Re: Is Elsberry on-the-run?

In <apagano-gdno94trs013164gb03s667974j75gptp2@xxxxxxx> on Friday 08 August
2008 11:08 am, T Pagano wrote:

On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 16:03:32 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
<pyramidial@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Aug 6, 8:02 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 12:17:00 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez

<pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Is Wesley on-the-run, or is he attempting to appear brave, or is he
busy with real life?

Before you came on the scene in the forum Elsberry ran a Transitional
Challenge.  In it Elsberry provided a scientific report about the
minor modification of a foram shell over time and Creationists were
asked to explain why the changes didn't constitute evidence of a
genuine transitional form.

In 2001 I got a copy of the scientific report and demonstrated that
Elsberry had misrepresented what the report portended to conclude and
that the data tended to show stasis (over the course of almost 15
million years)  of the foram populations rather than evidence of
transitional forms.

Elsberry practically vanished from the forum claiming professional
duties.


Has he said anything about the error?

Anything at all?

AP> If you search google you will see that Elsberry did pop up
AP> occasionally after 2001 to answer my hammering but his responses were
AP> largely exercises in verbalism.

AP> I have always suspected that Elsberry didn't intentionally
AP> misrepresented the Pierson, et al report but that he nevertheless did
AP> so because he never bothered to read beyond its abstract.

AP> Lastly he has never answered why the minor change of a foram shell
AP> from less spherical to more spherical over the course of 15 million
AP> years would be the slightest bit responsive to the neoDarwinian claim
AP> that a mesonychid (a small dog-like creature) transformed into a
AP> whale.

AP> One could find greater change in 20 years from a decent dog breeder.
AP> And those greater changes would be no more proof of the existence of
AP> genuine transformational forms.

AP> These atheists are grasping at straws. And Elsberry is a pHd.

AP> Regards,
AP> T Pagano

Pagano continues to spew falsehoods. Pagano was challenged over an assertion
of his that transitional fossil sequences did not exist. Pagano's attempts
to do a bait-and-switch are "verbalism"; Pagano is projecting. This issue
was completely covered in my previous responses to Pagano, and Pagano has
no rebuttal.

I'll reiterate, since Pagano has nothing, and certainly nothing new on this.

[Quote]

AP> 7.  I stuck a fork in Elsberry in 2001 when I showed that his
AP> Transitional Challenge was a sham with his own source; he's never
AP> recovered.

I don't seem to have noticed a puncture; I made a perfectly adequate
response at the time that Tony "Black Knight" Pagano was never able to
rebut. Pagano was reduced to making a series of "Black Knight"
pronouncements that completely missed the points made, which is different
from rebuttal.

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/68977afccb858dcd?dmode=source

The group didn't seem to think Tony had it right then:

http://tinyurl.com/5wzyhh

Nor later:

http://tinyurl.com/65xjbh

I didn't have time before, nor do I have time now, to endlessly repeat what
I've said to people who endlessly fail to take the point. We're done,
Pagano; you've used up your minutes already.

[End quote -- Message-ID
<r8ydnXSAnNW1QBLVnZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

========================================================================

Appendix A: Response to Pagano, including puncturing his claims about what
the challenge was about.


Path:
archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!ediacara.org!there.is.no.cabal
From: "Wesley R. Elsberry" <w...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Pulverizing Pagano's Pathetic Polemics (was: Re: Elsberry's
Transition Fossil Challenge Met on 01Mar2001.)
Date: 13 Aug 2001 13:24:07 -0400
Organization: Online Zoologists
Lines: 1122
Approved: robo...@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Message-ID: <200108131821.LAA02647@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <3B0A8BA4.6E787BB9@xxxxxxxx>
Organization: AntiEvolution.Org: The Critic's Resource
NNTP-Posting-Host: darwin.ediacara.org

Sigh. I've become aware of Pagano's recent diatribes. One response
to his original stuff now; anything further will have to wait until
later.

In article <3B0A8BA4.6E787...@xxxxxxxx>, A Pagano <apag...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

AP>[NOTE: I met Elsberry's Challenge on Mar 1, 2001. Elsberry
AP>confirmed publiclly that I met his challenge and wrote that
AP>he didn't have time immediately to rebut because of pressing
AP>academic responsibilities. As far as I know he has not
AP>defended his challenge in this forum. Pasted below for
AP>Elsberry's benefit with some minor revisions is that post.

Pagano misleads with the above statements. I don't recall
ever having stipulated that Pagano "met" the TFEC. I do
recall acknowledging that Pagano had made a *response* to the
TFEC.

One of the significant points raised by the TFEC is the issue
of whether the anti-evolutionist making the claim of "no
transitional fossils" does so based upon detailed knowledge of
the fossil evidence or out of ignorance.

[Quote]

Please note that unfamiliarity with the reference above is a
failure of the claim of absence of transitional sequences --
the claim requires *complete* knowledge of fossil sequences,
and unfamiliarity with any is prima facie evidence that the
claimant doesn't have the basis for the claim.

[End Quote - original text of the challenge presented to
Pagano, 1997/07/01]

By Pagano's own admission, he had no knowledge of the specific
evidence of the G. trilobus to O. universa transition when he
made his original universal claim. To my mind, "meeting" the
TFEC would mean that the anti-evolutionist already had
knowledge of the relevant evidence at the time that they make
their universal claim of "no transitional fossils exist".
Pagano certainly has no hope of representing himself as
knowledgeable in this way. Pagano made his original claim
in ignorance, not based upon knowledge, and nothing he says
now can change that cold, hard fact.

AP>For the benefit of others Elsberry's transitional fossil
AP>challenge (which has been around at least since 1996) rises
AP>and falls with how broadly one uses the label "transition."
AP>Elsberry apparently uses that label to mean any sort of
AP>sequence of change. But this is a trivial claim since human
AP>breeders have been able to produce sequences of
AP>change----within limits----for 3000(?) years. The sort of
AP>"transitions" at issue are those which show the
AP>transformation to nascent structures.
AP>The "transition" to structures which did not previously
AP>exist. I believe Elsberry has misused the citation he offered
AP>in defense of his long standing challenge. The authors of
AP>that article presupposed the existence of "transitionals" in
AP>the first paragraph and used this as one of their premises in
AP>deciding whether the divergence of the two planktonic foram
AP>populations was the result of allopatric speciation. As a
AP>result one can hardly use their observations and conclusions
AP>as proof of the premise they assumed to be true.

The sort of transitions at issue are the ones that Pagano
*specified* as not existing in 1997. Here's the quote:

[Quote]

AP> Pagano replies: > Ah, the
AP>never surpassed source of all knowledge, the talk.origin FAQ.
AP>Evolutionists talk a lot about ***intermediates*** as opposed
AP>to transitional forms. All sorts of conjectures are made by
AP>evolutionists that this fossil or that represents an
AP>intermediate form between others. Evolutionists propose
AP>numerous ***intermediates,**** but few transitional forms.

AP> Unfortunately the test of the validity
AP>of the intermediate is in producing the **transitional**
AP>fossils which corroborate the continuity from predecessor to
AP>intermediate to descendant. Of the few fossils which
AP>evolutionists propose to be transitional, none are unambiguous.
*AP>NeoDarwinism would predict that there should be numerous (I
*AP>think Darwin said innumerable) **transitional** forms, yet none
*AP>are to be found. Gould was one of the few evolutionists to
AP>confront this and describe the actual attribute of the fossil
AP>record: stasis and sudden appearance. My opinion is this
AP>constitutes (to some degree) refutation of neoDarwinism. I
AP>suspect Gould and Eldredge felt the same or they would not have
AP>proposed punctuated equilibrium.

[End Quote - A Pagano, Message-ID <33B86C56.3D5C9...@xxxxxxxx>]

There are several things to notice about Pagano's claim above
with respect to my challenge. There are certain issues that
Pagano raises above, and others which are not part of his
claim. I challenged the claim quoted above; the issues that
Pagano raises in other claims are thus *irrelevant* to
discussion of whether Pagano can support the above claim in
light of the evidence of fossils. Some of these irrelevancies
that Pagano is bringing up now include requirements about
"nascent structures" or "diversity" which formed no part of
his original claim.

In other words, Pagano's original claim did not have the set
of qualifiers that he is pushing now, and thus was much
broader than what he is discussing here. Pagano's tactic is
known as "bait and switch". It's yet another Non-Evidentiary
Response Item (NERI). I'll reproduce my discussion of NERIs
here, for I think it likely to be useful as a field guide to
the remainder of Pagano's "discussion".

Evidentiary and Non-Evidentiary Responses to Challenges

There are two main ways in which respondents can deal with the
Transitional Fossil Existence Challenge. The intellectually
honest and appropriate way is with specific discussion of the
fossil evidence as described and discussed in the primary
literature. This is by far the least common approach taken by
those who have been given the TFEC, and typically only follows
after a long period of non-response, the elapsed time
apparently serving as an index of the claimant's unfamiliarity
with the specific evidence.

The other category of approach is to ignore, so far as
possible, any mention or discussion of actual fossil evidence.
These varied strategies are what I term "non-evidentiary"
responses, since they are completely independent of empirical
data. There are many routes to achieving this end. The
simplest is non-response. The challenged person may decide
that not saying anything further is the best option, sometimes
in the hope that there will be no long-term penalty for this
behavior, and that eventually few, if any, persons will
remember the abandonment of the original claim. Another
common non-evidentiary response is digression. Bringing up a
different topic as if it held some relevance to the TFEC
allows someone to give a semblance of a reply, even though few
will be fooled by it. Yet another strategy is to discuss
theoretical issues as if theory did away with the need to
actually look at the empirical data. A variant of the theory
strategy is the quote-mining of those people who expound
theory. Usually, though, quotes reveal nothing about the
specific data at hand, and often come from sources whose
opposition to anti-evolutionary action is otherwise
well-known. Still another variant upon the theory strategy is
the definition game. One can construct connotations of
"transitional" such that no real-world evidence can satisfy
all the piled-on conditions. It is useful to know when an
anti-evolutionist simply defines evidence out of existence,
though. Another possible tactic is to dismiss the taxonomic
category from which the cited example comes. A respondent can
claim that they really meant no transitional fossils in some
other taxonomic hierarchy, but they often seem to forget that
this means that the "no transitional fossils" claim is then
self-admittedly false. A particularly brazen non-evidentiary
response is to play an "even if" game, as in, "Even if this is
true, it doesn't mean anything." That ignores that if the
cited sequence does contain transitional fossils, it at least
means that the claim of no transitional fossils is false.

The following is a short form for response to the TFEC, if
a challenged person wishes to ignore the evidence and simply
adopt one of the non-evidentiary tactics for their own. Simply
indicate which one or more of the following Non-Evidentiary
Response Items (NERI) fits what would otherwise involve a bunch
of redundant typing.

Non-Evidentiary Response Items:

A. You have your faith; I have mine.
B. I meant that no vertebrate transitional fossils exist.
C. I meant that no transitional fossils above taxonomic rank
____________ (fill in the blank) exist.
D. I have quotes from _______________ (give list of names) that
say that no transitional fossils exist.
E. My understanding of ________________ theory (fill in blank)
is that transitional fossils cannot exist.
F. My connotation of "transitional fossils" is ____________
(fill in blank), which means that none can exist.
G. I have a cool rebuttal of ___________ (fill in blank).
What were you saying about transitional fossils?
H. Even if the cited example does show transitional fossils,
it doesn't mean anything.
I. I cannot be bothered to support my claim, so I will not be
giving you a reply.
J. I promise to support my claim Real Soon Now. I will be in
touch. My reply will be devastating to you and completely
and utterly convincing to everyone. Just you wait. It's
in the mail.


"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' "Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't -- till I
tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"

"But `glory' doesn't mean `a nice knock-down argument,'" Alice
objected.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone,
"it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.

It appears that Pagano would like to use NERI "F", but objects
to filling in the blank. Pagano may, like Humpty-Dumpty, use
a word to mean whatever he wants it to mean. When Pagano
decides that he's willing to tell us what meaning he attaches
to "transitional", he should let us know.

AP>Only replies from Elsberry will be considered.}

Well, I decided to take a break from writing my dissertation
to make this response. Further responses will have to wait a
while yet.

"Wesley R. Elsberry" wrote:

WRE> The Challenge:

WRE> This challenge is to show just how much familiarity the
WRE> anti-evolutionist making the claim of no transitional fossil
WRE> sequences has with the actual evidence of the fossil record.

AP>The only transitional creatures whose existence is in dispute
AP>are those which are clear examples of the creation of novelty
AP>leading to the biodiversity we can observe now and in the
AP>prehistoric record.

That's interesting, because it bears so little resemblance to
Pagano's original text which earned him a place on the TFEC.
Let's again review the claim that Pagano made and which he is
supposed to be supporting:

[Quote]

AP> Pagano replies: > Ah, the
AP>never surpassed source of all knowledge, the talk.origin FAQ.
AP>Evolutionists talk a lot about ***intermediates*** as opposed
AP>to transitional forms. All sorts of conjectures are made by
AP>evolutionists that this fossil or that represents an
AP>intermediate form between others. Evolutionists propose
AP>numerous ***intermediates,**** but few transitional forms.

AP> Unfortunately the test of the validity
AP>of the intermediate is in producing the **transitional**
AP>fossils which corroborate the continuity from predecessor to
AP>intermediate to descendant. Of the few fossils which
AP>evolutionists propose to be transitional, none are unambiguous.
*AP>NeoDarwinism would predict that there should be numerous (I
*AP>think Darwin said innumerable) **transitional** forms, yet none
*AP>are to be found. Gould was one of the few evolutionists to
AP>confront this and describe the actual attribute of the fossil
AP>record: stasis and sudden appearance. My opinion is this
AP>constitutes (to some degree) refutation of neoDarwinism. I
AP>suspect Gould and Eldredge felt the same or they would not have
AP>proposed punctuated equilibrium.

[End Quote - A Pagano, Message-ID <33B86C56.3D5C9...@xxxxxxxx>]

AP>Elsberry's source (identified below)
AP>from the "Journal of the Geological Society" does not meet
AP>that burden.

It meets the burden of a counterexample to Pagano's original
claim. As far as I can tell, it meets the burden of providing
a counterexample to Pagano's later variant as well. Enclosing the
primitive trochospiral shell is a novelty, and we now have two
species instead of one, which is an increase in diversity.

AP>The real challenge is for neoDarwinians to
AP>demonstrate with clear, convincing and unambiguous evidence
AP>that the innumerable transitions which are explained in their
AP>framework to have existed in prehistory in fact did exist.

Irrelevant. We are discussing Pagano's claim that no
transitional sequences exist, not whether the proportionality
or numbers of such sequences exceeds some threshold.

WRE> By making a universal claim concerning transitional fossils,
WRE> the anti-evolutionist should be prepared to back up the claim
WRE> with extended technical discussion of the reasons why all
WRE> sequences that others believe to be transitional in nature
WRE> really are not transitional.

AP>Like the word "evolution" the word "transition" can be an
AP>over-arching label and evolutionists frequently take
AP>advantage of the ambiguities associated with its broad scope.
AP>I suspect this is what Elsberry is doing here---consciously
AP>or unconsciously. The challenge apparently rises or falls on
AP>how broadly we define "transition."

Not really. If the anti-evolutionist defines transitionals
out of existence, then that indicates that their claim that
none exist is one of those meaningless noises. Such an
anti-evolutionist has used the Humpty-Dumpty technique to
claim something that they can't obtain by consideration of the
evidence.

The evidence exists. Differences of opinion concerning
whether a particular label is applied to the evidence does not
change the evidence. The professional community of discourse
which examines fossil evidence does not seem to have a problem
with using the term "transitional" for various and sundry
indentified sequences. The recalcitrance of
anti-evolutionists in admitting that the evidence is
well-described by the term could conceptually be based upon
analysis of the evidence, but in examining responses to my
TFEC and other anti-evolutionary writings on the topic it
appears that actual consideration of the evidence is usually
quite far from the approach taken. Instead,
anti-evolutionists use those Non-Evidentiary Response Items by
preference, and a great fondness for excluding "transitional"
sequences by definition is apparent. By my experience, none
of the anti-evolutionists making some form of the claim that
"no transitional fossils exist" come into the discussion with
any good grounding in the extent and nature of the evidence
that they claim must not exist. This has certainly been the
case with Anthony Pagano, who took over three years to get
around to obtaining the relevant citation. Pagano has given
no indication of familiarity with any *other* evidence of
fossil sequences that might be considered transitional. And
when Pagano did finally obtain a copy of the relevant
citation, he mischaracterized it. Pagano's statements about
the evidence presented by Pearson et alia significantly differ
in many respects from what was stated by them. Pagano fails
to distinguish his erroneous restatements of what Pearson et
alia said from the actual content of the statements of Pearson
et alia.

AP>Elsberry argues that if he can produce evidence of the
AP>existence of a sequence of gradual change OF ANY SORT then he
AP>prevails.

I argue that a transitional fossil sequence of the sort
excluded by Pagano's 1997 universal claim falsifies his claim.
So far, Pagano has given no reason to exclude the sequence
described by Pearson et alia as just that sort of sequence.

AP>Unfortunately such examples are, relatively speaking, minor
AP>variations of existing structures. The observation of such
AP>changes provides little insight into how those structures
AP>came to exist in the first place. And learning how they came
AP>to be in the first place (purportedly naturalisitically and
AP>mechanistically) is what the search for "transitionals" is
AP>all about.

Pagano is blathering here. Notice the lack of discussion of
the evidence at hand. I notice that Pagano dropped the word
"anagenesis" from this revision.

Note that Pagano made this statement in his original claim:

AP> Unfortunately the test of the validity
AP>of the intermediate is in producing the **transitional**
AP>fossils which corroborate the continuity from predecessor to
AP>intermediate to descendant.

According to Pagano's own "rules", the validity of a
transitional sequence has nothing to do with the degree of
morphological change. Further, the morphological change in
the sequence examined by Pearson et alia is described by them
as "profound" (p.301).

AP>The creationist claim can be made a little less than
AP>universal and a little more objectively: Of all the millions
AP>of fossil creatures which have been uncovered there does not
AP>exist among them a single, clear, convincing and unambiguous
AP>example of a transitional creature.

That's still a universal claim, as I have pointed out
before. "No X exists" is a universal claim, however X is
expanded. And what I and others have been asking is what
excludes the example. So far, Pagano has provided precisely
zero reasons to exclude it. Pagano has made several
*assertions* to that effect, but no reasons.

AP>This does not mean they did not exist in prehistory, simply
AP>that there is no fossil evidence of their existence. By
AP>"transitional" creationists mean to describe fossil creatures
AP>which are evidence of the creation of novelty---that is,
AP>nascent structures---leading to the biodiversity we can
AP>observe where in prior history such structures and creatures
AP>did not exist before.

Again, Pagano indulges in his bait-and-switch rhetoric. If
Pagano wants to explicitly admit, rather than just imply, that
his original claim was in error, that would suffice as a
response to the TFEC.

AP>Evidence of anagenesis and cladogenesis simply don't meet
AP>this burden. But if the neoDarwinian framework is correct
AP>the fossil record should show some sampling of such
AP>transitionals. Darwin lamented their complete absence in
AP>1859, but little has changed in that regard in 2001. When
AP>paleontologists discovered that stasis was the rule it was
AP>completely unexpected.

Here's a passage written by one of the first researchers to
describe what looks like an expectation of stasis:

[Quote]

Many will exclaim that these several causes are amply
sufficient wholly to stop the action of natural selection. I do
not believe so. On the other hand, I do believe that natural
selection will always act very slowly, often only at long
intervals of time, and generally on only a very few of the
inhabitants of the same region at the same time. I further
believe, that this very slow, intermittent action of natural
selection accords perfectly well with what geology tells us of
the rate and manner at which the inhabitants of this world
have changed.

[End Quote - Charles Darwin, OoS, 1859, pp.152-153]

Pagano is invited to explain his peculiar connotation of
"completely unexpected".

WRE> Because there have been many
WRE> such sequences put forward by various researchers, this
WRE> challenge focusses upon one case at a time.

AP>Elsberry is going to have to do much better than this.

Why? A single counterexample sinks Pagano's original claim.
So far, Pagano has given no reasons to exclude the example
of Pearson et alia as a valid counterexample to his original
claim.

AP>And I have a sneaking suspicion that the other 100 citations
AP>he boasts about are little better than the one offered by him
AP>below.

That's big talk for someone who hasn't yet given us cause to
set aside the evidence of the one example, and who is
apparently completely ignorant of the rest.

AP>Presenting observational reports of the existence of a
AP>sequence of minor morphological changes in the G trilobus
AP>shell which existed for over 1 million years before the
AP>divergence of G trilobus and O universa does not qualify as
AP>evidence that there existed creatures throughout prehistory
AP>exhibiting NASCENT structures leading to genuine novelty and
AP>new creatures.

This discussion by Pagano provides no reason to exclude the
sequence of the paper as a transitional fossil sequence in
contravention of Pagano's 1997 claim.

Pagano's paragraph has so many misleading elements in it that it
is difficult to figure out where to start on replying to it.

The sequence does show a series of morphological changes, each
one a minor change in itself. In sum, though, the difference
between the morphology of G. trilobus and the O. universa
daughter species is major. This is exactly what one would
like to see in a transitional sequence.

Pagano's reference to the timing strikes me as odd. Figure 2
on page 298 gives stratigraphic ranges on four categories of
forams. First is G. trilobus, shown with an extent from the
Early Miocene to the present. Next is G. bisphericus, noted
in the text as having a restricted stratigraphic range and
being used as a biohorizon. Its extent appears to cover about
2.6 Ma, from within the Early Miocene to the end of Biozone M6
at 14.8 Ma. Third is the group of Praeorbulina spp., starting
at at Middle Miocene (16.4 Ma). Last is O. universa,
extending from 15.1 Ma to the present. Yes, populations varied
for a considerable amount of time before specimens meeting the
dual diagnostic criteria of O. universa show up. How this is
supposed to represent a difficulty for this sequence as an
example of a transitional fossil sequence eludes me and is not
explicated by Pagano. The categories each subsume a lot of
populational and morphospecies variation, as described in the
text. It seems to me that this is just what one should expect
in an evolving lineage.

The G. trilobus to O. universa transitional sequence meets the
requirements of providing a counterexample to Pagano's
original claim. It might even meet the requirements of
Pagano's new bait-and-switch claim, if Pagano ever gets around
to defining what his Humpty-Dumpty terminology means.

WRE> The first such
WRE> case is found in:

WRE> Pearson, P.N.; Shackleton, N.J.; and Hall, M.A., 1997. Stable
WRE> isotopic evidence for the sympatric divergence of
WRE> _Globigerinoides_trilobus_ and _Orbulina_universa_ (planktonic
WRE> foraminifera). Journal of the Geological Society, London, v.154,
WRE> p.295-302.

AP>While the scientific report does show evidence of a
AP>sequential change (basically a change in the shape of the
AP>foram shell), the sequential change is not the sort of change
AP>which qualifies as evidence of the emergence of a nascent
AP>structure or system leading to novelty and diversity. So one
AP>could not even legitimately infer the existence of
AP>naturalistic evolutionary transformations from such minor
AP>morphological changes of an EXISTING structure.

This discussion by Pagano provides no reason to exclude the
sequence of the paper as a transitional fossil sequence in
contravention of Pagano's 1997 claim.

Let's review Pagano's original claim again.

[Quote]

AP> Pagano replies: > Ah, the
AP>never surpassed source of all knowledge, the talk.origin FAQ.
AP>Evolutionists talk a lot about ***intermediates*** as opposed
AP>to transitional forms. All sorts of conjectures are made by
AP>evolutionists that this fossil or that represents an
AP>intermediate form between others. Evolutionists propose
AP>numerous ***intermediates,**** but few transitional forms.

AP> Unfortunately the test of the validity
AP>of the intermediate is in producing the **transitional**
AP>fossils which corroborate the continuity from predecessor to
AP>intermediate to descendant. Of the few fossils which
AP>evolutionists propose to be transitional, none are unambiguous.
*AP>NeoDarwinism would predict that there should be numerous (I
*AP>think Darwin said innumerable) **transitional** forms, yet none
*AP>are to be found. Gould was one of the few evolutionists to
AP>confront this and describe the actual attribute of the fossil
AP>record: stasis and sudden appearance. My opinion is this
AP>constitutes (to some degree) refutation of neoDarwinism. I
AP>suspect Gould and Eldredge felt the same or they would not have
AP>proposed punctuated equilibrium.

[End Quote - A Pagano, Message-ID <33B86C56.3D5C9...@xxxxxxxx>]

Pagano's original claim is notable for the absence of any such
terminology as "nascent structure" or "diversity". Instead,
Pagano was claiming then that the fossil evidence did not
address relating ancestors and descendants. The Pearson et
alia paper addresses precisely this point. It aims to present
the evidence that the G. trilobus to O. universa transition is
a sympatric speciation event.

Once Pagano defines "nascent structures" and the rest of his
bafflegab, we can discuss whether the example fits his criteria
there as well.

AP>The purpose of the author's research was to test the
AP>hypothesis that the divergence of Globigeriniodes tribolus
AP>and Orbulina universa was probably the result of allopatric
AP>speciation rather than sympatric speciation.

This discussion by Pagano provides no reason to exclude the
sequence of the paper as a transitional fossil sequence in
contravention of Pagano's 1997 claim.

The authors found evidence of sympatric divergence. This has
significance for Pagano's original claim, quoted a couple of
times previously.

AP>Whether or not
AP>the minor variations in the foram shell was the result of
AP>geographic or non geographic speciation events is only of
AP>mild interest because as far as I know neoDarwinians do not
AP>assert that diversity is simply the result of a series of
AP>speciation events (except maybe the punc eq'ers).

This discussion by Pagano provides no reason to exclude the
sequence of the paper as a transitional fossil sequence in
contravention of Pagano's 1997 claim.

It's just more bait-and-switch from Pagano. He talks about
"diversity" here, when that topic was conspicuously absent
from his original claim. Let's clear up the errors of
Pagano's original claim before moving on to the newer errors
that he offers.

The issue of sympatric divergence is of greater interest than
Pagano will admit. Pagano originally claimed that no
transitional sequences linked ancestors with descendents. One
of the objections that an ideologically committed naysayer
like Pagano can deploy is to look at the fossil record of some
group and say that because one or more speciation events
occurred via allopatry we cannot assume any continuity of a
population. Sympatric divergence vitiates that objection.

On the issue of the degree of morphological change seen,
Pagano apparently failed to read the paper concerning the
description of the morphology of O. universa, where the
authors cite a study pointing out that, "It is in fact a feat
of organized complexity for Orbulina to construct a
near-spherical chamber (Spero 1988)." They also said, "It is
impossible not to be impressed by the profound morphological
changes which have occurred in the evolution of Orbulina, for
which there is still no satisfactory explanation." (Pearson
et alia obviously have not had the privilege of meeting
Anthony Pagano.) The morphological difference between
G. trilobus and O. universa is held by the people who have
studied them to be far from "minor". Pagano simply asserts
that the morphological differences are "minor", but adduces no
reasons why anyone else should consider them so, nor does
Pagano give reasons why the authors' description of those same
morphological differences as "profound" should be set aside.

Further, Pagano's original claim made no reference to whether
morphological change was minor, major, or somewhere between.
The issue Pagano originally addressed was whether ancestors
could be linked to intermediates and thence to descendents.
The Pearson et alia paper does an admirable job on this issue.
Pagano gives no reason on the evidence for why this example
does not falsify his original claim.

AP>Both of these creatures (G tribolus and O universa) are
AP>planktonic foraminifera and both have existed together on the
AP>earth for the last 15.1 million years. That sounds
AP>dangerously like stasis although the authors deny this in the
AP>report. The authors didn't set out to prove that the Orbulina
AP>lineage was an example of an evolutionary transition in
AP>prehistory they accepted it as received wisdom in the first
AP>paragraph.

This discussion by Pagano provides no reason to exclude the
sequence of the paper as a transitional fossil sequence in
contravention of Pagano's 1997 claim.

That two species either do or do not show stasis *following*
cladogenesis is irrelevant to the issue of whether the
cladogenetic event itself is well-documented. Refer again to
Pagano's original claim.

Pagano ignores the inconvenient fact that establishing
sympatric speciation requires an evolutionary transition
sampled finely enough to exclude allopatry. The authors set
out to show that this sequence meets even more stringent
requirements than the general class of transitional sequences,
which include sequences in which allopatric speciation occurs.

Pagano also ignores the iconvenient fact that others had studied
the transition before this time.

[Quote]

The evolutionary transition from Globigerinoides to Orbulina was
hypothesized by Cushman and Dorsey (1940) and described in detail
by Blow (1956) and Jenkins (1968). [...]

[End Quote - Pearson et alia (1997), p. 296]

This isn't "received wisdom"; it's scientific research.
I suppose it is too much to expect Pagano to recognize the
distinction.

WRE> Now, it is up to you to show why the fossil sequence described
WRE> therein fails to show transitional fossils. After you outline
WRE> your objections to this sequence, I have another 100 or so
WRE> citations of sequences that are said to show fine grained
WRE> transitions ready to go, one at a time, until either you
WRE> demonstrate that none are actually transitional, or you give
WRE> up your claim.

WRE> Consider yourself challenged.

AP>The authors attribute the minor morphological variations in
AP>the foram shell to cladogenesis and anagenesis.
AP>Unfortunately these are descriptive labels not explanatory.
AP>It was unknown according to the authors what caused the
AP>morphological changes in the shell. What they did discover
AP>was the minor changes in the existing shell occurred over a
AP>wide geographic area, at the same time throughout the
AP>population without any discernable geographic or depth
AP>partitioning.

This discussion by Pagano provides no reason to exclude the
sequence of the paper as a transitional fossil sequence in
contravention of Pagano's 1997 claim.

The authors don't refer to this as a minor morphological
variation, which Pagano would know if he were able to read for
comprehension. "It is impossible not to be impressed by the
profound morphological changes which have occurred in the
evolution of Orbulina, for which there is still no
satisfactory explanation." Obviously, the authors only
considered people who might care what the evidence shows
rather than blindly following their prior ideological
commitments. But explanation is not required to show that
there is evolutionary continuity. Nor is "explanation" a part
of Pagano's original claim. Pagano was talking then about
evidence linking ancestors and descendants. Pagano is
avoiding talking about that now.

AP>Based upon this the authors "concluded" that
AP>the speciation evidents which caused the divergence was not
AP>allopatric but sympatric. If so, then Punc Eq had nothing to
AP>do with this divergence and one could reasonably question the
AP>claim of randomness.

This discussion by Pagano provides no reason to exclude the
sequence of the paper as a transitional fossil sequence in
contravention of Pagano's 1997 claim.

It is not a foregone conclusion that sympatric divergence rules
out PE. G&E 1977 outlines the requirements for considering
a sympatric speciation event to be considered an instance of
PE.

What "claim of randomness"? That seems to come out of left field.

AP>Finally there is barely evidence that
AP>the morphospecies is truly a new biological species let alone
AP>that it represented a transition in evolutionary history.

Pagano also failed to read for comprehension concerning the
status of G. trilobus and O. universa as biospecies. These
are good species as seen in extant populations.


So far, Pagano has apparently failed to read the paper for
comprehension, much less present a case for dismissal of this
sequence as a counter-example to his original claim on
evidential grounds. Pagano deprecated the relevance of the
evidence of sympatric divergence, yet that is of great
relevance to Pagano's original claim. Pagano claimed that the
authors presented the transition as one showing minor
morphological differences; the authors, in fact, said that the
morphologic changes were profound and would impress anyone.

In summary, Pagano engages in various forms of dodging and
misrepresentation. Pagano dodges the inconvenient fact that
his original claim under scrutiny is falsified by the evidence
of Pearson et alia. Pagano's irrelevant new formulation of a
claim about transitional sequences can then only be supported
by Pagano by dint of misrepresenting the content of the
Pearson et alia paper. Many of Pagano's claims and assertions
about the evidence are counter to what the authors relate via
both the text and figures. Pagano gives no reason that we
should accept his fanciful and apparently ignorant assertions
over what the authors themselves relate.

In a recent article (Message-ID <3B6D7C98.AB84B...@xxxxxxxx>),
Pagano says:

AP>Elsberry was the expert and this reply came 24 days after I
AP>read his source and met the challenge.

I haven't noticed that Pagano has "met" the challenge. Certainly
no post that passed through my newsreader would lend me that
impression.

AP>In the time (and number of lines) it took Elsberry to write
AP>this he should have been able to respond---he was the expert
AP>and I'm the creationist fool.

I prefer to respond substantively, and not just utilize
naysaying like Pagano. That has the disadvantage of taking
time to compose, time which I am all too short of this year.
Simple naysaying, as practised so masterfully by Pagano, is
quite economical in both the author's time and the number
of lines needed to convey it. Unfortunately, it's also
intellectually barren, as so much of Pagano's rhetoric
has been.

AP>My guess is that Elsberry picked the source from an
AP>electronic abstract and didn't have immediate access to the
AP>source and never bothered to read it. And good judgement
AP>told him that he might be discredited and embarrassed if he
AP>attempted to rebut me until he actually read the source.

That's an interesting theory that Pagano has got. A falsifier
of that theory would be if there were a record indicating my
acquaintance with the contents of the paper at some point
prior to Pagano's response earlier this year. Pagano should
acquaint himself with the evidence of my comments to David
Buckna back on 1999/05/04, where I cite page numbers within
the Pearson et alia paper in my response. Pagano's commitment
to the principle of falsification will be apparent from his
further responses. If he ignores or otherwise abandons this
claim of his, we will know that his stance is just that of the
ideologically committed polemicist who cannot be bothered to
acknowledge inconvenient evidence.

However, my familiarity with this source or that source is not
the issue. Pagano made a sweeping universal claim back in
1997, and is still aparently unclear on the concept that he
has been caught with his hand in the cookie jar. It is
interesting to see the various counterfactual fabrications and
digressions Pagano makes in order to divert attention from
this simple fact.

AP>Since 24 Mar Elsberry has vanished. By Horn's definition
AP>this is "running." Horn should be regularely criticizing
AP>his evolutionist brother as a "runner."

I have more important things to do than to tell Anthony Pagano
that he is ignorant, misleading, and annoying in an active
thread. As the AI Jargon File says, it's dogwash. So far, I
have integrated findings from acoustic, physiologic,
endoscopic, anatomic, and computed tomography data in my
dissertation research on bottlenose dolphins. I've got
perhaps two-thirds of my text written towards that
all-important first draft. I keep telling myself, "If it were
easy, somebody else would have already done it." If Pagano
wants to label my set of priorities as "running", I can live
with that. I assume other readers will be somewhat more
perspicacious.

Pagano should get back to me when he has read the paper for
comprehension and is ready to discuss the evidence. Or, I
guess, if he's ready to admit that his original claim was
bogus. In any case, it's back to the research grindstone for
me for a while. I hope to be able to rejoin active
talk.origins participation within the next few months. Until
then, Pagano, silence does *not* indicate assent.


Appendix A: The Transitional Fossil Existence Challenge

Transitional Fossil Existence Challenge

Last Updated: 2001/08/13

The Claim:

Anti-evolutionists often make a claim that the fossil record
contains no transitional fossils. This runs counter to the
claims of many researchers in paleontology.

The Challenge:

This challenge is to show just how much familiarity the
anti-evolutionist making the claim of no transitional fossil
sequences has with the actual evidence of the fossil record.
By making a universal claim concerning transitional fossils,
the anti-evolutionist should be prepared to back up the claim
with extended technical discussion of the reasons why all
sequences that others believe to be transitional in nature
really are not transitional. Because there have been many
such sequences put forward by various researchers, this
challenge focusses upon one case at a time. The first such
case is found in:

Pearson, P.N.; Shackleton, N.J.; and Hall, M.A., 1997. Stable
isotopic evidence for the sympatric divergence of
_Globigerinoides_trilobus_ and _Orbulina_universa_ (planktonic
foraminifera). Journal of the Geological Society, London, v.154,
p.295-302.

Now, it is up to you to show why the fossil sequence described
therein fails to show transitional fossils. After you outline
your objections to this sequence, I have another 100 or so
citations of sequences that are said to show fine grained
transitions ready to go, one at a time, until either you
demonstrate that none are actually transitional, or you give
up your claim.

Consider yourself challenged.

Andrew Macrae pointed out the citation listed above. Other
bibliographic entries come from the examples in Tables 1 & 2 in
Roger Cuffey's excellent paper, Paleontologic evidence and
organic evolution, which can be found in Montagu's "Science and
Creationism" or the Journal of the American Scientific
Affiliation 24(4), just in case you want to get a jump-start on
the rest of the entries.

Please note that unfamiliarity with the reference above is a
failure of the claim of absence of transitional sequences --
the claim requires *complete* knowledge of fossil sequences,
and unfamiliarity with any is prima facie evidence that the
claimant doesn't have the basis for the claim.

Andrew Macrae's commentary on the cited paper:

[Quote]

In the example I cite above, it is a transition between
two species that are assigned to separate genera. Furthermore,
there are 4 other species "between" them, 3 of which are
assigned to yet another genus. It could always be argued that
the genera have been "oversplit" in the foraminifera, but that
does not change the obvious morphologic pattern or the fact
that one morphology incrementally diverged into two that
remained subsequently distinct.

[End quote -- A. Macrae, Message-ID <5prq71$d9...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Figures from the Pearson et al. paper are now on the WWW at
<http://www.best.com/~dlindsay/creation/fossil_series.html>,
<http://www.best.com/~dlindsay/creation/orbulina.html>,
<http://www.best.com/~dlindsay/creation/orbulina_chart.html>,
and
<http://www.best.com/~dlindsay/creation/orbulina_pic.html>.

Evidentiary and Non-Evidentiary Responses to Challenges

There are two main ways in which respondents can deal with the
Transitional Fossil Existence Challenge. The intellectually
honest and appropriate way is with specific discussion of the
fossil evidence as described and discussed in the primary
literature. This is by far the least common approach taken by
those who have been given the TFEC, and typically only follows
after a long period of non-response, the elapsed time
apparently serving as an index of the claimant's unfamiliarity
with the specific evidence.

The other category of approach is to ignore, so far as
possible, any mention or discussion of actual fossil evidence.
These varied strategies are what I term "non-evidentiary"
responses, since they are completely independent of empirical
data. There are many routes to achieving this end. The
simplest is non-response. The challenged person may decide
that not saying anything further is the best option, sometimes
in the hope that there will be no long-term penalty for this
behavior, and that eventually few, if any, persons will
remember the abandonment of the original claim. Another
common non-evidentiary response is digression. Bringing up a
different topic as if it held some relevance to the TFEC
allows someone to give a semblance of a reply, even though few
will be fooled by it. Yet another strategy is to discuss
theoretical issues as if theory did away with the need to
actually look at the empirical data. A variant of the theory
strategy is the quote-mining of those people who expound
theory. Usually, though, quotes reveal nothing about the
specific data at hand, and often come from sources whose
opposition to anti-evolutionary action is otherwise
well-known. Still another variant upon the theory strategy is
the definition game. One can construct connotations of
"transitional" such that no real-world evidence can satisfy
all the piled-on conditions. It is useful to know when an
anti-evolutionist simply defines evidence out of existence,
though. Another possible tactic is to dismiss the taxonomic
category from which the cited example comes. A respondent can
claim that they really meant no transitional fossils in some
other taxonomic hierarchy, but they often seem to forget that
this means that the "no transitional fossils" claim is then
self-admittedly false. A particularly brazen non-evidentiary
response is to play an "even if" game, as in, "Even if this is
true, it doesn't mean anything." That ignores that if the
cited sequence does contain transitional fossils, it at least
means that the claim of no transitional fossils is false.

The following is a short form for response to the TFEC, if
a challenged person wishes to ignore the evidence and simply
adopt one of the non-evidentiary tactics for their own. Simply
indicate which one or more of the following Non-Evidentiary
Response Items (NERI) fits what would otherwise involve a bunch
of redundant typing.

Non-Evidentiary Response Items:

A. You have your faith; I have mine.
B. I meant that no vertebrate transitional fossils exist.
C. I meant that no transitional fossils above taxonomic rank
____________ (fill in the blank) exist.
D. I have quotes from _______________ (give list of names) that
say that no transitional fossils exist.
E. My understanding of ________________ theory (fill in blank)
is that transitional fossils cannot exist.
F. My connotation of "transitional fossils" is ____________
(fill in blank), which means that none can exist.
G. I have a cool rebuttal of ___________ (fill in blank).
What were you saying about transitional fossils?
H. Even if the cited example does show transitional fossils,
it doesn't mean anything.
I. I cannot be bothered to support my claim, so I will not be
giving you a reply.
J. I promise to support my claim Real Soon Now. I will be in
touch. My reply will be devastating to you and completely
and utterly convincing to everyone. Just you wait. It's
in the mail.

The Challenged:

The people whose names appear below all made a claim or
implication of absence of transitional sequences, and were
served up with a version of the Transitional Fossil Existence
Challenge. This is a roster of who they were, when they were
challenged, where they were, and how they responded to the
challenge.

Date Name Forum/Source Response

19940228 Bruce Willis CONTROV Disappeared
19940309 Michael Funk CONTROV None
19940510 Johnnie Odom CONTROV None
19940714 Andrew Cummins Evolution "Prove all biologists accept it"
19940717 Ras Mikael Enoch t.o. None
19940718 Jim Pattison CONTROV "Can't find the reference"
19940816 Charles Edward Evolution None
19940917 Davey Jones Evolution None
19941002 Lane P. Lester Evolution None
19941030 John Shirey t.o. None
19941129 Kevin Clark Evolution None
19941208 Doug Wagner Evolution None
19941214 Jim Loucks t.o. None
19950312 Mark Russell misc.education.science None
19950322 Ross Wolfle t.o. Implied recantation
19950401 Scott Brian Allen t.o. None
19950404 B. Schweig (?) t.o. "No time to do research"
19950407 Lawrence Free Email "I only meant vertebrate transitions"
19950514 Arthur Biele t.o.
Irrelevant re-posted criticisms of Hunt's FAQ (19961116)
Irrelevant re-re-posted criticisms of Hunt's FAQ (19990305)
First mention of Barnard's paper (19990306)
Misquoted Barnard (19990306, M-ID
<19990306111112.19561.00003...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>)
Misrepresented Barnard (19990306, M-ID
<7brtg0$9s...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>)
Claims differences are due to temperature or environment (19990306)
See <http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=452898756> for
my rebuttal (19990309)
Some further highly selective commentary on Barnard has been posted
by Biele, in which he misrepresents Barnard as disputing any
change at the species level or higher.
19950610 Tony Ermie Evolution None
19960408 Jahnu Das Email "I am really not qualified to discuss
evolution on a technical level."
19960506 David Markwordt Evolution None
19960520 Ted Holden t.o. None
19960828 David Ford t.o. DF actually looked up the article, quoted
Barnard saying that he had transitionals across genera, but did not
admit existence of transitionals. Has since engaged in a great deal
of rhetorical excess, none of which disestablishes Barnard's examples.
19961027 Steve Sorenson t.o. "You've got your faith; I've got mine."
19961109 Tim Harwood t.o. None
19961230 Karl Crawford t.o. None
19970125 Herman Reimann t.o. None
19970224 Darren Serhal t.o. None
19970324 Eldridge t.o. "Put the paper on a WWW page."
19970412 Joe Potter t.o. None
19970421 RevMike t.o. None
19970423 Larry Cavender t.o. "Do you believe the Bible?"
19970603 Yehuda Silver t.o. None
19970701 A Pagano t.o. Didn't understand the logic behind the challenge;
failed to address the evidence for over three years.
2001/01/29: Whined that the Pearson citation was in a journal other
than "Science"; admitted that he was ignorant of the evidence
discussed by Pearson et alia.
2001/03/01: Posted a response saying that the Pearson et alia 1997
sequence didn't show "nascent structures" and "increasing diversity",
neither of which appeared in Pagano's 1997 claim.
2001/08/04: Repost of the 2001/03/01 post, with some additional
comments about the lack of a reply from me (I've been writing up
my dissertation; Pagano is welcome to disagree with my assignment
of priorities.)
19970816 Jonathon O'Quinn t.o. None
19980717 Publius t.o. None
19981006 Alal t.o. None
19981110 Minor23...@xxxxxxx t.o. None
19990107 Teno Groppi http://www.vbe.com/~tdg/creation/cedebate.html
"These figments of imagination are renewed constantly. It
used to be Archaoepteryx and the Equuine series. One they
were disproved, it was something else. Once that was
debunked it was another. Now this. How much you wanna bet
this is replaced by another wild claim next year?" (19990108)
"They are not transitions FROM anything, they are not
transitions TO anything. The entire claim is totally bogus and
a figment of your imagination. [...] When did I agree to a
wager? Was that as one groundless as your alleged
transition?" (19990114)
19990224 Steve Sorenson (again) t.o. None
19990225 Mark Allison t.o "Worst case scenario (for me): all 100
of your examples are at least possible scenarios to prove you
completely correct. But... here are three reasons why this wouldn't
prove ANYTHING:" No discussion of Barnard or the fossil evidence
(19990304)
19990309 Katy Moffitt atl.general None
19990417 Rhett alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic None
19990421 Brad Clark alt.christnet None
19990505 MS Goodrich talk.origins None
20000202 JerryG talk.origins None
20000217 Todd talk.origins None
20000815 Erik talk.origins "Sorry, your challenge, as
written, is impossible. Trying to prove a negative is
impossible. The burden of proof lies on you to prove a
positive." (2000/08/16)
Erik wasn't asked to prove his entire claim all at once.
Erik was asked why the specific evidence cited should not
be considered transitional. Erik did not address the
existing evidence.
20001107 "Pastor Dave" Raymond alt.christnet Original
statement: "The fact remains, that there are no
transitional fossil records."
Response to TFEC (2000/11/28): "Another faulty and false tactic.
It is never up to me to prove a negative. It is up to the ones
making the claim that something is the way they say it is, to
prove that it is. The fact remains, there are no transitional
fossils."
Pastor Dave completely ignored the evidence of the fossils
and gave no reason to discount the cited example as
documenting a transitional fossil sequence.
20010116 Ed Finn alt.politics.bush Original statement:
"The most shocking fact is that the fossil record has
absolutely no transitional forms between species."
Response: Pending.
20010118 'd ocean' talk.origins Original statement:
"there are NO transitional fossils, and there is NO proof
that the fossil record confirms macro-evolution."
Response: Pending.
20010120 John B. Williston alt.games.baldurs-gate Original
statement: "What would be nice would be a clear,
consistent and slowly gradual record of even *one* species'
transition. And to date, there is none to be had."
Response: "More specifically, I should not have said that
*no* evidence for transitional forms exists; rather, I
should have said only that there is a startling *dearth* of
evidence." (20010121)


No *evidentiary* response within a month causes the "Pending"
to be changed to "None". A "None" response can be changed to
something else if an *evidentiary* response is eventually
made, or a particularly revealing non-evidentiary response is
made. Responses sent via non-public channels confer an
irrevocable right of publication to Wesley R. Elsberry. I
can't have unquotable responses showing up in my incoming
email or snailmail. I plan to create a web page that includes
every follow-up made to the TFEC, whether the contents are
relevant or not, for public documentation of all claims and
counterclaims, arguments and rebuttals.

--
Wesley R. Elsberry, Student in Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences, Tx A&M U.
Visit the Online Zoologists page (http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry)
CNS BBS FTP Archive: ftp://inia.cls.org/pub/CNS/bbs/
"i asked him how about a microbe and he turned pale as he thought it
over" -a.

[End Appendix A --
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/68977afccb858dcd?dmode=source ]

--
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." -- Dorothy Parker

.

Loading