Re: Does anyone understand how coherent, progressive,

On 3/5/11 6:57 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
On Mar 5, 3:51 pm, T Pagano<not.va...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 11:54:35 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez

<pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 5, 10:20 am, T Pagano<not.va...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[....]

The problem is that no one clearly understands how progressive,
coherent transformational change occurred since it has NEVER been
observed.

Not too long ago you told me that microevolutionary change is
"OBSERVED" (your caps). In response I asked you to produce a YouTube.
(All evolutionary change is inferred, not observed.)

Your response----BELOW----is an evasion and/or non-sequitur. You said
evolution is "OBSERVED" (your caps).

Evolution is observed, Ray.




If true, then you should be able
to produce a YouTube so everyone can see it.

Youtube is not a scientific paper, Ray. You can read thousands of scientific papers that show evolution under observation.




In rebuttal I said that
all evolution is inferred, not observed.

All observation requires inference. Evolution is both inferred, and observed.




Perhaps the fact of inference
is the reason why you cannot produce a YouTube?

Ray, "youtube" is not a scientific source. If you reject Wikipedia, you should also consider youtube to be suspect.





Evolution is broadly defined as "any change over time."

Since species were held immutable before 1859, evolution is defined as
"any change over time accomplished by natural-unintelligent
causation."

Wrong again, Ray. No one ever defined evolution as change "accomplished by natural unintelligent causation". Evolution is change over time. "Causation" is irrelevant.



Prior to 1859 science rejected the concept of evolution to
exist in nature.

Wrong again. Scientists prior to 1859 were beginning to accept that species changed. Darwin's evidence, and proposed mechanism quelled any doubts.




"Microevolutionary" changes are broadly defined as minor observable
changes from one generation to the next. I don't like these terms but
I can follow the definitions and determine their limits.


Doesn't follow, since you use these terms you do indeed like them. And
again, microevolution or basic mutability was NOT accepted prior to
1859.

Actually, it was, just not by the majority of scientists.



Therefore these changes were accepted as being caused by natural-
unintelligent causation (which wasn't accepted prior to Darwin
either).

Irrelevant, as that's never been part of the definition. "Natural unintelligent causation" is a default position of science. Unless you can provide some evidence to the contrary, all processes are considered to be natural.


Your arguments concerning microevolution and the general
concept of evolution assume a disentanglement from Darwin, as if
microevolution or the general concept experienced any scientific
acceptance before Darwin 1859. (I know this is true based on a comment
that you are about to make.)

Wrong again, Ray. It's heartening to see you misunderstand creationists as well as reasonable people.



And again, your claim that **these** changes are "observable
changes" (T. Pagano) is error. All evolution is ascertained by
inference, not observation. The vast majority occurring before any of
us were born.

All observations are ascertained by inference. And no, the observations of evolution are occurring now, not in the past.



Therefore any "change" from one generation to the next may be
characterized as "evolution."

Since evolution was accepted as being caused by natural-unintelligent-
unguided causation, this is not true. You have given away the store.

Again, Ray, evolution is accepted as happening, regardless of the 'cause'. Your obsession with "natural unintelligent" is your undoing.




Historic IDism (British& American Natural Theology) says all
biological production is designed (originates vertically from God).

And why can't evolution be designed by God?


Darwinism says all biological production is evolutionary (originates
horizontally from the closed system of nature).

"horizontally" doesn't seem to make sense in this context. Evolution explains the diversity of life, not "all biological production". You appear to be confused here.




IF God is involved with biological production, then nothing in nature
can be described as reflecting evolution.

Why not, Ray? Why can't God make use of evolution?


IF God is not involved with
biological production, then nothing in nature can be described as
reflecting design.

Why not, Ray? As you've been explained to before, the appearance of design is often the result of natural processes. Your own assumptions and misconceptions are not applicable to reality.




And any minor observable change may
characterized as "microevolutionary." So the simple example of
microevolutionary changes are the differences in my children from my
wife and I. They are observable and minor. This is merely a matter
of definition. And it is non controversial.


No, the differences between parents and children are not
microevolutionary.

Why not? Please explain why you think this.



Inheritance itself is not evolutionary.

Why not? Again, it would be helpful if you'd explain your belief.



And I have
been attempting to get you to see that by using any word with
evolution in it the same means accomplished by "Darwinian
unintelligent causation."

That's not what the word means, Ray.



IDists do not acccept the concept of
unintelligence to exist in nature.

Some do, obviously. Your own misconceptions, bizarre fantasies, and weird assertions don't apply to other people.




Evolutionists do not accept the
concept of Intelligence to exist in nature.

Again, that's wrong. Many "evolutionists" do believe that "the concept of intelligence" exists. When you consider that your own misunderstanding of the "concept of intelligence" is "order and complexity", all scientists accept that those exist in nature.

Your mistake is in assuming that order and complexity are always the result of "intelligence".




However, evolutionists have never shown that these microevolutionary
changes ever result in transformational change or that they are the
result of anything-but information that already exists.


And again here is what you do not understand. ALL change has the
potential to be transformational based on the fact that species were
held immutable before Darwin published.

Again, while fixity of species was a very popular belief, it wasn't universal among scientists, and by the time Darwin published, it was very much open to debate. It also doesn't follow that "all change has the potential to be transformational" is based on the widespread adoption of fixity of species before Darwin. That all change may produce transformation in species is based on the fact that change in species may lead to a "transformation" of that species over time.

Darwin's publication, and the mistaken belief in fixity of species have little, or nothing to do with the idea that small scale change can lead to large scale change.



Once mutability was accepted,
that is, once the concept of evolution was accepted to explain nature,

"Mutability" is an observation. The concept of evolution explains the diversity of nature, not all of it.

all species became transitional----automatically.

Unless a species goes extinct, which is a very common occurrence. Not all species will produce a successor species, so not all are transitional.


At no time before
1900 was evolution accepted as being inhibited.

Nor after 1900. There's no observation of limitation of evoluiton.



The microevolution you
continually allude to does not exist in any scientific publication.

Actually, it exists in thousands of scientific publication. Creationism is what doesn't exist in science.



And 20th century Creationism is pseudo-science.

So is yours, Ray.






When Darwinists (= Atheists) talk about change they are talking about
the only accepted increment: microevolutionary (and its accumulation
at various rates). It is presupposed that "microevolutionary change"
is transformational or barrierless.

This was darwin's theory.

And we finally come to the comment that proves you have been thinking
of evolution and microevolution apart from Darwin. I urge anyone to
open a new window and read your message minus my rebuttals so they can
see that everytime you mentioned evolution or microevolution up to
this point you were assuming disentanglement from Darwin.

Ray, evolution does not depend on Darwin. Darwin never used the term "microevolution", and if Darwin had never lived, the idea of evolution would probably be the same today, just known under a different name. (Wallaceism?)




AGAIN: SCIENCE ACCEPTED MUTABILITY BASED ON DARWIN 1859.

Again, that's wrong. Scientists were beginning to accept species change before Darwin, and if Darwin had never published, species would still be known to change. Darwin's work did hasten the acceptance of evolution, but without Darwin it still would have been accepted.




Microevolution was accepted as being caused by natural selection OR
unknown natural-unintelligent causation.

Like any scientific theory. No science permits appeal to the supernatural.



Therefore your previous
arguments, definitions and explanations asserting evolution and
microevolution existing in a general or generic state apart from
Darwin 1859, are subjective, unsupported, false.

Once again, Ray, you are mistaken. Change in species was in the process of being accepted before Darwin, and even if Darwin had never existed, the idea would still have been accepted. Wallace might have gotten sole credit, or some other scientist would be famous for the concept. Your idea that the acceptance of evolution depended on Darwin is false.





He thought that one kind of creature
gradually transmogrified into another seemlessly in linear-like,
successive steps.

The concept of "kind" did not exist in Darwin's thought. He thought
species did as you describe.

This is why Darwin placed no great importance in
the concept of species. For him species were NEVER fixed.


Of course, he was arguing for mutability.

Yes, because he observed the evidence of change.



According to his concept each predecessor species overlapped (in terms
of classification criteria) with its descendent species and so on
along the evolutionary path. Yet what we discover is that there is no
overlap whatsoever in any of the Linnaeus classification schemes. The
pictorial representations all show hierarchical and discrete
groupings. Species appear to be the only real and unchanging entity
on the planet from the beginning of time.


I completely agree. Species are immutable.

Which is wrong. Species do change. The evidence that species change is too well established to deny.




There are certainly minor variations within species, but these
variations all appear to be programmed in from the beginnning and NOT
created by any naturalistic process.

I completely agree.

There's no evidence that variations are programmed "from the beginning". If they were, one would not expect species to go extinct.

DJT

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Scientific Americans Faulty Criticism of Expelled
    ... Wallace, co-founder of Darwin's Theory, wanted Darwin to drop his ... first biologist to notice the appearance of variation within species. ... for fossils this is demonstrably false. ... the fossil record is zero evolution over time. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Darwin the dunce founder? of modern evolution
    ... Islands, but that figure had dropped in modern times to 13 species, 3 ... a rapid increase in long beak finches over just a two to three year ... 'evolution' alive. ... Darwin and his pro-evolution anti-Bible mentors ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Darwin the dunce founder? of modern evolution
    ... >>> It was once claimed by evolutionists that the Finches found on the ... They once claimed up to 31 species of finch lived on those ... >'evolution' alive. ... Several people did propose natural selection before Darwin, but to the best of my knowledge Lyell was not one of them. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Ideology Masquerading as Science
    ... "Darwin could in no single instance prove that one species had changed ... evolution at the level of speciation and beyond - has been observed in ... there is the fossil evidence. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Ray Martinez has surely won by now, non?
    ... selection did not come into universal acceptance until the 1930s and ... Origin of Species, 6th edition, in the historical sketch introducing ... I read the text you mention, it doesn't even mention Erasmus Darwin. ... The issue is "practicing publishing naturalists who accepted evolution ...
    (talk.origins)