| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"david ford" |
| Date: |
23 Nov 2004 09:06:13 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Mivart's On The Genesis of Species |
catshark <catshark@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<scj5q05ptejtcn5v3hm772sagss7obbvdn@4ax.com>...
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 (david ford) wrote:
[...]
"2. The saltational initiation of major transitions: The absence
of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major
transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our
imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many
cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for
gradualistic accounts of evolution. In 1871 St. George
Mivart^34, Darwin's most cogent critic, referred to it as the
dilemma of 'the incipient stages of useful structures'-- of what
possible benefit to a reptile is two percent of a wing? The
dilemma has two potential solutions. The first, preferred by
Darwinians because it preserves both gradualism and
adaptation, is the principle of preadaptation: the intermediary
stages functioned in another way but were, by good fortune in
retrospect, pre-adapted to a new role they could play only after
greater elaboration. Thus, if feathers first functioned 'for'
insulation and later 'for' the trapping of insect prey^35, a
proto-wing might be built without any reference to flight.
I do not doubt the supreme importance of preadaptation, but the
other alternative, treated with caution, reluctance, disdain or
even fear by the modern synthesis, now deserves a rehearing in
the light of renewed interest in development: perhaps, in many
cases, the intermediates never existed."
From
Gould's 1980 "Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?"
[snip mastabatory link]
Link added back:
[not for long]
Quote #50
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-3.html#quote50>
Does this URL of yours qualify as a [JP]"mastabatory link"?
Nope. *Other* people use and enjoy our site.
[snip more lonely lubrication]
"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."[Gould, _The Panda's Thumb_ (1980), 181.]
"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious
little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major
groups are characteristically abrupt."[Gould, _The Panda's Thumb_
(1980), 189.]
"Klapper and Johnson epitomize their conclusions in an evolutionary
tree, unambiguously presented (Fig.2). These are diagrams that work
their way into textbooks, there to convince the uninitiated that
paleontologists can specify with assurance the (gradualistic) history
of life."[G&E, _Paleobiology_ 3:124 (1977).]
.
|
|
| User: "Wakboth" |
|
| Title: Re: Mivart's On The Genesis of Species |
24 Nov 2004 02:23:05 AM |
|
|
(david ford) wrote in message news:<dford3-b1c67abe.0411231918.91dfbf4@posting.google.com>...
"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."[Gould, _The Panda's Thumb_ (1980), 181.]
Quote mine; see here for context:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part3.html#quote3.2
"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious
little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major
groups are characteristically abrupt."[Gould, _The Panda's Thumb_
(1980), 189.]
Quote mine; see here for context:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-3.html#quote41
"Klapper and Johnson epitomize their conclusions in an evolutionary
tree, unambiguously presented (Fig.2). These are diagrams that work
their way into textbooks, there to convince the uninitiated that
paleontologists can specify with assurance the (gradualistic) history
of life."[G&E, _Paleobiology_ 3:124 (1977).]
This one I can't find in the quote mine project so far; however, given
your posting history and the well-known opinions of Gould & Eldredge,
I have no doubt that it is a quote mine as well.
-- Wakboth
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Mivart's On The Genesis of Species |
25 Nov 2004 05:56:18 AM |
|
|
(Wakboth) wrote in message news:<7e6336d4.0411240036.4df8ae8e@posting.google.com>...
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<dford3-b1c67abe.0411231918.91dfbf4@posting.google.com>...
"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."[Gould, _The Panda's Thumb_ (1980), 181.]
Quote mine; see here for context:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part3.html#quote3.2
"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious
little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major
groups are characteristically abrupt."[Gould, _The Panda's Thumb_
(1980), 189.]
Quote mine; see here for context:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-3.html#quote41
"Klapper and Johnson epitomize their conclusions in an evolutionary
tree, unambiguously presented (Fig.2). These are diagrams that work
their way into textbooks, there to convince the uninitiated that
paleontologists can specify with assurance the (gradualistic) history
of life."[G&E, _Paleobiology_ 3:124 (1977).]
This one I can't find in the quote mine project so far; however, given
your posting history and the well-known opinions of Gould & Eldredge,
I have no doubt that it is a quote mine as well.
What is a [W]"quote mine"?
Gould, Stephen Jay. "Is a new and general theory of evolution
emerging?" _Paleobiology_ 6: 119-30 (1980). Also at
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406040941.7de39c48%40posting.google.com
Gould, Stephen Jay. "A task for Paleobiology at the threshold of
majority" _Paleobiology_ 21: 1-14 (1995).
Incorporating the post-Darwin discovery of heredity's basis,
"neo-Darwinian thought," aka "the modern synthesis," is an updated
formulation of Darwin's theory of natural selection. Though "the
modern synthesis" has come to be an umbrella for a large number of
different ideas,
updated-Darwinian-thought constitutes the synthesis's vivifying
component.
Ernst Mayr, an architect of the synthesis, characterized it in this
manner:
The proponents of the synthetic theory maintain that all evolution
is due to the accumulation of small genetic changes, guided by
natural selection, and that transspecific evolution is nothing but
an extrapolation and magnification of the events that take place
within populations and species.[Mayr, _Animal Species and
Evolution_ (1963), 586. Cited in 120.]
Gould concurs with Mayr that neo-Darwinian thought depends to an
important degree on the use of extrapolation in writing that,
the adequacy of Darwinism crucially depends upon the validity of
extrapolating th[e] mechanism of small changes in few years to the
immensity of geological time and genealogical change at all
taxonomic levels.[4]
Elsewhere Gould similarly states,
The modern synthesis drew most of its direct conclusions from
studies of local populations and their immediate adaptations. It
then extrapolated the postulated mechanism of these
adaptations--gradual, allelic substitution--to encompass all
larger-scale events.[121]
And again:
Evolutionary change is a process of gradual allelic substitution
within a population. Events at broader scale, from the origin of
new species to long-ranging evolutionary trends, represent the same
process, extended in time and effect--large numbers of allelic
substitutions incorporated sequentially over long periods of time.
In short, gradualism, continuity and evolutionary change by the
transformation of populations.[119]
Now, to expound on "gradual allelic substitution" and "long periods of
time." "Long periods of time" are part and parcel of, i.e.,
intimately
bound up with, neo-Darwinian thought's reliance upon extrapolation
from
currently observed (really quite minor) changes. Consequently, "long
periods of time" are of necessity required for natural selection to
fashion its masterpieces, as Gould observed:
Selection... act[s] creatively by superintending the retention of
fortuitously useful variation in each generation, slowly and
steadily building adaptation step by generational step, shifting
the frequency distribution of populations towards favored
morphospace. The hegemony of adaptationism and gradualism within
Darwinian traditions arises from this nexus of argument.[3]
Finally, the kicker. Gould rejected this extrapolation: "Darwinian
extrapolation (the third linchpin of the [neo-Darwinian] theory)
fails...."[8] And again: judging by the fossil record's pattern of
"stasis and discontinuity,"[125] "evolutionary trends cannot represent
a
simple extrapolation of allelic substitution within a
population."[125]
In addition to the fossil record, Gould advances "our inability, even
in
our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many
cases"[127] as a challenge to "Darwinian insistence upon continuity of
genetic change."[127] These and additional problems led Gould to
confess,
I well remember how the synthetic theory beguiled me with its
unifying power when I was a graduate student in the mid-1960's.
Since then I have been watching it slowly unravel as a universal
description of evolution. .... I have been reluctant to admit
it--since beguiling is often forever--but if Mayr's
characterization of the synthetic theory [see above] is accurate,
then that theory, as a general proposition, is effectively dead,
despite its persistence as textbook orthodoxy.[120]
.
|
|
|
| User: "catshark" |
|
| Title: Re: Mivart's On The Genesis of Species |
25 Nov 2004 08:35:06 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 11:56:18 +0000 (UTC), (david ford)
wrote:
Wakboth2001@yahoo.com (Wakboth) wrote in message news:<7e6336d4.0411240036.4df8ae8e@posting.google.com>...
(david ford) wrote in message news:<dford3-b1c67abe.0411231918.91dfbf4@posting.google.com>...
"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."[Gould, _The Panda's Thumb_ (1980), 181.]
Quote mine; see here for context:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part3.html#quote3.2
"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious
little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major
groups are characteristically abrupt."[Gould, _The Panda's Thumb_
(1980), 189.]
Quote mine; see here for context:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-3.html#quote41
"Klapper and Johnson epitomize their conclusions in an evolutionary
tree, unambiguously presented (Fig.2). These are diagrams that work
their way into textbooks, there to convince the uninitiated that
paleontologists can specify with assurance the (gradualistic) history
of life."[G&E, _Paleobiology_ 3:124 (1977).]
This one I can't find in the quote mine project so far; however, given
your posting history and the well-known opinions of Gould & Eldredge,
I have no doubt that it is a quote mine as well.
What is a [W]"quote mine"?
Is feigning ignorance a lie, David? Does lying violate the 10
Commandments?
[...]
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
The Moral Sense teaches us what is right,
and how to avoid it . . .
-- Mark Twain --
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Mivart's On The Genesis of Species |
25 Nov 2004 11:58:24 AM |
|
|
catshark <catshark@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<83sbq0t50ji8aevvat2ornt6o8ho9m5262@4ax.com>...
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 (david ford) wrote:
Wakboth2001@yahoo.com (Wakboth) wrote in message news:<7e6336d4.0411240036.4df8ae8e@posting.google.com>...
(david ford) wrote in message news:<dford3-b1c67abe.0411231918.91dfbf4@posting.google.com>...
"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."[Gould, _The Panda's Thumb_ (1980), 181.]
Quote mine; see here for context:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part3.html#quote3.2
"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious
little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major
groups are characteristically abrupt."[Gould, _The Panda's Thumb_
(1980), 189.]
Quote mine; see here for context:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-3.html#quote41
"Klapper and Johnson epitomize their conclusions in an evolutionary
tree, unambiguously presented (Fig.2). These are diagrams that work
their way into textbooks, there to convince the uninitiated that
paleontologists can specify with assurance the (gradualistic) history
of life."[G&E, _Paleobiology_ 3:124 (1977).]
This one I can't find in the quote mine project so far; however, given
your posting history and the well-known opinions of Gould & Eldredge,
I have no doubt that it is a quote mine as well.
What is a [W]"quote mine"?
Is feigning ignorance a lie, David?
Not when I go about [JP]"feigning ignorance."
Does lying violate the 10 Commandments?
Yes.
If you think you know what is meant by [Wakboth]"quote mine," feel free to tell me.
[...]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wakboth" |
|
| Title: Re: Mivart's On The Genesis of Species |
26 Nov 2004 01:22:51 AM |
|
|
(david ford) wrote in message news:<dford3-b1c67abe.0411251011.5cae05a3@posting.google.com>...
catshark <catshark@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<83sbq0t50ji8aevvat2ornt6o8ho9m5262@4ax.com>...
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 (david ford) wrote:
Wakboth2001@yahoo.com (Wakboth) wrote in message news:<7e6336d4.0411240036.4df8ae8e@posting.google.com>...
(david ford) wrote in message news:<dford3-b1c67abe.0411231918.91dfbf4@posting.google.com>...
"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."[Gould, _The Panda's Thumb_ (1980), 181.]
Quote mine; see here for context:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part3.html#quote3.2
"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious
little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major
groups are characteristically abrupt."[Gould, _The Panda's Thumb_
(1980), 189.]
Quote mine; see here for context:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-3.html#quote41
"Klapper and Johnson epitomize their conclusions in an evolutionary
tree, unambiguously presented (Fig.2). These are diagrams that work
their way into textbooks, there to convince the uninitiated that
paleontologists can specify with assurance the (gradualistic) history
of life."[G&E, _Paleobiology_ 3:124 (1977).]
This one I can't find in the quote mine project so far; however, given
your posting history and the well-known opinions of Gould & Eldredge,
I have no doubt that it is a quote mine as well.
What is a [W]"quote mine"?
Is feigning ignorance a lie, David?
Not when I go about [JP]"feigning ignorance."
Does lying violate the 10 Commandments?
Yes.
If you think you know what is meant by [Wakboth]"quote mine," feel free to tell me.
The definition of a quote mine, as the term is used in this newsgroup,
is "a quotation presented so as to imply a different meaning that it
in the proper context has"; it's a form of lying.
You present Gould quotes here in a fashion that implies that Gould
doubts or denies the validity of evolution, thus implicitly supporting
your claim that evolution is a sham doubted, in private, by even its
most ardent supporters. When seen in the proper context, it is clear
that the quotes mean nothing of the sort; you are twisting Gould's
words to support your position when they really don't.
That, Mr. Ford, is called lying by most people.
-- Wakboth
-- Wakboth
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Mivart's On The Genesis of Species |
26 Nov 2004 07:31:24 AM |
|
|
(Wakboth) wrote in message news:<7e6336d4.0411252336.1e926991@posting.google.com>...
(david ford) wrote in message news:<dford3-b1c67abe.0411251011.5cae05a3@posting.google.com>...
catshark <catshark@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<83sbq0t50ji8aevvat2ornt6o8ho9m5262@4ax.com>...
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 (david ford) wrote:
(Wakboth) wrote in message news:<7e6336d4.0411240036.4df8ae8e@posting.google.com>...
(david ford) wrote in message news:<dford3-b1c67abe.0411231918.91dfbf4@posting.google.com>...
"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."[Gould, _The Panda's Thumb_ (1980), 181.]
Quote mine; see here for context:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part3.html#quote3.2
"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious
little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major
groups are characteristically abrupt."[Gould, _The Panda's Thumb_
(1980), 189.]
Quote mine; see here for context:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-3.html#quote41
"Klapper and Johnson epitomize their conclusions in an evolutionary
tree, unambiguously presented (Fig.2). These are diagrams that work
their way into textbooks, there to convince the uninitiated that
paleontologists can specify with assurance the (gradualistic) history
of life."[G&E, _Paleobiology_ 3:124 (1977).]
This one I can't find in the quote mine project so far; however, given
your posting history and the well-known opinions of Gould & Eldredge,
I have no doubt that it is a quote mine as well.
What is a [W]"quote mine"?
Is feigning ignorance a lie, David?
Not when I go about [JP]"feigning ignorance."
Does lying violate the 10 Commandments?
Yes.
If you think you know what is
meant by [Wakboth]"quote mine," feel free to tell me.
The definition of a quote mine, as the term is used in this newsgroup,
is "a quotation presented so as to imply a different meaning that it
in the proper context has"; it's a form of lying.
You present Gould quotes here in a fashion that implies that Gould
doubts or denies the validity of evolution,
Please identify 2 instances where you believe I presented [W]"Gould
quotes... in a fashion that implies that Gould doubts or denies the
validity of evolution."
Can [W]"evolution" be rephrased as "evolution, as in creation versus
evolution, i.e. seeingwatchmaking versus blindwatchmaking"?
Can [W]"evolution" be rephrased as "transformation/ transmutation
brought about by the neo-Darwinian mechanism, a mechanism sufficient
to account for transformation"?
thus implicitly supporting
your claim that evolution is a sham doubted, in private, by even its
most ardent supporters. When seen in the proper context, it is clear
that the quotes mean nothing of the sort; you are twisting Gould's
words to support your position when they really don't.
Exactly what [W]"position" of mine do you refer to?
That, Mr. Ford, is called lying by most people.
Gould was a Marxist, an atheist, and a materialist. Consequently,
when it came to the question of creation versus evolution,
seeingwatchmaking versus blindwatchmaking, Gould was a devout
blindwatchmakingist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wakboth" |
|
| Title: Re: Mivart's On The Genesis of Species |
27 Nov 2004 01:37:42 AM |
|
|
(david ford) wrote in message news:<dford3-b1c67abe.0411260545.787dc06b@posting.google.com>...
Wakboth2001@yahoo.com (Wakboth) wrote in message news:<7e6336d4.0411252336.1e926991@posting.google.com>...
(david ford) wrote in message news:<dford3-b1c67abe.0411251011.5cae05a3@posting.google.com>...
catshark <catshark@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<83sbq0t50ji8aevvat2ornt6o8ho9m5262@4ax.com>...
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 (david ford) wrote:
Wakboth2001@yahoo.com (Wakboth) wrote in message news:<7e6336d4.0411240036.4df8ae8e@posting.google.com>...
(david ford) wrote in message news:<dford3-b1c67abe.0411231918.91dfbf4@posting.google.com>...
"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."[Gould, _The Panda's Thumb_ (1980), 181.]
Quote mine; see here for context:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part3.html#quote3.2
"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious
little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major
groups are characteristically abrupt."[Gould, _The Panda's Thumb_
(1980), 189.]
Quote mine; see here for context:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-3.html#quote41
"Klapper and Johnson epitomize their conclusions in an evolutionary
tree, unambiguously presented (Fig.2). These are diagrams that work
their way into textbooks, there to convince the uninitiated that
paleontologists can specify with assurance the (gradualistic) history
of life."[G&E, _Paleobiology_ 3:124 (1977).]
This one I can't find in the quote mine project so far; however, given
your posting history and the well-known opinions of Gould & Eldredge,
I have no doubt that it is a quote mine as well.
What is a [W]"quote mine"?
Is feigning ignorance a lie, David?
Not when I go about [JP]"feigning ignorance."
Does lying violate the 10 Commandments?
Yes.
If you think you know what is
meant by [Wakboth]"quote mine," feel free to tell me.
The definition of a quote mine, as the term is used in this newsgroup,
is "a quotation presented so as to imply a different meaning that it
in the proper context has"; it's a form of lying.
You present Gould quotes here in a fashion that implies that Gould
doubts or denies the validity of evolution,
Please identify 2 instances where you believe I presented [W]"Gould
quotes... in a fashion that implies that Gould doubts or denies the
validity of evolution."
Sigh. Why are you replying when you clearly didn't read what I wrote?
The two quotations I pointed out as quote mines, above, are ones where
I believe you presented Gould quotes in a fashion that implies that
Gould doubts or denies the validity of evolution. Note that I believe
you presented the third quotation (of Gould and Eldredge, I assume) in
a similar fashion; I just don't have the book available to check it
out, and the quote isn't to be found in the quote mine project.
Can [W]"evolution" be rephrased as "evolution, as in creation versus
evolution, i.e. seeingwatchmaking versus blindwatchmaking"?
Nobody in the whole wide world that I know of uses the word
"blindwatchmaking" except yourself. It seems to me that you use it in
an attempt to ridicule and belittle the people believing in evolution,
through an indirect argument from ignorance.
Can [W]"evolution" be rephrased as "transformation/ transmutation
brought about by the neo-Darwinian mechanism, a mechanism sufficient
to account for transformation"?
I'd say that looks like a reasonable definition to me; of course, I'm
not an expert.
thus implicitly supporting
your claim that evolution is a sham doubted, in private, by even its
most ardent supporters. When seen in the proper context, it is clear
that the quotes mean nothing of the sort; you are twisting Gould's
words to support your position when they really don't.
Exactly what [W]"position" of mine do you refer to?
The position of antievolutionism, which I've inferred from your use of
words such as "seeingwatchmaking" and "blindwatchmaking", and the use
of Creationist quote mines that twist the meaning of the original
quotation to dispute or deny the existence of evolution.
That, Mr. Ford, is called lying by most people.
Gould was a Marxist, an atheist, and a materialist. Consequently,
when it came to the question of creation versus evolution,
seeingwatchmaking versus blindwatchmaking, Gould was a devout
blindwatchmakingist.
Firstly, AFAIK, Gould wasn't a Marxist; secondly, if he were, what
does that, or his possible atheism and/or materialism has to do with
the fact that you are lying about what he said in his books?
-- Wakboth
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Mivart's On The Genesis of Species |
10 Dec 2004 07:24:07 AM |
|
|
Wakboth wrote:
(david ford) wrote in message
news:<dford3-b1c67abe.0411260545.787dc06b@posting.google.com>...
Wakboth2001@yahoo.com (Wakboth) wrote in message
news:<7e6336d4.0411252336.1e926991@posting.google.com>...
(david ford) wrote in message
news:<dford3-b1c67abe.0411251011.5cae05a3@posting.google.com>...
catshark <catshark@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<83sbq0t50ji8aevvat2ornt6o8ho9m5262@4ax.com>...
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 (david ford) wrote:
Wakboth2001@yahoo.com (Wakboth) wrote in message
news:<7e6336d4.0411240036.4df8ae8e@posting.google.com>...
(david ford) wrote in message
news:<dford3-b1c67abe.0411231918.91dfbf4@posting.google.com>...
"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."[Gould, _The Panda's Thumb_ (1980), 181.]
Quote mine; see here for context:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part3.html#quote3.2
"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious
little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major
groups are characteristically abrupt."[Gould, _The Panda's Thumb_
(1980), 189.]
Quote mine; see here for context:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-3.html#quote41
"Klapper and Johnson epitomize their conclusions in an evolutionary
tree, unambiguously presented (Fig.2). These are diagrams that
work
their way into textbooks, there to convince the uninitiated that
paleontologists can specify with assurance the (gradualistic)
history
of life."[G&E, _Paleobiology_ 3:124 (1977).]
This one I can't find in the quote mine project so far; however,
given
your posting history and the well-known opinions of Gould &
Eldredge,
I have no doubt that it is a quote mine as well.
What is a [W]"quote mine"?
Is feigning ignorance a lie, David?
Not when I go about [JP]"feigning ignorance."
Does lying violate the 10 Commandments?
Yes.
If you think you know what is
meant by [Wakboth]"quote mine," feel free to tell me.
The definition of a quote mine, as the term is used in this newsgroup,
is "a quotation presented so as to imply a different meaning that it
in the proper context has"; it's a form of lying.
You present Gould quotes here in a fashion that implies that Gould
doubts or denies the validity of evolution,
Please identify 2 instances where you believe I presented [W]"Gould
quotes... in a fashion that implies that Gould doubts or denies the
validity of evolution."
Sigh. Why are you replying when you clearly didn't read what I wrote?
The two quotations I pointed out as quote mines, above, are ones where
I believe you presented Gould quotes in a fashion that implies that
Gould doubts or denies the validity of evolution.
Gould _does_ doubt and deny [W]"the validity of evolution," where
"evolution" is defined as [df]"transformation/ transmutation brought
about by the neo-Darwinian mechanism, a mechanism sufficient to account
for transformation"-- a definition you said [W]"looks like a reasonable
definition to me [i.e. Wakboth]." I suggest you read
Gould's 1980 "Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?"
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406040941.7de39c48%40posting.google.com
Especially this passage:
"I well remember how the synthetic theory beguiled me with its
unifying power when I was a graduate student in the
mid-1960's. Since then I have been watching it slowly unravel
as a universal description of evolution. The molecular assault
came first, followed quickly by renewed attention to unorthodox
theories of speciation and by challenges at the level of
macroevolution itself. I have been reluctant to admit it-- since
beguiling is often forever-- but if Mayr's characterization of the
synthetic theory is accurate, then that theory, as a general
proposition, is effectively dead, despite its persistence as
textbook orthodoxy."
Larry (who does not mourn the death of the synthetic theory) Moran
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a4f0143acab64d2f?dmode=source
Eldredge in:
Simpson, Eldredge in _Synthese_, Ager, Corner, Rosen, Grasse,
Patterson, Raup, Stanley
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/9d0be427ec14606b?dmode=source
Note that I believe
you presented the third quotation (of Gould and Eldredge, I assume) in
a similar fashion; I just don't have the book available to check it
out, and the quote isn't to be found in the quote mine project.
Can [W]"evolution" be rephrased as "evolution, as in creation versus
evolution, i.e. seeingwatchmaking versus blindwatchmaking"?
Nobody in the whole wide world that I know of uses the word
"blindwatchmaking" except yourself.
So if someone did a Google search of the web for the word
"blindwatchmaking," he or she would only find instances where I used the
word. Interesting.
It seems to me that you use it in
an attempt to ridicule and belittle the people believing in evolution,
through an indirect argument from ignorance.
Are you making a claim about my motives-- are you saying my motivation
for using the term "blindwatchmaking" is to [W]"attempt to ridicule and
belittle the people believing in evolution"?
Also, what is an [W]"argument from ignorance"?
Can [W]"evolution" be rephrased as "transformation/ transmutation
brought about by the neo-Darwinian mechanism, a mechanism sufficient
to account for transformation"?
I'd say that looks like a reasonable definition to me; of course, I'm
not an expert.
That is just one of the many definitions of the word "evolution."
thus implicitly supporting
your claim that evolution is a sham doubted, in private, by even its
most ardent supporters. When seen in the proper context, it is clear
that the quotes mean nothing of the sort; you are twisting Gould's
words to support your position when they really don't.
Exactly what [W]"position" of mine do you refer to?
The position of antievolutionism,
Meaning of [W]"antievolutionism"?
which I've inferred from your use of
words such as "seeingwatchmaking" and "blindwatchmaking",
If you are interested in seeing an explication of the meaning of the
term "blindwatchmaking," see
concept of "blindwatchmaking"
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401101006.38dc8f17%40posting.google.com
and the use
of Creationist quote mines that twist the meaning of the original
quotation to dispute or deny the existence of evolution.
Are you alleging that I didn't get the Gould quotes directly from _The
Panda's Thumb_?
That, Mr. Ford, is called lying by most people.
Gould was a Marxist, an atheist, and a materialist. Consequently,
when it came to the question of creation versus evolution,
seeingwatchmaking versus blindwatchmaking, Gould was a devout
blindwatchmakingist.
Firstly, AFAIK, Gould wasn't a Marxist;
Gould was taught Marxism by his father when Gould was a boy. If Gould
was like the vast majority of children told things by their parents,
Gould believed those Marxist ideas. Perhaps Gould rejected those
Marxist ideas, just as children eventually reject the idea that there is
a Santa Claus, however, judging by Gould's 1977 remark below, I strongly
suspect that Gould had not rejected those Marxist ideas as of 1977:
Gould, Stephen Jay and Niles Eldredge. 1977. "Punctuated equilibria:
the tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered" _Paleobiology_ 3: 115-151,
146:
It may also not be irrelevant to our personal
preferences that one of us [i.e. Gould] learned
his Marxism, literally at his daddy's knee.
See also the thread for
Was Gould a Marxist?
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a22c5a59925caac1?dmode=source
secondly, if he were, what
does that, or his possible atheism and/or materialism has to do with
the fact that you are lying about what he said in his books?
You spoke of [W]"his possible atheism." Do you think Gould was an
atheist? A materialist? Or is this topic something you're not sure about?
You clearly don't know what you are talking about with your erroneously
alleging Gould supports [df]"transformation/ transmutation brought about
by the neo-Darwinian mechanism, a mechanism sufficient to account for
transformation" when he clearly doesn't. Now, are you going to retract
your allegation [W]"that you [df] are lying about what he [Gould] said
in his books"?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Mivart's On The Genesis of Species |
20 Dec 2004 08:24:35 AM |
|
|
Wakboth wrote:
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<dford3-b1c67abe.0411260545.787dc06b@posting.google.com>...
[snip]
Gould was a Marxist, an atheist, and a materialist. Consequently,
when it came to the question of creation versus evolution,
seeingwatchmaking versus blindwatchmaking, Gould was a devout
blindwatchmakingist.
Firstly, AFAIK, Gould wasn't a Marxist;
Gould, John Maynard Smith, J.B.S. Haldane, and Richard Lewontin were
Marxists; 2004 R.J. Rummel's "The killing machine that is Marxism"
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-32gfjsF3l6o15U1%40individual.net
secondly, if he were, what
does that, or his possible atheism and/or materialism has to do with
the fact that you are lying about what he said in his books?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Mivart's On The Genesis of Species |
20 Dec 2004 02:56:11 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 14:24:35 +0000 (UTC), david ford
<dford3@gl.umbc.edu> said in alt.atheism:
Wakboth wrote:
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<dford3-b1c67abe.0411260545.787dc06b@posting.google.com>...
[snip]
Gould was a Marxist, an atheist, and a materialist. Consequently,
when it came to the question of creation versus evolution,
seeingwatchmaking versus blindwatchmaking, Gould was a devout
blindwatchmakingist.
Firstly, AFAIK, Gould wasn't a Marxist;
Gould, John Maynard Smith, J.B.S. Haldane, and Richard Lewontin were
Marxists; 2004 R.J. Rummel's "The killing machine that is Marxism"
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-32gfjsF3l6o15U1%40individual.net
One assertion in support of another assertion? Pitiful, david.
---
CellPhonesEtc at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "catshark" |
|
| Title: Re: Mivart's On The Genesis of Species |
25 Nov 2004 10:19:41 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 17:58:24 +0000 (UTC), (david ford)
wrote:
catshark <catshark@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<83sbq0t50ji8aevvat2ornt6o8ho9m5262@4ax.com>...
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 (david ford) wrote:
Wakboth2001@yahoo.com (Wakboth) wrote in message news:<7e6336d4.0411240036.4df8ae8e@posting.google.com>...
(david ford) wrote in message news:<dford3-b1c67abe.0411231918.91dfbf4@posting.google.com>...
"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."[Gould, _The Panda's Thumb_ (1980), 181.]
Quote mine; see here for context:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part3.html#quote3.2
"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious
little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major
groups are characteristically abrupt."[Gould, _The Panda's Thumb_
(1980), 189.]
Quote mine; see here for context:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-3.html#quote41
"Klapper and Johnson epitomize their conclusions in an evolutionary
tree, unambiguously presented (Fig.2). These are diagrams that work
their way into textbooks, there to convince the uninitiated that
paleontologists can specify with assurance the (gradualistic) history
of life."[G&E, _Paleobiology_ 3:124 (1977).]
This one I can't find in the quote mine project so far; however, given
your posting history and the well-known opinions of Gould & Eldredge,
I have no doubt that it is a quote mine as well.
What is a [W]"quote mine"?
Is feigning ignorance a lie, David?
Not when I go about [JP]"feigning ignorance."
Now there you've got me, David. It is pretty much impossible to tell when
your vast store of ignorance stops and your pretense of ignorance begins.
Does lying violate the 10 Commandments?
Yes.
If you think you know what is meant by [Wakboth]"quote mine," feel free to tell me.
Since he referenced the Quote Mine Project, why would you think he had a
different definition?
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
Stupidity, if left untreated, is self-correcting.
- Robert Heinlein -
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Mivart's On The Genesis of Species |
26 Nov 2004 08:09:32 AM |
|
|
catshark <catshark@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<g6cdq0lm65ik0ukdfq0purcefs229mb5fo@4ax.com>...
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 (david ford) wrote:
catshark <catshark@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<83sbq0t50ji8aevvat2ornt6o8ho9m5262@4ax.com>...
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 (david ford) wrote:
Wakboth2001@yahoo.com (Wakboth) wrote in message news:<7e6336d4.0411240036.4df8ae8e@posting.google.com>...
(david ford) wrote in message news:<dford3-b1c67abe.0411231918.91dfbf4@posting.google.com>...
"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."[Gould, _The Panda's Thumb_ (1980), 181.]
Quote mine; see here for context:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part3.html#quote3.2
"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious
little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major
groups are characteristically abrupt."[Gould, _The Panda's Thumb_
(1980), 189.]
Quote mine; see here for context:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-3.html#quote41
"Klapper and Johnson epitomize their conclusions in an evolutionary
tree, unambiguously presented (Fig.2). These are diagrams that work
their way into textbooks, there to convince the uninitiated that
paleontologists can specify with assurance the (gradualistic) history
of life."[G&E, _Paleobiology_ 3:124 (1977).]
This one I can't find in the quote mine project so far; however, given
your posting history and the well-known opinions of Gould & Eldredge,
I have no doubt that it is a quote mine as well.
What is a [W]"quote mine"?
Is feigning ignorance a lie, David?
Not when I go about [JP]"feigning ignorance."
Now there you've got me, David. It is pretty much impossible to tell when
your vast store of ignorance stops and your pretense of ignorance begins.
So don't even try.
Does lying violate the 10 Commandments?
Yes.
If you think you know what is meant by [Wakboth]"quote mine,"
feel free to tell me.
Since he referenced the Quote Mine Project, why would you think he had a
different definition?
Wakboth gave me a definition of "quote mine." Perhaps it's your
definition, and perhaps it's not.
.
|
|
|
| User: "catshark" |
|
| Title: Re: Mivart's On The Genesis of Species |
26 Nov 2004 12:38:58 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 14:09:32 +0000 (UTC), (david ford)
wrote:
[...]
What is a [W]"quote mine"?
Is feigning ignorance a lie, David?
Not when I go about [JP]"feigning ignorance."
Now there you've got me, David. It is pretty much impossible to tell when
your vast store of ignorance stops and your pretense of ignorance begins.
So don't even try.
You are right. I'll just assume you are feigning ignorance and lying,
since you will not try to make yourself clear. That is, for example, the
problem with your little game of refusing to say what your intent is in
posting these quotes, David. No one has to give you the benefit of the
doubt if you won't claim a reason for doing what you do. If you act like
other dishonest people do, then you have to give an explanation why what
you are doing is different from their actions, in order to claim our
doubts.
Does lying violate the 10 Commandments?
Yes.
If you think you know what is meant by [Wakboth]"quote mine,"
feel free to tell me.
Since he referenced the Quote Mine Project, why would you think he had a
different definition?
Wakboth gave me a definition of "quote mine." Perhaps it's your
definition, and perhaps it's not.
The definition he gave, "a quotation presented so as to imply a different
meaning that it in the proper context has" is close enough to the one used
in the Quote Mine Project and used in t.o. all the time. It is close
enough to the one that you have had explained over and over to you that
feigning ignorance of it is just a sham and a lie.
Which brings us back to the question: Do *you* think it is moral to lie?
I'm not asking you if "secular humanists" or "atheocratic atheists" or
anyone else thinks it is ok to lie. I'm asking if *you* think it is ok.
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one:
'O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.'
And God granted it.
- Voltaire -
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "catshark" |
|
| Title: Re: Mivart's On The Genesis of Species |
23 Nov 2004 10:59:43 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 03:06:13 +0000 (UTC), (david ford)
wrote:
catshark <catshark@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<scj5q05ptejtcn5v3hm772sagss7obbvdn@4ax.com>...
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 (david ford) wrote:
[...]
"2. The saltational initiation of major transitions: The absence
of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major
transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our
imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many
cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for
gradualistic accounts of evolution. In 1871 St. George
Mivart^34, Darwin's most cogent critic, referred to it as the
dilemma of 'the incipient stages of useful structures'-- of what
possible benefit to a reptile is two percent of a wing? The
dilemma has two potential solutions. The first, preferred by
Darwinians because it preserves both gradualism and
adaptation, is the principle of preadaptation: the intermediary
stages functioned in another way but were, by good fortune in
retrospect, pre-adapted to a new role they could play only after
greater elaboration. Thus, if feathers first functioned 'for'
insulation and later 'for' the trapping of insect prey^35, a
proto-wing might be built without any reference to flight.
I do not doubt the supreme importance of preadaptation, but the
other alternative, treated with caution, reluctance, disdain or
even fear by the modern synthesis, now deserves a rehearing in
the light of renewed interest in development: perhaps, in many
cases, the intermediates never existed."
From
Gould's 1980 "Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?"
[snip mastabatory link]
Link added back:
[not for long]
Quote #50
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-3.html#quote50>
Does this URL of yours qualify as a [JP]"mastabatory link"?
Nope. *Other* people use and enjoy our site.
[snip more lonely lubrication]
"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."[Gould, _The Panda's Thumb_ (1980), 181.]
Quote #3.2
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part3.html#quote3.2>
"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious
little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major
groups are characteristically abrupt."[Gould, _The Panda's Thumb_
(1980), 189.]
Quote #41
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-3.html#quote41>
"Klapper and Johnson epitomize their conclusions in an evolutionary
tree, unambiguously presented (Fig.2). These are diagrams that work
their way into textbooks, there to convince the uninitiated that
paleontologists can specify with assurance the (gradualistic) history
of life."[G&E, _Paleobiology_ 3:124 (1977).]
As far as I can see, David, you are the only creationist who tries to use
this one so we're not going to go to the trouble of adding it to the Quote
Mine Project.
So why don't you just tell the nice people what Klapper and Johnson's
conclusions that Gould is talking about were?
Then you can go and try to exploit someone else's death from cancer for
cheap rhetoric.
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
It is not best to use our morals weekdays,
it gets them out of repair for Sunday.
-- Mark Twain --
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Mivart's On The Genesis of Species |
24 Nov 2004 07:30:23 AM |
|
|
catshark <catshark@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<b158q0hcdb0gqo62l1mptalgmpre5ftm56@4ax.com>...
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 (david ford) wrote:
catshark <catshark@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<scj5q05ptejtcn5v3hm772sagss7obbvdn@4ax.com>...
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 (david ford) wrote:
[...]
"2. The saltational initiation of major transitions: The absence
of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major
transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our
imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many
cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for
gradualistic accounts of evolution. In 1871 St. George
Mivart^34, Darwin's most cogent critic, referred to it as the
dilemma of 'the incipient stages of useful structures'-- of what
possible benefit to a reptile is two percent of a wing? The
dilemma has two potential solutions. The first, preferred by
Darwinians because it preserves both gradualism and
adaptation, is the principle of preadaptation: the intermediary
stages functioned in another way but were, by good fortune in
retrospect, pre-adapted to a new role they could play only after
greater elaboration. Thus, if feathers first functioned 'for'
insulation and later 'for' the trapping of insect prey^35, a
proto-wing might be built without any reference to flight.
I do not doubt the supreme importance of preadaptation, but the
other alternative, treated with caution, reluctance, disdain or
even fear by the modern synthesis, now deserves a rehearing in
the light of renewed interest in development: perhaps, in many
cases, the intermediates never existed."
From
Gould's 1980 "Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?"
[snip mastabatory link]
Link added back:
[not for long]
Quote #50
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-3.html#quote50>
Does this URL of yours qualify as a [JP]"mastabatory link"?
Nope. *Other* people use and enjoy our site.
[snip more lonely lubrication]
"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."[Gould, _The Panda's Thumb_ (1980), 181.]
Quote #3.2
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part3.html#quote3.2>
"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious
little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major
groups are characteristically abrupt."[Gould, _The Panda's Thumb_
(1980), 189.]
Quote #41
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-3.html#quote41>
"Klapper and Johnson epitomize their conclusions in an evolutionary
tree, unambiguously presented (Fig.2). These are diagrams that work
their way into textbooks, there to convince the uninitiated that
paleontologists can specify with assurance the (gradualistic) history
of life."[G&E, _Paleobiology_ 3:124 (1977).]
As far as I can see, David, you are the only creationist who tries to use
this one so we're not going to go to the trouble of adding it to the Quote
Mine Project.
So why don't you just tell the nice people what Klapper and Johnson's
conclusions that Gould is talking about were?
Macbeth, Norman. 1971. _Darwin Retried: An Appeal to
Reason_ (NY: Dell Publishing Co, Inc), 178pp. On 13-14,
the end of one paragraph, plus the next 2 paragraphs:
....This reticence is not because our modern authors are more
ignorant than their ancestors; it is due to bitter experience with
the frailty of all conjectures in this field [of constructing trees
of phylogeny]. I will show two vulnerable points.
First, if a paleontologist portrays known fossil forms such as
sharks, fishes, and amphibians in man's family tree, we soon
perceive that many examples of these forms are still present,
practically unchanged, although their former siblings are said to
have worked up to human status. Thus one and the same ancient
stock split into a group with astonishing plasticity and another
group with almost total rigidity. This is very hard to swallow.
Therefore there was a tendency, while trees were still being used,
to move the known forms out to the branches and reserve the trunk
for malleable forms not yet discovered. The number of blank spaces
was a visible and embarrassing sign of ignorance.
Second, the reader will become familiar (in Chapter 15) with a
surprising line of thought developed by Robert Broom and Sir Julian
Huxley to the effect that all specialized forms are dead ends
because they can only evolve a little further in the same
direction, remain unchanged, or die out. This applies to fossils
as well as to living forms, since with the possible exception of
man all known forms, extinct or extant, early or late, are already
specialized. Therefore these forms, being ineligible as ancestors,
must again be moved from the trunk of the tree to the branches.
The result is that the tips are well populated while the trunk is
shrouded in mist and mystery. We have the paradox that the remains
found in the earth's crust are not those of our ancestors, while
the bodies of our ancestors have not been preserved at all. We see
forms that purport to be our cousins, but we have no idea of who
our common grandparents were.
Then you can go and try to exploit someone else's death from
cancer for cheap rhetoric.
What percentage of mutations in animals do you consider to be "good"?
What percentage of mutations in animals do you consider to be
plausibly thought of as capable of contributing to the appearance of a
new biological structure having a new function?
NIEH
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980604010337.18472C-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
Koestler, Waddington, Dobzhansky, and a remark for Gould
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980606011626.8316A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
.
|
|
|
| User: "catshark" |
|
| Title: Re: Mivart's On The Genesis of Species |
24 Nov 2004 06:28:19 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 13:30:23 +0000 (UTC), (david ford)
wrote:
catshark <catshark@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<b158q0hcdb0gqo62l1mptalgmpre5ftm56@4ax.com>...
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 (david ford) wrote:
catshark <catshark@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<scj5q05ptejtcn5v3hm772sagss7obbvdn@4ax.com>...
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 (david ford) wrote:
[...]
"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."[Gould, _The Panda's Thumb_ (1980), 181.]
Quote #3.2
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part3.html#quote3.2>
"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious
little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major
groups are characteristically abrupt."[Gould, _The Panda's Thumb_
(1980), 189.]
Quote #41
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-3.html#quote41>
"Klapper and Johnson epitomize their conclusions in an evolutionary
tree, unambiguously presented (Fig.2). These are diagrams that work
their way into textbooks, there to convince the uninitiated that
paleontologists can specify with assurance the (gradualistic) history
of life."[G&E, _Paleobiology_ 3:124 (1977).]
As far as I can see, David, you are the only creationist who tries to use
this one so we're not going to go to the trouble of adding it to the Quote
Mine Project.
So why don't you just tell the nice people what Klapper and Johnson's
conclusions that Gould is talking about were?
Macbeth, Norman. 1971. _Darwin Retried: An Appeal to
Reason_ (NY: Dell Publishing Co, Inc), 178pp.
[snip stuff not from Gould]
You pulled the wrong quote mine out of you voluminous files of dishonesty,
David. I asked you disclose what Klapper and Johnson's conclusions were
that Gould was talking about. Oh, that's right . . . what's the point of
being dishonest if you then let the cat out the bag, right David?
Then you can go and try to exploit someone else's death from
cancer for cheap rhetoric.
What percentage of mutations
.. . .
[Snip rest of blather from someone with all the morals of a slug]
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
Isn't man a creature to be ashamed of in pretty much all his aspects?
Is he really fit for anything but to be stood up on the street corner
as a convenience for dogs?
-- Mark Twain --
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Mivart's On The Genesis of Species |
25 Nov 2004 05:48:29 AM |
|
|
catshark <catshark@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<iu9aq09c0u6o2nbgfvdrvrvl2q8obdis66@4ax.com>...
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 (david ford) wrote:
catshark <catshark@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<b158q0hcdb0gqo62l1mptalgmpre5ftm56@4ax.com>...
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 (david ford) wrote:
catshark <catshark@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<scj5q05ptejtcn5v3hm772sagss7obbvdn@4ax.com>...
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 (david ford) wrote:
[...]
"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."[Gould, _The Panda's Thumb_ (1980), 181.]
Quote #3.2
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part3.html#quote3.2>
"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious
little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major
groups are characteristically abrupt."[Gould, _The Panda's Thumb_
(1980), 189.]
Quote #41
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-3.html#quote41>
"Klapper and Johnson epitomize their conclusions in an evolutionary
tree, unambiguously presented (Fig.2). These are diagrams that work
their way into textbooks, there to convince the uninitiated that
paleontologists can specify with assurance the (gradualistic) history
of life."[G&E, _Paleobiology_ 3:124 (1977).]
As far as I can see, David, you are the only creationist who tries to use
this one so we're not going to go to the trouble of adding it to the Quote
Mine Project.
So why don't you just tell the nice people what Klapper and Johnson's
conclusions that Gould is talking about were?
Macbeth, Norman. 1971. _Darwin Retried: An Appeal to
Reason_ (NY: Dell Publishing Co, Inc), 178pp.
[snip stuff not from Gould]
You pulled the wrong quote mine out of you voluminous files of dishonesty,
David. I asked you disclose what Klapper and Johnson's conclusions were
that Gould was talking about. Oh, that's right . . . what's the point of
being dishonest if you then let the cat out the bag, right David?
While I lack Klapper & Johnson's article, I did find this Eldredge &
Tattersall intriguing:
Eldredge, Niles & Ian Tattersall. 1982. _The Myths of Human
Evolution_
(NY: Columbia University Press), 197pp. On 48:
....Darwin's prediction of rampant, albeit gradual, change
affecting all lineages through time is refuted. The record is
there, and the record speaks for tremendous anatomical
conservativism. Change in the manner Darwin expected is just not
found in the fossil record.
Two paragraphs on 45-6:
That individual kinds of fossils remain recognizably the same
throughout the length of their occurrence in the fossil record has
been known to paleontologists long before Darwin published his
_Origin_. Darwin himself, troubled by the stubbornness of the
fossil record in refusing to yield abundant examples of gradual
change, devoted two chapters to the fossil record. To preserve his
argument he was forced to assert that the fossil record was too
incomplete, too full of gaps, to produce the expected patterns of
change. He prophesied that future generations of paleontologists
would fill in these gaps by diligent search and then his major
thesis--that evolutionary change is gradual and progressive--would
be vindicated. One hundred and twenty years of paleontological
research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil
record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is
the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply
shows that this prediction was wrong.
The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static
entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of
the emperor's new clothes: everyone knew it but preferred to ignore
it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately
refusing to yield Darwin's predicted pattern, simply looked the
other way. Rather than challenge well-entrenched evolutionary
theory, paleontologists tacitly agreed with their zoological
colleagues that the fossil record was too poor to do much with
beyond supporting, in a general sort of way, the basic thesis that
life had evolved. Only recently has a substantial number of
paleontologists blown the whistle and started to look at the
evolutionary implications of the marked pattern of _nonchange_--of
stability--within species so dominant in the fossil record of life.
Then you can go and try to exploit someone else's death from
cancer for cheap rhetoric.
What percentage of mutations
. . .
[Snip rest of blather from someone with all the morals of a slug]
[JP]"blather from someone [df] with all the morals of a slug"
Do you agree with this statement?:
Actions that violate the 10 Commandments are highly immoral.
I see you declined to answer my questions about mutations. Perhaps
you or another person will answer these questions:
Yockey, Hubert P. 1974. "An Application of Information Theory to the
Central Dogma and the Sequence Hypothesis" _Journal of Theoretical
Biology_ 46: 369-406. On 371:
The vast majority of the sequences in the ensemble of all sequences
of length _N_, of letters of a written language have no assigned
meaning or specificity. The same is true of sequences of digits
zero through nine and of musical notes. However, embedded in the
ensemble of all such sequences are, say, a play by Sophocles, the
lost works of Aristotle.... By the same token the protein
sequences of length _N_, which carry specificity, are embedded in
the ensemble of all amino acids sequences of length _N_. Those
sequences which carry specificity are a tiny fraction of the
ensemble.
Statement: "Those amino acid sequences of length N=101 thru N=1010
that carry specificity are a tiny fraction of the ensemble of all
amino acid sequences of length N=101 thru N=1010." Ballpark answers
to the questions below would help me determine the validity of this
statement.
Of all possible amino acid sequences of length 101, what proportion of
those sequences will be functional proteins of some sort? 1/9th? 1
out of every 2,000? 1/10^17th? 1 out of every 10^24? 1/10^80th?
What?
Same question, this time for amino acid sequences of length 202?
Of length 303?
Of length 404?
Of length 505?
Of length 606?
Of length 707?
Of length 808?
Of length 909?
Of length 1010?
Also, how long is the biggest functional amino acid sequence of which
you're aware?; of all possible amino acid sequences of that length,
what proportion of those sequences will be functional proteins of some
sort?
.
|
|
|
| User: "catshark" |
|
| Title: Re: Mivart's On The Genesis of Species |
25 Nov 2004 08:32:05 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 11:48:29 +0000 (UTC), (david ford)
wrote:
catshark <catshark@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<iu9aq09c0u6o2nbgfvdrvrvl2q8obdis66@4ax.com>...
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 (david ford) wrote:
catshark <catshark@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<b158q0hcdb0gqo62l1mptalgmpre5ftm56@4ax.com>...
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 (david ford) wrote:
catshark <catshark@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<scj5q05ptejtcn5v3hm772sagss7obbvdn@4ax.com>...
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 (david ford) wrote:
[...]
"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."[Gould, _The Panda's Thumb_ (1980), 181.]
Quote #3.2
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part3.html#quote3.2>
"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious
little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major
groups are characteristically abrupt."[Gould, _The Panda's Thumb_
(1980), 189.]
Quote #41
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-3.html#quote41>
"Klapper and Johnson epitomize their conclusions in an evolutionary
tree, unambiguously presented (Fig.2). These are diagrams that work
their way into textbooks, there to convince the uninitiated that
paleontologists can specify with assurance the (gradualistic) history
of life."[G&E, _Paleobiology_ 3:124 (1977).]
As far as I can see, David, you are the only creationist who tries to use
this one so we're not going to go to the trouble of adding it to the Quote
Mine Project.
So why don't you just tell the nice people what Klapper and Johnson's
conclusions that Gould is talking about were?
Macbeth, Norman. 1971. _Darwin Retried: An Appeal to
Reason_ (NY: Dell Publishing Co, Inc), 178pp.
[snip stuff not from Gould]
You pulled the wrong quote mine out of you voluminous files of dishonesty,
David. I asked you disclose what Klapper and Johnson's conclusions were
that Gould was talking about. Oh, that's right . . . what's the point of
being dishonest if you then let the cat out the bag, right David?
While I lack Klapper & Johnson's article, I did find this Eldredge &
Tattersall intriguing:
Your reading comprehension at greater ebb than usual, David? Here, let me
help: your quote mine starts "Klapper and Johnson epitomize their
conclusions . . . ". Now, what did _Gould and Eldredge_ say Klapper and
Johnson's conclusions were?
[snip more irrelevancies]
Then you can go and try to exploit someone else's death from
cancer for cheap rhetoric.
What percentage of mutations
. . .
[Snip rest of blather from someone with all the morals of a slug]
[JP]"blather from someone [df] with all the morals of a slug"
Do you agree with this statement?:
Actions that violate the 10 Commandments are highly immoral.
Don't know. Would you say that killing all males, including infants, and
non-virgin females in a defeated enemy population and taking the virgin
girls as (sexual) slaves violates the 10 Commandments?
Even more relevant here, does using the death of a good man from cancer to
make cheap and dishonest rhetorical points violate the 10 Commandments?
There seems to be considerable wiggle-room built into them . . . at least
according to *some* people.
I see you declined to answer my questions about mutations. Perhaps
you or another person will answer these questions:
You can try to change the subject all you want, David. But you have now
demonstrated all too clearly your own willingness to jetison any and all
moral codes at the drop of a hat.
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
There has been only one Christian.
They caught him and crucified him -- early.
-- Mark Twain --
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Mivart's On The Genesis of Species |
25 Nov 2004 06:01:37 PM |
|
|
catshark <catshark@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<ilqbq0tcqb2ktdlsh01q4ihf007aou7ki2@4ax.com>...
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 (david ford) wrote:
catshark <catshark@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<iu9aq09c0u6o2nbgfvdrvrvl2q8obdis66@4ax.com>...
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 (david ford) wrote:
catshark <catshark@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<b158q0hcdb0gqo62l1mptalgmpre5ftm56@4ax.com>...
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 (david ford) wrote:
catshark <catshark@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<scj5q05ptejtcn5v3hm772sagss7obbvdn@4ax.com>...
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 (david ford) wrote:
[...]
"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."[Gould, _The Panda's Thumb_ (1980), 181.]
Quote #3.2
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part3.html#quote3.2>
"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious
little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major
groups are characteristically abrupt."[Gould, _The Panda's Thumb_
(1980), 189.]
Quote #41
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-3.html#quote41>
"Klapper and Johnson epitomize their conclusions in an evolutionary
tree, unambiguously presented (Fig.2). These are diagrams that work
their way into textbooks, there to convince the uninitiated that
paleontologists can specify with assurance the (gradualistic) history
of life."[G&E, _Paleobiology_ 3:124 (1977).]
As far as I can see, David, you are the only creationist who tries to use
this one so we're not going to go to the trouble of adding it to the Quote
Mine Project.
So why don't you just tell the nice people what Klapper and Johnson's
conclusions that Gould is talking about were?
Macbeth, Norman. 1971. _Darwin Retried: An Appeal to
Reason_ (NY: Dell Publishing Co, Inc), 178pp.
[snip stuff not from Gould]
You pulled the wrong quote mine out of you voluminous files of dishonesty,
David. I asked you disclose what Klapper and Johnson's conclusions were
that Gould was talking about. Oh, that's right . . . what's the point of
being dishonest if you then let the cat out the bag, right David?
While I lack Klapper & Johnson's article, I did find this Eldredge &
Tattersall intriguing:
Your reading comprehension at greater ebb than usual, David?
Yes.
Here, let me
help: your quote mine starts "Klapper and Johnson epitomize their
conclusions . . . ". Now, what did _Gould and Eldredge_ say Klapper and
Johnson's conclusions were?
Here, G&E don't say exactly what [JP]"Klapper and Johnson's
conclusions were":
"Klapper and Johnson epitomize their conclusions in an evolutionary
tree, unambiguously presented (Fig.2). These are diagrams that work
their way into textbooks, there to convince the uninitiated that
paleontologists can specify with assurance the (gradualistic) history
of life."[G&E, _Paleobiology_ 3:124 (1977).]
"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."[Gould, _The Panda's Thumb_ (1980), 181.]
Macbeth, Norman. 1971. _Darwin Retried: An Appeal to
Reason_ (NY: Dell Publishing Co, Inc), 178pp. On 13-14,
the end of one paragraph, plus the next 2 paragraphs:
....This reticence is not because our modern authors are more
ignorant than their ancestors; it is due to bitter experience with
the frailty of all conjectures in this field [of constructing trees
of phylogeny]. I will show two vulnerable points.
First, if a paleontologist portrays known fossil forms such as
sharks, fishes, and amphibians in man's family tree, we soon
perceive that many examples of these forms are still present,
practically unchanged, although their former siblings are said to
have worked up to human status. Thus one and the same ancient
stock split into a group with astonishing plasticity and another
group with almost total rigidity. This is very hard to swallow.
Therefore there was a tendency, while trees were still being used,
to move the known forms out to the branches and reserve the trunk
for malleable forms not yet discovered. The number of blank spaces
was a visible and embarrassing sign of ignorance.
Second, the reader will become familiar (in Chapter 15) with a
surprising line of thought developed by Robert Broom and Sir Julian
Huxley to the effect that all specialized forms are dead ends
because they can only evolve a little further in the same
direction, remain unchanged, or die out. This applies to fossils
as well as to living forms, since with the possible exception of
man all known forms, extinct or extant, early or late, are already
specialized. Therefore these forms, being ineligible as ancestors,
must again be moved from the trunk of the tree to the branches.
The result is that the tips are well populated while the trunk is
shrouded in mist and mystery. We have the paradox that the remains
found in the earth's crust are not those of our ancestors, while
the bodies of our ancestors have not been preserved at all. We see
forms that purport to be our cousins, but we have no idea of who
our common grandparents were.
"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious
little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major
groups are characteristically abrupt."[Gould, _The Panda's Thumb_
(1980), 189.]
[snip more irrelevancies]
Then you can go and try to exploit someone else's death from
cancer for cheap rhetoric.
What percentage of mutations
. . .
[Snip rest of blather from someone with all the morals of a slug]
[JP]"blather from someone [df] with all the morals of a slug"
Do you agree with this statement?:
Actions that violate the 10 Commandments are highly immoral.
Don't know.
I know my answer: I disagree with the statement.
Would you say that killing all males, including infants, and
non-virgin females in a defeated enemy population and taking the virgin
girls as (sexual) slaves violates the 10 Commandments?
Yes.
Even more relevant here, does using the death of a good man from cancer to
make cheap and dishonest rhetorical points violate the 10 Commandments?
Definition of [JP]"a good man"?
Which, if any, of the following individuals do you consider [JP]"a
good man"?:
Moses
you yourself
Mohammed
Kinsey
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Hitler
Stalin
Jesus
Saddam
david ford
Ghandi
S.J. Gould
There seems to be considerable wiggle-room built into them . . . at least
according to *some* people.
Other people discount entirely the 10 Commandments as lacking any
relevancy to how anybody chooses to act.
I see you declined to answer my questions about mutations. Perhaps
you or another person will answer these questions:
You can try to change the subject all you want, David.
I see.
But you have now
demonstrated all too clearly your own willingness to jetison any and all
moral codes at the drop of a hat.
Yes. My [JP]"moral codes" are constantly evolving. As is society's.
As they should be: science has disproven the existence of any
God-given, unchanging [JP]"moral codes."
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
There has been only one Christian.
They caught him and crucified him -- early.
-- Mark Twain --
Ager, Derek V. 1993, 3rd ed. _The Nature of the Stratigraphical
Record_ (NY: John Wiley and Sons). Ager is Emeritus Professor of
Geology, University College of Swansea, U. of Wales, UK. In the
chapter "The Fleeting Fossil," a paragraph on 32:
It is both easy and tempting (and very much in line with the other
ideas expressed in this book) to adopt a neocatastrophist attitude
to the fossil record. Several very eminent living paleontologists
frequently emphasise the abruptness of some of the major changes
that have occurred, and seek for an external cause. This is a
heady wine and has intoxicated paleontologists since the days when
they could blame it all on Noah's flood. In fact, books are still
being published by the lunatic fringe with the same explanation.
In case this book should be read by some fundamentalist searching
for straws to prop up his prejudices, let me state categorically
that all my experience (such as it is) has led me to an unqualified
acceptance of evolution by natural selection as a sufficient
explanation for what I have seen in the fossil record. I find
divine creation, or several such creations, a completely
unnecessary hypothesis. Nevertheless this is not to deny that
there are some very curious features about the fossil record.
I'll grant that it's lunacy to ascribe the geologic column to the
operation of Noah's flood. Ager continues, on 32-33, with
One thing which has struck me very forcibly through the years is
that most of the classic evolutionary lineages of my student days,
such as _Ostrea-Gryphaea_ and _Zaphrentis delanouei_, have long
since lost their scientific respectability, and in spite of the
plethora of paleontological evidence we now have available, there
seems to be little to put in their place. In 40 years' work on the
Mesozoic Brachiopoda, I have found plenty of relationships, but few
if any evolving lineages. This does not mean that I deny evolution
occurred. It would be even more difficult to explain my data if it
did not. What it seems to mean is that evolution did not normally
proceed by a process of gradual change of one species into another
over long periods time. .... I am now very much of the opinion
that most evolution proceeds by sudden short steps or _quanta_ as
brilliantly expressed in recent years by Stephen Gould and Nils
[sic] Eldredge....
[Ager]"let me state categorically that all my experience (such as it
is) has led me to an unqualified acceptance of evolution by natural
selection as a sufficient explanation for what I have seen in the
fossil record" vs. [Ager]"evolution [in the Mesozoic Brachiopoda] did
not normally proceed by a process of gradual change of one species
into another over long periods time." An instance of cognitive
dissonance.
.
|
|
|
| User: "catshark" |
|
| Title: Re: Mivart's On The Genesis of Species |
25 Nov 2004 10:14:16 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 00:01:37 +0000 (UTC), (david ford)
wrote:
catshark <catshark@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<ilqbq0tcqb2ktdlsh01q4ihf007aou7ki2@4ax.com>...
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 (david ford) wrote:
catshark <catshark@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<iu9aq09c0u6o2nbgfvdrvrvl2q8obdis66@4ax.com>...
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 (david ford) wrote:
catshark <catshark@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<b158q0hcdb0gqo62l1mptalgmpre5ftm56@4ax.com>...
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 (david ford) wrote:
catshark <catshark@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<scj5q05ptejtcn5v3hm772sagss7obbvdn@4ax.com>...
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 (david ford) wrote:
[...]
"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."[Gould, _The Panda's Thumb_ (1980), 181.]
Quote #3.2
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part3.html#quote3.2>
"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious
little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major
groups are characteristically abrupt."[Gould, _The Panda's Thumb_
(1980), 189.]
Quote #41
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-3.html#quote41>
"Klapper and Johnson epitomize their conclusions in an evolutionary
tree, una | | | | | | | |
