A Very Darwinian Halloween

If one reads Nick's claims concerning fly traps closely one discovers that he doesn't provide any evidence of evolution; all he does is identify several similar plants then assumes and asserts that evolution has occurred. Of course this is the main characteristic of evolutionary thinking: assume discovery of similarity to mean evolution has occurred.

Hmm. Why then did the DNA form a tree that confirmed the (((Dionaea, Aldrovanda), Drosera), Drosophyllum) relationship that Darwin postulated 125 years before based on morphology?

Picture a science classroom in a state that passes “teach the controversy” or teach “strength and weaknesses of evolution (but not ID/creationism)” while making it illegal to give failing grades to creationist students who get their teacher-challenging questions from Jack Chick, or AiG, or the DI. That would be a classroom that looks a lot like the Uncommonly Dense site.

Indeed, why do any gene comparisons form nested hierarchies? If as Ray claims, species are immutable, then they are actually not related to each other. And note that the answer is not common design. The nested hierarchy extends to molecular characters that do not affect phenotype. The nested hierarchy extends even to organisms that are not superficially similar morphologically, such as whales and hippos.

Ray hasn't learned anything in the last hundred and fifty years. The sad thing is that he apparently thinks that no one else has either.

I would suggest that the one post per thread rule to applied to Ray. Otherwise...

Nick Matzke said: Hmm. Why then did the DNA form a tree that confirmed the (((Dionaea, Aldrovanda), Drosera), Drosophyllum) relationship that Darwin postulated 125 years before based on morphology?

Well Ray, perhaps you can explain the observed pattern. You know, provide a better explanation than evolution for the nested hierarchy. See Ray, the thing is that this is the exact pattern that is predicted by evolution. And actually the causal mechanisms are well known. So until you can come up with a better explanation, you have exactly nothing.

And the genes almost always give the same relationships as morphology. When they don't give the same answer there are good reasons why they don't. But then again, you wouldn't know anything about modern science now would you Ray.

You want scarrry! Just read Darwins second book !! Conclusions and methodology for those conclusions will make even the most Darwin-believer leave the room screaming!
I wish a creationist would write a book on Darwins ideas, and research thereto, revealed in his second book. it would shed light on the first.
Anyone want to sponsor me?! Probably another best seller creationist book.

Seems like Steve Meyer is authoring post's on Darwin's Doubt for David Klinghoffer.

Robert Byers said: Just read Darwins second book !!

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawm-WhebH0itIDDTj06EQo2vtiF0BBqF10Q said: Seems like Steve Meyer is authoring post's on Darwin's Doubt for David Klinghoffer.

Agreed that the accounts evidence is confusing. Maybe the "accounts" are some weird guess that google is making independently?

Anyway, there's no doubt Coppedge is a writer for the DI. E.g., this post from...October 31 is 100% Coppedge's style:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/10/intelligent_des_12078571.html

All it's missing is the YEC spin at the end, Coppedge just suppresses the YEC and puts in some ID spin instead typically.

Evidence of agreement between phylogenies made from different parts of the genome, and from characters in different parts of the organism, is the strongest evidence we have for common ancestry. Stronger than fossils, because we can use it for organisms that hardly ever fossilize, and be completely convincing.

Similar evidence convinced most biologists in the 19th century, so that opposition to common descent basically collapsed in the late 1800s.

Our local creationists are stuck back about 1820 and haven't gotten the word.

But does any of this explain the DJ on WKRP in Cincinatti? (Not Johnny, the other one.)

Or Cincinnati, even.

Creationist beliefs rest on maintaining the inability to distinguish "similarity" from "nested similarities."

(I suppose I’ll regret this, but people are already getting tangled up with Ray, so here goes:) Ray: You probably have a pat answer to this, because the question is so obvious, but I’d like to hear it. How does a “species immutabilist” explain the mutating that we do to species all the time? I’m especially fond of the enormities of mutation we’ve visited on domestic dogs, from teacup poodles to English bulldogs to Irish wolfhounds. By the usual definition of ‘species’, they would be different species, as the tiny poodle can’t breed with the wolfhound without technological intervention. We consider them all the same species ONLY because we KNOW that we have selectively bred them all from a common ancestor species. It surely seems to me that Canis lupus has proved highly mutable. We did that. We still do that. Corporations make big money doing that with many species of livestock, crops, ornamentals …even marijuana, for cryin’ out loud! Explain to me why that isn’t proof and demonstration of the mutability of species. Or do you deny that selective breeding actually works?

Hi Ray, I think your objection is valid in a sense, but is perhaps somewhat too strict for the "historical" sciences, where there is no opportunity to roll a 10,000- or, in the case of evolution, a many-million-year long film.
If one were to apply your criterion to my field, for example, ancient Near Eastern studies, I don't think I could legitimately conclude that, let's say, the cuneiform script used in Urartu in the 9th-8th cent. BC was "genetically" related to the very similar script used by Assyria before and during that time. Nonetheless, I am tempted to conclude that a borrowing took place, even though I doubt I will ever be able to point to the exact time, place and causal factors behind such a borrowing. Of course, I remain very open to the possibility that it may have occured in some other way if and when such evidence should become available. Do you see my thoughts on this matter as reasonable, or no?
A related question on such "historical" sciences would naturally be, what manner of evidence could a scientist point to in order to construct a convincing case for evolution if the data and argumentation presented above are not sufficient? And in the case of other historical sciences?
All the best, Jared

Ray's idea, which is that "overall similarity" is what is used to classify organisms, is known as phenetics, and was abandoned decades ago in evolutionary biology. Overall similarity reliably represents phylogeny only under the special case of clocklike evolution at constant rates. Although, statistically, it works well enough in many cases, which is why the Linnaean hierarchy, despite its problems, was a good first-order argument for common ancestry, in Darwin's day and now, and why Darwin was able to figure out the Droseraceae pretty well (note that there are mistakes in the more remote parts of his classification -- we now know that Nepenthes is a relative of Droseraceae, and Byblis and Roridula are not)

The reason Hennig is famous is that he pointed out that similarities are of two types -- shared ancestral character states (symplesiomorphies) and shared derived character states (synapomorphies). Only the latter are informative about shared history, i.e. phylogenetic relationship. With whales, cows, and horses, synapomorphies in fossil whales actually allow us to group whales and cows (and other artiodactyls) against horses (perissodactyls). Fossil whales with legs, and other artiodactyls, have e.g. a double-pulley astragalus bone in their ankles, and they share features of their skulls and earbones. This was all covered by Kevin Padian in the Dover trial:

http://www.sciohost.org/ncse/kvd/Padian/Padian_transcript.html#whales

So, whales were a case where increased knowledge of the fossil record ended up confirming the relationship of whales within artiodactyls that was suggested first by molecular data (e.g., the whale pseudogene for Hageman factor, one of the components of the "IC" blood-clotting cascade: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9678675 )

The features that cows and horses share -- 4 legs, body covered with hair, etc. -- are all character states shared much more widely, they do not specifically group cows and horses against everything else. The only way there would be an ambiguity about this would be if a biologist had only 3 species and absolutely no information about anything else. This is an unrealistic situation in real science, it only occurs in the poorly-informed minds of creationists.

Even if Ray or whoever wants to just ignore all of the above, it's not as if whales went just anywhere in phylogenetic trees. They've always been placental mammals, whatever their detailed placement. If some studies said whales were subgroups of ferns, other said they were subgroups of Archaea, and others said they were frogs, THEN we'd have an actual large incongruence. Bouncing around within merely placental mammals is a small incongruence in the grand scheme of things.

Just Bob said: Ray didn't respond on a thread below, and I bet he won't here either.

(I suppose I’ll regret this, but people are already getting tangled up with Ray, so here goes:) Ray: You probably have a pat answer to this, because the question is so obvious, but I’d like to hear it. How does a “species immutabilist” explain the mutating that we do to species all the time? I’m especially fond of the enormities of mutation we’ve visited on domestic dogs, from teacup poodles to English bulldogs to Irish wolfhounds. By the usual definition of ‘species’, they would be different species, as the tiny poodle can’t breed with the wolfhound without technological intervention. We consider them all the same species ONLY because we KNOW that we have selectively bred them all from a common ancestor species. It surely seems to me that Canis lupus has proved highly mutable. We did that. We still do that. Corporations make big money doing that with many species of livestock, crops, ornamentals …even marijuana, for cryin’ out loud! Explain to me why that isn’t proof and demonstration of the mutability of species. Or do you deny that selective breeding actually works?

You know what is scary to a believer? The very idea that Behe's god would design a blood parasite to make us sick.

make that blood-borne

Karen S. said: You know what is scary to a believer? The very idea that Behe's god would design a blood parasite to make us sick.

@PT: Rhizocephalan parasite body has only female gonads & remains of brain; so totally dependnt on host 4 nourishmnt: GOP's ideal 4 women.

[Tweeted from DiogenesLamp0, a twitter feed for wit related to science & pseudoscience]

didymos1120 said:

Robert Byers said: Just read Darwins second book !!

And what was his second book, Robby?

didymos1120 said:

Robert Byers said: Just read Darwins second book !!

And what was his second book, Robby?

Joe Felsenstein said: Evidence of agreement between phylogenies made from different parts of the genome, and from characters in different parts of the organism, is the strongest evidence we have for common ancestry. Stronger than fossils, because we can use it for organisms that hardly ever fossilize, and be completely convincing. Similar evidence convinced most biologists in the 19th century, so that opposition to common descent basically collapsed in the late 1800s. Our local creationists are stuck back about 1820 and haven't gotten the word.

Robert Byers said:

didymos1120 said: And what was his second book, Robby?

It was the ascent(or was it the descent) of man.

Robert Byers said: lets think about this. First fossils are not biological evidence for anything because if the geology is wrong the biology is wrong. So there, logically, is no biological evidence in fossils for descent.

Parts of the genome and characters in parts of the organism need not be the only option for agreement. a creator working from a common blueprint/laws, (like in physics) would also have this arrangement.

so if this is your evidence its only a line of reasoning that upon another option being offered fails to be evidence.

Correction: Some onions only have about five times more DNA than their cousins.

Nick Matzke said: ... The reason Hennig is famous is that he pointed out that similarities are of two types -- shared ancestral character states (symplesiomorphies) and shared derived character states (synapomorphies). Only the latter are informative about shared history, i.e. phylogenetic relationship. ...

Joe Felsenstein said:

Nick Matzke said: ... The reason Hennig is famous is that he pointed out that similarities are of two types -- shared ancestral character states (symplesiomorphies) and shared derived character states (synapomorphies). Only the latter are informative about shared history, i.e. phylogenetic relationship. ...

We'll leave out Walter Zimmermann and other predecessors. But I am pleased to hear that there is not any such thing as homoplasy, and that we always know which is the ancestral character state. And thus that all these numerical and statistical methods for inferring phylogenies (including even parsimony methods) were a waste of time. What a great relief.

Jared Miller said: Hi Ray, I think your objection is valid in a sense, but is perhaps somewhat too strict for the "historical" sciences, where there is no opportunity to roll a 10,000- or, in the case of evolution, a many-million-year long film. If one were to apply your criterion to my field, for example, ancient Near Eastern studies, I don't think I could legitimately conclude that, let's say, the cuneiform script used in Urartu in the 9th-8th cent. BC was "genetically" related to the very similar script used by Assyria before and during that time. Nonetheless, I am tempted to conclude that a borrowing took place, even though I doubt I will ever be able to point to the exact time, place and causal factors behind such a borrowing. Of course, I remain very open to the possibility that it may have occured in some other way if and when such evidence should become available. Do you see my thoughts on this matter as reasonable, or no?

A related question on such "historical" sciences would naturally be, what manner of evidence could a scientist point to in order to construct a convincing case for evolution if the data and argumentation presented above are not sufficient? [delete text] All the best, Jared

Ray Martinez said: I believe...

Nick Matzke said: Ray's idea, which is that "overall similarity" is what is used to classify organisms, is known as phenetics, and was abandoned decades ago in evolutionary biology. Overall similarity reliably represents phylogeny only under the special case of clocklike evolution at constant rates. Although, statistically, it works well enough in many cases, which is why the Linnaean hierarchy, despite its problems, was a good first-order argument for common ancestry, in Darwin's day and now, and why Darwin was able to figure out the Droseraceae pretty well (note that there are mistakes in the more remote parts of his classification -- we now know that Nepenthes is a relative of Droseraceae, and Byblis and Roridula are not)

And let’s not forget that in ancient times communication between nations and civilizations was primitive and therefore virtually non-existent. It would be hard to explain how such borrowing actually occurred?

Nick Matzke said: The reason Hennig is famous is that he pointed out that similarities are of two types -- shared ancestral character states (symplesiomorphies) and shared derived character states (synapomorphies). Only the latter are informative about shared history, i.e. phylogenetic relationship. With whales, cows, and horses, synapomorphies in fossil whales actually allow us to group whales and cows (and other artiodactyls) against horses (perissodactyls). Fossil whales with legs, and other artiodactyls, have e.g. a double-pulley astragalus bone in their ankles, and they share features of their skulls and earbones. This was all covered by Kevin Padian in the Dover trial: http://www.sciohost.org/ncse/kvd/Padian/Padian_transcript.html#whales So, whales were a case where increased knowledge of the fossil record ended up confirming the relationship of whales within artiodactyls that was suggested first by molecular data (e.g., the whale pseudogene for Hageman factor, one of the components of the "IC" blood-clotting cascade: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9678675 ) The features that cows and horses share -- 4 legs, body covered with hair, etc. -- are all character states shared much more widely, they do not specifically group cows and horses against everything else. The only way there would be an ambiguity about this would be if a biologist had only 3 species and absolutely no information about anything else. This is an unrealistic situation in real science, it only occurs in the poorly-informed minds of creationists. Even if Ray or whoever wants to just ignore all of the above, it's not as if whales went just anywhere in phylogenetic trees. They've always been placental mammals, whatever their detailed placement. If some studies said whales were subgroups of ferns, other said they were subgroups of Archaea, and others said they were frogs, THEN we'd have an actual large incongruence. Bouncing around within merely placental mammals is a small incongruence in the grand scheme of things.

Ray Martinez said:

Nick Matzke said: The reason Hennig is famous is that he pointed out that similarities are of two types -- shared ancestral character states (symplesiomorphies) and shared derived character states (synapomorphies). Only the latter are informative about shared history, i.e. phylogenetic relationship. With whales, cows, and horses, synapomorphies in fossil whales actually allow us to group whales and cows (and other artiodactyls) against horses (perissodactyls). Fossil whales with legs, and other artiodactyls, have e.g. a double-pulley astragalus bone in their ankles, and they share features of their skulls and earbones. This was all covered by Kevin Padian in the Dover trial: http://www.sciohost.org/ncse/kvd/Padian/Padian_transcript.html#whales So, whales were a case where increased knowledge of the fossil record ended up confirming the relationship of whales within artiodactyls that was suggested first by molecular data (e.g., the whale pseudogene for Hageman factor, one of the components of the "IC" blood-clotting cascade: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9678675 ) The features that cows and horses share -- 4 legs, body covered with hair, etc. -- are all character states shared much more widely, they do not specifically group cows and horses against everything else. The only way there would be an ambiguity about this would be if a biologist had only 3 species and absolutely no information about anything else. This is an unrealistic situation in real science, it only occurs in the poorly-informed minds of creationists. Even if Ray or whoever wants to just ignore all of the above, it's not as if whales went just anywhere in phylogenetic trees. They've always been placental mammals, whatever their detailed placement. If some studies said whales were subgroups of ferns, other said they were subgroups of Archaea, and others said they were frogs, THEN we'd have an actual large incongruence. Bouncing around within merely placental mammals is a small incongruence in the grand scheme of things.

Nick downplays the incongruity to be "small." But it still exists, which was my only point along with the fact that his defense and deference to Darwinian fly trap morphology, corroborated by genetic studies, undermines both disciplines (genetics and morphology) to the same degree.

In other words, neither the morphological nor molecular are completely true; it all just depends, which is very subjective and nearly impossible to falsify since Evolutionists will always have a back-up in either of the two.

I contend incongruity between the molecular and the morphological, AND the fact that evolutionary theorists use both, falsify the evolutionary explanation as inconsistent. God intentionally designed the morphological and the molecular to contradict.

So, according to evolutionary theory, cows are closer to whales than horses. And whales are not only the largest living creatures on Earth, but also the largest mammals. Why does it take a person like myself to point out the obvious: that the largest creature, and mammal, which happens to be acquatic, cannot possibly be closer to cows than horses (land dwelling mammals and quadrupeds). Simply ridiculous! The alleged claim of fact serves to falsify evolutionary theory in the minds of rational people.

Goes to show: once accepted to explain biodiversity, evolution is not falsifiable. What is modifiable, but not falsifiable, is how evolution "occurs."

Ray needs to understand DNA sequencing and nested similarities if he wishes to contribute meaningfully to discussions of evolution.

In other words, neither the morphological nor molecular are completely true; it all just depends, which is very subjective and nearly impossible to falsify since Evolutionists will always have a back-up in either of the two.

I contend incongruity between the molecular and the morphological, AND the fact that evolutionary theorists use both, falsify the evolutionary explanation as inconsistent. God intentionally designed the morphological and the molecular to contradict.

So, according to evolutionary theory, cows are closer to whales than horses. And whales are not only the largest living creatures on Earth, but also the largest mammals. Why does it take a person like myself to point out the obvious: that the largest creature, and mammal, which happens to be acquatic, cannot possibly be closer to cows than horses (land dwelling mammals and quadrupeds). Simply ridiculous! The alleged claim of fact serves to falsify evolutionary theory in the minds of rational people.

Ray Martinez said: I contend incongruity between the molecular and the morphological, AND the fact that evolutionary theorists use both, falsify the evolutionary explanation as inconsistent. God intentionally designed the morphological and the molecular to contradict. So, according to evolutionary theory, cows are closer to whales than horses. And whales are not only the largest living creatures on Earth, but also the largest mammals. Why does it take a person like myself to point out the obvious: that the largest creature, and mammal, which happens to be acquatic, cannot possibly be closer to cows than horses (land dwelling mammals and quadrupeds). Simply ridiculous! The alleged claim of fact serves to falsify evolutionary theory in the minds of rational people. Goes to show: once accepted to explain biodiversity, evolution is not falsifiable. What is modifiable, but not falsifiable, is how evolution "occurs."

ksplawn said:

... his second book...

... Nope.

Ray Martinez said: Nick downplays the incongruity to be "small." But it still exists, which was my only point along with the fact that his defense and deference to Darwinian fly trap morphology, corroborated by genetic studies, undermines both disciplines (genetics and morphology) to the same degree. In other words, neither the morphological nor molecular are completely true; it all just depends, which is very subjective and nearly impossible to falsify since Evolutionists will always have a back-up in either of the two. I contend incongruity between the molecular and the morphological, AND the fact that evolutionary theorists use both, falsify the evolutionary explanation as inconsistent. God intentionally designed the morphological and the molecular to contradict. So, according to evolutionary theory, cows are closer to whales than horses. And whales are not only the largest living creatures on Earth, but also the largest mammals. Why does it take a person like myself to point out the obvious: that the largest creature, and mammal, which happens to be acquatic, cannot possibly be closer to cows than horses (land dwelling mammals and quadrupeds). Simply ridiculous! The alleged claim of fact serves to falsify evolutionary theory in the minds of rational people. Goes to show: once accepted to explain biodiversity, evolution is not falsifiable. What is modifiable, but not falsifiable, is how evolution "occurs."

It has always amazed me that some people can look at the range of semi-acquatic mammals (otters, seals, sea lions, etc) and claim with a straight face that there are no, and could never have been any transitional forms between a mammalian life on land and life in the water. No, not that these animals are in any way a "missing link" between cows and whales. It's just that we have actual living, swimming examples of mammals who are halfway between being a fully land-based animal and a fully water-based animal.

Exactly like the claims that there are no extant examples of forms of "intermediate" eyes, or "intermediate" forms of blood clotting, or of creatures transitioning from water to land.

It's one thing to close your mind to certain "interpretations" of historical data, to "mere" "ideas". But to close your mind to the physical existence of creatures you can go and see and touch today is just mind boggling inane.

Scott F said: It has always amazed me that some people can look at the range of semi-acquatic mammals (otters, seals, sea lions, etc) and claim with a straight face that there are no, and could never have been any transitional forms between a mammalian life on land and life in the water. No, not that these animals are in any way a "missing link" between cows and whales. It's just that we have actual living, swimming examples of mammals who are halfway between being a fully land-based animal and a fully water-based animal.

Ray Martinez said: So, according to evolutionary theory, cows are closer to whales than horses. And whales are not only the largest living creatures on Earth, but also the largest mammals. Why does it take a person like myself to point out the obvious: that the largest creature, and mammal, which happens to be acquatic, cannot possibly be closer to cows than horses (land dwelling mammals and quadrupeds). Simply ridiculous! The alleged claim of fact serves to falsify evolutionary theory in the minds of rational people.

TomS said: I'm anticipating that a die-hard anti-macro-evolution-ist would say that the transition for sirenians only involved a loss, of legs, and thus is not an increase in "complexity".

Ray's problem is that he thinks common sense always works. It doesn't. Case closed.

Robert Byers said:

didymos1120 said:

Robert Byers said: Just read Darwins second book !!

And what was his second book, Robby?

It was the ascent(or was it the descent) of man.

Byers, What about finally giving us a full review of an evo-devo (click here) book like Sean B Carroll’s Endless Forms Most Beautiful (click here)? Remember, it's a popular level book for the public. You could use this book to show how evo-devo and other evidence for evolution depends on fossils as you routinely parrot.......unless evo-devo really doesn't depend on fossils.

When are you going to get around to fully discussing SINE insertions? You could use SINEs to tie in with your wild claim that "genetic researchers today are like alchemists of yesterday" and oh here's a link to the post about SINEs that you have ignored: http://pandasthumb.org/bw/index.html#comment-300136

Are you ever going to address this Christian link about Christian scientists that accept and routinely use radiometric dating? You have repeatedly avoided this question for over a year now (Byers, click here to see).

Are you ever going to make a full critique of this particular link?

ksplawn said:

Robert Byers said:

didymos1120 said: And what was his second book, Robby?

It was the ascent(or was it the descent) of man.

Nope.

Robert Byers said: lets think about this. First fossils are not biological evidence for anything because if the geology is wrong the biology is wrong. So there, logically, is no biological evidence in fossils for descent.

What does this even mean? And why are we taking it as established that the geology IS wrong, which you would have to do to dismiss the biological data in fossils?

Parts of the genome and characters in parts of the organism need not be the only option for agreement. a creator working from a common blueprint/laws, (like in physics) would also have this arrangement.

So why do some onions have seven times more DNA than their cousins, and why would they have five times as much as a human? Why does a pufferfish need roughly 1/3 as many base-pairs of DNA as you, but a lungfish needs a whopping 46 times more than you?

so if this is your evidence its only a line of reasoning that upon another option being offered fails to be evidence.

Science doesn't even work that way, Bobby. Two competing ideas can still claim evidence for themselves without it having to be exclusive. Also, the close agreement between genetic evidence and independently-derived fossil evidence constitutes its own strong evidence in favor of common descent and evolution.

Ray Martinez said: So, according to evolutionary theory, cows are closer to whales than horses. And whales are not only the largest living creatures on Earth, but also the largest mammals. Why does it take a person like myself to point out the obvious: that the largest creature, and mammal, which happens to be acquatic, cannot possibly be closer to cows than horses (land dwelling mammals and quadrupeds). Simply ridiculous! The alleged claim of fact serves to falsify evolutionary theory in the minds of rational people. Goes to show: once accepted to explain biodiversity, evolution is not falsifiable. What is modifiable, but not falsifiable, is how evolution "occurs."

Being bipedal and about our size, emus must be our closest living relatives. Thanks, Ray. You've made biology much clearer!

Byers has had his one incoherent post on this thread. If his posts are allowed to remain, he must explain why whales are genetically more similar to terrestrial mammals then to fish or he must STFU and stop using bullshit, irrational arguments like: "if there is any possibility of any alternative, even if it obviously isnt true, then im right and your wrong, regardless of the evidence." (It was supposed to be a quote remember).

It's being held aboard a cruise ship? Wouldn't an ark be more appropriate?

... his [Darwin's] was the first major modern work on barnacles, as it was only in the 1830s that zoologists realized that barnacles were arthropods; previously they had been thought to be molluscs. Whoops, wrong phylum! Not everything keeps the “bodyplan” it is supposed to have!

Barnacles, to Lamarck, occupied their own group in the farthest corner of the molluscs. Lamarck (1812) later placed the barnacles in a distinct class, the cirrhipedes.

Robert Byers said: A common blueprint covers great common points in biology. THEN there is the impact of diversity affecting a original blueprint. A blueprint from a creator is a option even if not true. Why not? Yet your side says because there is NO option for a common blueprint, at some level, then the only option is descent demonstrated by genetics, fossils, etc indicating likeness. This is not science by the way but anyways its wrong because there is another option. Descent is not proven by genetics, fossils, but only what is proven is like genes or traits. There is a flaw in evolutionists thinking here. That is there is flaw in the reasoning even if they were right. They really are concluding like DNA is proof of like descent. It isn't proof. Its a hunch. Like DNA would be predicted by any creationist model also. What would you do if you were a creator? Diversity in biology demanding diversity in basic structures at atomic level OR like DNA at root of all biology. Anyways creationists are addressing here the evidence as a conclusion of rejecting other options. Likeness in DNA is not PROOF or hinting of proof of like descent. It might be a insightful idea but it would be expected from a common program/blueprint from somebody making things.

Ms. Constantine,

I stand in awe of your ability to extract any meaning from that Byers word salad.

Joe Felsenstein said: Nick, I looked back at this post and saw this statement:

... his [Darwin's] was the first major modern work on barnacles, as it was only in the 1830s that zoologists realized that barnacles were arthropods; previously they had been thought to be molluscs. Whoops, wrong phylum! Not everything keeps the “bodyplan” it is supposed to have!

A small qualification. I had thought that it was Lamarck who had revolutionized the classification of barnacles. A little Googling finds a quite interesting and good book, The Copepodologist's Cabinet: A Biographical and Bibliographical History, Part 1 by David M. Damkaer (2002). It reviews the contributions of many early biologists to the classification of copepods, giving lively short biographical sketches of many biologists. (It is perhaps understandable that this book has not come to many people's attention -- the title does not exactly put it on the best-seller lists). The book is fully visible on Google Books. In a footnote on page 118 Damkaer says

Barnacles, to Lamarck, occupied their own group in the farthest corner of the molluscs. Lamarck (1812) later placed the barnacles in a distinct class, the cirrhipedes.

So your statement is partly correct, but the barnacles seem to have departed from the molluscs a bit earlier. Here, as in evolutionary theory, Lamarck was a predecessor of Darwin.

Except for the fact that we know for a definite fact that similarity in genetic pattern is proof of common ancestry. Or are you planning a legal challenge to the validity of paternity tests? Even you, my dear Byers, cannot be so ignorant that you think my children share a similar genetic code because god created them de novo from a common design? Don’t you know how sex works? It makes the common descent of DNA patterns inevitable and incontrovertible.

harold said: Helena Constantine said -

Except for the fact that we know for a definite fact that similarity in genetic pattern is proof of common ancestry. Or are you planning a legal challenge to the validity of paternity tests? Even you, my dear Byers, cannot be so ignorant that you think my children share a similar genetic code because god created them de novo from a common design? Don’t you know how sex works? It makes the common descent of DNA patterns inevitable and incontrovertible.

In addition to the obvious time constraints, I argue with creationists only for the sake of third party observers, or to object to extreme incivility such as threats or epithets against disadvantaged social groups. For opposite reasons, neither Ray Martinez nor Robert Byers offers much to illustrate to third party readers. Byers would probably like to convince someone, but can't for a variety of reasons. Ray Martinez appears to have good verbal skills, but prefers to antagonize even his fellow convinced creationists, in an apparent quest to be the only pure creationist in the world. In addition, neither of them uses extreme incivility, at least in this venue. Having said that, the terse passage quoted above does completely rebut all comments by both of them in this thread, as well as almost all creationist output ever. Thank you for that.

stevaroni said:

TomS said: I'm anticipating that a die-hard anti-macro-evolution-ist would say that the transition for sirenians only involved a loss, of legs, and thus is not an increase in "complexity".

And even at that, even if all aquatic mammals only evolved by a "loss of information" from some ancestral form (Noah had two pakicetus on the Ark maybe?) it's pretty damn impossible to argue that, beavers, dugongs and killer whales aren't different species now, so um... evolution apparently works at making species.

Rhizocephalan parasite body has only female gonads and remains of brain; so totally dependnt on host 4 nourishmnt: GOP’s ideal 4 women.

I want to mention where I came across sirenians as evidence for macro-evolution. One of the foremost authorities on the sirenian fossil record, Daryl P. Domning, is a Roman Catholic and published a book reconciling evolution with original sin:

Original selfishness: original sin and evil in the light of evolution
by Daryl P. Domning ; with foreword and commentary by Monika K. Hellwig.
Aldershot, England; Burlington, VT : Ashgate, 2006

If anybody out there is interested in a somewhat more thorough look at the evolution of sirenians (sea cows, dugongs, and manatees) than Wikipedia can provide, I found this nifty PDF that goes over the whole shebang. Included at the bottom of page 4 is a nice picture of an extinct, 15 million year old dugong species with clearly vestigial hind limbs dangling off the pelvis. Hard to think of what kind of "function" a Creationist would assign to those little bones to make them "not vestigial," according to the Creationist understanding of the term.

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnKupVGX70N9ZsvLu8iScIzWpyVj8bds_Q said: Ray's problem is that he thinks common sense always works. It doesn't. Case closed.

Helena Constantine said: Except for the fact that we know for a definite fact that similarity in genetic pattern is proof of common ancestry.

Or are you planning a legal challenge to the validity of paternity tests? Even you, my dear Byers, cannot be so ignorant that you think my children share a similar genetic code because god created them de novo from a common design? Don't you know how sex works? It makes the common descent of DNA patterns inevitable and incontrovertible.

Ray Martinez said:

Helena Constantine said: Except for the fact that we know for a definite fact that similarity in genetic pattern is proof of common ancestry.

No, you don't "know for a definite fact that similarity in genetic pattern is proof of common ancestry." The same is an assumption: evolutionary thinking assumes discovery of similarity to mean evolution and common descent have occurred. Neither have occurred until an agent of causation identified and evidenced.

Or are you planning a legal challenge to the validity of paternity tests? Even you, my dear Byers, cannot be so ignorant that you think my children share a similar genetic code because god created them de novo from a common design? Don't you know how sex works? It makes the common descent of DNA patterns inevitable and incontrovertible.

Show us the mechanism that produces groups within groups? Again, all you're doing is identifying an effect then concluding that macroevolution has occurred. You need to identify and evidence a cause or the effect isn't real. Evolutionists are fond of saying that design is an illusion. Here, have a taste of your own medicine: phenomena used to conclude for macroevolution and nested hierarchies is illusory until cause established.

Ray Martinez said:

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnKupVGX70N9ZsvLu8iScIzWpyVj8bds_Q said: Ray's problem is that he thinks common sense always works. It doesn't. Case closed.

A real beauty. Let's not forget that an Evolutionist wrote the comment above. In other words, evolution is counterintuitive and senseless. This is precisely why the theory is so "misunderstood."

Ray Martinez said:

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnKupVGX70N9ZsvLu8iScIzWpyVj8bds_Q said: Ray's problem is that he thinks common sense always works. It doesn't. Case closed.

A real beauty. Let's not forget that an Evolutionist wrote the comment above. In other words, evolution is counterintuitive and senseless. This is precisely why the theory is so "misunderstood."

Ray Martinez said:

Helena Constantine said: Except for the fact that we know for a definite fact that similarity in genetic pattern is proof of common ancestry.

No, you don't "know for a definite fact that similarity in genetic pattern is proof of common ancestry." The same is an assumption: evolutionary thinking assumes discovery of similarity to mean evolution and common descent have occurred. Neither have occurred until an agent of causation identified and evidenced.

Or are you planning a legal challenge to the validity of paternity tests? Even you, my dear Byers, cannot be so ignorant that you think my children share a similar genetic code because god created them de novo from a common design? Don't you know how sex works? It makes the common descent of DNA patterns inevitable and incontrovertible.

Show us the mechanism that produces groups within groups? Again, all you're doing is identifying an effect then concluding that macroevolution has occurred. You need to identify and evidence a cause or the effect isn't real. Evolutionists are fond of saying that design is an illusion. Here, have a taste of your own medicine: phenomena used to conclude for macroevolution and nested hierarchies is illusory until cause established.

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

Helena Constantine said: Except for the fact that we know for a definite fact that similarity in genetic pattern is proof of common ancestry.

No, you don't "know for a definite fact that similarity in genetic pattern is proof of common ancestry." The same is an assumption: evolutionary thinking assumes discovery of similarity to mean evolution and common descent have occurred. Neither have occurred until an agent of causation identified and evidenced.

Wrong. No agent of causation is necessary. It all just works.

Or are you planning a legal challenge to the validity of paternity tests? Even you, my dear Byers, cannot be so ignorant that you think my children share a similar genetic code because god created them de novo from a common design? Don't you know how sex works? It makes the common descent of DNA patterns inevitable and incontrovertible.

Show us the mechanism that produces groups within groups? Again, all you're doing is identifying an effect then concluding that macroevolution has occurred. You need to identify and evidence a cause or the effect isn't real. Evolutionists are fond of saying that design is an illusion. Here, have a taste of your own medicine: phenomena used to conclude for macroevolution and nested hierarchies is illusory until cause established.

Wrong again. Lots of things happen without causes. Lots of them. Maybe most of them.

Ray Martinez said: Cause-and-effect is universally accepted scientific logic.

Les Lane said: Ray needs to understand DNA sequencing and nested similarities if he wishes to contribute meaningfully to discussions of evolution.

Thanks for answering my question Ray. So much for common sense. At least yours.

Scott F said: It has always amazed me that some people can look at the range of semi-acquatic mammals (otters, seals, sea lions, etc) and claim with a straight face that there are no, and could never have been any transitional forms between a mammalian life on land and life in the water. No, not that these animals are in any way a "missing link" between cows and whales. It's just that we have actual living, swimming examples of mammals who are halfway between being a fully land-based animal and a fully water-based animal. Exactly like the claims that there are no extant examples of forms of "intermediate" eyes, or "intermediate" forms of blood clotting, or of creatures transitioning from water to land. It's one thing to close your mind to certain "interpretations" of historical data, to "mere" "ideas". But to close your mind to the physical existence of creatures you can go and see and touch today is just mind boggling inane.

DS said: Thanks for answering my question Ray. So much for common sense. At least yours.

I think Darwin would have answered that natural selection explains all those things, Ray. Have you read the book or just a list of creationist quotes from it?

Even for you, the reply to DS about common sense is lame. Surely you can comment on geocentrism and common sense. Is the earth moving or not?

Ray Martinez said:

DS said: Thanks for answering my question Ray. So much for common sense. At least yours.

The fact that you departed Biology rendered your point invalid. That's why I passed.

Nick Matzke said:

I contend incongruity between the molecular and the morphological, AND the fact that evolutionary theorists use both, falsify the evolutionary explanation as inconsistent. God intentionally designed the morphological and the molecular to contradict.

And how do you know that? Where's the Bible quote? If you're inferring this statement, please give us your statistical test. I can give you the statistical tests for common ancestry.

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

Helena Constantine said: Except for the fact that we know for a definite fact that similarity in genetic pattern is proof of common ancestry.

No, you don't "know for a definite fact that similarity in genetic pattern is proof of common ancestry." The same is an assumption: evolutionary thinking assumes discovery of similarity to mean evolution and common descent have occurred. Neither have occurred until an agent of causation identified and evidenced.

Wrong. No agent of causation is necessary. It all just works.

Or are you planning a legal challenge to the validity of paternity tests? Even you, my dear Byers, cannot be so ignorant that you think my children share a similar genetic code because god created them de novo from a common design? Don't you know how sex works? It makes the common descent of DNA patterns inevitable and incontrovertible.

Show us the mechanism that produces groups within groups? Again, all you're doing is identifying an effect then concluding that macroevolution has occurred. You need to identify and evidence a cause or the effect isn't real. Evolutionists are fond of saying that design is an illusion. Here, have a taste of your own medicine: phenomena used to conclude for macroevolution and nested hierarchies is illusory until cause established.

Wrong again. Lots of things happen without causes. Lots of them. Maybe most of them.

Jaw dropping evo stupidity. "Discovery of similarity means evolution has occurred" (Phhht). Cause-and-effect is universally accepted scientific logic.

Ray Martinez said:

Nick Matzke said:

I contend incongruity between the molecular and the morphological, AND the fact that evolutionary theorists use both, falsify the evolutionary explanation as inconsistent. God intentionally designed the morphological and the molecular to contradict.

And how do you know that? Where's the Bible quote? If you're inferring this statement, please give us your statistical test. I can give you the statistical tests for common ancestry.

The Bible says God created the entire natural universe; and the creation concepts, derived from Genesis, speak of real-time periodic creation (not a single original one-off event). So God created the molecular and morphological to contradict. And before the rise of Darwinism science accepted each species immutable, created independently (Darwin 1859:6; London: John Murray).

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnKupVGX70N9ZsvLu8iScIzWpyVj8bds_Q said: I think Darwin would have answered that natural selection explains all those things, Ray. Have you read the book or just a list of creationist quotes from it? Even for you, the reply to DS about common sense is lame. Surely you can comment on geocentrism and common sense. Is the earth moving or not?

Ray Martinez said:

Scott F said: It has always amazed me that some people can look at the range of semi-acquatic mammals (otters, seals, sea lions, etc) and claim with a straight face that there are no, and could never have been any transitional forms between a mammalian life on land and life in the water. No, not that these animals are in any way a "missing link" between cows and whales. It's just that we have actual living, swimming examples of mammals who are halfway between being a fully land-based animal and a fully water-based animal. Exactly like the claims that there are no extant examples of forms of "intermediate" eyes, or "intermediate" forms of blood clotting, or of creatures transitioning from water to land. It's one thing to close your mind to certain "interpretations" of historical data, to "mere" "ideas". But to close your mind to the physical existence of creatures you can go and see and touch today is just mind boggling inane.

Until agents of causation identified, evidenced, and explained, the concepts of "transitional" and "intermediate" do not exist in biodiversity, past or present.* Each species remain an immutable independent creation (Darwin 1859:6; London: John Murray).

*Based on Evolutionary authorities granting design illusory status, we'll do the same and grant both concepts illusory status. Ray (Old Earth, Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist

I thought we were talking about common sense? I am not saying anything about the support of evolution, but whether common sense is always correct. You claim evolution does not make common sense therefore it is incorrect. Please try to keep in touch with your own arguments.

Ray Martinez said:

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnKupVGX70N9ZsvLu8iScIzWpyVj8bds_Q said: I think Darwin would have answered that natural selection explains all those things, Ray. Have you read the book or just a list of creationist quotes from it? Even for you, the reply to DS about common sense is lame. Surely you can comment on geocentrism and common sense. Is the earth moving or not?

Again, you too have departed Biology---why? Are you suggesting heliocentrism supports evolutionary theory? If so, please trot out some scholarly quotes? I predict you couldn't even cough up one.

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

Helena Constantine said: Except for the fact that we know for a definite fact that similarity in genetic pattern is proof of common ancestry.

No, you don't "know for a definite fact that similarity in genetic pattern is proof of common ancestry." The same is an assumption: evolutionary thinking assumes discovery of similarity to mean evolution and common descent have occurred. Neither have occurred until an agent of causation identified and evidenced.

Wrong. No agent of causation is necessary. It all just works.

Or are you planning a legal challenge to the validity of paternity tests? Even you, my dear Byers, cannot be so ignorant that you think my children share a similar genetic code because god created them de novo from a common design? Don't you know how sex works? It makes the common descent of DNA patterns inevitable and incontrovertible.

Show us the mechanism that produces groups within groups? Again, all you're doing is identifying an effect then concluding that macroevolution has occurred. You need to identify and evidence a cause or the effect isn't real. Evolutionists are fond of saying that design is an illusion. Here, have a taste of your own medicine: phenomena used to conclude for macroevolution and nested hierarchies is illusory until cause established.

Wrong again. Lots of things happen without causes. Lots of them. Maybe most of them.

Jaw dropping evo stupidity. "Discovery of similarity means evolution has occurred" (Phhht). Cause-and-effect is universally accepted scientific logic.

But lots of times, there IS no cause, dimwit. That's very common. Things just happen, without any cause.

Ray Martinez said: Cause-and-effect is universally accepted scientific logic.

PA Poland said:

Ray Martinez said:

Scott F said: It has always amazed me that some people can look at the range of semi-acquatic mammals (otters, seals, sea lions, etc) and claim with a straight face that there are no, and could never have been any transitional forms between a mammalian life on land and life in the water. No, not that these animals are in any way a "missing link" between cows and whales. It's just that we have actual living, swimming examples of mammals who are halfway between being a fully land-based animal and a fully water-based animal. Exactly like the claims that there are no extant examples of forms of "intermediate" eyes, or "intermediate" forms of blood clotting, or of creatures transitioning from water to land. It's one thing to close your mind to certain "interpretations" of historical data, to "mere" "ideas". But to close your mind to the physical existence of creatures you can go and see and touch today is just mind boggling inane.

Until agents of causation identified, evidenced, and explained, the concepts of "transitional" and "intermediate" do not exist in biodiversity, past or present.* Each species remain an immutable independent creation (Darwin 1859:6; London: John Murray).

Done about 100 YEARS AGO Morgan TH, Sturtevant AH, Muller HJ, Bridges CB (1915), The Mechanism of Mendelian Heredity. Therefore, to sane and rational people that UNDERSTAND real world biology, things like 'transitionals' and 'intermediates' do exist....

Ray Martinez said: I'll be nice ...

But gods are not real, Ray. The bible is fictional. Your claims are false.

Just Bob said: I'll try again. Think I'll get an answer?

Ray Martinez said: Cause-and-effect is universally accepted scientific logic.

What causes a particular uranium atom to fission at one particular moment and not at some other moment?

Ray Martinez said: I, of course...

PA Poland said: Again, twit : immutability would produce many OBSERVABLE effects if it were real. There would be no drug resistant bacteria, no insecticide-resistant bugs...

Just Bob said: I'll try again. Think I'll get an answer?

Ray Martinez said: Cause-and-effect is universally accepted scientific logic.

What causes a particular uranium atom to fission at one particular moment and not at some other moment?

Ray Martinez said:

Just Bob said: I'll try again. Think I'll get an answer?

Ray Martinez said: Cause-and-effect is universally accepted scientific logic.

What causes a particular uranium atom to fission at one particular moment and not at some other moment?

I, of course, didn't say Naturalism science claimed to know every cause. But the logic is still accepted. When cause isn't known the same means that it remains under investigation, much like abiogenesis.

Oh, and what is the cause of the existence of God? If EVERYTHING has a cause, then so does She.

Let me guess, it's turtles all the way down.

Ray Martinez said:

PA Poland said:

Ray Martinez said:

Scott F said: It has always amazed me that some people can look at the range of semi-acquatic mammals (otters, seals, sea lions, etc) and claim with a straight face that there are no, and could never have been any transitional forms between a mammalian life on land and life in the water. No, not that these animals are in any way a "missing link" between cows and whales. It's just that we have actual living, swimming examples of mammals who are halfway between being a fully land-based animal and a fully water-based animal. Exactly like the claims that there are no extant examples of forms of "intermediate" eyes, or "intermediate" forms of blood clotting, or of creatures transitioning from water to land. It's one thing to close your mind to certain "interpretations" of historical data, to "mere" "ideas". But to close your mind to the physical existence of creatures you can go and see and touch today is just mind boggling inane.

Until agents of causation identified, evidenced, and explained, the concepts of "transitional" and "intermediate" do not exist in biodiversity, past or present.* Each species remain an immutable independent creation (Darwin 1859:6; London: John Murray).

Done about 100 YEARS AGO Morgan TH, Sturtevant AH, Muller HJ, Bridges CB (1915), The Mechanism of Mendelian Heredity. Therefore, to sane and rational people that UNDERSTAND real world biology, things like 'transitionals' and 'intermediates' do exist....

All this says is that Mendel explained inheritance. Are you suggesting that said explanation is, in fact, the main agent of causation that produces speciation and macroevolution? For both "transitional" and "intermediate" presuppose macroevolution and speciation to have already occurred. And I don't recall Douglas Theobald crediting the Mendelian mechanism as causing nested hierarchies in his "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution"? Of course your main implication is absurd: as if inheritance is an agent of causation rather than an important component.

I'll be nice and just say you've made a bad mistake.

Ray Martinez said:

PA Poland said: Again, twit : immutability would produce many OBSERVABLE effects if it were real. There would be no drug resistant bacteria, no insecticide-resistant bugs...

Existence of drug resistance bacteria and insecticide-resistant bugs cited as supporting the falsity of immutable sexually reproducing animal species. Conversely, please tell us how these examples support the mutability of sexually reproducing animal species?

PA Poland said: Look at all the variation in just dogs - they range from chihuahuas to St Bernards and Great Danes. From bulldogs (with their distorted faces) to daschunds (with their elongated backs). They all arose from the same stock, yet you can sit there and scream that 'species are immutable' ?!?! Now THAT is some Olympic class willful stupidity !

Ray Martinez said:

PA Poland said: Look at all the variation in just dogs - they range from chihuahuas to St Bernards and Great Danes. From bulldogs (with their distorted faces) to daschunds (with their elongated backs). They all arose from the same stock, yet you can sit there and scream that 'species are immutable' ?!?! Now THAT is some Olympic class willful stupidity !

Variation, in and of itself, isn't evolution. Nice try.

PA Poland said: Animal husbandry would be impossible if species were immutable - there would only be one (or very few) breeds of dogs, cats, pigeons, etc.

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

PA Poland said: Look at all the variation in just dogs - they range from chihuahuas to St Bernards and Great Danes. From bulldogs (with their distorted faces) to daschunds (with their elongated backs). They all arose from the same stock, yet you can sit there and scream that 'species are immutable' ?!?! Now THAT is some Olympic class willful stupidity !

Variation, in and of itself, isn't evolution. Nice try.

So Ray. You're one of those Christians, right? You worship a reanimated corpse?

Ray Martinez said:

PA Poland said: Animal husbandry would be impossible if species were immutable - there would only be one (or very few) breeds of dogs, cats, pigeons, etc.

Animal husbandry, as you call it, is also known as artificial selection. No one has ever denied that man can produce variation. The issue is if unintelligent material nature can all by itself. Again, nice try.

I'm just having a hard time understanding why you let this Martinez loon get under your skin. (shrug)It's not like you're going to convince him he's wrong. You might as well argue with Byers. Or your tea kettle.

Helena Constantine said:

Robert Byers said: A common blueprint covers great common points in biology. THEN there is the impact of diversity affecting a original blueprint. A blueprint from a creator is a option even if not true. Why not? Yet your side says because there is NO option for a common blueprint, at some level, then the only option is descent demonstrated by genetics, fossils, etc indicating likeness. This is not science by the way but anyways its wrong because there is another option. Descent is not proven by genetics, fossils, but only what is proven is like genes or traits. There is a flaw in evolutionists thinking here. That is there is flaw in the reasoning even if they were right. They really are concluding like DNA is proof of like descent. It isn't proof. Its a hunch. Like DNA would be predicted by any creationist model also. What would you do if you were a creator? Diversity in biology demanding diversity in basic structures at atomic level OR like DNA at root of all biology. Anyways creationists are addressing here the evidence as a conclusion of rejecting other options. Likeness in DNA is not PROOF or hinting of proof of like descent. It might be a insightful idea but it would be expected from a common program/blueprint from somebody making things.

Except for the fact that we know for a definite fact that similarity in genetic pattern is proof of common ancestry. Or are you planning a legal challenge to the validity of paternity tests? Even you, my dear Byers, cannot be so ignorant that you think my children share a similar genetic code because god created them de novo from a common design? Don't you know how sex works? It makes the common descent of DNA patterns inevitable and incontrovertible.

Just Bob said:

Ray Martinez said: Cause-and-effect is universally accepted scientific logic.

What causes a particular uranium atom to fission at one particular moment and not at some other moment?

KlausH said:

Just Bob said:

Ray Martinez said: Cause-and-effect is universally accepted scientific logic.

What causes a particular uranium atom to fission at one particular moment and not at some other moment?

My understanding is that it is caused by quantum tunneling destabilizing the nucleus.

Robert Byers said:

Helena Constantine said:

Robert Byers said: A common blueprint covers great common points in biology. THEN there is the impact of diversity affecting a original blueprint. A blueprint from a creator is a option even if not true. Why not? Yet your side says because there is NO option for a common blueprint, at some level, then the only option is descent demonstrated by genetics, fossils, etc indicating likeness. This is not science by the way but anyways its wrong because there is another option. Descent is not proven by genetics, fossils, but only what is proven is like genes or traits. There is a flaw in evolutionists thinking here. That is there is flaw in the reasoning even if they were right. They really are concluding like DNA is proof of like descent. It isn't proof. Its a hunch. Like DNA would be predicted by any creationist model also. What would you do if you were a creator? Diversity in biology demanding diversity in basic structures at atomic level OR like DNA at root of all biology. Anyways creationists are addressing here the evidence as a conclusion of rejecting other options. Likeness in DNA is not PROOF or hinting of proof of like descent. It might be a insightful idea but it would be expected from a common program/blueprint from somebody making things.

Except for the fact that we know for a definite fact that similarity in genetic pattern is proof of common ancestry. Or are you planning a legal challenge to the validity of paternity tests? Even you, my dear Byers, cannot be so ignorant that you think my children share a similar genetic code because god created them de novo from a common design? Don't you know how sex works? It makes the common descent of DNA patterns inevitable and incontrovertible.

Slow to see your reply. Its fine and true within a kind/type of creature that like dna indicates relationship. Yet its not demanding to see that this minor case represents all biology.

As long as he wants to believe it it's fine. But as soon as he doesn't want to believe it it can't be true, no reason needed, just his opinion is enough. Same with the Ray character. Science is great, just as long as it goes along with their preconceptions. If it doesn't it's wrong, no evidence necessary. That's how science works, right? All those findings are exactly what everyone wanted to be true all along, right?

Please don't insult kettles, fxntr. Mine provides me with hot water for my coffee, it is useful. Byers and Martinez are both useless.

ksplawn said: Can you give us a good reason to think that similarity between "kinds" is fundamentally different from similarity among "kinds?"

Ray Martinez said: Jaw dropping evo stupidity. "Discovery of similarity means evolution has occurred" (Phhht). Cause-and-effect is universally accepted scientific logic.

Bobsie said:

ksplawn said: Can you give us a good reason to think that similarity between "kinds" is fundamentally different from similarity among "kinds?"

Well common sense experience tells us that everything only follows after its kind. It's always your cousins that start to look and act different. Isn't that true for every family? That's common sense.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/hHXYfJpysYHQ3610gllC7ldTYTqv#37db0 said:

Ray Martinez said: Jaw dropping evo stupidity. "Discovery of similarity means evolution has occurred" (Phhht). Cause-and-effect is universally accepted scientific logic.

It is not the similarity that proves evolution, but the way the similarity produces a nested hierarchy of living things. Designed objects such as automobiles also have similarities, but they won't fall into nested hierarchies. Unless you understand this concept properly, you won't understand the difference between evolution and creation.

phhht said: So Ray. You're one of those Christians, right? You worship a reanimated corpse?

Ray Martinez: Of course your main implication is absurd: as if inheritance is an agent of causation rather than an important component.

PA Poland said: mutations generate variations. The FACT that Dr Morgan was able to mutate an 'immutable' species pretty much castrates your argument.

PA Poland: Nested hierarchies are GENERATED by inheritance of variations. A variant arises in a population, and all it descendents inherit that variation. As time goes on, other variants arise. The PATTERN of relationships generated is groups within groups - A NESTED HIERARCHY.

Ray Martinez said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/hHXYfJpysYHQ3610gllC7ldTYTqv#37db0 said:

Ray Martinez said: Jaw dropping evo stupidity. "Discovery of similarity means evolution has occurred" (Phhht). Cause-and-effect is universally accepted scientific logic.

It is not the similarity that proves evolution, but the way the similarity produces a nested hierarchy of living things. Designed objects such as automobiles also have similarities, but they won't fall into nested hierarchies. Unless you understand this concept properly, you won't understand the difference between evolution and creation.

Your assumption that "similarity" to not convey face value meaning, and nested hierarchies, and affinity among a wide range of species, is the only problem here.

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said: So Ray. You're one of those Christians, right? You worship a reanimated corpse?

I'll defer to Christian-Evolutionist Wesley Elsberry and let him handle this one.

Ray Martinez said: Morgan tinkered with fruit flies....they remained fruit flies and became sterile. You need to do your homework. Absolutely no one has ever said that Morgan produced reproductively viable fruit flies. But again: the point is that neither I nor anyone has denied artificial selection. As we all know, Darwin began the Origin with a metaphor to artificial selection. What I reject is Darwin's claim that material nature itself mutates species---that an accompanying selection phenomenon occurs in tandem and automatically.

"Your assumption that “similarity” to not convey face value meaning, and nested hierarchies, and affinity among a wide range of species, is the only problem here."

What on Earth does this collection of words - it's not a sentence - even mean?

ksplawn said:

Robert Byers said:

Helena Constantine said:

Robert Byers said: A common blueprint covers great common points in biology. THEN there is the impact of diversity affecting a original blueprint. A blueprint from a creator is a option even if not true. Why not? Yet your side says because there is NO option for a common blueprint, at some level, then the only option is descent demonstrated by genetics, fossils, etc indicating likeness. This is not science by the way but anyways its wrong because there is another option. Descent is not proven by genetics, fossils, but only what is proven is like genes or traits. There is a flaw in evolutionists thinking here. That is there is flaw in the reasoning even if they were right. They really are concluding like DNA is proof of like descent. It isn't proof. Its a hunch. Like DNA would be predicted by any creationist model also. What would you do if you were a creator? Diversity in biology demanding diversity in basic structures at atomic level OR like DNA at root of all biology. Anyways creationists are addressing here the evidence as a conclusion of rejecting other options. Likeness in DNA is not PROOF or hinting of proof of like descent. It might be a insightful idea but it would be expected from a common program/blueprint from somebody making things.

Except for the fact that we know for a definite fact that similarity in genetic pattern is proof of common ancestry. Or are you planning a legal challenge to the validity of paternity tests? Even you, my dear Byers, cannot be so ignorant that you think my children share a similar genetic code because god created them de novo from a common design? Don't you know how sex works? It makes the common descent of DNA patterns inevitable and incontrovertible.

Slow to see your reply. Its fine and true within a kind/type of creature that like dna indicates relationship. Yet its not demanding to see that this minor case represents all biology.

Can you give us a good reason to think that similarity between "kinds" is fundamentally different from similarity among "kinds?"

And to think, over on the "Working Again" thread they're bitching about a lousy dangling participle.

Robert Byers said:

ksplawn said:

Robert Byers said:

Helena Constantine said:

Robert Byers said: A common blueprint covers great common points in biology. THEN there is the impact of diversity affecting a original blueprint. A blueprint from a creator is a option even if not true. Why not? Yet your side says because there is NO option for a common blueprint, at some level, then the only option is descent demonstrated by genetics, fossils, etc indicating likeness. This is not science by the way but anyways its wrong because there is another option. Descent is not proven by genetics, fossils, but only what is proven is like genes or traits. There is a flaw in evolutionists thinking here. That is there is flaw in the reasoning even if they were right. They really are concluding like DNA is proof of like descent. It isn't proof. Its a hunch. Like DNA would be predicted by any creationist model also. What would you do if you were a creator? Diversity in biology demanding diversity in basic structures at atomic level OR like DNA at root of all biology. Anyways creationists are addressing here the evidence as a conclusion of rejecting other options. Likeness in DNA is not PROOF or hinting of proof of like descent. It might be a insightful idea but it would be expected from a common program/blueprint from somebody making things.

Except for the fact that we know for a definite fact that similarity in genetic pattern is proof of common ancestry. Or are you planning a legal challenge to the validity of paternity tests? Even you, my dear Byers, cannot be so ignorant that you think my children share a similar genetic code because god created them de novo from a common design? Don't you know how sex works? It makes the common descent of DNA patterns inevitable and incontrovertible.

Slow to see your reply. Its fine and true within a kind/type of creature that like dna indicates relationship. Yet its not demanding to see that this minor case represents all biology.

Can you give us a good reason to think that similarity between "kinds" is fundamentally different from similarity among "kinds?"

Between kinds is at a more basic level of biology. Common laws or principals controlling biology. JUst like in physics. However within kind or type there is no more common basic laws but special cases of laws. Its a special case I am DNA connected to my father. Its truly about reproduction and descent thereof. however this is not evidence or suggestive that DNA likeness with the rest of biology, outside reproduction /descent, proves a common descent. its only a line of reasoning that upon another option ceases to be evidence for its conclusion. Another option for DNA likeness nullify's the demand one must see dna likeness as evidence of a trail backwards to common descent. Its not scientific evidence but just extrapolation by thought. I'm trying to say that genetic likeness of biology is not evidence of common descent just because it is evidence within clearly self reproducing kinds. It would be that way if a creator created biology. Evolutionists are persuading themselves by rejection of other options. A logical flaw and why a error sticks around too long.

Helena Constantine seems able to decrypt the Byers Code.

Helena, where are you?

Ray Martinez said:

PA Poland said: Again, twit : immutability would produce many OBSERVABLE effects if it were real. There would be no drug resistant bacteria, no insecticide-resistant bugs...

Existence of drug resistance bacteria and insecticide-resistant bugs cited as supporting the falsity of immutable sexually reproducing animal species. Conversely, please tell us how these examples support the mutability of sexually reproducing animal species?

PA Poland said: Nested hierarchies arise anytime there is occassional variation and copying - it shows up with old, handwritten versions of the bible (the illiterate scribes merely copied down the version placed in front of them; occassionally, one would make an error and hand it off to the next scribes. The end result - a NESTED HIERARCHY of diagnostic changes.)

PA Poland said:

Ray Martinez said:

PA Poland said: Again, twit : immutability would produce many OBSERVABLE effects if it were real. There would be no drug resistant bacteria, no insecticide-resistant bugs...

Existence of drug resistance bacteria and insecticide-resistant bugs cited as supporting the falsity of immutable sexually reproducing animal species. Conversely, please tell us how these examples support the mutability of sexually reproducing animal species?

INSECTS ARE SEXUALLY REPRODUCING ANIMALS YOU SNOT-GUZZLING SIMPLETON ! IF species were immutable, bacteria would be as well, given that they are living things. Animal husbandry would be impossible if species were immutable - there would only be one (or very few) breeds of dogs, cats, pigeons, etc. Examination of REALITY shows that variations sometimes arise in populations - WHICH COULD NOT HAPPEN IF SPECIES WERE IMMUTABLE. Check out the Fondon article - it shows a morphological CHANGE in dogs (you DO know that dogs are sexually reproducing animals, right ? Or are you going to shove your head even further up your nether regions and DENY IT in a futile attempt to evade reality once again ?) Look at all the variation in just dogs - they range from chihuahuas to St Bernards and Great Danes. From bulldogs (with their distorted faces) to daschunds (with their elongated backs). They all arose from the same stock, yet you can sit there and scream that 'species are immutable' ?!?! Now THAT is some Olympic class willful stupidity !

Ray Martinez said:

PA Poland said: Look at all the variation in just dogs - they range from chihuahuas to St Bernards and Great Danes. From bulldogs (with their distorted faces) to daschunds (with their elongated backs). They all arose from the same stock, yet you can sit there and scream that 'species are immutable' ?!?! Now THAT is some Olympic class willful stupidity !

Variation, in and of itself, isn't evolution. Nice try.

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

PA Poland said: Look at all the variation in just dogs - they range from chihuahuas to St Bernards and Great Danes. From bulldogs (with their distorted faces) to daschunds (with their elongated backs). They all arose from the same stock, yet you can sit there and scream that 'species are immutable' ?!?! Now THAT is some Olympic class willful stupidity !

Variation, in and of itself, isn't evolution. Nice try.

So Ray. You're one of those Christians, right? You worship a reanimated corpse?

Ray Martinez said:

PA Poland said: Animal husbandry would be impossible if species were immutable - there would only be one (or very few) breeds of dogs, cats, pigeons, etc.

Animal husbandry, as you call it, is also known as artificial selection. No one has ever denied that man can produce variation. The issue is if unintelligent material nature can all by itself. Again, nice try.

Ray Martinez said:

PA Poland said: Animal husbandry would be impossible if species were immutable - there would only be one (or very few) breeds of dogs, cats, pigeons, etc.

Animal husbandry, as you call it, is also known as artificial selection. No one has ever denied that man can produce variation. The issue is if unintelligent material nature can all by itself. Again, nice try.

PA Poland said: ... Again, gongoozler : no DNA polymerase is perfect. Therefore, variants in living things will arise without the intervention of external intelligences. Again, you simpering sophomaniac : there are many KNOWN natural mechanisms which can produce mutations - radiation, some chemicals, transposable elements, nonhomologous recombination, retrotranspositions, etc. Therefore, species are not immutable, and anyone that claims otherwise reveals himself to be a gibbering loon....

Robert Byers said:

Helena Constantine said:

Robert Byers said: A common blueprint covers great common points in biology. THEN there is the impact of diversity affecting a original blueprint. A blueprint from a creator is a option even if not true. Why not? Yet your side says because there is NO option for a common blueprint, at some level, then the only option is descent demonstrated by genetics, fossils, etc indicating likeness. This is not science by the way but anyways its wrong because there is another option. Descent is not proven by genetics, fossils, but only what is proven is like genes or traits. There is a flaw in evolutionists thinking here. That is there is flaw in the reasoning even if they were right. They really are concluding like DNA is proof of like descent. It isn't proof. Its a hunch. Like DNA would be predicted by any creationist model also. What would you do if you were a creator? Diversity in biology demanding diversity in basic structures at atomic level OR like DNA at root of all biology. Anyways creationists are addressing here the evidence as a conclusion of rejecting other options. Likeness in DNA is not PROOF or hinting of proof of like descent. It might be a insightful idea but it would be expected from a common program/blueprint from somebody making things.

Except for the fact that we know for a definite fact that similarity in genetic pattern is proof of common ancestry. Or are you planning a legal challenge to the validity of paternity tests? Even you, my dear Byers, cannot be so ignorant that you think my children share a similar genetic code because god created them de novo from a common design? Don't you know how sex works? It makes the common descent of DNA patterns inevitable and incontrovertible.

Slow to see your reply. Its fine and true within a kind/type of creature that like dna indicates relationship. Yet its not demanding to see that this minor case represents all biology. If a creator made all biology from a common blueprint it would also be that one copld deduce ones parents from close dna. Its still only a line of reasoning to extrapolate tp everything else. If if true it would just be reasoning but not science. It works fine if there is common design. It doesn't prove there isn't at serious levels of biology.

Ray Martinez said: Your assumption that "similarity" to not convey face value meaning, and nested hierarchies, and affinity among a wide range of species, is the only problem here.

Ray Martinez said: Are you suggesting that ordinary reproduction causes the pattern of nested hierarchy?

Robert Byers said: However within kind or type there is no more common basic laws but special cases of laws. Its a special case I am DNA connected to my father. Its truly about reproduction and descent thereof. however this is not evidence or suggestive that DNA likeness with the rest of biology, outside reproduction /descent, proves a common descent.

ksplawn said:

Bobsie said: Well common sense experience tells us that everything only follows after its kind. It's always your cousins that start to look and act different. Isn't that true for every family? That's common sense.

If we are to take your analogy seriously, then people beyond cousins or so shouldn't be related to me at all.

Robert Byers said:

Can you give us a good reason to think that similarity between "kinds" is fundamentally different from similarity among "kinds?"

Between kinds is at a more basic level of biology. Common laws or principals controlling biology. JUst like in physics. However within kind or type there is no more common basic laws but special cases of laws. Its a special case I am DNA connected to my father. Its truly about reproduction and descent thereof.

however this is not evidence or suggestive that DNA likeness with the rest of biology, outside reproduction /descent, proves a common descent.

its only a line of reasoning that upon another option ceases to be evidence for its conclusion.

Another option for DNA likeness nullify's the demand one must see dna likeness as evidence of a trail backwards to common descent. Its not scientific evidence but just extrapolation by thought.

I'm trying to say that genetic likeness of biology is not evidence of common descent just because it is evidence within clearly self reproducing kinds. It would be that way if a creator created biology. Evolutionists are persuading themselves by rejection of other options. A logical flaw and why a error sticks around too long.

Helena Constantine said:

Ray Martinez said:

Variation, in and of itself, isn't evolution.

No, but it falsifies your hypothesis that species are immutable.

And natural selection is well supported by observation also.

Helena Constantine said:

Ray Martinez said:

PA Poland said: Animal husbandry would be impossible if species were immutable - there would only be one (or very few) breeds of dogs, cats, pigeons, etc.

Animal husbandry, as you call it, is also known as artificial selection. No one has ever denied that man can produce variation. The issue is if unintelligent material nature can all by itself. Again, nice try.

Looking at it again, you're baiting and switching. No one has ever claimed that man can produce variation (we can now, but that's another matter--not in the stone age when domestication began). Natural process produce variation alike in wild and domestic animals. Man has no role in that. The farmer takes the place of natural selection, not variation (both necessary components of evolution). Are you lying on purpose to try and deceive some guileless reader (probably not that many here), or does you mind work that poorly that you didn't recognize you were making an error?

Helena Constantine said: Evolution is the difference between you and your son and your grandson, but played over time.

Ray, are you ever going to answer the question about common sense? Do you actually know what counterintuitive means?
Go out on your back porch today and watch the sun - what was the common sense explanation for its movement through the sky?
Do the same with the moon tonight - see anything different?
Once again, Is common sense always reliable?

Ray Martinez said: A cannot be A and not -A at the same time.

Ray Martinez said:

Ray Martinez: Of course your main implication is absurd: as if inheritance is an agent of causation rather than an important component.

You need to acknowledge.

PA Poland said: mutations generate variations. The FACT that Dr Morgan was able to mutate an 'immutable' species pretty much castrates your argument.

Morgan tinkered with fruit flies....they remained fruit flies and became sterile. You need to do your homework.

Absolutely no one has ever said that Morgan produced reproductively viable fruit flies.

But again: the point is that neither I nor anyone has denied artificial selection. As we all know, Darwin began the Origin with a metaphor to artificial selection. What I reject is Darwin's claim that material nature itself mutates species---that an accompanying selection phenomenon occurs in tandem and automatically.

PA Poland: Nested hierarchies are GENERATED by inheritance of variations. A variant arises in a population, and all it descendents inherit that variation. As time goes on, other variants arise. The PATTERN of relationships generated is groups within groups - A NESTED HIERARCHY.

Are you suggesting that ordinary reproduction causes the pattern of nested hierarchy?

Ray Martinez said:

PA Poland said: Look at all the variation in just dogs - they range from chihuahuas to St Bernards and Great Danes. From bulldogs (with their distorted faces) to daschunds (with their elongated backs). They all arose from the same stock, yet you can sit there and scream that 'species are immutable' ?!?! Now THAT is some Olympic class willful stupidity !

Variation, in and of itself, isn't evolution. Nice try.

PA Poland said: AFAIK, descent with modification is the only process that generates a nested hierarchy.

Ray Martinez said:

Nick Matzke said:

I contend incongruity between the molecular and the morphological, AND the fact that evolutionary theorists use both, falsify the evolutionary explanation as inconsistent. God intentionally designed the morphological and the molecular to contradict.

And how do you know that? Where's the Bible quote? If you're inferring this statement, please give us your statistical test. I can give you the statistical tests for common ancestry.

The Bible says God created the entire natural universe; and the creation concepts, derived from Genesis, speak of real-time periodic creation (not a single original one-off event). So God created the molecular and morphological to contradict. And before the rise of Darwinism science accepted each species immutable, created independently (Darwin 1859:6; London: John Murray).

Just Bob said:

Ray Martinez said: Cause-and-effect is universally accepted scientific logic.

What causes a particular uranium atom to fission at one particular moment and not at some other moment?

Ray Martinez said:

Just Bob said: I'll try again. Think I'll get an answer?

Ray Martinez said: Cause-and-effect is universally accepted scientific logic.

What causes a particular uranium atom to fission at one particular moment and not at some other moment?

I, of course, didn't say Naturalism science claimed to know every cause. But the logic is still accepted. When cause isn't known the same means that it remains under investigation, much like abiogenesis.

PA Poland said: MAN DOES NOT PRODUCE THE VARIATIONS, TWIT !

Ray Martinez said:

Helena Constantine said:

Ray Martinez said:

Variation, in and of itself, isn't evolution.

No, but it falsifies your hypothesis that species are immutable.

Variation, in and of itself, isn't mutability. You're saying discovery of variation means evolution has occurred. Show me any scientist or scholar who has said such a thing?

And natural selection is well supported by observation also.

Completely false; natural selection is inferred and explained to have occurred after the alleged fact. If you still disagree then post some YouTubes where we can observe natural selection in action.

Ray Martinez said:

Helena Constantine said:

Ray Martinez said:

PA Poland said: Animal husbandry would be impossible if species were immutable - there would only be one (or very few) breeds of dogs, cats, pigeons, etc.

Animal husbandry, as you call it, is also known as artificial selection. No one has ever denied that man can produce variation. The issue is if unintelligent material nature can all by itself. Again, nice try.

Looking at it again, you're baiting and switching. No one has ever claimed that man can produce variation (we can now, but that's another matter--not in the stone age when domestication began). Natural process produce variation alike in wild and domestic animals. Man has no role in that. The farmer takes the place of natural selection, not variation (both necessary components of evolution). Are you lying on purpose to try and deceive some guileless reader (probably not that many here), or does you mind work that poorly that you didn't recognize you were making an error?

A wad of contradiction, misunderstanding, and ignorance (to be nice). Man has been effecting new variants for a very long time. Darwin pointed to the fact and then argued nature too minus the intelligence.

Reflecting further, my understanding is that the root Scientific "cause" of Life is pretty well understood: asymmetric chemical bonds leading naturally and inevitably to self assembling and self polymerizing molecules, with no miracles required. The rest is just Evolution. The specific pathways, the specific processes involved is what the Scientific search for Abiogenesis is all about. "How" did we get from simple, self assembling amino acids to the more complex self assembling molecules, are the open and interesting questions being investigated by Science today. But the root "cause" is well known, in a Scientific sense.

But just like the definition of the word "Theory", the word "Cause" has different meanings for the Layman and for the Scientist.

Ray, I suspect by "cause" you aren't talking about a "how" question in the Scientific sense, but rather you are talking about a "why" or "who" question in the Layman sense. Again, questions like "why" is there Life, or "who" "caused" Humans to exist are Theological questions, with thousands of different, mutually contradictory answers, depending on what religion you believe in at the moment.

Ray Martinez said:

Helena Constantine said:

Ray Martinez said:

PA Poland said: Animal husbandry would be impossible if species were immutable - there would only be one (or very few) breeds of dogs, cats, pigeons, etc.

Animal husbandry, as you call it, is also known as artificial selection. No one has ever denied that man can produce variation. The issue is if unintelligent material nature can all by itself. Again, nice try.

Looking at it again, you're baiting and switching. No one has ever claimed that man can produce variation (we can now, but that's another matter--not in the stone age when domestication began). Natural process produce variation alike in wild and domestic animals. Man has no role in that. The farmer takes the place of natural selection, not variation (both necessary components of evolution). Are you lying on purpose to try and deceive some guileless reader (probably not that many here), or does you mind work that poorly that you didn't recognize you were making an error?

A wad of contradiction, misunderstanding, and ignorance (to be nice). Man has been effecting new variants for a very long time. Darwin pointed to the fact and then argued nature too minus the intelligence.

Scott F said:

PA Poland said: MAN DOES NOT PRODUCE THE VARIATIONS, TWIT !

Well, to be brutally honest, today Man can produce variation. It's called GMO. But, this is only in the last 20 years, or so. You are certainly correct that, historically, and as far as the 4H is concerned, animal husbandry works exclusively with selecting among Natural variation within breeding populations.

ksplawn said: ...one example of the fear that "frankenfoods" will have totally unpredictable effects because a known gene has been inserted into an otherwise normal genome. I've never seen anyone up in arms about the fact that many thousands of mainstream crop varieties are the direct result of an actual, honest-to-goodness unpredictable genetic change that resembles a shotgun blast more than a surgical incision [induced mutations by radiation].

Helena Constantine said:

Ray Martinez said: If you still disagree then post some YouTubes where we can observe natural selection in action.

A you tube video is your idea of evidence?

Ray Martinez said:

Helena Constantine said: Evolution is the difference between you and your son and your grandson, but played over time.

False; the difference between individuals in any given species or population is variation, not evolution. Whatever "evolution" is it is not "variation" and whatever "variation" is it is not "evolution." Both evolution and variation are two separate things. A cannot be A and not -A at the same time.

The really funny thing is that , if you search the term "natural selection" on You tube, you get over 85,000 hits. Her is a good one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6La6_kIr9g

Now of course none of this is good enough for Ray. He wants to actually see it happen right before his eyes, no doubt including adaptation and speciation. Seeing the bird eat the seed or the moth just isn't good enough for him, he demands an impossible standard of proof and will just move the goal post even if the standard he sets is met. He will no doubt come up with some nonsensical reason why none of this counts, even though it was exactly what he demanded. And of course he won't even read any scientific literature, he just knows that all them experts is just lying to him, just cause. They is all atheists out to get him, don't you know. Meanwhile, species continue to change and evolve and adapt and speciate, while Ray remains immutable and impervious to evidence, as well as logic and reason.

Here you go Ray. Here is a video of the birds actually eating the moths:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6La6_kIr9g

What's that you say? That isn't good enough for you. You actually want a video of the moths changing color right before your eyes' That's what I thought. Look at the equations presented in the video, then tell us that that's what you want Ray. It'll be good for a lough. Besides, I'm sure there is a video out there somewhere where the moths actually do change color while you watch. Or I could make one by just gluing some moths to some trees.

Look Ray, the moths did change color, so your "immutable" bullshit is destroyed, Deal with it already. We've known about this for one hundred and fifty years, Get a clue dude.

Moths are not chameleons!

Scott F said:

Ray Martinez said:

Helena Constantine said:

Ray Martinez said:

PA Poland said: Animal husbandry would be impossible if species were immutable - there would only be one (or very few) breeds of dogs, cats, pigeons, etc.

Animal husbandry, as you call it, is also known as artificial selection. No one has ever denied that man can produce variation. The issue is if unintelligent material nature can all by itself. Again, nice try.

Looking at it again, you're baiting and switching. No one has ever claimed that man can produce variation (we can now, but that's another matter--not in the stone age when domestication began). Natural process produce variation alike in wild and domestic animals. Man has no role in that. The farmer takes the place of natural selection, not variation (both necessary components of evolution). Are you lying on purpose to try and deceive some guileless reader (probably not that many here), or does you mind work that poorly that you didn't recognize you were making an error?

A wad of contradiction, misunderstanding, and ignorance (to be nice). Man has been effecting new variants for a very long time. Darwin pointed to the fact and then argued nature too minus the intelligence.

What part of what Helena said is self contradicting? What part shows a misunderstanding? What part shows ignorance?

TomS said:

Helena Constantine said:

Ray Martinez said: If you still disagree then post some YouTubes where we can observe natural selection in action.

A you tube video is your idea of evidence?

[snip] Of course, there are plenty of experimental observations including measurement of natural selection occurring in the wild and under controlled, repeatable conditions. A lot better evidence than a YouTube video.

This informative video addresses the common design vs common descent question. Be advised there are a few minor gaffs (such as the claim that all mammals inherited internal gestation which overlooks egg laying mammals like the platypus). Nevertheless, the link is a good visual explanation on how the common design claim is a no-go, unless the "designer" either likes to yank the chains of us mere mortals or is seriously incompetent.

Tenncrain said: In addition, one can find data about how natural selection has been shown to be wrong in some cases. In other words, NS does not need to be assumed but instead it can be scientifically tested to be right or wrong. Just look up the late biologist Motoo Kimura on how he and his colleagues found that sometimes genetic drift can be a factor in evolution and not natural selection; this scientific research was done way back in the 1960s at that so this knowledge has been around for decades.

Henry J said: Moths are not chameleons!

DS said:

Henry J said: Moths are not chameleons!

Right, chameleons also falsify the "immutable" nonsense, as well as squid. What? That isn't what you mean when you say that species cannot change? Well then, why did you demand video of the change happening before your eyes? Should I post a You Tube video of a chameleon changing color?

But why the heck would anti-evolutionists want people to think that a basic principle was a tautology? I'd think they'd want the basic principle to be false, but a tautology is something that's always true simply by logic, without need of evidence. So if that argument "worked", they'd be undermining their own position. (so what else is new?)

Henry J said: But why the heck would anti-evolutionists want people to think that a basic principle was a tautology? I'd think they'd want the basic principle to be false, but a tautology is something that's always true simply by logic, without need of evidence. So if that argument "worked", they'd be undermining their own position. (so what else is new?)

Henry J said: But why the heck would anti-evolutionists want people to think that a basic principle was a tautology?

Tenncrain said: Ditto on other mechanisms like "gene hitchhiking" that can power evolution instead of NS. The info's out there.

Ray Martinez said:

PA Poland said: AFAIK, descent with modification is the only process that generates a nested hierarchy.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/index.html#theorytobetested DouglasTheobald: "Therefore, the evidence for common descent discussed here is independent of specific gradualistic explanatory mechanisms. None of the dozens of predictions directly address how macroevolution has occurred, how fins were able to develop into limbs, how the leopard got its spots, or how the vertebrate eye evolved. None of the evidence recounted here assumes that natural selection is valid. None of the evidence assumes that natural selection is sufficient for generating adaptations or the differences between species and other taxa. Because of this evidentiary independence, the validity of the macroevolutionary conclusion does not depend on whether natural selection, or the inheritance of acquired characaters, or a force vitale, or something else is the true mechanism of adaptive evolutionary change. The scientific case for common descent stands, regardless." Theobald admits that he cannot explain how macroevolution and common descent occurs. His scientific assumption is discovery of a pattern, among a wide range of species, means common descent has occured. We can represent this model as follows: "discovery of effect (pattern) = common descent has occurred" The normal model and logic: "cause-and-effect" The effect isn't real, but illusory, until cause established. Theobald has granted himself an [exemption]. Judging by his terminology and tone, his mind appears closed to any criticism.

DS said:

Ray Martinez said:

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnKupVGX70N9ZsvLu8iScIzWpyVj8bds_Q said: Ray's problem is that he thinks common sense always works. It doesn't. Case closed.

A real beauty. Let's not forget that an Evolutionist wrote the comment above. In other words, evolution is counterintuitive and senseless. This is precisely why the theory is so "misunderstood."

So you think common sense always works Ray? Well answer me this, oh fount of wisdom: If two spaceships are moving directly toward each other and each is traveling at the speed of light, are they approaching each other at twice the speed of light?

Scott F said:

Ray Martinez said:

Nick Matzke said:

I contend incongruity between the molecular and the morphological, AND the fact that evolutionary theorists use both, falsify the evolutionary explanation as inconsistent. God intentionally designed the morphological and the molecular to contradict.

And how do you know that? Where's the Bible quote? If you're inferring this statement, please give us your statistical test. I can give you the statistical tests for common ancestry.

The Bible says God created the entire natural universe; and the creation concepts, derived from Genesis, speak of real-time periodic creation (not a single original one-off event). So God created the molecular and morphological to contradict. And before the rise of Darwinism science accepted each species immutable, created independently (Darwin 1859:6; London: John Murray).

So, where is FL? Why doesn't he come and argue that Ray's interpretation of Genesis is wrong? FL's claim is that the only possible interpretation of Genesis is that God created all living creatures in 6 days, 6,000 years ago, give or take a few days. Since then, the only changes to life have been loss of function within "kinds" due to The Fall. But then, Ray, you'd have to argue with FL about who is right about what Genesis says. Funny that Special Creationists like FL never seem to have any disagreement with Creationists like Ray, or with OECs like Behe or IDiots like Dembski.

DS said:

DS said:

Ray Martinez said:

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnKupVGX70N9ZsvLu8iScIzWpyVj8bds_Q said: Ray's problem is that he thinks common sense always works. It doesn't. Case closed.

A real beauty. Let's not forget that an Evolutionist wrote the comment above. In other words, evolution is counterintuitive and senseless. This is precisely why the theory is so "misunderstood."

So you think common sense always works Ray? Well answer me this, oh fount of wisdom: If two spaceships are moving directly toward each other and each is traveling at the speed of light, are they approaching each other at twice the speed of light?

Still waiting for an answer Ray.

Ray Martinez said:

DS said:

DS said:

Ray Martinez said:

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnKupVGX70N9ZsvLu8iScIzWpyVj8bds_Q said: Ray's problem is that he thinks common sense always works. It doesn't. Case closed.

A real beauty. Let's not forget that an Evolutionist wrote the comment above. In other words, evolution is counterintuitive and senseless. This is precisely why the theory is so "misunderstood."

So you think common sense always works Ray? Well answer me this, oh fount of wisdom: If two spaceships are moving directly toward each other and each is traveling at the speed of light, are they approaching each other at twice the speed of light?

Still waiting for an answer Ray.

You're arguing that common sense isn't always true; that exceptions exist. In other words, evolution is an exception. So you agree with my point that evolution is counterintuitive and senseless.

Helena Constantine said:

Ray Martinez said:

Helena Constantine said:

Ray Martinez said:

PA Poland said: Animal husbandry would be impossible if species were immutable - there would only be one (or very few) breeds of dogs, cats, pigeons, etc.

Animal husbandry, as you call it, is also known as artificial selection. No one has ever denied that man can produce variation. The issue is if unintelligent material nature can all by itself. Again, nice try.

Looking at it again, you're baiting and switching. No one has ever claimed that man can produce variation (we can now, but that's another matter--not in the stone age when domestication began). Natural process produce variation alike in wild and domestic animals. Man has no role in that. The farmer takes the place of natural selection, not variation (both necessary components of evolution). Are you lying on purpose to try and deceive some guileless reader (probably not that many here), or does you mind work that poorly that you didn't recognize you were making an error?

A wad of contradiction, misunderstanding, and ignorance (to be nice). Man has been effecting new variants for a very long time. Darwin pointed to the fact and then argued nature too minus the intelligence.

Really? Before genetic engineering was possible, how did man produce variation?

Ray Martinez said: You're arguing that common sense isn't always true; that exceptions exist. In other words, evolution is an exception. So you agree with my point that evolution is counterintuitive and senseless.

Ray Martinez said:

Ray Martinez said:

PA Poland said: AFAIK, descent with modification is the only process that generates a nested hierarchy.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/index.html#theorytobetested DouglasTheobald: "Therefore, the evidence for common descent discussed here is independent of specific gradualistic explanatory mechanisms. None of the dozens of predictions directly address how macroevolution has occurred, how fins were able to develop into limbs, how the leopard got its spots, or how the vertebrate eye evolved. None of the evidence recounted here assumes that natural selection is valid. None of the evidence assumes that natural selection is sufficient for generating adaptations or the differences between species and other taxa. Because of this evidentiary independence, the validity of the macroevolutionary conclusion does not depend on whether natural selection, or the inheritance of acquired characaters, or a force vitale, or something else is the true mechanism of adaptive evolutionary change. The scientific case for common descent stands, regardless." Theobald admits that he cannot explain how macroevolution and common descent occurs. His scientific assumption is discovery of a pattern, among a wide range of species, means common descent has occured. We can represent this model as follows: "discovery of effect (pattern) = common descent has occurred" The normal model and logic: "cause-and-effect" The effect isn't real, but illusory, until cause established. Theobald has granted himself an [exemption]. Judging by his terminology and tone, his mind appears closed to any criticism.

Still waiting for an answer. Ray

"discovery of effect (pattern) = common descent has occurred" The normal model and logic: "cause-and-effect" The effect isn't real, but illusory, until cause established.

Dave Lovell said:

Ray Martinez said:

Helena Constantine said: Evolution is the difference between you and your son and your grandson, but played over time.

False; the difference between individuals in any given species or population is variation, not evolution. Whatever "evolution" is it is not "variation" and whatever "variation" is it is not "evolution." Both evolution and variation are two separate things. A cannot be A and not -A at the same time.

Wow Ray, you managed to write three consecutive sentences that I completely agree with! I doubt any Scientist would disagree either.

You do not doubt that some variation exists within a species, so what happens if selection (artificial or natural) removes some of that variation Ray? Won't you get a change in the relative frequency of alleles in a population of that species, a textbook definition of evolution? Neither do you doubt that random mutation can add new variation, so what definition of "immutable" can survive going around this loop many many times?

Ray Martinez said: Or are you assuming genetic change is evolutionary automatically?

DS said: The really funny thing is that , if you search the term "natural selection" on You tube, you get over 85,000 hits. Her is a good one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6La6_kIr9g Now of course none of this is good enough for Ray. He wants to actually see it happen right before his eyes, no doubt including adaptation and speciation. Seeing the bird eat the seed or the moth just isn't good enough for him, he demands an impossible standard of proof and will just move the goal post even if the standard he sets is met.

Dave Lovell said:

Ray Martinez said: Or are you assuming genetic change is evolutionary automatically?

Not automatically. Genetic change is evolutionary by definition.

Ray Martinez said:

DS said:

DS said:

Ray Martinez said:

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnKupVGX70N9ZsvLu8iScIzWpyVj8bds_Q said: Ray's problem is that he thinks common sense always works. It doesn't. Case closed.

A real beauty. Let's not forget that an Evolutionist wrote the comment above. In other words, evolution is counterintuitive and senseless. This is precisely why the theory is so "misunderstood."

So you think common sense always works Ray? Well answer me this, oh fount of wisdom: If two spaceships are moving directly toward each other and each is traveling at the speed of light, are they approaching each other at twice the speed of light?

Still waiting for an answer Ray.

You're arguing that common sense isn't always true; that exceptions exist. In other words, evolution is an exception. So you agree with my point that evolution is counterintuitive and senseless.

eric said:

Ray Martinez said: You're arguing that common sense isn't always true; that exceptions exist. In other words, evolution is an exception. So you agree with my point that evolution is counterintuitive and senseless.

I'm willing to say that I personally think that the TOE is not intuitive to humans. I don't speak for science or scientists in general, just for myself when I say that.

IMO our brains don't seem wired to estimate exponential change accurately, and evolution is a process of exponential change.

Ray Martinez said:

Dave Lovell said:

Ray Martinez said: Or are you assuming genetic change is evolutionary automatically?

Not automatically. Genetic change is evolutionary by definition.

True by definition (= the same is true by assumption, automatically)!

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnKupVGX70N9ZsvLu8iScIzWpyVj8bds_Q said:

Ray Martinez said:

DS said:

DS said:

Ray Martinez said:

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnKupVGX70N9ZsvLu8iScIzWpyVj8bds_Q said: Ray's problem is that he thinks common sense always works. It doesn't. Case closed.

A real beauty. Let's not forget that an Evolutionist wrote the comment above. In other words, evolution is counterintuitive and senseless. This is precisely why the theory is so "misunderstood."

So you think common sense always works Ray? Well answer me this, oh fount of wisdom: If two spaceships are moving directly toward each other and each is traveling at the speed of light, are they approaching each other at twice the speed of light?

Still waiting for an answer Ray.

You're arguing that common sense isn't always true; that exceptions exist. In other words, evolution is an exception. So you agree with my point that evolution is counterintuitive and senseless.

You still don't know what counterintuitive means - please look up the definition.

If common sense were always true, there would be no point in doing science. The reason for doing science is to control for the subjectivity of our everyday experiences. The easiest ones, as I pointed out before, our things like us feeling that the earth is stationary and everything else is moving or falling objects that are heavier not falling faster. You can also look at things like optical illusions or even magic tricks. Seeing is not always believing. Misconceptions abound and most of them come about by people trusting common sense over counterintuitive truth.

Ray Martinez said:

If common sense were always true, there would be no point in doing science. The reason for doing science is to control for the subjectivity of our everyday experiences. The easiest ones, as I pointed out before, our things like us feeling that the earth is stationary and everything else is moving or falling objects that are heavier not falling faster. You can also look at things like optical illusions or even magic tricks. Seeing is not always believing. Misconceptions abound and most of them come about by people trusting common sense over counterintuitive truth.

These comments say the exception (counterintuitive) is not the exception but the norm. In other words, reality is deceptive. The same completely undermines your "science" and its acceptance of Realism.

Ray Martinez said:

DS said: The really funny thing is that , if you search the term "natural selection" on You tube, you get over 85,000 hits. Her is a good one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6La6_kIr9g Now of course none of this is good enough for Ray. He wants to actually see it happen right before his eyes, no doubt including adaptation and speciation. Seeing the bird eat the seed or the moth just isn't good enough for him, he demands an impossible standard of proof and will just move the goal post even if the standard he sets is met.

Let us not forget that exact context in which I voiced opposition, which was: a claim made by several Evolutionists that said "natural selection is observed." My point remains: natural selection is not observed, but inferred; what Douglas Theobald calls an "explanatory mechanism." Do I need to explain what "explanatory mechanism" means?

And you still don’t understand that I’m using counterintuitive to have a synonymous relationship with senselessness.

These comments say the exception (counterintuitive) is not the exception but the norm. In other words, reality is deceptive. The same completely undermines your “science” and its acceptance of Realism.

Ray Martinez said:

IMO our brains don't seem wired to estimate exponential change accurately, and evolution is a process of exponential change.

That's right. Tell me, how can I damage my brain so I can understand evolution? What's the secret?

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnKupVGX70N9ZsvLu8iScIzWpyVj8bds_Q said:

These comments say the exception (counterintuitive) is not the exception but the norm. In other words, reality is deceptive. The same completely undermines your “science” and its acceptance of Realism.

Yes reality is deceptive - that is why we do science. We wouldn't need to do it, if seeing were always believing.

That takes work.

intuitive - based on what one FEELS to be true even without conscious reasoning.

What we want is to use conscious reasoning to know what is actually true.

Ray, you feel evolution is false, but I know it to a much better fit to reality than special creation or species fixity or intelligent design, etc.

It doesn't matter whether Ray "observes" natural selection or not. The fact is that the moth population changed over time. The fact is that the Finches changed over time. The fact is that species are not "immutable".

Now if Ray doesn't like natural selection as a mechanism, he is free to come up with a hypothesis with more predictive and explanatory power. Of course it has make "sense", at least to Ray. Of course it must be "intuitive", at least to Ray. And somehow, it must be something that every real scientist has overlooked for the last five hundred years.

Good luck Ray. We is all a waitin on ya.

Other animals aren't good at accepting counterintuitive reality. They're pretty much locked into their intuitions. They don't do SCIENCE.

How often do you see dead animals along the highway? They're not uncommon even on city streets where I live. But I've never seen a human pedestrian flattened in the middle of the road. That happens so rarely that it's at least a major local news story. Not so much with squirrels, or deer, or opossums, or cats.

Here's why: Other animals rely on their intuition about how fast a large object could be approaching, honed by their ancestors' experience with large animals in their environment. Bears and bison don't go 70 MPH. And nonhuman animals probably lack any useful intuition about bright lights bearing down on them at night. If their intuition tells them to do anything, it's probably to freeze: the "deer in the headlights".

Humans, being mostly smarter than most other animals, have learned NOT to rely on our intuition so much. That's our edge over the other critters. We have learned to "see" what is not obvious: fire can be tamed; stones can be reshaped; there are invisible kinds of light; something COULD be approaching faster than a sprinting deer; the Earth is round and rotates and moves around the sun; the environment can change substantially over many lifetimes; offspring are never identical to their parents, and those differences can accumulate to end up in huge changes.

But some humans refuse, or are unable, to use our power of seeing beyond the obvious. Or they're trapped in the obvious, the intuitive, even when it's dead wrong. They can't see evolution happening, and THEIR RELIGION TELLS THEM IT CAN'T BE, therefore it must not be.

Deer in the headlights.

Then why are some of your evo brothers and sisters still arguing existence of variation means microevolution true, mutability false?

it also seems you're arguing genetic change to mean evolution has occurred? How can that be if morphological change hasn't occurred?

Are you saying the genome mutates randomly or spontaneously producing new variation? If so, then, you do accept the concept of "sudden creation" to exist in nature after all?

eric said:

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnKupVGX70N9ZsvLu8iScIzWpyVj8bds_Q said:

These comments say the exception (counterintuitive) is not the exception but the norm. In other words, reality is deceptive. The same completely undermines your “science” and its acceptance of Realism.

Yes reality is deceptive - that is why we do science. We wouldn't need to do it, if seeing were always believing.

Tsk, now Ray is probably going to claim you're imputing some sort of agency to 'Reality.' Reality is difficult for humans to understand - it isn't 'deceptive' the way humans are deceptive.

DS said:

Ray Martinez said:

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnKupVGX70N9ZsvLu8iScIzWpyVj8bds_Q said: Ray's problem is that he thinks common sense always works. It doesn't. Case closed.

A real beauty. Let's not forget that an Evolutionist wrote the comment above. In other words, evolution is counterintuitive and senseless. This is precisely why the theory is so "misunderstood."

So you think common sense always works Ray? Well answer me this, oh fount of wisdom: If two spaceships are moving directly toward each other and each is traveling at the speed of light, are they approaching each other at twice the speed of light?

KlausH said:

DS said:

Ray Martinez said:

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnKupVGX70N9ZsvLu8iScIzWpyVj8bds_Q said: Ray's problem is that he thinks common sense always works. It doesn't. Case closed.

A real beauty. Let's not forget that an Evolutionist wrote the comment above. In other words, evolution is counterintuitive and senseless. This is precisely why the theory is so "misunderstood."

So you think common sense always works Ray? Well answer me this, oh fount of wisdom: If two spaceships are moving directly toward each other and each is traveling at the speed of light, are they approaching each other at twice the speed of light?

Actually, the speed of light in a vacuum is infinite. The apparent speed of light is actually that rate at which time, itself, changes with distance in 4D spacetime. That is the reason it takes infinite energy to accelerate matter to "lightspeed" and you get "time dialation".

Actually, the speed of light in a vacuum is infinite. The apparent speed of light is actually that rate at which time, itself, changes with distance in 4D spacetime. That is the reason it takes infinite energy to accelerate matter to “lightspeed” and you get “time dilation”.

KlausH said:

DS said:

Ray Martinez said:

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnKupVGX70N9ZsvLu8iScIzWpyVj8bds_Q said: Ray's problem is that he thinks common sense always works. It doesn't. Case closed.

A real beauty. Let's not forget that an Evolutionist wrote the comment above. In other words, evolution is counterintuitive and senseless. This is precisely why the theory is so "misunderstood."

So you think common sense always works Ray? Well answer me this, oh fount of wisdom: If two spaceships are moving directly toward each other and each is traveling at the speed of light, are they approaching each other at twice the speed of light?

Actually, the speed of light in a vacuum is infinite. The apparent speed of light is actually that rate at which time, itself, changes with distance in 4D spacetime. That is the reason it takes infinite energy to accelerate matter to "lightspeed" and you get "time dialation".

Tell me, how can I damage my brain so I can understand evolution? What’s the secret?

I thought the reason that kinetic energy of an object approaches infinity as its speed of approaches the speed of light, was that continuing to accelerate it requires also accelerating the kinetic energy that it already has, as well as the object's rest mass.

Then there's also the relationship between length contraction and the wavelength of the moving object, and that wavelength is proportional to its momentum.

Henry

Ray Martinez said:

Helena Constantine said:

Ray Martinez said:

Helena Constantine said:

Ray Martinez said:

PA Poland said: Animal husbandry would be impossible if species were immutable - there would only be one (or very few) breeds of dogs, cats, pigeons, etc.

Animal husbandry, as you call it, is also known as artificial selection. No one has ever denied that man can produce variation. The issue is if unintelligent material nature can all by itself. Again, nice try.

Looking at it again, you're baiting and switching. No one has ever claimed that man can produce variation (we can now, but that's another matter--not in the stone age when domestication began). Natural process produce variation alike in wild and domestic animals. Man has no role in that. The farmer takes the place of natural selection, not variation (both necessary components of evolution). Are you lying on purpose to try and deceive some guileless reader (probably not that many here), or does you mind work that poorly that you didn't recognize you were making an error?

A wad of contradiction, misunderstanding, and ignorance (to be nice). Man has been effecting new variants for a very long time. Darwin pointed to the fact and then argued nature too minus the intelligence.

Really? Before genetic engineering was possible, how did man produce variation?

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2013/10/a-very-darwinia.html#comment-318037 "Darwin pointed to the fact and then argued nature too minus the intelligence."

Ray Martinez said:

DS said: The really funny thing is that , if you search the term "natural selection" on You tube, you get over 85,000 hits. Her is a good one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6La6_kIr9g Now of course none of this is good enough for Ray. He wants to actually see it happen right before his eyes, no doubt including adaptation and speciation. Seeing the bird eat the seed or the moth just isn't good enough for him, he demands an impossible standard of proof and will just move the goal post even if the standard he sets is met.

Let us not forget that exact context in which I voiced opposition, which was: a claim made by several Evolutionists that said "natural selection is observed." My point remains: natural selection is not observed, but inferred; what Douglas Theobald calls an "explanatory mechanism." Do I need to explain what "explanatory mechanism" means?

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnKupVGX70N9ZsvLu8iScIzWpyVj8bds_Q said:

That takes work.

Are you actually suggesting that Ray could understand if he worked at it - that does defy common sense...

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnKupVGX70N9ZsvLu8iScIzWpyVj8bds_Q said:

That takes work.

Are you actually suggesting that Ray could understand if he worked at it - that does defy common sense...

Common sense tells me that humans are the relatives of chimps and other apes. It has long been observed that we are a lot like monkeys and apes, perhaps embarrassingly so.

When was it that someone first came up with the idea that we are not related to other animals? I'm going to make a wild guess, that it was only after "On the Origin of Species" came out and made that kind of relationship a big deal. Off hand, I'm not aware of any Christian objection, in the early Church or in the Bible, to such a relationship, but I haven't made any systematic search for this.

Henry J said: I thought the reason that kinetic energy of an object approaches infinity as its speed of approaches the speed of light, was that continuing to accelerate it requires also accelerating the kinetic energy that it already has, as well as the object's rest mass. Then there's also the relationship between length contraction and the wavelength of the moving object, and that wavelength is proportional to its momentum. Henry

Henry J said:

Actually, the speed of light in a vacuum is infinite. The apparent speed of light is actually that rate at which time, itself, changes with distance in 4D spacetime. That is the reason it takes infinite energy to accelerate matter to “lightspeed” and you get “time dilation”.

Oh, you mean in its own "frame of reference"? It took me a couple minutes to figure out what you meant.

Ray,
FYI http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/11/15/a-long-way-left-up-darwins-mountain/

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnKupVGX70N9ZsvLu8iScIzWpyVj8bds_Q said: Ray, FYI http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/11/15/a-long-way-left-up-darwins-mountain/

Eric wrote:

"Since the current subject of the thread seems to be common sense and intuitiveness, I’d say that for situations like this the best thing to do is admit that our common sense notions of time, speed, etc. are just no good at describing what’s going on. ‘The subjective speed is infinite’ is a less accurate statement than ‘our human notion of speed no longer applies.’

Thanks Eric. That was my point. Common sense didn't give the right answer, relativity gave the right answer. Common sense doesn't tell you where new species come from, Darwin tells you where new species come from.

And Ray remains senseless.

Yeah, common sense consists of ad-hoc rules that are based on personal experience. Those rules just don't cover things that are significantly different than what the person has dealt with personally.

Henry J said: Yeah, common sense consists of ad-hoc rules that are based on personal experience. Those rules just don't cover things that are significantly different than what the person has dealt with personally.

Just Bob said:

KlausH said:

DS said:

Ray Martinez said:

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnKupVGX70N9ZsvLu8iScIzWpyVj8bds_Q said: Ray's problem is that he thinks common sense always works. It doesn't. Case closed.

A real beauty. Let's not forget that an Evolutionist wrote the comment above. In other words, evolution is counterintuitive and senseless. This is precisely why the theory is so "misunderstood."

So you think common sense always works Ray? Well answer me this, oh fount of wisdom: If two spaceships are moving directly toward each other and each is traveling at the speed of light, are they approaching each other at twice the speed of light?

Actually, the speed of light in a vacuum is infinite. The apparent speed of light is actually that rate at which time, itself, changes with distance in 4D spacetime. That is the reason it takes infinite energy to accelerate matter to "lightspeed" and you get "time dialation".

IANAphysicist, but the speed of light may be infinite IF YOU'RE THE LIGHT, or traveling with it, but here on Earth I can measure with great accuracy how long it takes light to travel from A to B, and the speed always turns out to be the same. So for all practical purposes, light has a finite and measurable speed.

Helena Constantine said: Ray, the moths eat the birds whose color makes them stand out form the tree trunks they settle on.

It came to me this morning like a revelation what Ray is gibbering about. He claims that Darwin's observation that the selection made of domestic animals by farmers provides a model for natural selection is in fact proof of his assertion that early farmers introduced variation into their livestock, hopelessly confusing variation and selection (to the degree he thought my clear statements on the matter were actually confused).

His Darwin lie is just meant to put a ps.-scientific dress on his essential religious belief. He believes that farmers were able to introduce variation into plants and animals because the Bible says they were able to do so. Why are you ashamed to admit it, Ray? The book of Genesis describes how Jacob caused his sheep to bear offspring with particular colors and patterns of wool by making them look at similar patterns while they were mating (this was actually a widespread ancient belief--the Roman poet Martial has an amusing piece about the unfortunate woman who happened to glance at her pet monkey at the moment of conception--thought to equal the time of the man's emission since they believed the ejaculate grew into the fetus like a seed growing into a plant).

So Ray, it seems that you are desperately trying to justify your obviously false and irrational religious belief (the inerrancy of the Bible) by a veneer of ps.-scientific lies. How do you think your arguments can be taken seriously? But if my revelation is incorrect, please explain clearly and fully what your true beliefs are, and how they differ from what I've suggested.

Helena Constantine said: Ray understands science fine, I'm sure. he just makes about half a million a year (based on is public tax records, telling idiots that it's not true (have you ever seen the videos of his phone operators using well established manipulative techniques to co-erce money from his victims? There is no question of his disingenuous). That is what bending the knee to Baal means. Our Ray is the one that is deluded.

Just Bob said: ... IF YOU'RE THE LIGHT, or traveling with it, but here on Earth I can measure with great accuracy how long it takes light to travel from A to B, and the speed always turns out to be the same.

If a photon is traveling at the speed of light, and also has an oscillation perpendicular to the velocity vector, wouldn't the combined motion vector (forward speed + oscillation) be moving ever-so-slightly faster than the photon? (That's probably a really bad analogy. It assumes that some "part" of the photon is oscillating.) But then that raises the question, of what is actually oscillating. It is the electric and magnetic fields within the photon. (Right?) But, isn't the photon the particle that is conveying the electromagnetic fields?

This whole notion that "fields" are actually made up of certain particles "exchanging" certain other particles is just bizarre.

Dang, this stuff really is counterintuitive. (And hence, by Ray's definition, senseless and therefore wrong.)

I sure wish I could have sprung that one on the 3rd semester physics TA. "The professor's explanation contradicts my intuition, and doesn't make any sense to me (i.e., it is counterintuitive and senseless). Therefore the professor is wrong." That sure sounds like a good answer to me! Gotcha, stupid professor! It would have saved a lot of studying in college.

Some experiments with light are best understood as propagating waves, while others are better understood as particles. Mixing the two together, into one, leads to contradiction and is not recommended.

Common sense derives from our everyday experience of the macroscopic world around us. Projecting that understanding into the very large, or the very small, requires amendments that don't make sense to us. Nevertheless, they are real, and repeatable, leading to predictions that are confirmed.

The Old Orthodoxy, well-grounded in the Bronze Age, wants none of this.

'Common sense' told us that there was no speed of light--it was instantaneous.

And a toddler 'intuitively' knows that if he closes his eyes, you can't see him!