Re: Invulnerable logic [Was:Re: How Our Brains Ignore Unpleasant

On Jan 15, 5:03 pm, Evopeach <keaton1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 15, 8:23 am, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Jan 14, 6:26 pm, Evopeach <keaton1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 14, 4:36 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

OnJan14, 12:11 pm, Evopeach <keaton1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

OnJan14, 8:16 am, Augray <aug...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sun,13Jan2008 20:21:06 -0800 (PST), Evopeach
<keaton1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
<587beb7c-3cf8-4c66-be81-193146c24...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> :

OnJan12, 5:46 pm, Augray <aug...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat,12Jan200812:29:53 -0800 (PST), Evopeach
<keaton1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
<5e302296-7af0-44f0-ab79-6e914f0e8...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> :

OnJan12, 9:32 am, Augray <aug...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri,11Jan2008 10:13:17 -0800 (PST), Evopeach
<keaton1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
<ebd520ff-4c68-42d5-847a-fb6f0d302...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> :

[snip]

1900 plus posts from 83 opponents all combining their intellect to
debate me and still getting their *** handed to them continually.

Unsurprisingly, I handed your *** to you on the subject of
Archaeopteryx.

Maybe it's my IQ divided by their average IQ ......seems reasonable.

Does my victory over you mean that I'm the smarter one?

What victory?

The ones where I demonstrated that you were lying. Remember?

Remember?

Dreaming again huh or still on mexican gold.

No, I can give you Message-IDs if you like. They weren't imaginary,
and you know it.

Afraid to put my claim to the test? I'm not surprised.

The new findings haven't swayed Feduccia or University of Kansas
paleontologist Larry Martin, another skeptic of the bird-dinosaur
link. Says Feduccia: "It's biophysically impossible to evolve flight
from such large bipeds with foreshortened forelimbs and heavy,
balancing tails"--exactly the wrong anatomy for flight. And as for the
suite of other strange-looking characters that link dinosaurs and
birds, Martin says that they could have been inherited from an ancient
reptilian ancestor that gave rise to both dinosaurs and birds. "In my
opinion, the theropod origin of birds will be the greatest
embarrassment of paleontology in the 20th century," says Feduccia
(1996, 274:721, emp. added).

http://www.unc.edu/news/archives/oct05/feducci100705.htm

I hate to break it to you, but all that has nothing to do with whether
or not Archaeopteryx is a transitional form. For instance, Feduccia
has stated that:

Creationists are going to distort whatever arguments come up, and
they've put me in company with luminaries like Stephen Jay Gould,
so it doesn't bother me a bit. Archaeopteryx is half reptile and
half bird any way you cut the deck, and so it is a Rosetta stone
for evolution, whether it is related to dinosaurs or not. These
creationists are confusing an argument about minor details of
evolution with the indisputable fact of evolution: Animals and
plants have been changing. The corn in Mexico, originally the
size of the head of a wheat plant, has no resemblance to
modern-day corn. If that's not evolution in action, I do not know
what is.
- Alan Feduccia, in Svitil, K. A. 2003. Plucking Apart the
Dino-Birds. Discover 24(2):16.

more not less

It's too bad that you don't understand what's being claimed. As
Feduccia says, Archaeopteryx is a transitional form whether it's
descended from dinosaurs or not. Now, we can debate that aspect if you
like, but we both know that you're not up for that. But why you'd cite
someone that supports my position is puzzling, to say the least.

Yeah those mnor disputes like the vitriolic exchange between Dawkins
and Freeman on EDGE pages

I'm puzzled as to why you refer to Richard Dawkins and Freeman Dyson
as "Dawkins and Freeman". I also see that Archaeopteryx has sent you
running again.

over the most basic aspect of your theory
gradualism vs punctionalism,

Hardly a basic aspect.

group adaptation or individual adaptation

Not exactly a basic aspect either.

with Dawkins calling Freeman a howler and Freeman responding in
return.

So what? Are you saying that because they're not polite to each other
then the science is wrong? If only there were such spirited
discussions within the ID community.

A 100 year old theory where the adherents can't even agree on the
basic tenets with views more divergent than classical mechanics view
of gravity and that of general relativity.

It's too bad that you haven't demonstrated that, and never will be
able to. Gravity happens, as does evolution. But if you want to
embarrass yourself even more, go ahead and explain which basic tenets
are contented, why, and how.

Evolution: People trying to take fragmented circumstantial evidence
of great scarcity and make it appear to be a high resolution picture
of reality by using a variety of schema on which none of the
principals can agree in detail while presenting to the public a
picture of assuredness and tranquility, in short, a form of hypocrisy.

Yet Archaeopteryx sends you running. How do you hope to convince
anyone that you know what you're talking about if this small piece of
evidence for evolution stumps you so badly?

Besides, you're basically trying to portray a tempest in a teapot as a
hurricane. Disagreements are a sign of vigorous science. I'd also
point out that Freeman Dyson isn't a biologist, so I'd tend to put my
money on Dawkins in any biological battle. But until you can point to
what Dawkins and Dyson are disagreeing about, citing their
disagreement is rather useless.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I did, its the two most basic tenets of evolution whether it proceeds
by gradualism over many,many generations vs long periods of stasis
with short periods of rapid radiation and whether speciation is via
individual or via groups.

There is no harmony or accommodation between the two and there are
multiple people on each side in these camps as you well know.

If you can't or won't read you should reconsider whether you're up to
the post.

Nonsense. The most basic tenet of evolutionary theory is that allele
frequencies change over time. The amount of time involved can vary,
and if you knew anything of the debate you'd know that in some cases,
for some taxa and some taxonomic levels, stasis seems to be a general
(but by no means universal) rule, while for other levels and other
taxa, gradualism holds quite nicely, thank you. To assert that
punctuated equilibrium vs. gradualism is the most basic tenet of
evolution reveals a level of knowledge- or, hopefully not,
intellectual integrity- to which few would want to admit.

Chris- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I said one of the tenets and you know it.

Here's what you wrote, copied and pasted from directly above:

"I did, its the two most basic tenets of evolution whether it proceeds
by gradualism over many,many generations vs long periods of stasis
with short periods of rapid radiation and whether speciation is via
individual or via groups."

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, but since you bring it up,
would you care to explain how you can have two most of anything? One
or the other is the most, unless you have some specific quantity and
they're exactly equal. No such quantification exists here. And in
addition to that, there's the simple fact that group selection has not
been a contentious issue for at least 25 years. No one seriously
accepted it, and it's a pathetic strawman to bring up at this point.

The reason is the rate is
integrally tied to the RM and NS paradigm and its ability to produce
all that we see extant and in the record in the time available and of
course the presentation of fully formed specimen in strata absent any
undisputed transitional forms preceding them in lower strata.

Punctuation can be your friend. I will gladly introduce you to it
anytime you like.

There's no reason to think that rates need be static across taxa, or
across taxonomic levels. You also seem to be revisiting the age of the
earth idea, from which you ran a few days ago. You seem to use the
young earth/old earth idea however you like, according to what you
perceive you need at any given moment. It doesn't work like that.

The other tenet is the argument of the selfish gene, memes, in
individual organisms as against population genetics or maybe you think
its individual one member population genetics.

I think you haven't a clue as to how population genetics and evolution
tie together. There's no conflict between the subject. And as I said
above, no one considers group selection a viable hypothesis, except
perhaps in the rarest and most unusual circumstances.

You can present all the BS you care to but this argument remains
unresolved and contentious after three decades.

Don't be silly, and don't make things up. These teapot tempests of
yours are amusing, but ultimately meaningless.

Chris

"In my

opinion, the theropod origin of birds will be the greatest
embarrassment of paleontology in the 20th century," says Feduccia

http://www.edge.org/discourse/dawkins_dyson.html

Dawkons exchange:

"By Darwinian evolution he [Woese] means evolution as Darwin
understood it, based on the competition for survival of
noninterbreeding species."

"With rare exceptions, Darwinian evolution requires established
species to become extinct so that new species can replace them."

These two quotations from Dyson constitute a classic schoolboy howler,
a catastrophic misunderstanding of Darwinian evolution. Darwinian
evolution, both as Darwin understood it, and as we understand it today
in rather different language, is NOT based on the competition for
survival of species. It is based on competition for survival WITHIN
species. Darwin would have said competition between individuals within
every species.

Dyson exchange:

First response. What I wrote is not a howler and Dawkins is wrong.
Species once established evolve very little, and the big steps in
evolution mostly occur at speciation events when new species appear
with new adaptations. The reason for this is that the rate of
evolution of a population is roughly proportional to the inverse
square root of the population size. So big steps are most likely when
populations are small, giving rise to the ``punctuated equilibrium''
that is seen in the fossil record. The competition is between the new
species with a small population adapting fast to new conditions and
the old species with a big population adapting slowly.

Second response. It is absurd to think that group selection is less
important than individual selection

The competition is between the new species with a small population
adapting fast to new conditions and the old species with a big
population adapting slowly.

Hint! A species is a group, as in group against group, competition
according to Dyson and its competition between individuals within a
species accoring to Dawkins.

Freeman Dyson is a very smart guy, but he's a physicist, not a
biologist. I find it faintly absurd that you bring this into the
discussion- it would rather be like asking Dawkins his views on
quantum mechanics. It's so far out of his field of expertise, he would
probably look foolish if he attempted to go against the mainstream
ideas.

As Dyson looks foolish here. We all know you have a fetish for
argument from authority, but please, at least try to choose your
authority figures a little more wisely. Dyson, as I said, might be a
true genius, but he's wrong here, plain and simple. Do you think
geniuses cannot be wrong at times? Dyson also said, "It's better to be
wrong than to be vague". There's a take-home lesson in there for you.

The fact is that group selection has not been a serious issue since
Wynne-Edwards first proposed it all those years ago. It caused a stir
then, which might have been what Wynne-Edwards wanted (he was plenty
smart himself, after all) but I would bet you cannot put forth a case
in which group selection actually works. I will tell you ahead of time
that Dyson's dodo example is _not_ about group selection; he obviously
has no idea what group selection really entails.

Did you also see that part where Dawkins explicitly requested that his
response not be published, and not be read aloud at a meeting of
biologists? Do you think it's right to use someone's written material
like that against their explicit wishes?

Does it hurt much, maybe you should wear a diaper before logging on
and mommy wouldn't be so angry for the mess. Remember its a a pee-pot
you're after not a tea-pot.

When you turn out to be right about something I think we should all
send you an E-card, if we're still alive by that time.

Getting rather petty again, EP. What about that resolution you made?

Chris

.

Loading