Re: Is a fact something that has been proven?


"ave1" <ave1@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1150179477.162284.290860@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
bullpup@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
ave1 wrote:

<snip>


"Mathematical solutions" are not required, and you are still
arguing from a position if incredulity.

If I'm arguing from incredulity, then Francesco Redi was doing the same
when he saw that the inference of the spontaneous generation proponents
was going a little too far.

Unlike you, he devised an experiment to test the belief that maggots were
the result of spontanious generation.


Recognizing that an inference has been taken too far is a scientific
endeavor, not some practice of incredulity like you are claiming.

The drawback to your comparison is that it only takes a few days to show
that maggots are not the result of spontanious generation, whereas your
expectations for sufficient evidence for macroevolution would take
centuries, if not thousands of years. BTW, just what sort of *realistic*
evidence would you accept?




Niles Eldredge and Tattersall, in "The Myths of Human Evolution"
(1982)
wrote (with regard to the idea that evolution very gradually changes
lifeforms into significantly different forms): "We are faced more with
a great leap of faith-- that gradual progressive adaptive change
underlies the general pattern of evolutionary change we see in the
rocks-- than any hard evidence." Now before you claim that I'm taking
this out of context, please be aware that I understand that Eldredge
and Tattersall are trying to push forward an idea that rapid (as in
hundreds of thousands of years instead of millions upon millions)
evolving would be a better way of viewing the very jumpy fossil
record.
. . and that the hard evidence would be that the changes happen too
fast to end up being recorded in the rocks. Now how that constitutes
"hard evidence" (which is lacking in the gradualistic evolution
ideas),
I'll never know. . . ;)



Maybe it's not a case of "I'll never know", but of "I don't
understand"?

And what do you think I'm not understanding?

The concept behind their reasoning.


The extrapolation takes some faith to accept. It's certainly not
based
on math. In a discussion of a paper by Dr. Eden entitled
"Mathematical
Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution" C.H.
Waddington writes: "The whole real guts of evolution-- which is how do
you come to have horses and tigers and things-- is outside the
mathematical theory".

No "leap of faith" is needed., simple extrapolation will do. Seems
to work too.

The premise of what I'm trying to get at in this topic is that the
inference (which common descent ideas are based on) utilizes data, but
is not data itself. In fact the inference doesn't have really anything
to do with hard data, like mathematics. Remember, data are facts, but
the utilizing of those data-facts to arrange an interpretation (an
extrapolation in this case) CANNOT qualify to be labelled as "a fact"
by definition.


In other words the pattern of diversification through time is not data?


Why? Because facts are data, not interpretations based on the
analogical method which are "outside the mathematical theory".

There is no "interpretation" of the diversification of species through time.
That's hard data.


If that statement isn't strong evidence that the product of the
extrapolation is lacking in hard data or "hard evidence" (as Eldredge
and Tattersall said it) I don't know what is.


Again, it's the evidence that *does* exist that counts. What about
that do you do not understand?

The evidence for common descent evolving is based on an extrapolation,
and IS NOT data. For this reason we're not dealing with something that
can be called a fact.

The data supports common decent with modification through time. The data
forms a pattern, that pattern is a fact.



<snip>

Again, mathematics is no friend of supermacroevolution, and that's why
there is no college coursework which gets into the mathematics of
evolution (aside from population genetics which deals in the realm of
sub-transpecific evolution).


Maybe, to the extent you are trying to apply mathematics, it's
irrelevant.

I'm just pointing out that this is a relevant truth, and thus
supporting some of my earlier statements with a bit more evidence.

Not really. The inability to couch an argument into a neat little formula
is not a flaw in the ToE. It'd be nice if it could.


Anyway, if "hard evidence" is not what constitutes transpecific
evolution (same as what I've been calling Common Descent Evolution and
what Kerkut has called "the general theory of evolution"), by what
logic would it be called "a fact"?

There is evidence, but you dismiss it as easily as I dismiss
creationistic blathercrap.

The evidence is all resting on an extrapolation which requires certain
philosophical assumptions.

Yes. The philosophical assumption that there is no magical sky pixie
playing infintile games Philosophical assumptions that nature is
predictible due to physical laws and constraints. The philosophical
assumption that we are not brains in a vat in a cave. The philosophical
assumption that what is, is.


See:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/29822eb99abe107d?hl=en&;

Refering to your own post that ammounts to nothing of consequence except
whinging about "subjectivity" doesn't score any points.

<snip>

You have yet to demonstrate any reason that macro-evolution should not
be simply considered a logical extension of micro-evolution.

I'd say it can be judged to be reasonable (but that depends on some
philosophical tendencies), but to call it a fact is not at all right
(because facts are data and not inferences which utilize data).

So, what do you want? A generation by generation sequence of individual
fossils showing species to species development? Why? New species have been
created in labs. (And unless you want to move the goal post, speciation is
macroevolution). But I suspect what you wnat is the "uber-super-duper"
version of evolution, like a worm to man demonstration all done withing a
few weeks, or something equally stupid.


See the evidence of talkorigins.org admitting that speciation really
belongs in the microevolution category:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB902.html

Read it yourself, since you obviously missed the point of the article.
From what you wrote above, it looks like you read the first sentence,
then took a flying "leap of faith" that it somehow supported your
views.

That response is lame. You didn't even explain where my premise
supposedly went wrong.

For one thing, I never said that speciation was *not* considered
macroevolution. The bone of contention is your (apparent) claim that for
some reason it is some different *form* of evolution. At least that's what
you seem to be claiming.


<snip>

The only thing fishy going on is your denial of the two categories
to
evolution.

That is because there really are not "two catagories" of evolution,
just a
continium from the sublime to the grand. You are simply unable to
grasp
that.

You are not able to grasp that extrapolation takes the "sublime" to a
hypothetical extension.

What's wrong with that, when there is *nothing* to prevent the
extension?

Now here's where we start to get somewhere. FINALLY. From my point of
view you have asked a very good question. Now I'll address your
question:

Only now? Sheesh!

*Is* there nothing to prevent the extension? Do we KNOW
ENOUGH about the inner-workings of genes and how hot-spots in the
genome may be utilized for the propagation of natural variance (which
always seems to have boundaries)? Do we KNOW ENOUGH about why there
are certain areas in the genome that resist change, and whether
evolving processes can affect these areas when there are repair
mechanisms built in to repair coding errors that otherwise might end up
as heritable mutations in the organism? Do we have a comprehensive
understanding of the regulatory processes which certain stretches of
non-coding DNA represent?

So, your argument is that since we do not know everything, we know nothing,
and that means there's a boundry Is that it? Is that your whole problem
with the ToE?


I'd say we haven't even scratched the surface yet in these areas.

So where do you get off claiming there's a boundry?


You cannot say that "there is *nothing* to prevent the extension",
knowing how little we really understand about genes. I mean, come on,
we don't even know what genes have to do with why a nose protrudes
outward like it does. We know hardly anything about how genes
establish cognitive processes (including things like instincts).

By the exact same token, you cannot say there *IS* a boundry or barrier


To claim that there is nothing to prevent the extension, is to cite our
ignorance as evidence that the extrapolation is an absolute truth. Do
you see a problem with that? I do.


Yet you do not see the bproblem when you use the exact same argument to
support you view. That's pretty hypocritical, don't you think?

Here are Evolutionists who fully realized that the extension *IS*
hypothetical (because they split evolution into two categories):

Darwin: the principal of selection (which he labelled as "not
hypothetical") & common descent (an inference, and rather
hypothetical)

I'urii Filipchenko: micro & macroevolution (1930's)-- credit goes to
John Wilkins for this bit of info.
G.G. Simpson: evolution & megaevolution (1940's)
Kerkut: special theory & general theory of evolution (1960)
E. Mayr: speciation events/microevolution & transpecific evolution
(well beyond speciation) (1970)
N. Eldredge: An admission that certain scientists in the past viewed
macroevolution to be far above the species level.

For some reason, just like the citation for the article from the T.O
archive, I don't think you have any idea what they are talking about.

On what basis would you think that I've made an error in my
understanding of what these scientists wrote about consistently in
agreement with eachother?

Because the all accepted evolution?


Some of this info comes from
http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199803/0015.html
Here's the Eldredge quote:

"But macroevolution need not carry such heavy conceptual baggage.
In its most basic usage, it simply means evolution on a large-scale.
In

particular, to some biologists, it suggests the origin of major
groups-

such as the origin and radiation of mammals, or the derivation of
whales and bats from terrestrial mammalian ancestors. Such sorts of
events may or may not demand additional theory for their
explanation. Traditional Darwinian explanation, of course, insists
not.

So, where does that make a *distinction* that imposes any sort of
barrier?

The barrier that's mentioned is between the higher taxons (which I
would take to mean phylums or orders) and the lower taxons (certainly
well above genus, maybe even at the family level).

Well golly wilbur! That is already agreed to, or do you think I'm favoring
a house cat giving birth to a red tailed hawk? I believe long ago in this
thread, I said that *ancestry* was one constraint. Any new taxa that evolves
will be derived from the ancestral taxa. How is that a problem?


But George Simpson, as I have already noted, felt that the abrupt
Eocene appearances of both bats and whales indicate a special period
of rapid evolutionary change that demands detailed theoretical
explanation. Indeed, Simpson, noting that microevolution refers to
within-species processes, while macroevolution refers to relay lower-
ranked higher taxa (meaning genera and perhaps families), decided
that still a third term would be useful: megaevolution. This term
would embrace the very sorts of examples of large-scale evolution he
had in mind with his concept of quantum evolution." (Eldredge N.,
"Reinventing Darwin", 1996, p127)

This has nothing to do with the on-going *process* of evolution.

You mean the boundaried variance which Eldredge might call
microevolution or Kerkut might call the special theory of evolution?

It's all nothing but a continum of symantics. Mico + micro + micro........=
macro. Where would you like to draw the line?


Furthermore, pretty much any classification above the Genus level is
largely arbitrary.

Arbitrary or not, they are scientifically established.

But still arbitrary.

<snip>

Mayr said that transpecific evolution means macroevolution, but--
according to Eldredge-- many biologists in the past viewed
macroevolution to be well above the species level (not including
speciation). The context of Mayr's statement about transpecific
evolution demonstrates that he is not including speciation as part of
it. Just read it again to understand what I'm conveying.


What you are conveying is a non-existent problem. Straw man objection,
on your part.

There's no strawman because I've used the very words of the
evolutionists who came up with the categorization of higher taxon
evolving vs. lower taxon evolving (what I refer to as variation). You
cannot deny that they-- time and time again-- produced the same
representations (though often with differing titles) of two defined
versions of evolution (large and small-scale).

Which are nothing more than terms used to address specifics, and not terms
used to deliniate two different kinds of evolution.


You also can't deny that in order to have an extrapolation (which all
evolutionists admit is present in the ToE) there has to be an original
something before the extrapolation which turns into something much
bigger. That's why these evolutionists came up with the low taxon and
higher taxon categorization concepts that all pretty much agreed with
each other.

And the problem is?

<snip>


I guess we're going with Mayr's "transpecific evolution". If that's
not sitting well with you, maybe we could go with the new one I've
just
brought forward to you today: G.G. Simpson's "megaevolution" (which
most certainly does not include speciation). . . or maybe you just
want
to settle on the Talk Origin's website's "supermacroevolution".


Is micro evolution part of the process of macro-evolution,
mega-evolution. super duper-evolution and uber-evolution? All it
appears that you are trying to do is define a term that is impossible
to obtain through the accumulation of micro-evolution changes. It will
not fly simple because it all boils down to accumulation of
micro-evolution changes over time.

Micro is supposed to account for macro. There are some serious
problems with this, though. One of the problems is that in order for
macro changes to be viewed as reasonably derived from micro changes,
there'd have to be evidence that we've observed that which has multiple
necessary components getting those components arranged in specified
ways (molecules fitting together with much precision) to bring about a
new mechanism in an organism (with a function that wasn't there
previously) through blind processes.

Strawman! There is nothing in the ToE that mandates a new and novel
structure evolving, though *it can happen*.

Thus far the micro changes
(governed by blind processes) don't ever seem to build those new
mechanisms, and the attempts to try to explain how this might all come
together never really amount to anything other than vague statements
about how this might "co-opt" that (no mechanism given) or something
could "create" another thing via blind processes. (See the t.o. website
description of the originating of the flagellum-- they actually have a
statement about one step in the process creating something-- that seems
very funny to me.)

It only seems funny to you because you want to reject it.


True or false time

True or false: Variations within a population occure in nature.

True. Breeds of finches can be attributed to this. In fact we
have
seen some breeds lose the ability to reproduce with a parent
population
and thus speciate.

Good.


True or false: Variation in *environment* exist in nature.

Environments are definitely not always the same. True.

Good.


True or false: Some variations within a population can be better
suited
for
a given environmental range.

True. Some finches have undergone variation to have somewhat
longer
beaks for getting at certain types of food sources that otherwise
might
not be accessible.

Good.


True or false: Those variations within a population which convey
a
survival,
and reproductive advantage, within a given environment have a
statistical
advantage or reproducing and passing those advantagious traits
to the
next
generation.

True. This is all within the category 1 evolution, which I prefer
to
call variation. It doesn't take any use of the analogical method
(extrapolation) to provide an inference so this'll end up being
accepted as valid. All it takes to see this as valid is to look
at the
data alone.

Screw this bull*** "catagory 1" crap. Aside from that, good.


True or false: The above can be repeated for every sucessive
genereation.

. . . environments will typically go back and forth from arid to
wet to
somewhere in between, cold back to warm back to somewhere in
between,
food aplenty to scarce to somewhere in between, food of one
variety to
another variety to maybe another newly introduced source and then
back
again, predators aplenty and predators less frequently seen (and
everywhere in between), There are limits to what goes on when the
above situations are repeated. It's true they can be repeated for
every successive generation, but a *revisiting* of previous
circumstances is typical of what you'd expect through time.

Over a period of *how much time*?

Geological time I suppose (what Evolutionists like to call "deep
time").

In other words, it's not a problem.

Why would you say that?

Because it's not a problem. Tens of thousand s of years is sufficient time
for species to adapt to that environment, and through genetic drift, have a
'range shift" of variations within the population to qualify as a new
species.


And gee, how long has the Gobi desert
been a desert? How long has the Sahara desert been a desert? Bad.
you are
whinging.

If you are saying that these environments have been stable for a very
long time, that's fine by me, but we were talking about how
environments can change.


Was we? Not in depth. You threw out a citation that doesn't pose
any particular problems for environmental shifts providing a selective
filter that varies through time.

Well except for the fact that there are only a limited number of
environmental constraints any particular place on Earth can vary
between over deep time. Back and forth, back and forth. .

Over thousands, millions, and tens of millions of years. So?
..

Dr. Piere Grasse writes:
"the mutations of bacteria and viruses are merely hereditary
fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to
the left, but no final evolutionary effect." (source typed below.)


A regurgitation of a previous posting. How much was the environment varied?
How about the example of antibiotic resistant bacteria? Oh, wait. Their
still bacteria, right?


Also, it's not so much the
"how" so much as the "how long", and it's effects on natural
selection.

So the "how" just doesn't matter? That which is known to be "a fact"
has every conceivable one of the "hows" answered.

What did you not understand about my statement?
<snip>

He may have agreed with evolution, but that doesn't minimize his
statement about what is typically seen in observed instances of
microevolutionary change (and yes, that includes speciation)-- a
limited swing to the left and to the right which results in "no final
evolutionary effect".

Your interpretation of what he said seems to be at odds with what he
said.

What's your interpretation of what he said?

That speciation occurs. The only limit to the swing this way or that is due
to the incremental nature of evolution. He's talking about, call it "first
generation" speciation. Now, take that new population and repete several
thousand times. New spcies, to new species, to new species, to new species,
let me know when you want to asinge the new species to a new genera., to new
species, to new species...


<snip>


<sigh> back to aquare one. There is the observed fact of evolution,
including the observed fact of diversification of species through time
as evident by the fossil record, and the *theory* that attempts to
explain those *facts*

And it's all based on a very conjectural inference which cannot yet be
known as reasonable because of how little we know of the regulatory
processes of DNA, the alteration workings of genes that aren't in
hotspots in the genome, and how this all works together for the alleged
bringing about of traits that build complexity in the organism.

Again with the "we don't know enough, so we don't know anything" argument
with more than a pinch of personal incredulity, again.

<snip>

No, they do not. "The principle of selection" is the theory that
attempts to explain the observed fact of "common descent".

Read the part in chapter 1 of Origin of Species for context on the
principle of selection. He is discussing specific cases of small scale
evolution in that part of the book. It is clear that he is
categorizing small-scale variation (and his use of the words "not
hypothetical" support what I'm saying here) in the same way that Kerkut
did (special theory of evolution).

Now, of course, I'd agree that Darwin, as well as Kerkut, heralded
these small changes as able to culminate into large-scale changes, BUT
NOT WITHOUT THE EXTRAPOLATION (which is hypothetical, and therefore not
a fact).

Wrong, the extrapolations are based on facts.

<snip>

And why, given the word mush of citations that you apparently can not
seem to grasp within context,

You have made a claim that there's a problem with the context. Explain
what context I allegedly misrepresented. Sofar, I'm getting
assertions, but no details.

The contest that the scientists you cite do not consider there to be two
differnt kinds of evolution. That they understand that macro is nothing
more than a continum of micro.


should I take your interpretation as
being valid? So far, it seems th me that you are tossing citations
around without truly understanding what the original authors are
talking about.

Or maybe your being disingenuous about realizing this all fits together
rather nicely in order to not appear to be losing this argument in
front of a bunch of your evolutionist friends here at t.o. . .

Or maybe you're being deliberatly obtuse and suffering from a bout of
wishful thinking?


Either that, or you are cribbing from a creationists
quote mine, and are falling victim to their dishonesty.

What evidence can you bring forward that might convince me that there's
contextual problems in what I've shown these scientists to be saying? I
want you to be specific here.

That they don't have a problem with the ToE, and you do, yet you use their
words to attempt claim theres some problem. That's a tip off.


all agree that they are two distinct
and valid categories of Darwin's theory), to keep conversations
like
the one we're having from occuring. I don't know.

Again, if thee are two distinct and valid catagories, where is the
deliniation (between micro and macro-evolution)?

When micro and macroevolution were introduced initially some
biologists
viewed the delineation in a very general way: small scale change
(lower taxons) vs. large scale change (higher taxons). This
categorization was understood by Darwin, G.G. Simpson, G. Kerkut, E.
Mayr, and Niles Eldredge. .

Yet you seem to have a problem with it. They would also understand
that one is simply a logical extention of the other.

The extension is hypothetical and not a fact.

It's a logical extention based upon the facts.


"Most of modern evolutionary theory (as judged, for example, from the
issues of the bimonthly journal "Evolution") lies squarely within the
realm of microevolution. ... Little work is geared to bridging the
conceptual gap between microevolution and macroevolution, the latter
taken simply as large-scale, long-term accrual of adaptive change."
(Eldredge, 1989, "Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches, and
Adaptive Peaks", McGraw-Hill, New York, p. 58,59.)

"We understand very little about evolution, particularly the type of
evolution involved in the creation of the major taxa, the kingdoms, the
phyla and so on. We call this "macroevolution", to distinguish it from
a seemingly different process, "microevolution", which is
characteristic of evolution in the lower taxa. However, the term
"macroevolution" serves more to hide our ignorance than symbolize our
understanding." (C.R. Woese, 1987, "Macroevolution in the Microscopic
World," in Patterson's (editor), "Molecules and Morphology in
Evolution: Conflict or Compromise?, Cambridge University Press, p.
177.) (Both quotes were brought to my attention in Walter Remine's
book)


That calls the context into question right there. I take no quote from
Remine at face value.

One is not really all that logical an extension of the other.


Why not? Use your own brain to answer, not cretionist bilge or quote mined
bullcrap

<snip>

A book written by Idiots ? No thanks. ID is nothing more than
cretinism in a cheap lab coat. Not interested.

My turn now. Macroevolution is nothing more than an evilutionist in a
cheap lab coat's guess about what genes really are capable of. I'm not
interested.

Then take a hike.


<snip>


Anyway, the idea that limits in variation exist for a reason, and that
science can figure out more about these limits is a driving force for
scientific investigation. This is another avenue for ID theorists to
pursue.

Then they should "play science" on their own time, and not pretend
they are doing *real* science. They've already decided they have
"the answer"., and use idiotic extrapolations of their own.

At least their use of the analogical method is not explained to the
public as "a fact". Honesty is the best policy.

Yes, especially when they have so handily been exposed as nothing more than
creationists playing 'doctor".


"Jorsh Wilbur, we've been breeding chickes for a couple of months
now, and I ain't seen no ostrich yet, so that evolution thingy must
be wrong"

"Yup, Klem, Praise the Un-Named Creator, I thinks you are right!"

Creation science and genetics at it's best. Oops, I mean "*ID*"
science at it's best.

Ridiculous caricatures of opponents viewpoints never win arguments.

Yet it reflects thier logic.
<snip>

This calls for a whole thread in itself. Keep your eyes pealed, it may
be a few days. But you are totally, and completely *Wrong*.

I'm probably in for some evidence that a quadraped has learned to walk
on its hindlegs effectively through practicing it.

No. I'm talking about an obligate bibed, like humans.


Where's the evidence that the quadraped evolved new helpful genetic
instructions for the arranging of muscles in a way that might aid in
this hindleg walking?

That would be the lineage the lead from early primate to man. Oh? You want
DNA samples? Sorry, don't have any, and don't really need any. No *new*
genetic information is needed, just *different* information which can be
accomplished through genetic drift through time, in the right environment.
Also, we would not be talking about *individuals*, but *populations*
changing through time. No ne structures are needed, not "novelties"
involved, just modification of existing structure.

After all, what needs to be modified to turn an obligate quadruped into an
obligate biped? Orientation or angle of the cups the femur, and rotated
outward, no big deal. Strengthening of the knees, again, no big deal, and
no new structures needed. As far as the muscles, nerves and bloodvessels?
that's no mor eof a problem then the modification of the bones themselves.
After all, it's selection across a spectrum of individuals within a
population in the same environment pver a relatively long period of time.
The same for any other modifications that would be involved. The paslow
enough that the variations of all features would provide enough combinations
that soem combinations will work better than others, and those various
traits would be passed on to sucessive generations, and eventually, bipedal
cat. Is it still a "cat". Yes, due to ancestrry. Is it still Felis
catus catus? I wouldn't think so.

Why should a species of cat evolve bipedalism? No reason in particular.
But then again, why should a species of primate evolve bipedalism?

<snip>

Indeed there is. BTW, do you have a non-IDiotic source that
demonstrates the existence of said gene in a worm that simply has not
been switched on?

Tell you what, I'll look at any evidence you might have which would
demonstrate that what we're dealing with is not a switch.

You are the one who is apparently saying that the information is already
there, just not switched on, it's up to you to proivide the evidence to
support that assertion.


<snip>

So it doesn't deserve to be labeled in front of school children as "a
fact", when it is in no way "a fact".

Evolution is both a fact (observed phenomena) and a theory. Both are
rightfully taught in science class..

Not so. See above.

Nothing there to see except whinging. Evolution is a phenomena (fact) and
there is a body of knowledge that logically explains to the bes of our
ability, that phenomena (the ToE)


Even Darwin
himself implied in his statement that things other than data (data
being the "principle of selection", which is variation itself)
would be
hypothetical (see his quote above).

See the progress made in genetics in the last 60-70 years. You are
aware,
I'm sure, that by and large, Darwin's theory was a very, very, good
beginning, but much has been added to his theory, and some of *his*
ideas
WRT the mechanism of variations was wrong. You do know that, don't
you?

So you're now trying to say that Darwin must've been wrong in his
implication of common descent as "hypothetical", but you've presented
no specifics about what genetic evidence would be able to help

Not. I specifically said "Mechanism of variation". Perhaps I
should have said "source of variation". Does that make it clearer?
(Clue: Darwin didn't know about genes.)

(Clue: Darwin knew very little about what repair mechanisms in genes
and regulatory non-coding DNA might account for why we see boundaries
in variation in our present day, just as our current day scientists
know very little about what repair mechanisms in genes and regulatory
non-coding DNA might account for why we see boundaries in variation in
our present day.)

(Clue: You've never been able to present anything that establishes that any
boundry exists that prevents "worm" to man evolution over a period of
hundreds of millions of years)



biologists not have to point to an extrapolation as a necessity to
create viability for the theory. If genetics were truly helping here,
wouldn't the extrapolation suddenly be unnecessary?

Perhaps you have a private definition of "extrapolation" that
doesn't take evidence into account.

I've discussed where the evidence is sorely lacking above.

Again, what would you accept as sufficient evidence?


Also see the Eldredge quote which succinctly echoes what I'm trying to
say.


Eldredge has no problem with the ToE, so if you are quoting him to support
your possition that the ToE lacks sufficient evidence, obviously, you are
misrepresenting what Eldredge said. Or you simply don't understand what he
said. Again, I'm not particularly interested in reading what you want to be
read into your little snippets and quotes.

<snip>

That's why I put the word "analogy" in quotes. Also, that still
doesn't change the fact that you are still arguing from a position of
incredulity.

I aptly dispatched that charge above.

Funny. It still seems like you're arguing form a possition of incredulity,
so your "dispatch" must have been inadequate.

<snip>

Are you contending that whoever said this was wrong? (By the way,
lot's of people have said such things.) What observational evidence do
you have from biology that demonstrates that evolution can co-opt
cell-composed parts and arrange them in a highly specified way to form
a system/mechanism that has some function that used to not be there?

No, I'm asking a question: "Sez who?" Who says that the process
of evolution cannot generate "new" features to perform new
functions from prior features?

Skeptics of blind-processes Darwinism-- among whom are a large number
of scientists.

See: http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/22sch02.htm#Scientists

When you scroll down the page to "Scientists", you'll see some rather
alarming numbers in a secular poll of chemists regarding evolution.

Chemists are not biologist, and do you think for one millisecond I'm going
to give anycredibility to the spin doctering from a cretinoid web site?

<snip>

Again, if you have a better , scientifically testable, explaination for
the evidence, please present it.

If you want to hear me explain my position on ID with much
thoroughness, I'd invite you to start here:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/00f1ff39327585e5

Nothing new there.


Follow that thread through, and you'll get the idea.

Here's another thread-starter (well, it's kinda in the middle of a
thread) where it's worth reading my responses:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d6fa902637182792

Nothing interesting there, either.


Don't hesitate to read all the messages I provided in these two
threads. I stated my case and prevailed.

Whelcome to *this* universe. In this universe, you didn't do so well.
Sorting the thread by date, Howard Hershey, someone named Swim Jim, and
Nathan Baum remained unanswered by you.

Based upon that, and reading their replies, you didn't prevail. Not that
having the last word means anything, it's just that from beginning to end,
you squinked the same song. Big deal. That and citing Walter Brown doens't
help your case any.
..
<snip>

It seems like you are using the term "conjecture" instead of the
word "theory". Is there any particular reason for that, other than
an attempt at obuviscation?

Just read the Eldredge quote again.

Why? Eldredge has no problem with evolution, so i doubt seriously what he
said supports your squinkage in any way.


Dismissing a theory (and denying the fact of the phenomena) based
upon
incredulity is a logical fallacy. In other words, your objection
based upon
incredulity is illogical. Live long and prosper.

Incredulity has nothing to do with my position.

It has *everything* to do with your objections.

See my comments above on Francesco Redi.

See my reply to your comment on Redi.


I've challenged the
level of certainty of the inference of evolution (the transpecific
evolution) by pointing out the many things which call into question
even a basic understanding of how worms might diversify into parrots,
peapods, and people.

All based upon your personal *incredulity*,

Not so.

Yes so.


and so far, you haven't
really presented *anything8 that would withstand scientific scrutiny
that poses anything near any kind of problem for the fact, or the
theory of evolution. Nada. Zip. Nothing.

Well if you can't see why calling it a fact is-- by definition-- a
misrepresentation, just go on with your belief that it's a fact.
You're just deluding yourself, though.

Nope.


<snip>

So, the boundaries prevent transpecific or megaevolution from being a
reality. It's just a fairy tale which was designed to make you view
things evolving upward and onward without mind having to necessarily
come before matter (my sig handles that).

WHAT BOUNDARIES?

See the Pierre Grasse quote above.

I didn't by into your spin on Grasse before, what makes you think I will
today?


Your sig is irrelevant poop. You can believe whatever the hell you
want.

It's not a belief. It's quantum physics.

It's poop.



<snip>

My stance on Common Descent Evolution is not based on incredulity, but
on knowing there's a dismal lack of evidence.

You keep saying that as if that will make the evidence disappear.

The evidence does not give much credence to evolution on a macro-scale.

Why not? Because you don't see how. Incredulity.


It's like Redi's
experiment with the meat that was isolated. After a while of sitting
there, the meat just wasn't putting out lifeforms, and that dismal
lack
of evidence created doubt in the concept of spontaneous generation in
the minds of the people of that time period. I can just picture the
proponents of spontaneous generation chiding Redi, saying that he was
arguing from a standpoint of incredulity. He knew, though, that it
wasn't incredulity. He's was pointing to a dismal lack of evidence.

That's exactly what I'm doing.

Redi had evidence. You don't.

Redi's experiment was all about showing that there was a dismal lack of
evidence. What I've provided here is demonstrating JUST THAT (at least
when it comes to evolution on a macro-scale).

Two totally different buckest of worms. There is ample evidence of
diversification through time, including diversification of genera, families,
classes, and so on. Thoise are facts of the fossil record.


<snip>

Again, Idiocy. So what? According to them, since there haven't been
any new varieties of chicken developed in the last *twenty years*
(which I doubt), then there are limits within "chicken kind".

I'm not sure where you're getting that. Sounds like a strawman
caricature of what you'd like their arguments to be comprised of. This
is just pathetic.


In your own words, what are they babbling about then?


is that it? And what is Bohlin's qualifications? Well, he's the
director of "Probe Ministries". And just what is Probe Ministries?
I'm glad you asked, or maybe it was someone behind you..

"Probe Ministries is a non-profit corporation whose mission is to
reclaim the primacy of Christian thought and values in Western culture
through media, education, and literature. In seeking to accomplish this
mission, Probe provides perspective on the integration of the academic
disciplines and historic Christianity."

Sorry, I don't buy them as an unbiased authority.

He's got some impressive science credentials-- PhD in molecular and
cell biology.


So, he can sit in class and take a test and pass. So? I could probably go
down to the nearest IDiot school and sit through their class, pass their
tests, and get a "degree in IDiocy", and still not be an IDiot.

His accomplishments in science are not sparse, and he *IS* an authority
on biological change.

But is he unbiased? I doubt it.


What prevents fins structures from appearing, and
eventually evolving into legs? You are the one who is claiming
(apparently)
that tis can not happen. Why not?

See my discussion on the cats becoming bipedal creatures. It's the
same thing.

There was no discussion about the evolution of bipedal cats yet. Your
saying "(I can't see how that would be possible" is not a
"discussion".

See what I wrote above WRT this. Consider the discussion unleashed.

As you should have already seen, i did, and note, the changes are relatively
small, and do not require any "new information" or new novel structures,
just modification of existing structures. It was a 'quickie" rundown, as I
am working on a more substantial piece. If nothing else, for my own
edification.

<snip>

What? Do you think I am claiming that the new neck would be double in
size in one leap? You are not listening, are you?

Sounded to me like we were talking about a giraffe which would actually
have an advantage over other giraffes (in the fighting or food-getting
departments). What would be a two centimeter advantage?

A two centimeter advantage.

Wouldn't a
meter advantage all at once be something that would get them past a
threshold where the neck length increase would go from not mattering to
having a significant enough advantage over the others to (at least in
theory) spread through the population?

Now who's makeing a straw man argument?



In order for a giraffe to have a neck that's more than
four or five feet longer than our current average giraffe neck,
there'd
need to also be a simultaneous mutation bringing about a more muscular
heart.

Yes. However, since we are not (well, *I'm* not) saying that that
sort of neck increase would happen in one generation, and all the
involved modifications occur all at once to generate a new species,
the objection is meaningless.

See above.

See above. You are assuming that a giraffe woild be born with a neck four
feet longer in one step. Only morons would think that's how a longer neck
would evolve. Incremental, with bits and parts within the population
through genetic drift, selection, and so on, over several hundreds of
generations.



Also, the blood vessels would have to be built up a bit better
in order to handle the additional blood pressure it would take to
shoot
that blood the extra distance.


Same as above. I'm not saying that it would happen all at once, but
there's no reason it could not happen progressively.

Except for the fact that there might be no selective advantage for a
mere 2 cm length of neck difference to be spreading through the
population. In fact, this would likely be a disadvantage since it'd be
easier to snap longer necks in a fight, and more difficult (and energy
consuming) to raise and lower that neck (not to mention hold it in
position) when going to get a drink.

If you can't see the advantage of a slightly longer neck, how come you can
see a disadvantage?


Ever read, "The Neck of the Giraffe"? Maybe you need to.


http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0451622324/103-1625954-6608625?v=glance&n=283155

Why? It's garbage.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hitching.html

You might want to just check it out for the purpose of learning more on
the topic of giraffe necks and what would have to take place via
evolution. . .

I'd rather get my information from a real scientific source than a quack.



<snip>

It's the theory based upon the evidence.

What? All those transitional worms in the fossil record? Don't make me
laugh.

genetics.


<snip>

Funny, nothing I've ever seen in biology posed any sort of problem
for the ToE (Or the fact of evolution, for that matter).

Other than there's a bit of a problem with viewing large scale evoluton
as "data" when in reality it's an extrapolation/interpretation *of* a
certain class of data-- data that doesn't even come close to bringing
an understanding to the highly specified motors and machinations we see
in nature.


That barely parses. The overall pattern of diversification through time is
a fact, in and of itself.


I do not think
you should be using Grasse as your "argument from authority" crutch,
since
he would have disagreed with you.

The only reason I brought up what he said was because it was evidence
that he knew the truth about variation (and boundaries).

What "boundaries", other than time an ancestry?

I've already been over this. Remember the info from the Lester and
Bohlin book?

The one I dismiss as crap? Since i dismissed it as crap, why do you bring
it up again. it's still crap.


<snip>


Remember Francesco Redi.

Right. Remember, he had actual *evidence* that refuted SG.

Boikat

I dispatched that argument above.

No, you didn't. You compaired your possition of incredulity with his doubts
as to spontanious generation. He demonstrated his doubts to be valid, you
haven't.


Boikat
--
<42><

.