Re: In the News: 'Expelled' Exposes Plight of Darwin Doubters

backspace wrote:

On Dec 2, 11:05 am, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

No, it isn't close enough because Darwin didn't know about genes hence
the meaning of the word "evolution" had nothing to do with something
nobody back then could even define. A word is a proxy for the
knowledge that people have in a point in time. Who decided or
established or defined after the discovery of genes that the change in
genes is "evolution", how does calling the observation of gene changes
explain the observation and who is this person?


What are your pragmatics? You're not even wrong. Darwin didn't know
about alleles, but he did know about inheritance.


And so did the first human Adam - what is your point?


We could substitute
"change in the heritable characteristics of populations" if you want to
put it in terms familiar to Darwin.


There has to be changes in populations or there wouldn't be
individuals in those populations - they would be dead. what has
"changes" got to do with the word "evolution" - what are you trying to
say?

If you're going to ignore half the words in every sentence I write
there's no point in talking to you. In this case you have managed not to
see "heritable characteistics" at all.

Now the "allele frequency"
definition came about during the rise of the modern synthesis.


You mean Neo-Darwinism a term used in journals as discussed here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Modern_evolutionary_synthesis#Modern_synthesisis_is_not_defined
Because materialists are finding Uncle Darwin an embarrassment they
want to not get rid of everything Darwinian. Neo-Darwinism and Modern
synthesis is the same thing and one doesn't know this doing a journal
won't provide a person with all the data.

Neodarwinism has many meanings, one of which is the modern synthesis.
Nobody is trying to fool you here. It's just that given your incapacity
it's impossible to speak in terms that you actually understand.

Dr.Harshman I am not talking
about the Neo-Darwinian theory which as I pointed out is not defined.
I am talking about Uncle Darwin our great higher algebra clueless
dimwit that Uncle Eldredge has paraded an image of on his web page
looking like a wise Old Testament prophet. You are shifting the goal
posts or redefining mid sentence what we are talking about.

You have no idea what we're talking about, and so have no basis to judge
whether the subject has changed.

All I am trying to show is that when people talk about "evolution"
each has his own pet theory. And I motivate for this by referring to
this thread: Mujin, Armstrong , Richard, Harshman all disagree on key
issues and this is because nothing is defined. Nobody is telling us
where their ideas has been established.

You yourself have posted a link to an article in which a major message
is that definitions are unimportant. You really have no clue, and it's
impossible to respond to you.

This Uncle Darwin ruse is just to prevent people from realizing that
everybody invents his own ideas and then mystically by some sort of
semantic magic attributes statements such as "random mutations" which
surfaced in 1910 to Uncle Darwin who was long dead by then. This is
lying, it is deception and deceitful dishonesty. And the reason is
that materialism is what this whole "Darwin" ruse is about protecting.
What the materialists are trying to do is to cover up their
substantial differences in how they interpret the dead bones and
genes. For example do materialists view genes as a language or not?

My whole approach to this entire debate is not to say "evolution" is
Godless but to ask each individual materialist to define for me
evolution and where was his definition established because
my hypothesis is that nothing surrounding these debates are defined.
It is really sad to see my fellow YEC launch into a tirade against the
Theory of Evolution - how do you know something is Godless if you
can't even define it? Because individuals define theories such as
Prof.Clelend who has given us some insights into what a "definition"
is on the http://www.seedmagazine.com Aug.97 article. We must refer to
individuals and what they say as we motivate for our beliefs.

A few questions:
a) Are genes a language or not - if not motivate?

I have no idea what the second half of the question means, but no, genes
are not a language.

b) Does NS explain everything - if not what doesn't it explain?

NS doesn't explain everything. It does much to explain adaptive change
in populations (and adaptive non-change too). It doesn't explain, for
example, why the sky is blue.

c) All apes are mammals by Dr.Harhmans logic humans are apes why are
we therefore not whales since they are also mammals?

Because that makes no sense. Humans are not apes just because apes are
mammals. We're apes because we belong to a particular group of mammals,
Hominoidea, whose common name is "ape". We don't belong to the group
whose common name is "whale". The relation here is an inclusive one. If
A belongs to B, then an A is a B. If B further belongs to C, then an A
is a C too. But if A belongs to C and D also belongs to C, that doesn't
mean that A is a D.

Try this with Venn diagrams sometime. The relationship "belongs to"
would be represented by the circle for A being completely inside the
circle for B. And in this particular game, no partial overlaps are
allowed; circles must be one entirely inside another or entirely
separate. In this case, you would make a big circle and call it
"mammal". Inside that would be two non-overlapping circles called
"whale" and "ape". Inside the "ape" circle would be another circle
called "human". Can you see that humans, in this diagram, would be apes
and mammals, but would not be whales, even though whales are mammals too?

d) Why are there still monkeys if we transformed from a monkey and not
a "common ancestor" which we all agree is just a weasel term. Please
try and answer me without being sarcastic - I really don't know and
want the answer.

Why, because there were several species of monkeys at the time, and only
one of them transformed. The rest of the descendants of monkeys living
at that time are still what we commonly call "monkeys", just a single
lineage out of the bunch became "apes", one lineage of which later
became "human". This is the same reason that, even though we are
descended from mammals, there are still mammals. I have noticed that
creationists never ask the question "If we come from mammals, why are
there still mammals?" They seem to understand that this would be a silly
question. So now all you have to do is understand that the two questions
are exactly the same.

And by the way, we don't agree that "common ancestor" is just a weasel
term. It's a very useful term. But denying that the common ancestor of
humans and monkeys was a monkey is a misunderstanding.

.

Relevant Pages

  • News: Evolution Of An Imprinted Domain In Mammals.
    ... Evolution Of An Imprinted Domain In Mammals ... has no effect on the expression of the genes found on it. ... Genomic imprinting is hypothesized to have evolved because of the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Beneficial mutations (Was: Re: Challenge for Darwinists)
    ... to transform, say, a mycoplasma with 500 genes ... mammals. ... Only evolution that involves the loss of existing function or the ... The required mechanism must generate immense coded language structures. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • [NYT] A Heavy Blow To The Mammalian Evolution Scenario
    ... The mammalian evolution scenario has been dealt a severe blow by a recent fossil finding. ... According to the report prepared by science writer John Noble Wilford, the fossil, belonging to an extinct species, was unearthed in China and is estimated at 164 million years old. ... The theory of evolution maintains that reptiles are the forerunners of mammals. ...
    (alt.religion.islam)
  • Re: The Common Origin of Coin Flips
    ... of a bird to build a wing on a mammal. ... A bat wing doesn't use bird genes ... All mammals are very much "related". ... of being "designed" by ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Science Disproves Evolution
    ... mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon, ..... ... Tempo and Mode in Evolution (New York: ... more than perpetuate the myth of fossil transitions plainly denied by ... describes as “the oldest fossil whale known ... ...
    (uk.philosophy.atheism)