Re: Darwin the 'dunce' 'founder?' of modern evolution


"Art Biele" <Abiele7000@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:192eb91e-9f9f-4f56-9e5a-3adef6ab3525@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Feb 15, 9:12 pm, j...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
snip

How many fallacies and falsities can you pack into a single paragraph? I
am guessing that you have no upper limit to either.

John Wilkins, you do me wrong to treat me so discourteously. And after
we have known each other for so many years.

Nevertheless, they are still fallacies and falsities.



snipping ad hominem attacks on Lyell


Natural selection clearly was not Darwin's creation, but the use of it
to generate novel populations clearly was. Mathew, Blyth and the other
contenders did not make that leap.

Novel populations like that the radiation of the Finches in the
Galapagos are indeed due to natural selection, but the natural
selection process can only select genes (i.e. latent physical traits)
that already exist,

Genes are not necessarily "latent physical traits".


natural selection plays no role whatsoever in
creating new genetic traits. The only possible source are random
mutations of existing genes, and that is a totally different
discussion.

Yet it's central to the point. Darwin's insight was that natural selection
acts on variations in the population, producing new traits.

In either case Darwin and Lyell had no clue of the real
causes of variation and radiations. Darwin Got it wrong.

Darwin was unaware of the causes of variation, but he got the basic outline
correct. Variations are due to random mutations in the genes. We know
that now, but it wasn't known in Darwin's time. To blame him for being
wrong about something he couldn't have known about is hardly being fair.


Paleontologist Steven Stanley, speaking of these radiations, stated
that they may at first look like Darwinian Biological evolution at
first as one sees more diversity and variation of these species
overtime, But that in reality, this is not evolution in action.

On the contrary, that's exactly what evolution in action is defined as.
Where did Mr. Stanley say this, and what was the context?

Professor Stanley points out as an example Globoriginadae, those small
shell making organisms in the sea. Stanley points out that early in
the fossil record is species A. Then, as time goes by, Globeriginadae
A radiates ancestors ,1 2, 3, 4, etc. which are simlar to A, but
clearly different.

And that's what evolution predicts, and is indeed an good example of
evolution in action.

Then there occurs an extinction event for these creatures. All the
Globeriginadae are wiped out except one, the original Globeriginadae
A. After the extinction event as long past, one can see the same exact
radiation as the first one.

Most likely, a similiar radiation, not the "same exact" one.

It is clear that the information of all
subsequent varied Globeriginadae genetic is contained in the original
Globeriginadae A and that A was and is also the most fit of the bunch.

Actually, it's not possible that Glob A would have all the variation seen in
later species. Also, 'most fit' is a relative term. "Most fit" for
what?

Just as the wolf was the most fit to survive of the dog family.

Then why are wolves in danger of extinction? Note that 'most fit' is
ALWAYS a relative term. A Chihuahua isn't "most fit" for the biological
niche of a timber wolf, but in the biological niche of "small personal pet
for a human", it's quite fit.

It
also shows the original is more fit than the offspring, but Darwinism
calims the opposite. It also shows that loss of genetic information
was the source for the observed variations, and not tany new genetic
information as is required for any form of Darwinistic evolution.


Again, fitness is a relative concept, not a general condition. Wolves are
not the original "dog kind", but one of the later canids, that happens to be
alive now. Dog breeds demonstrate a large amount of new genetic traits,
not a loss of them. As for "information", if you have a reasonable and
testable defintion of "information", and how to measure it, please let your
readers know.


These findings, and a host of others, support Genesis claim that
states God made the plants, the sea creatures, the land animals, each
according to their Kind.

"their kind" is biologically meaingless. How would you, even in principle,
determine what was the "original kind"? The fossil, biochemical, and
genetic evidence shows that all life is connected by common descent. There
are no separate "kinds".


It is noteworthy that Genesis did not say
that God made the This dog and that dog, This feline and that feline,
This cow and that cow, etc, each according to their kind. Rather it
says He made the Cattle Kind, and each beast after their Kind. Genesis
also higlights that the information for each Kind was in their seeds.

Genesis says nothing about "information", or what the word 'kind" means
biologically.

Now, not to misrepresent Professor Stanley,

Too late, you already have....


He is an Evolutionary
Paleontologist. As least when he wrote this in a University Textbook,
He was an Atheist. So Philosopically, to Stanley, Evolution has to be
a fact.

Evolution "has" to be a fact, because that's what the evidence indicates,
whether one is an atheist, or not.


However, he had totally rejected Darwinism as the explanation
for materialistic Biological Evolution.

Had he? Evidence for this assertion, please.

Stanley embraced and supported
Gould and Eldredge in their Theory of Puntuated Equilibrium which
basically claimed that evolution occurred too fast over too short of
time to be observed in the fossil record.

That's not what Gould and Eldredge claimed, and it's not a rejection of
Darwin's work.

The Puntuationists,
consisting mostly of paleontologists who were well aware that for over
a hundred years, that the fossil record did not support Darwinian
Evolution.

That is incorrect. The fossil record does support "Darwinian" evolution.
PE was developed to explain the pattern of fossils seen, why species level
intermediates are less common than higher level intermediates.

The evidence for PE is that since common ancestry by purely
materialistic processes is a fact, (Since God did not exist or was
irrelevant) then PE must be true.

Appeals to the supernatural are inherently unscientific. PE is not a
replacement of Darwin's mechanism of evoluiton.

The paleontologists felt that the evolutionary biologists, having a
stranglehold on the evolutionay science publications and periodicals,
had been controlling the what gets taught in Academia and in school
textbooks, and through their stronghold on the media as well, and they
had long been suppressing what the fossil record clearly did not at
all support: Darwinism.


Again, this is incorrect, and a misstatement of Punctualism. Those
paleoentologists are evolutionary biologists as well, and they didn't
complain about any "stranglehold". Nothing was being supressed.

There is no signs of progessive, or any other
type of, evolution in the fossil record.

Evolution isn't progression, it's change. It's false to say there is no
sign of evolution in the fossil record.

It got so bad prior to Gould -
Eldredge that paleontolgists commonly gave new names to the same
fossil that was found at different levels in the fossil record and in
different regions of the world to hide Stasis in the fossil record.

No one attempted to "hide" stasis.


Here are few cites from Scientists who are experts on the fossil
record.

Oh boy, more quote mining.....

snip mined out of context quotations



Darwin did not need to know what caused variation. He said that it was a
fact that could be observed, and it is. He also said that he expected
there to be be an explanation one day of each, and there is.


We are talking about the evolution of the species, not about the
radiation of existing traits from an extremely large quantity of
latent traits existing within the genome.

There aren't a "extremely large quantity" of latent traits in the genome.
A population may show a large number of traits, but the genome does not.
Any variations in the population are due to mutations, not a reserve of
traits.

The onus is on the
evolutionists to demonstrate evolution of all species that ever
existed from some initial progenote.

That's what the genetic evidence shows, and shows conclusively.

Darwin believed the cause for
variation was pangenes, which we know today to be false. Darwin was
dead wrong.

On that one particular point. Darwin was right, however, on the mechanism
of evoution.

Today Mendellian Genetics hold sway in biology, not
Darwin's pangenes.

Which is fortunate, as Mendelian genetics works very well with Darwin's
original mechanism.

The Wolf radiation, The Goberigindae radiation, the
Finch radiation, the Cichlid radiations all occur as per Mendellian
Genetics, and not at all from Darwins Theory of Origins of the
Species.

No, the adaptive radiation of those species from earlier ancestors is a
great demonstration of Darwin's mechanism, combined with the understanding
of genetics that Mendel provided. Wolves, Goberigindae, Finches, and
Cichlids are all derived from radiation of earlier forms themselves. They
weren't the "original kinds".

Admit is, Darwin and Lyell were flat out wrong about their
key suppositions.

Darwin was right about the mechanism of evolution, and Lyell was right about
geology and deep time. Both men made mistakes, and didn't have the benefit
of hindsight.

Not a surprising fact coming from the 19th Century
and their very limited knowledge of inheritance and genetics.

The later understanding of inheritance and genetics has vindicated Darwin's
work. Lyell's work on geology has also been confirmed by later work.

snipping more


You are either lying for effect, or you never read a damned thing by or
about Lyell of any worth. The guy was a devout Christian who objected to
the unguidedness of natural selection to his death.

He was a deceiver, willing to lie about the facts in order to
undermine the Biblical account, in 1830 he was capable to get away
with it, now his deceptions are clear, despite your blanket statement
to the contray.

Assertions and ad hominem don't make any deceptions on Lyell's part "clear".

It is you who are in denial of the truth. I have
presented info that completely supports my analsysis.

That doesn't appear to be the case.

See Above. You
have become so obsessed with defending evolution that you can not
distiinguish fact from fiction.

Irony meter on red....



I suppose the next step in undermining
my presentation is to get a flurry of your friends here on Talk
Origins to agree with you.

Since you are wrong, why wouldn't others agree with John?

And this type of reaction is common to many
types of ideological based groups. This strange, peculiar reaction I
also get from fellow Christian who, when presented with the obvious
plain reading in context Scriptures on biblical topic, reject the
obvious because they wear the filtering glasses that the church they
belong to imposes upon them.

Or maybe because your claims are wrong..... Have you considered that
possibility?


snipping more ad hominem attacks


DJT

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Fossil record resembles Creation, Not Large Scale Evolution
    ... One species that existed previously turned into something ... According to the Darwins theory on how evolution occurs, ... Darwin called for gradual change between generations, but this doesn't translate into slow change over millions of generations. ... Big changes can happen over a few thousand years, but that's instantaneous in terms of the fossil record. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Fossil record resembles Creation, Not Large Scale Evolution
    ... One species that existed previously turned into something ... According to the Darwins theory on how evolution occurs, ... Darwin called for gradual change between generations, but this doesn't translate into slow change over millions of generations. ... Big changes can happen over a few thousand years, but that's instantaneous in terms of the fossil record. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Fossil record resembles Creation, Not Large Scale Evolution
    ... One species that existed previously turned into something ... According to the Darwins theory on how evolution occurs, ... to see it in the fossil record if such broad-scale evolution is true. ... The fossil record embarrassed Charles Darwin. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Rupture aortic aneurysm
    ... > It seems folks like Jeff exist in the real world. ... I have not met an evolutionist who was competent in genetics. ... >>> theory of evolution. ... Darwin isn't even the founding father of evolution. ...
    (sci.med.cardiology)
  • Re: VOTE! Usenet Kook Awards and AFA-B Awards, Feb/Mar 2009
    ... Ray Martinez wrote: ... Evolution gained acceptance within 15 ... years of 1859 when the discipline of genetics didn't even exist. ... Darwin in the Fall of 1838. ...
    (talk.origins)