (and is
incorporated in textbooks) and regardless of its failures,
is declared invalid only when a new paradigm is
available to replace it. Nevertheless, in order to make
progress in science, it is necessary to clear the decks, so
to speak, of failed paradigms. This must be done even if
this leaves the decks entirely clear and no paradigms
survive. It is a characteristic of the true believer in
religion, philosophy and ideology that he must have a
set of beliefs, come what may (Hoffer, 1951). Belief in
a primeval soup on the grounds that no other paradigm
is available is an example of the logical _fallacy of the
false alternative_. In science it is a virtue to
acknowledge ignorance. This has been universally the
case in the history of science as Kuhn (1970) has
discussed in detail. There is no reason that this should
be different in the research on the origin of life. The
best advice that one could given to the alchemist would
have been to study nuclear physics and astrophysics,
although that would not have been helpful at the time.
We do not see the origin of life clearly, but through a
glass darkly. Perhaps the best advice to those who are
interested in the origin of life would be to study biology.
After dispensing with failed paradigms in Chapters 8, 9
and 10, I have shown that the problem to be solved in
the origin of life and in evolution is the means by which
complexity (as defined in this book) was generated.
Half the solution to the problem is to define the question
clearly.
Is Yockey being lazy and/or hypocritical in critiquing existing origin
of life speculations, even as he has no theory to offer in place of
the theories he criticizes?
For Further Reading
more Yockey:
1995 Yockey on the Grand Academy of Lagado
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0402032212.46bef779%40posting.google.com
Gould, Davies, Yockey, Thaxton (a creationist)
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990510174524.238430A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
Yockey on complexity vs. order
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970925150735.4738C-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu

However, it *is* hypocrisy to pretend to engage
in disinterested critique of one view, while in fact having a
preferred alternative, but being very coy about it (because one knows
it's indefensible?). It's called "hidden agenda".

Does Yockey have a [K]"'hidden agenda'"?

1992 Hubert Yockey on clearing the decks of failed paradigms
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0402142006.7024a6f4%40posting.google.com

You therefore assume that if Dawkins sees no reason to believe in God,
he *must* be convinced that a naturalistic explanation will be found
for the origin of life -- otherwise, he would be forced to accept a
Creator as an "explanation."

Dawkins believes that life can come from non-life totally apart from
the input of intelligence. He did not come to this belief on the
basis of observations and experimentation. Rather, his materialist
philosophy is the basis for that belief.

But a Creator, absent any testable
account of His purposes and/or methods, is not a explanation -- not a
reason why life has some properties and not others.

Intelligence is a good explanation for many things. (Take a moment
and look around for five seconds. Can intelligence explain well
anything you are looking at?)
Their _a priori_ acceptance of materialism is the basis for some
individuals' belief that life can come from non-life totally apart
from any input of intelligent design.

Personally, I don't give a hoot what Dawkins thinks -- haven't yet
bothered to read the man, in fact.

That's too bad.

Yes, it is too bad. So many books, so little time....Gould, Dennett,
Johansen, ShadowMayr, a bit of philosophy, the odd bit of sci-fi[1]

^^^^^^^^^^
That was supposed to read "Mayr". Hair-trigger mouse button....

just for a break.....

([1] Most recent: Orson Scott Card's Ender/Shadow septology.
Recommended. Even some t.o-relevant themes in there.....)

[K]"So many books, so little time...." I know the feeling.
[K]"the odd bit of sci-fi" William Gibson's _Neuromancer_ was great.

Until such time as someone presents
a coherent hypothesis of Intelligent Design -- hoodunnit, when, how,
stuff like that -- I will take it as my default position that life
arose spontaneously from non-life, sans intelligent input.

Would you laugh at someone for saying the following?:
Until such time as someone presents a coherent hypothesis of how life
could have arisen spontaneously from non-life, sans any intelligent
input
whatsoever-- when, how, what happened before what, where genetic
information came from, how the DNA-RNA-protein system arose, stuff
like that-- I will take it as my default position that life arose with
intelligent input.

Yes actually, I would -- especially in the case that there is no other
evidence for the existence or action of this intelligence, and
introducing it is only to "solve" one complex mystery with a more
complex mystery, and furthermore that said person bandies about
invented terms like "blindwatchmakingism" and presents shallow
rhetorical puzzles as if they were profound critiques. I would, and
do, laugh.

Suppose we found a spacecraft that was far too complex to have been
made by humans. Would saying "Non-human intelligence is responsible
for this spacecraft." merely [K]"'solve' one complex mystery with a
more complex mystery"?

An arbitrary and contrived hypothetical, plus five bucks, will get you
a cup of funny-tasting coffee with a pompous faux-italian name -- but
it's not much of an argument. *If* we ever find a derelict alien
spacecraft, we would likely only be able to recognize it and analyze
it in terms of similarities to things we humans might do, and presume
might be shared by other intelligent life-forms. That, after all, is
how archaeologists differentiate flint tools from broken rocks. Life,
however, looks very little like anything we humans have accomplished
so far.

Intelligent humans will continue to accomplish the feat of creating
engineering concepts seen in living organisms.
In a bacterial flagellum there is a wheel and a motor that was in
existence long before humans made a wheel or motor.
In bats there is an echolocation system that was around well before
humans invented radar.
The human brain has been likened to a highly-advanced computer, and it
is conceivable that someday intelligent humans will create an AI/
"artificial intelligence" rivaling the abilities of the human mind.
In short, humans have already accomplished the feat of producing some
concepts present in biology, and humans [K]"will do" additional feats
of copying bioengineering already present in biology.
Biology is the product of intelligence, and we humans are able to
recognize and analyze that intelligent design of biology [K]"in terms
of similarities to things we humans might do."
For the flagellum, see
wheel found in nature; table of contents for Benyus's book
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.10A.B3.9911092251540.520954-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
Julie T. on Examples of Bioengineering
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990809215054.1512874F-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
For the human brain, see
highly-advanced 'computer' found in nature; Benyus; Tomlin
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.10A.B3.9911172232160.1113971-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
For echolocation, see
Dawkins, _The Blind Watchmaker_ (1987), the chapter "Good Design" on
21-41.
I couldn't find any response to a question of mine about echolocation:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970717224634.11912O-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu

[K]"presents shallow rhetorical puzzles as if they were profound
critiques." What are 2 of these puzzles?

Oh, any post of yours that starts with "What, if anything, is wrong
with the following statements?....."

What, if anything, is wrong with the following argument?:
If the Judeo-Christian God were to make a paw for a panda, then the
paw would be extremely well-constructed.
The panda's "thumb" (which is a key part of the panda's paw) is very
poorly constructed.
Therefore, the Judeo-Christian God didn't make the panda's "thumb."
Therefore, the Judeo-Christian God didn't make the panda.
Therefore, because of this and similar other examples, we can
reasonably conclude that biology is the product of totally-mindless
processes.
What, if anything, is wrong with the following argument?:
In the creation (i.e. intelligent design) versus evolution (i.e.
totally-mindless processes) controversy as to which is responsible for
the enormous complexity present in biology, evolution is correct: man
and all other organisms are the product of totally-mindless processes.
"Evolution" is simply defined as "a change in allele frequencies."
Evolution (i.e. change in allele frequencies) has been
well-demonstrated through observations to occur and is a _fact_.
In short, evolution is a fact, i.e., it is a _fact_ that
totally-mindless processes are responsible for the enormous complexity
present in biology.

Absent an
ID hypothesis, it's not even a question -- there's nothing there to
investigate. So get back to us when you or your heroes have something
worth talking about, eh?

User: "Chris Krolczyk"
Title: Re: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex	05 Apr 2004 08:20:32 PM

(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0404042131.37d6585b@posting.google.com>...

Kizhé/ Lieutenant Kizhe Katson <lt_kizhe@yahoo.ca> on 31 Mar 2004:
david ford:

[K]"presents shallow rhetorical puzzles as if they were profound
critiques." What are 2 of these puzzles?

Oh, any post of yours that starts with "What, if anything, is wrong
with the following statements?....."

What, if anything, is wrong with the following argument?:

And now, another example of a shallow rhetorical puzzle.
Actually, two of 'em.
David, do you *ever* get tired of making a fool of yourself
on Usenet?

If the Judeo-Christian God were to make a paw for a panda, then the
paw would be extremely well-constructed.
The panda's "thumb" (which is a key part of the panda's paw) is very
poorly constructed.
Therefore, the Judeo-Christian God didn't make the panda's "thumb."
Therefore, the Judeo-Christian God didn't make the panda.
Therefore, because of this and similar other examples, we can
reasonably conclude that biology is the product of totally-mindless
processes.

Dunno, David. Here you go from a series of
absurd logical leaps to an attack on a
straw man of your own making. Why don't
you tell *us* what's wrong with it?

What, if anything, is wrong with the following argument?:

In the creation (i.e. intelligent design) versus evolution (i.e.
totally-mindless processes) controversy as to which is responsible for
the enormous complexity present in biology, evolution is correct: man
and all other organisms are the product of totally-mindless processes.

Not "totally-mindless" (sic), David. *Probability-driven*.
And that's not the same thing as "random", either, just
so you know.

"Evolution" is simply defined as "a change in allele frequencies."
Evolution (i.e. change in allele frequencies) has been
well-demonstrated through observations to occur and is a _fact_.
In short, evolution is a fact, i.e., it is a _fact_ that
totally-mindless processes are responsible for the enormous complexity
present in biology.

Just can't get over the use of that grammatically unwieldy term,
can you? It's a step up from "mind-less", I suppose...
-Chris Krolczyk
.

User: "david ford"
Title: Re: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex	09 Apr 2004 11:57:27 PM

(Chris Krolczyk) wrote in message news:<c743abb.0404051720.345a8ba4@posting.google.com>...

dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0404042131.37d6585b@posting.google.com>...

Kizhé/ Lieutenant Kizhe Katson <lt_kizhe@yahoo.ca> on 31 Mar 2004:
david ford:

[K]"presents shallow rhetorical puzzles as if they were profound
critiques." What are 2 of these puzzles?

Oh, any post of yours that starts with "What, if anything, is wrong
with the following statements?....."

What, if anything, is wrong with the following argument?:

And now, another example of a shallow rhetorical puzzle.

Actually, two of 'em.

You should have expected nothing less.

David, do you *ever* get tired of making a fool of yourself
on Usenet?

Nope. And I've been posting for about 7 years.

Dunno, David. Here you go from a series of
absurd logical leaps to an attack on a
straw man of your own making. Why don't
you tell *us* what's wrong with it?

[CK]"Dunno.... Why don't you tell *us* what's wrong with it?" I
would prefer that you figure out what's wrong with it.
Are you saying that the argument contains [CK]"a series of absurd
logical leaps" in logic?
Are you saying that the proposition that [df]"biology is the product
of totally-mindless processes" is a straw-proposition of my own
making?
Are you saying that as far as you can tell, there's nothing wrong with
my rendition of a Gould argument?
Are you saying that I put forward an argument that only I and not
evolutionists have put forward?

Not "totally-mindless" (sic), David. *Probability-driven*.
And that's not the same thing as "random", either, just
so you know.

Just can't get over the use of that grammatically unwieldy term,
can you? It's a step up from "mind-less", I suppose...

Is the need for a substitution of "probability-driven" for
"totally-mindless" the only problem you see with the second argument?
The second argument defines "evolution" at several points. Suppose we
took out those definings. Would the resulting argument have any
problems, in your view, and if so, what problem(s)?
.

User: "Chris Krolczyk"
Title: Re: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex	05 Apr 2004 08:02:32 PM

(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0404042131.37d6585b@posting.google.com>...

(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0403251936.77caa903@posting.google.com>...

lt_kizhe@yahoo.ca (Lieutenant Kizhe Katson) wrote in message news:<47b867ea.0403251312.6fdb9449@posting.google.com>...

(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0403241803.65120a76@posting.google.com>...

steven_j@altavista.com (Steven J.) on 24 Mar 2004:
david ford:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<slrnc5up07.3fk.mightymartianca@alder.alberni.net>...

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 21:01:57 +0000 (UTC),
david ford <

> wrote:

quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<MPG.1ac8ab919196d28a989764@news.individual.de>...

[snip]

What is Dawkins's faith?

He doesn't have one. He's an atheist. And why is that important,
David?

I leave it to other creationists to develop a creationist theory and
evidence for the theory. For myself, I am presently having way too

Bad news, dude: the "other creationists" are falling down on the job.

Julie T. has done a marvelous start.

Julie Thomas on biological design
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.44L.01.0307231113280.765971-100000%40irix2.gl.umbc.edu

And (in the one thread I checked) Larry Moran sends her back to square
one to do her homework over.

What thread was that?

Who cares?

If you mentioned the thread you checked out,

That's a difficult phrase to parse, to say the least.

I'll locate and possibly
bring up for discussion here some material originally appearing within
it.

Which would be nice, since the link you provided in the above
exchange is nothing but a collection of URLS, how is anyone
supposed to sort through all of them in order to find out
which thread Kizhe "checked out"?

Larry has already weighted in with his assessment of the
debate. I note that you do not address his point, other than with
sarcasm and misdirection.

Larry is entitled his opinion. I personally prefer chocolate ice
cream.

I *also* note that you do not address points other than with
sarcasm and misdirection. And a fairly juvenile variety, at
that.
Care to take a shot at an adequate response, for once?
(Snip for brevity's sake. Sheeeeesh.)

I got the concept of popularity from the sentence preceding the
"cop-out" sentence. What is your answer to my question about
popularity?

No, of course popularity has nothing to do with the rightness of a
position. I never said or implied otherwise, and I don't know why
you're even asking (and I don't care either).

Your selectivity in wishing to know or reveal or speculate about my
motivations is noted.

Your inability to engage in a discussion with any degree of
seriousness after a while is also noted.
Care to take a shot at a more adequate response, again?

Is Yockey being lazy and/or hypocritical in critiquing existing origin
of life speculations, even as he has no theory to offer in place of
the theories he criticizes?

Wouldn't know, haven't read him, and I'm not playing your game of
"follow the links".

Fine. I'll bring the Yockey item in question directly to you.

How very nice of you.
You're learning.

Yockey, Hubert P. 1992. _Information Theory and
Molecular Biology_ (GB: Cambridge University Press), 385
or more pages. From the Epilogue on 336:
Furthermore, as I showed in Chapters 9 and 10, the
paradigm does not perform the task its advocates claim.
Although at the beginning the paradigm was worth
consideration, now the entire effort in the primeval soup
paradigm is self-deception based on the ideology of its
champions.

The history of the 'life on Mars' effort which played a
primary role in the Mariner and Viking space craft
missions shows an _intemperate wish to believe_ by
leading scientists who saw in their data what they
wished to see (Horowitz, 1986, 1990). The usual
creative skepticism of scientists did not play a role until
the enormous weight of evidence showed that belief that
there is or was life on Mars is based on faith ('Now faith
is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of
things unseen'; Hebrews 11:1). This has not yet
manifested itself with regard to the belief in chemical
evolution and the primeval soup paradigm.

The history of science shows that a paradigm, once it
has achieved the status of acceptance (and is
incorporated in textbooks) and regardless of its failures,
is declared invalid only when a new paradigm is
available to replace it. Nevertheless, in order to make
progress in science, it is necessary to clear the decks, so
to speak, of failed paradigms. This must be done even if
this leaves the decks entirely clear and no paradigms
survive. It is a characteristic of the true believer in
religion, philosophy and ideology that he must have a
set of beliefs, come what may (Hoffer, 1951). Belief in
a primeval soup on the grounds that no other paradigm
is available is an example of the logical _fallacy of the
false alternative_. In science it is a virtue to
acknowledge ignorance. This has been universally the
case in the history of science as Kuhn (1970) has
discussed in detail. There is no reason that this should
be different in the research on the origin of life. The

best advice that one could given to the alchemist would
have been to study nuclear physics and astrophysics,
although that would not have been helpful at the time.
We do not see the origin of life clearly, but through a
glass darkly. Perhaps the best advice to those who are
interested in the origin of life would be to study biology.
After dispensing with failed paradigms in Chapters 8, 9
and 10, I have shown that the problem to be solved in
the origin of life and in evolution is the means by which
complexity (as defined in this book) was generated.
Half the solution to the problem is to define the question
clearly.

Is Yockey being lazy and/or hypocritical in critiquing existing origin
of life speculations, even as he has no theory to offer in place of
the theories he criticizes?

So he's not happy with current theories concerning
abiogenesis. He still emphasizes that "perhaps the
best advice to those who are interested in the
origin of life would be *to study biology*" in the
above passage, qualms about abiogenesis or not.
This is less an issue of Yockey being "lazy"
than you trying to post a self-serving quote
that ultimately doesn't serve your position -
such as it is, which isn't much, IMHO - very well.
Satisfied?

For Further Reading

more Yockey:
1995 Yockey on the Grand Academy of Lagado
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0402032212.46bef779%40posting.google.com

Gould, Davies, Yockey, Thaxton (a creationist)
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990510174524.238430A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu

Yockey on complexity vs. order
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970925150735.4738C-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu

Does Yockey have a [K]"'hidden agenda'"?

Nope. Just the chap quote-mining him, if you ask me.
I'm waiting for your dazzling response - based, no
doubt, on your ice cream flavor preference for *next*
week.
-Chris Krolczyk
.

User: "david ford"
Title: Re: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex	10 Apr 2004 12:49:07 PM

(Chris Krolczyk) wrote in message news:<c743abb.0404051702.771e3442@posting.google.com>...

dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0404042131.37d6585b@posting.google.com>...

dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0403251936.77caa903@posting.google.com>...

lt_kizhe@yahoo.ca (Lieutenant Kizhe Katson) wrote in message news:<47b867ea.0403251312.6fdb9449@posting.google.com>...

dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0403241803.65120a76@posting.google.com>...

steven_j@altavista.com (Steven J.) on 24 Mar 2004:
david ford:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<slrnc5up07.3fk.mightymartianca@alder.alberni.net>...

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 21:01:57 +0000 (UTC),
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:

quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<MPG.1ac8ab919196d28a989764@news.individual.de>...

[snip]

What is Dawkins's faith?

He doesn't have one. He's an atheist. And why is that important,
David?

I leave it to other creationists to develop a creationist theory and
evidence for the theory. For myself, I am presently having way too

Bad news, dude: the "other creationists" are falling down on the job.

Julie T. has done a marvelous start.

Julie Thomas on biological design
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.44L.01.0307231113280.765971-100000%40irix2.gl.umbc.edu

And (in the one thread I checked) Larry Moran sends her back to square
one to do her homework over.

What thread was that?

Who cares?

If you mentioned the thread you checked out,

That's a difficult phrase to parse, to say the least.

I'll locate and possibly
bring up for discussion here some material originally appearing within
it.

Kizhé can choose to reveal what he looked at, if he recalls.

Larry has already weighted in with his assessment of the
debate. I note that you do not address his point, other than with
sarcasm and misdirection.

Larry is entitled his opinion. I personally prefer chocolate ice
cream.

I *also* note that you do not address points other than with
sarcasm and misdirection. And a fairly juvenile variety, at
that.

I disagree. Yes, the misdirection is fairly juvenile, however the
sarcasm is _extremely_ juvenile.
I'll also take this opportunity to mention that I have not seen a
response from Larry to the 2nd of these posts:
1992 1997 Richard Milton
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0311082031310.9519-100000%40linux1.gl.umbc.edu
followup questions for a talk.origins heavy hitter
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0311160022220.23666-100000%40linux1.gl.umbc.edu

Care to take a shot at an adequate response, for once?

I might, if I saw anything worth responding to.

(Snip for brevity's sake. Sheeeeesh.)

I'm sorry. Attention spans are not as long these days as they used to
be.

I got the concept of popularity from the sentence preceding the
"cop-out" sentence. What is your answer to my question about
popularity?

No, of course popularity has nothing to do with the rightness of a
position. I never said or implied otherwise, and I don't know why
you're even asking (and I don't care either).

Your selectivity in wishing to know or reveal or speculate about my
motivations is noted.

Your inability to engage in a discussion with any degree of
seriousness after a while is also noted.

Your ability to note a notation is noted.

Care to take a shot at a more adequate response, again?

Is Yockey being lazy and/or hypocritical in critiquing existing origin
of life speculations, even as he has no theory to offer in place of
the theories he criticizes?

Wouldn't know, haven't read him, and I'm not playing your game of
"follow the links".

Fine. I'll bring the Yockey item in question directly to you.

How very nice of you.

You're learning.

How very nice of you. If I might offer a slight amendment, I have
learned that I am learning.

Yockey, Hubert P. 1992. _Information Theory and
Molecular Biology_ (GB: Cambridge University Press), 385
or more pages. From the Epilogue on 336:

[snip Yockey]

Is Yockey being lazy and/or hypocritical in critiquing existing origin
of life speculations, even as he has no theory to offer in place of
the theories he criticizes?

So he's not happy with current theories concerning
abiogenesis. He still emphasizes that "perhaps the
best advice to those who are interested in the
origin of life would be *to study biology*" in the
above passage, qualms about abiogenesis or not.

This is less an issue of Yockey being "lazy"
than you trying to post a self-serving quote
that ultimately doesn't serve your position -
such as it is, which isn't much, IMHO - very well.

Satisfied?

What's your favorite theory about how life could have come from
non-life in the distant past?

Does Yockey have a [K]"'hidden agenda'"?

Nope. Just the chap quote-mining him, if you ask me.

I'm waiting for your dazzling response - based, no
doubt, on your ice cream flavor preference for *next*
week.

Next week is already here.
What, in your view, is Yockey's not-hidden agenda?
.

User: "david ford"
Title: Re: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex	10 Apr 2004 08:00:42 PM

(Larry Moran) wrote in message news:<slrnc7gev1.qpj.

>...

On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 17:49:07 +0000 (UTC),
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:

[snip]

100000%40linux1.gl.umbc.edu

followup questions for a talk.origins heavy hitter
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0311160022220.23666-100000%40linux1.gl.umbc.edu

You're not ever going to see a response from me.

How unfortunate. For me, and everyone else reading this thread. You
have a lot to offer, Larry, to the discussion.

Your misunderstanding of
evolution is so confusing that intelligent discussion on the topic is
precluded. It would take forever to eductate you to the point where you
even understood what the issue really is.

Yes, it's a very sad situation.

Maybe someday you'll get up the courage to state openly what you actually
believe about evolution. When that day comes we might be able to talk
about it.

What is meant by [LM]"evolution"?
.

User: "Tracy Hamilton"
Title: Re: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex	12 Apr 2004 01:29:00 PM

"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.0404101701.55803164@posting.google.com...

lamoran@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Larry Moran) wrote in message

news:<slrnc7gev1.qpj.lamoran@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca>...

On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 17:49:07 +0000 (UTC),
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:

[snip]

I'll also take this opportunity to mention that I have not seen a
response from Larry to the 2nd of these posts:
1992 1997 Richard Milton

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0311082031310.9519-

100000%40linux1.gl.umbc.edu

followup questions for a talk.origins heavy hitter

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0311160022220.23666-100000%40linux1.gl.umbc.edu

You're not ever going to see a response from me.

How unfortunate. For me, and everyone else reading this thread. You
have a lot to offer, Larry, to the discussion.

You could start with
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html
written by Larry and go from there.
Maybe we could make a test just for you to see if you
understood it.
I sent your essay in your own words IN THAT VERY
SAME THREAD back for rewriting but you failed - to write it.
Does that mean you have nothing to offer to the discussion?
[snip]
Tracy P. Hamilton
.

User: "david ford"
Title: Re: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex	12 Apr 2004 10:25:46 PM

Tracy Hamilton <DontSpamhamilton@uab.edu> wrote in message news:<c5en4d$vbl$1@SonOfMaze.dpo.uab.edu>...
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.0404101701.55803164@posting.google.com...
Larry Moran <lamoran@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca> wrote in message
news:<slrnc7gev1.qpj.lamoran@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca>...
david ford:

I'll also take this opportunity to mention that I have not seen a
response from Larry to the 2nd of these posts:
1992 1997 Richard Milton
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0311082031310.9519-100000%40linux1.gl.umbc.edu
followup questions for a talk.origins heavy hitter
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0311160022220.23666-100000%40linux1.gl.umbc.edu

You're not ever going to see a response from me.

How unfortunate. For me, and everyone else reading this thread. You
have a lot to offer, Larry, to the discussion.

You could start with
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html
written by Larry and go from there.

Thank you for bringing this FAQ to my attention.

Maybe we could make a test just for you to see if you
understood it.

This won't come as any surprise to you or Larry, but I couldn't
understand any of it.
Upon reading it, I hastily cobbled together a few stupid,
simpleminded/naive questions.

I sent your essay in your own words IN THAT VERY
SAME THREAD back for rewriting but you failed - to write it.

Does that mean you have nothing to offer to the discussion?

Sadly, it does.
It will be interesting to see if Larry answers my naive questions
about his FAQ-- see below. Perhaps he'll say once again, [LM]"You're
not ever going to see a response from me."
Perhaps Larry will answer the questions, not for my sake-- I'm a lost
cause-- but rather for the sake of inquisitive lurkers.
LM http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html
LM
LM The Modern Synthesis of Genetics and Evolution
LM Copyright © 1993-1997 by Laurence Moran
LM [Last Update: January 22, 1993]
LM
LM Many people do not understand current ideas about
LM evolution. The following is a brief summary of the modern
LM consensus among evolutionary biologists.
LM
LM The idea that life on Earth has evolved was widely discussed
LM in Europe in the late 1700's and the early part of the last
LM century. In 1859 Charles Darwin supplied a mechanism,
LM namely natural selection, that could explain how evolution
LM occurs. Darwin's theory of natural selection helped to
LM convince most people that life has evolved and this point has
LM not been seriously challenged in the past one hundred and
LM thirty years.
[LM]"Darwin's theory of natural selection helped to convince most
people that life has evolved" Used-car salesmen employ a trick known
as the low-ball technique. In the low-ball technique, reasons are
offered for purchasing a car (perhaps an extraordinarily low price).
Once a customer has decided to purchase a car, then the reason that
led to that decision to buy is taken away (the extraordinarily low
price turns out to have been a mistake-- the salesman realizes he
"mistakenly" offered the low price, and pretends to be extremely sorry
about the mistake). In other words, a low ball is rolled, knocking
out an original support of the decision to buy. The decision to buy
does not collapse, however, because in the interim, the buyer has
grown additional legs of support for his/her decision to buy (he/she
has already spent enough time searching for a car, friends would
approve of the selection, etc.)
Are there any parallels between
1) Darwin's theory of NS being used to obtain widespread acceptance of
the theory of evolution, and then later that theory of NS being
knocked out, with the theory of evolution remaining standing on other
legs that grew out of that initial acceptance, and
2) the low-ball technique employed by used-car salesmen?
For more on the low-ball technique, see Robert Cialdini's superb
_Influence: Science and Practice_ (2001), 4th edition, 262pp. The
"weapons of influence" discussed can be used for good or ill. Reading
the book could easily give one a large and healthy dose of cynicism
and skepticism.
LM It is important to note that Darwin's book "The Origin of
LM Species by Means of Natural Selection" did two things. It
LM summarized all of the evidence in favor of the idea that all
LM organisms have descended with modification from a common
LM ancestor, and thus built a strong case for evolution. In
LM addition Darwin advocated natural selection as a mechanism
LM of evolution. Biologists no longer question whether evolution
LM has occurred or is occurring. That part of Darwin's book is
LM now considered to be so overwhelmingly demonstrated that
LM is is often referred to as the FACT of evolution. However,
LM the MECHANISM of evolution is still debated.
In your paragraphs above, what is the definition of "evolution"?:
A shift in allele frequencies?
Common descent, whether as a consequence of intelligent design or as a
consequence of totally mindless processes?
Solely totally-mindless processes that were responsible for biological
complexity?
Different sets of organisms appearing at different times in the fossil
record, whether as a consequence of intelligent design or
totally-mindless processes?
Different sets of organisms appearing at different times in the fossil
record as a consequence of totally-mindless processes?
What?
LM We have learned much since Darwin's time and it is no
LM longer appropriate to claim that evolutionary biologists
LM believe that Darwin's theory of Natural Selection is the best
LM theory of the mechanism of evolution. I can understand why
LM this point may not be appreciated by the average
LM non-scientist because natural selection is easy to understand
LM at a superficial level. It has been widely promoted in the
LM popular press and the image of "survival of the fittest" is too
LM powerful and too convenient.
[LM]"it is no longer appropriate to claim that evolutionary biologists
believe that Darwin's theory of Natural Selection is the best theory
of the mechanism of evolution."
What do a majority of paleontologists currently believe _is_ [LM]"the
best theory of the mechanism of evolution"?
What do a majority of geneticists currently believe _is_ [LM]"the best
theory of the mechanism of evolution"?
[LM]"natural selection.... has been widely promoted in the popular
press" Is Dawkins's _The Blind Watchmaker_ (1987) an illustration of
this? What are 3 adjectives that come to your mind when you think of
this book by Dawkins?
LM During the first part of this century the incorporation of
LM genetics and population biology into studies of evolution led
LM to a Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution that recognized the
LM importance of mutation and variation within a population.
LM Natural selection then became a process that altered the
LM frequency of genes in a population and this defined
LM evolution.
Is it correct that in 1937, Dobzhansky redefined the word "evolution"
as [LM elsewhere]"change in the frequency of alleles in a population"?
Do you consider it far, far easier to prove the reality/existence of
Dobzhansky's 1937 meaning than a pre-1937 meaning of "evolution"?
Dobzhansky's 1937 redefinition of "evolution"; Radl in English in 1930
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.981011235608.19729A-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
Do you recall any evolutionary biologists "proving" the "fact" of
evolution through equivocation on the word "evolution," an
illustration of which is as follows?:
Evolution (changing of allele frequencies in a population) observed!
Case closed. Creationists can't argue against "evolution,"
so-defined. Down with the creation/ intelligent-design hypothesis!
Long live the *fact* of evolution (totally mindless processes
accounting for biological complexity)!
(If so, what are the names of those individuals?)
LM This point of view held sway for many decades
LM but more recently the classic Neo-Darwinian view has been
LM replaced by a new concept which includes several other
LM mechanisms in addition to natural selection.
[LM]"This point of view held sway for many decades" In what year did
this point of view cease to hold sway? 1980? As a consequence of the
discussions between paleontologists and geneticists at the 1980
University of Chicago conference?
LM Current ideas on
LM evolution are usually referred to as the Modern Synthesis
LM which is described by Futuyma;
LM
LM "The major tenets of the evolutionary synthesis, then, were
LM that populations contain genetic variation that arises by
LM random (ie. not adaptively directed) mutation and
LM recombination; that populations evolve by changes in gene
LM frequency brought about by random genetic drift, gene flow,
LM and especially natural selection; that most adaptive genetic
LM variants have individually slight phenotypic effects so that
LM phenotypic changes are gradual (although some alleles with
LM discrete effects may be advantageous, as in certain color
LM polymorphisms); that diversification comes about by
LM speciation, which normally entails the gradual evolution of
LM reproductive isolation among populations; and that these
LM processes, continued for sufficiently long, give rise to
LM changes of such great magnitude as to warrant the
LM designation of higher taxonomic levels (genera, families, and
LM so forth)."
LM - Futuyma, D.J. in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates,
LM 1986; p.12
Do you presently think that an [Futuyma in 1979]"ultra-modern
synthesis" is needed?
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990307202439.1296706B-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
Is it still the case that [Ehrlich & Holm in 1963]"it is conceivable,
even likely, that what one might facetiously call a non-Euclidean
theory of evolution lies over the horizon"?
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980608234330.51A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
[Futuyma in 1986]"phenotypic changes are gradual... gradual evolution
of reproductive isolation among populations; and... these processes,
continued for sufficiently long, give rise to changes of... great
magnitude" Can "gradual" be rephrased as "step-by-tiny-step"? Can
"gradual" be rephrased as "slow, step-by-tiny-step"?
LM This description would be incomprehensible to Darwin since
LM he was unaware of genes and genetic drift. The modern
LM theory of the mechanism of evolution differs from
LM Darwinism in three important respects:
LM
LM 1. It recognizes several mechanisms of evolution in
LM addition to natural selection. One of these, random genetic
LM drift, may be as important as natural selection.
[LM]"several mechanisms of evolution in addition to natural
selection." What are the names of all of those mechanisms?
Starting from a fruit fly eye in a fruit fly population, about how
many years would it take for [LM]"random genetic drift" to produce a
dog's eye in a dog population?
LM 2. It recognizes that characteristics are inherited as discrete
LM entities called genes. Variation within a population is due to
LM the presence of multiple alleles of a gene.
What is the source of new variation? Mutation?
In his _Shattering the Myths of Darwinism_ (1992, 1997), Richard
Milton speaks of a [Milton on 272]"myth of beneficial mutations": "Of
all the difficulties facing neo-Darwinism, the improbability of
spontaneous genetic mutation leading to beneficial novelties in form
ought to be the major source of concern."[164]
What are all the beneficial mutations leading to beneficial novelties
in form of which you are aware?
LM 3. It postulates that speciation is (usually) due to the
LM gradual accumulation of small genetic changes. This is
LM equivalent to saying that macroevolution is simply a lot of
LM microevolution.
Do you think that [LM]"macroevolution is simply a lot of
microevolution"?
1988 Mayr, 1972 Vanderkooi, 1973 Allbrook (latter 2 are creationists)
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0402110525.e820a9d%40posting.google.com
Goldschmidt and macro- vs. microevolution
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401311639.3dc8e050%40posting.google.com
LM In other words, the Modern Synthesis is a theory about how
LM evolution works at the level of genes, phenotypes, and
LM populations whereas Darwinism was concerned mainly with
LM organisms, speciation and individuals. This is a major
LM paradigm shift and those who fail to appreciate it find
LM themselves out of step with the thinking of evolutionary
LM biologists. Many instances of such confusion can be seen
LM here in the newsgroups, in the popular press, and in the
LM writings of anti-evolutionists.
LM
LM The major controversy among evolutionists today concerns
LM the validity of point #3 (above). The are many who believe
LM that the fossil record at any one site does not show gradual
LM change but instead long periods of stasis followed by rapid
LM speciation.
[LM]"many ["evolutionists today"]... believe that the fossil record at
any one site does not show gradual change but instead long periods of
stasis followed by rapid speciation."
Which if any of the following individuals believed this?:
Gould, Eldredge, Raup, Stanley, Ager, Goldschmidt, Schindewolf,
Lovtrup, Grasse, Errol White, Christopher Wills.
Chris N. discusses my theory of NS essay; gradualism and
J. Huxley, Dawkins, Schindewolf, Mayr, Lovtrup, 1913 Bateson
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.10A.B3.10004021232370.15068389-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
Gould's 1980 rejection of the extrapolationist model; 1981 Lovtrup;
a fossil record request for Andrew M.
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990222232808.1486760C-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
Schindewolf; Simpson on bats
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10001222211190.17988-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
Grene on Schindewolf; Margulis; Calder; Gould on hogwash in
evolutionary theory
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970721233453.16211D-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
Essay on Problems with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005310900310.17702-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
1989 Christopher Wills on insignificance of known cases of gradual
'evolution'
in fossil record
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=8bhf4m%24eta%241%40nnrp1.deja.com
gradualism and: 1980 Eldredge, 1980 Gould, 1995 Gould
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.980923234116.21653A-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
Simpson, Eldredge in _Synthese_, Ager, Corner, Rosen, Grasse,
Patterson, Raup, Stanley
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.981222231509.19980I-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
Gould's "conflated with natural selection" remark
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.981018235616.9626A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
Ager, Eldredge & Tattersall
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990509232910.38199A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
1966 White
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990214111525.14909A-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
1982 Saunders & Ho and Gould on neo-Darwinian vagueness; 1925 Osborn;
1940 Haldane on materialism; 1996 and 1995 Dawkins and 1960 J. Huxley
on slow rate and gradual nature of Darwinian NS; abstract of and
extracts from 1977 G&E _Paleobiology_ paper
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0312182040.1e80e3b8%40posting.google.com
LM This model is referred to as Punctuated
LM Equilibrium and it is widely accepted as true, at least in some
LM cases. The debate is over the relative contributions of gradual
LM versus punctuated change, the average size of the
LM punctuations, and the mechanism.
What mechanism(s) is/are responsible for the punctuations?
Do you agree that [Dobzhansky]"Without a plausible explanation of how
evolution might happen it would be hard to accept the idea that it did
happen."?
Simpson and Dobzhansky on the need for a mechanism,
Dawkins on mutation, Gordon Rattray Taylor and David Raup on
explosive radiations, Arthur Koestler on testing Darwinian and
Lamarckian theory by experiment
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=8beptq%24hgk%241%40nnrp1.deja.com
LM To a large extent the
LM debate is over the use of terms and definitions, not over
LM fundamentals. No new mechanisms of evolution are needed
LM to explain the model.
LM
LM Some scientists continue to refer to modern thought in
LM evolution as Neo-Darwinian. In some cases these scientists
LM do not understand that the field has changed but in other
LM cases they are referring to what I have called the Modern
LM Synthesis, only they have retained the old name.
.

User: "Tracy Hamilton"
Title: Re: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex	13 Apr 2004 01:08:45 PM

"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.0404121927.4b34084b@posting.google.com...

Tracy Hamilton <DontSpamhamilton@uab.edu> wrote in message

news:<c5en4d$vbl$1@SonOfMaze.dpo.uab.edu>...

david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.0404101701.55803164@posting.google.com...
Larry Moran <lamoran@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca> wrote in message
news:<slrnc7gev1.qpj.lamoran@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca>...
david ford:

I'll also take this opportunity to mention that I have not seen a
response from Larry to the 2nd of these posts:
1992 1997 Richard Milton

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0311082031310.9519-100000%40linux1.gl.umbc.edu

followup questions for a talk.origins heavy hitter

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0311160022220.23666-100000%40linux1.gl.umbc.edu

You're not ever going to see a response from me.

How unfortunate. For me, and everyone else reading this thread. You
have a lot to offer, Larry, to the discussion.

You could start with
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html
written by Larry and go from there.

Thank you for bringing this FAQ to my attention.

Maybe we could make a test just for you to see if you
understood it.

This won't come as any surprise to you or Larry, but I couldn't
understand any of it.
Upon reading it, I hastily cobbled together a few stupid,
simpleminded/naive questions.

I sent your essay in your own words IN THAT VERY
SAME THREAD back for rewriting but you failed - to write it.

Does that mean you have nothing to offer to the discussion?

No, Darwin was selling *both* the mechanism, and various ideas
about who evolved from who. Darwin's proper making of a case
for just which cases natural selection applies was hindered by an
ignorance of genetics, and lack of an alternative mechanism.
With our current knowledge, we know
that natrual selection still is a force in fixation of alleles, but there
are other mechanisms at work.
Time for a little test question: How could you tell the difference
between natural selection and neutral drift fixing an allele in a
population?
Sadly for you, the analogy would be the car salesman who had only
one car to sell, no alternatives, described the car beuatifully
in many ways, but was wrong on some points he could
not have known about. If only that was the majority of used
car salesmen!

For more on the low-ball technique, see Robert Cialdini's superb
_Influence: Science and Practice_ (2001), 4th edition, 262pp. The
"weapons of influence" discussed can be used for good or ill. Reading
the book could easily give one a large and healthy dose of cynicism
and skepticism.

Scientists are quite able to sort out which parts of Darwin's arguments are
still valid,
and which are not. It is not us who needs to learn what critical
thinking really is.

LM It is important to note that Darwin's book "The Origin of
LM Species by Means of Natural Selection" did two things. It
LM summarized all of the evidence in favor of the idea that all
LM organisms have descended with modification from a common
LM ancestor, and thus built a strong case for evolution. In
LM addition Darwin advocated natural selection as a mechanism
LM of evolution. Biologists no longer question whether evolution
LM has occurred or is occurring. That part of Darwin's book is
LM now considered to be so overwhelmingly demonstrated that
LM is is often referred to as the FACT of evolution. However,
LM the MECHANISM of evolution is still debated.

In your paragraphs above, what is the definition of "evolution"?:
A shift in allele frequencies?
Common descent, whether as a consequence of intelligent design or as a
consequence of totally mindless processes?
Solely totally-mindless processes that were responsible for biological
complexity?
Different sets of organisms appearing at different times in the fossil
record, whether as a consequence of intelligent design or
totally-mindless processes?
Different sets of organisms appearing at different times in the fossil
record as a consequence of totally-mindless processes?
What?

How about "all organisms have descended with modification from a common
ancestor" ? I mean, really - it's right there!
Science describes how things behave according to PROPERTIES
they have as their nature. Nothing more, nothing less.
If you wish to add on something else, go ahead. But it isn't science,
and it seems to be your problem. That does not make what Larry wrote
anything BUT perfectly clear - it is the beam in your eye.

LM We have learned much since Darwin's time and it is no
LM longer appropriate to claim that evolutionary biologists
LM believe that Darwin's theory of Natural Selection is the best
LM theory of the mechanism of evolution. I can understand why
LM this point may not be appreciated by the average
LM non-scientist because natural selection is easy to understand
LM at a superficial level. It has been widely promoted in the
LM popular press and the image of "survival of the fittest" is too
LM powerful and too convenient.

[LM]"it is no longer appropriate to claim that evolutionary biologists
believe that Darwin's theory of Natural Selection is the best theory
of the mechanism of evolution."
What do a majority of paleontologists currently believe _is_ [LM]"the
best theory of the mechanism of evolution"?
What do a majority of geneticists currently believe _is_ [LM]"the best
theory of the mechanism of evolution"?

That would be in some other FAQS. Generally, a combination
of mechanisms.

[LM]"natural selection.... has been widely promoted in the popular
press" Is Dawkins's _The Blind Watchmaker_ (1987) an illustration of
this? What are 3 adjectives that come to your mind when you think of
this book by Dawkins?

They would not be "good" adjectives. I think that Larry had more
in mind what the general public's (and nontechnical reporters)
understanding and explanation would be if asked.

LM During the first part of this century the incorporation of
LM genetics and population biology into studies of evolution led
LM to a Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution that recognized the
LM importance of mutation and variation within a population.
LM Natural selection then became a process that altered the
LM frequency of genes in a population and this defined
LM evolution.

Is it correct that in 1937, Dobzhansky redefined the word "evolution"
as [LM elsewhere]"change in the frequency of alleles in a population"?
Do you consider it far, far easier to prove the reality/existence of
Dobzhansky's 1937 meaning than a pre-1937 meaning of "evolution"?

It is merely a different way of thinking about the same thing that shows
a deeper understanding of what is going on. Is that "redefining" something
nefarious?
Chemists redefined atomic theory in terms of electrons protons and neutrons.
That is equivocation on the meaning of atom (previously indivisible!).
Atomism is dead!
[big snip - more stupidity eliminated]
Tracy P. Hamilton
.

User: "Fred Stone"
Title: Re: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex	13 Apr 2004 06:40:30 AM

(david ford) wrote in
news:b1c67abe.0404121927.4b34084b@posting.google.com:

Tracy Hamilton <DontSpamhamilton@uab.edu> wrote in message
news:<c5en4d$vbl$1@SonOfMaze.dpo.uab.edu>... david ford
<

> wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.0404101701.55803164@posting.google.com... Larry Moran
<lamoran@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca> wrote in message
news:<slrnc7gev1.qpj.lamoran@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca>... david ford:

I'll also take this opportunity to mention that I have not seen
a response from Larry to the 2nd of these posts:
1992 1997 Richard Milton
http://www.google.com/groups?

selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.031108203131

0.9519-100000%40linux1.gl.umbc.edu followup questions for a
talk.origins heavy hitter
http://www.google.com/groups?

selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.031116002222

0.23666-100000%40linux1.gl.umbc.edu

You're not ever going to see a response from me.

How unfortunate. For me, and everyone else reading this thread.
You have a lot to offer, Larry, to the discussion.

You could start with
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html
written by Larry and go from there.

Thank you for bringing this FAQ to my attention.

Maybe we could make a test just for you to see if you
understood it.

This won't come as any surprise to you or Larry, but I couldn't
understand any of it.
Upon reading it, I hastily cobbled together a few stupid,
simpleminded/naive questions.

I sent your essay in your own words IN THAT VERY
SAME THREAD back for rewriting but you failed - to write it.

Does that mean you have nothing to offer to the discussion?

No.
On the other hand, there is quite a bit of parallel between your 1) and
what we call "learning". It's something that is highly prized by
science, you might try it some time.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.

User: "david ford"
Title: Re: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex	05 May 2004 12:17:18 PM

Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message news:<Xns94CA4E489A20Afstone69@207.69.154.204>...

dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in
news:b1c67abe.0404121927.4b34084b@posting.google.com:

Tracy Hamilton <DontSpamhamilton@uab.edu> wrote in message
news:<c5en4d$vbl$1@SonOfMaze.dpo.uab.edu>... david ford
<dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.0404101701.55803164@posting.google.com... Larry Moran
<lamoran@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca> wrote in message
news:<slrnc7gev1.qpj.lamoran@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca>... david ford:

I'll also take this opportunity to mention that I have not seen
a response from Larry to the 2nd of these posts:
1992 1997 Richard Milton
http://www.google.com/groups?

selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.031108203131

0.9519-100000%40linux1.gl.umbc.edu followup questions for a
talk.origins heavy hitter
http://www.google.com/groups?

selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.031116002222

0.23666-100000%40linux1.gl.umbc.edu

You're not ever going to see a response from me.

How unfortunate. For me, and everyone else reading this thread.
You have a lot to offer, Larry, to the discussion.

You could start with
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html
written by Larry and go from there.

Thank you for bringing this FAQ to my attention.

Maybe we could make a test just for you to see if you
understood it.

This won't come as any surprise to you or Larry, but I couldn't
understand any of it.
Upon reading it, I hastily cobbled together a few stupid,
simpleminded/naive questions.

I sent your essay in your own words IN THAT VERY
SAME THREAD back for rewriting but you failed - to write it.

Does that mean you have nothing to offer to the discussion?

No.

On the other hand, there is quite a bit of parallel between your 1) and
what we call "learning". It's something that is highly prized by
science, you might try it some time.

What are 2 ways I could go about trying this thing called "learning"?
.

User: "Fred Stone"
Title: Re: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex	05 May 2004 01:34:11 PM

(david ford) wrote in
news:b1c67abe.0405050922.683f7664@posting.google.com:

Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns94CA4E489A20Afstone69@207.69.154.204>...

On the other hand, there is quite a bit of parallel between your 1)
and what we call "learning". It's something that is highly prized by
science, you might try it some time.

What are 2 ways I could go about trying this thing called "learning"?

Take a science course from the Arts and Sciences department at your local
accredited non-Creationist university.
Take another one.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.

User: "AC"
Title: Re: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex	05 May 2004 12:21:37 PM

On Wed, 5 May 2004 17:17:18 +0000 (UTC),
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:

Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message news:<Xns94CA4E489A20Afstone69@207.69.154.204>...

dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in
news:b1c67abe.0404121927.4b34084b@posting.google.com:

Tracy Hamilton <DontSpamhamilton@uab.edu> wrote in message
news:<c5en4d$vbl$1@SonOfMaze.dpo.uab.edu>... david ford
<dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.0404101701.55803164@posting.google.com... Larry Moran
<lamoran@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca> wrote in message
news:<slrnc7gev1.qpj.lamoran@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca>... david ford:

I'll also take this opportunity to mention that I have not seen
a response from Larry to the 2nd of these posts:
1992 1997 Richard Milton
http://www.google.com/groups?

selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.031108203131

0.9519-100000%40linux1.gl.umbc.edu followup questions for a
talk.origins heavy hitter
http://www.google.com/groups?

selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.031116002222

0.23666-100000%40linux1.gl.umbc.edu

You're not ever going to see a response from me.

How unfortunate. For me, and everyone else reading this thread.
You have a lot to offer, Larry, to the discussion.

You could start with
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html
written by Larry and go from there.

Thank you for bringing this FAQ to my attention.

Maybe we could make a test just for you to see if you
understood it.

This won't come as any surprise to you or Larry, but I couldn't
understand any of it.
Upon reading it, I hastily cobbled together a few stupid,
simpleminded/naive questions.

I sent your essay in your own words IN THAT VERY
SAME THREAD back for rewriting but you failed - to write it.

Does that mean you have nothing to offer to the discussion?

No.

On the other hand, there is quite a bit of parallel between your 1) and
what we call "learning". It's something that is highly prized by
science, you might try it some time.

What are 2 ways I could go about trying this thing called "learning"?

Try reading a book for the intent of learning from it, rather than just
mining it for quotes to post in your "essays".
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.

User: "Lieutenant Kizhe Katson"
Title: Re: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex	05 Apr 2004 10:16:49 AM

(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0404042131.37d6585b@posting.google.com>...

(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0403251936.77caa903@posting.google.com>...

lt_kizhe@yahoo.ca (Lieutenant Kizhe Katson) wrote in message news:<47b867ea.0403251312.6fdb9449@posting.google.com>...

(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0403241803.65120a76@posting.google.com>...

steven_j@altavista.com (Steven J.) on 24 Mar 2004:
david ford:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<slrnc5up07.3fk.mightymartianca@alder.alberni.net>...

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 21:01:57 +0000 (UTC),
david ford <

> wrote:

quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<MPG.1ac8ab919196d28a989764@news.individual.de>...

[snip]

What is Dawkins's faith?

He doesn't have one. He's an atheist. And why is that important,
David?

I leave it to other creationists to develop a creationist theory and
evidence for the theory. For myself, I am presently having way too

Bad news, dude: the "other creationists" are falling down on the job.

Julie T. has done a marvelous start.

Julie Thomas on biological design
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.44L.01.0307231113280.765971-100000%40irix2.gl.umbc.edu

And (in the one thread I checked) Larry Moran sends her back to square
one to do her homework over.

What thread was that?

Who cares?

If you mentioned the thread you checked out, I'll locate and possibly
bring up for discussion here some material originally appearing within
it.

Larry has already weighted in with his assessment of the
debate. I note that you do not address his point, other than with
sarcasm and misdirection.

Larry is entitled his opinion. I personally prefer chocolate ice
cream.

much fun critiquing the theory of natural selection to participate in
that development and assembling of evidence.

Great, have yourself a ball.

Glad you approve.

We're having lots of fun ourselves --
laughing at you.

Nice cop-out, david. Typical.

Does popularity or unpopularity of a position or idea have anything to
do with the truth or falsity or reasonableness or unreasonableness of
that position or idea?

I got the concept of popularity from the sentence preceding the
"cop-out" sentence. What is your answer to my question about
popularity?

No, of course popularity has nothing to do with the rightness of a
position. I never said or implied otherwise, and I don't know why
you're even asking (and I don't care either).

Your selectivity in wishing to know or reveal or speculate about my
motivations is noted.

Whatever.

Is Yockey being lazy and/or hypocritical in critiquing existing origin
of life speculations, even as he has no theory to offer in place of
the theories he criticizes?

Wouldn't know, haven't read him, and I'm not playing your game of
"follow the links".